User talk:Slp1/Archive 4

Yuri Ryazanov

If and when you get a chance, I'd appreciate a second-opinion about this page. Attempts to communicate with the page's creator have not been too productive. I'll let the edit history speak for itself. Thanks, J Readings (talk) 09:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. This situation is actually part of a much larger problem with the obvious absence of notability guidelines for sports teams, athletes, geographical locations, transportation sites, etc. The sheer abundance of these types of articles on Wikipedia that are created daily makes me wonder why the community hasn't agreed yet on what to do. In fact, in the case of athletes/sports, as far as I know, there isn't even a draft proposal yet. I'm tempted to say something at the Village Pump or Jimbo Wales' talk page. J Readings (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Question... answer

I appreciate your comments. Yes, I do want this to be a fair representation of the facts, but I feel that we have moved away from the original accepted view that Wilberforce’s mission (and that of some of his colleagues) was determined more by his religious views and what he felt was a God-given call. That’s why I have promoted the (as I see it) key passage that indicates his the strength of his conviction “God has set before me...” I guess that the way the sentence is written is my summary of how I read the essence of his “call” and his decision to put it into action. Pollock is very strong on this.

That’s not to say that we should ignore the interpretations of Brown, Williams, et al – in fact the library has mailed me to tell me that Brown is ready for me to collect today. The word “unchristian” is not one of my favourites – apart from the fact it has a lower-case “c”, it seems to presuppose that everyone should act according to a “Christian” morality, whether believers or not. “Immoral” may not be the best alternative – if anything, “depraved” says it better, but I’ll look at rephrasing the sentence.

I’ve brought Pollock with me to work today, and will have a look for the passages I’m referring to. I know that his is not the only authentic version, but it was for many years regarded as the standard biography of recent years. – Cheers, Bruce Agendum (talk) 10:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I take your point and I'm willing to listen to the argument that we should reflect alternative views – as long as it's clear to the reader that's what we are doing, and we avoid confusing her. I guess I was getting a little over-enthusiastic last night! I now have my hands on Brown's Moral Capital and will be devouring it at a pace of knots. It's very informative and will be extremely useful in my research about Beilby Porteus also. Many thanks for the Google Books and Amazon links a couple of days ago, which whetted my appetite – but (characteristically) omitted some key passages just as it was getting interesting...!

I'm about to revert one or two things I wrote last night, but keeping the quotation where it now is. But I will probably make further changes when I've had time to read and compare Pollock and Brown – Cheers, Bruce Agendum (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Slp1 – I'm very grateful for the recommendation of Brown's 'Moral Capital'. Although I already had it on order, I hadn't fully appreciated how important and relevant it was to the subject of the Evangelicals and abolition, and I'm now much more aware of the reasons why you referred to it in re-writing the article. I've had trouble in putting it down! Very well-written, researched and sourced, too – having now read parts of it, I will certainly be using it as a source for my biography of Beilby Porteus. I agree, too, that it's important also to have a non-traditional perspective from a modern historian (and an African-American at that), who certainly knows his subject. Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 23:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Images

Just to update you on what’s happening about the images. I had previously approached two Flickr contributors for permission to use their work in the Wilberforce article. One was uploaded and added to the article, but swiftly deleted some time ago (before Keith took his photos), because it did not have the correct licence.

It just seems to be a minefield, and difficult to know the correct licence to use - unless images are uploaded by the photographers themselves, and cleared for use under the Creative Commons "GNU Free Documentation License".

So I feel that we we have been somewhat stymied. I’ve contacted both photographers to see whether they would be prepared to upload the pics themselves, or allow me to do so on their behalf. I’m awaiting a reply. If nothing happens this week, we’ll have to continue as originally planned, using one of Keith’s. – Cheers, Bruce Agendum (talk) 11:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

<butting in> I saw the "images" header while posting below and had to read on... Do you have the links to the images on Flickr? I'm trusted on the Commons, so I can upload and tag them as reviewed (assuming they have wiki-compatible licenses, of course). If the licenses aren't compatible, WP:COPYREQ is a decent walkthrough of how to ask permission and what to do once you get it. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 18:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes - I already replied to ElCobbola's note above. See the foot of his Talk page. I'm going to work this morning accompanied by Prof. Brown! – Cheers, Bruce Agendum (talk) 05:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Learned Hand image

I apologize for not getting to the Learned Hand question until now. The talk page discussion is a bit jumbled; is an accurate summary of the conundrum that we have two reliable sources, one of which claims 1910 and the other of which claims 1930s? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 18:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Request

Hi, Slp; I'm sorry to drop this on you, but I'm just returning from travel, trying to catch up, and I'm actually not certain where to follow up on this. An editor named TimHowardII is editing Tim Howard; I'm fairly certain that would not be Tim Howard, and that editor shouldn't be using that name? Would you have time to deal with this? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I changed it back and left him this [1] Adding the II makes me think he isn't really trying to impersonate Howard, but it would be good to get it clarified none the less. BTW, not much was findeable or needed doing about the Elderly Instruments situation. From what I can see things have calmed down.--Slp1 (talk) 22:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for handling that, Slp1; I'm still trying to catch up here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Would you be interested in dealing with the situation at Alex Wolff (a minor BLP)? (And whenever there are problems at Alex, it usually also goes for Nat Wolff as well.) I'll also leave a note for Jbmurray in case he wants to practice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm out and about in real life for the next 24 hours or so, but will try to take a look if I have a minute. Not sure what is required, but in fact, I've only mastered deleting things so far. My learning curve is rather slow! --Slp1 (talk) 22:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

There's always room for practice at the Wolff brothers; vandal magnet for blocking, and sometimes needs protection during school breaks. Anytime you want to practice, you can peek in there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I've got them watchlisted and will learn the ropes about blocking and protecting soon, so that I am ready if and when it should become necessary! --Slp1 (talk) 11:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Slp1; there are days when those boys occupy most of my time (mostly during school breaks). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Joss Stone

Napoleongrl thanksyou Slp1 for those changes to avoid defamation of character issues. June 8, 2008

TimHoward at WP:RFCN

Just to let you know that I removed the listing for the above user because there was no reason given. Feel free to add it again, or let me know if you have any questions. Alex Muller 12:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

re: Genie

Thank you for the notice. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey! Hows it going?

Are you having fun yet? lol. I have a funny feeling this whole thing will be over soon. Then again, I wouldn't surprised if we're still here after another two months still saying the same things. Some people can be really stubborn. Like me, I never change my mind once I know I'm right. :-) Thanks again for all the effort you've put into this. Take care! For An Angel (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Rt 66

Hi remember you deleted my Rt. 66 page, well im remaking it and I dont know if I should because User: Amerique is saying Iam a suspected sock puppet because I did a edit to San Bernardino, California and I know about San B. because I am working alot with San Bernardino International Airport (SBD) and the RT. 66 Car show and I am talking by email to them by email for 1 reason and thats so they can tell me if they are really going to have passenger service for real and that its not fake. I have have trieded not to vandalize and I ont think I have Im just here to work on film, Canadian and tansportation articles so what can I do to be prevented from being blocked I realy like editing here on wiki, and I am working not vandalism and I'm going to get blocked all because one edit to San B. article Im going to get blocked? What can I do...can you help me in any way or give me helpfull tips??Salcan (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you think?

My word – you've been busy! I want to give it one last detailed look over, and will try and spend this evening, but definitely this weekend, doing so. Maybe also, by then, ElCobbola will be back and will have had time to help the Flickr contributor to upload and correctly license the image of Wilberforce's notebook, which will greatly enhance the article, I think. So, if we think in terms of early next week, would that suit you? I also have next week off work (although I have some real life things to do, I'll be able to keep a closer eye on things. Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 07:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

blog quoted as source

The "other article" is Summorum Pontificum. My main objection is that inordinate attention is given to just one man's opinion. This I indicated in my edit summary. I have not removed the topic or written about it on the Talk page, since there would certainly be a discussion with the other editor that I don't think would be worth the effort. Lima (talk) 04:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look at it. I intend to leave it as it is. As for "making controversial claims about a living person" - I do think it is a controversial claim to declare that there is a rift between the Pope and the Catholic Bishops of England, adding - originally it was not in the form "DT believes that ..." - that the Pope has a low opinion of the bishops; and, as far as I know, both the Pope and the bishops are living persons :-) ! But I suppose you are thinking about biographies of individuals. That's enough on this matter. Lima (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Hand

Looks like we're closing in on each other. About 150 pages to go. Then we can step back, I reckon, have a look at the lie of the land, and think what we need in the way of philosophy/legacy sections, or whatever. qp10qp (talk) 21:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Gunther is being perfectly frank about the marriage, do you? After all, he was a friend of Hand's. Still, no matter: makes a change to come across an unprurient biography. qp10qp (talk) 22:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits to William

Hi Slp1 - you'll see that I have again changed the wording slightly to incorporate the fact that "enthusiasm" was regarded as "extreme", as well as socially a faux-pas (is that correct use of a French expression?) However, I don't want to do anything that will prejudice this article's chance of success at FA level, and will look to you for guidance on that, as you have far more experience than I. So, please change it if you feel it is necessary, in the context of the para as a whole.

I just had a look at a typical Good Article assessment page (not FA, but I assume the process is similar) with which Elcobbola was involved, and was amazed at the detail of the criteria and the assessment process – at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lessons_for_Children – I guess we have to be ready for anything!

I'm thinking that I must find the source for my "extreme" comment (I couldn't find it today – I am reading a lot around this whole period, because I am also researching the life of Beilby Porteus, and now have so many books from the library!) Please let me know if there's anything else that I can do to improve prose, sourcing, etc. Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 22:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Great! I've just got in twenty minutes ago. I hope you got my message re my recent changes, etc (which I actually wrote earlier, but just sent) – so I'll be guided by you. I'll also try to find that reference ASAP. More importantly, we both have to keep an eye on this over the next week or so – I would rather not have any surprises, especially from those with an axe to grind. We could do without an edit war at this stage. Elcobbola is sorting out the new images I've sourced from non-Wikipedia contributors, and hopefully they will be included in the article soon. Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I've just read your nomination. Many thanks for the mention – but I can sincerely say it's been – and will continue to be – a joint effort. But, if the quality of the writing is rewarded, it'll be down to you. Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk)

This is great! – your recent additions to the text do the job very well, I think. I just wonder if we could find another word for 'conservative', as we have that at least twice and, in England, it's also associated (when it has a capital 'C') with the Tory party – just a subliminal thing. I'm trying to think of a suitable alternative.

I wonder if also we could restore the Westminster Abbey memorial to its original place? Obviously, it should strictly be where you have moved it, but the part about pall bearers seems to be a rather sudden end to the paragraph. Unless we can find some other detail about the funeral to replace it.... Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, 138pp – that would certainly be a book. I thought it was a pamphlet, though. Bruce – Agendum (talk) 21:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I had it wrong, hadn't seen the Google Books version – I got it somewhere else. Thanks! Agendum (talk) 21:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

William Wilberforce

Your comment: I hope you are having a great holiday!!! Since you've been an interested and involved editor with William's article, and so helpful in pushing us gently to the next level, I thought you might like to know that we finally did the deed and listed it at FAC. Hopefully it will all be alright! [2]--Slp1 (talk) 22:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, summer is great! I took an hour and read through the latest iteration and read the various comments. I don't see any reason why this can't be FA! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Corrections & changes

Just a tad concerned that some of the (what seem to me) somewhat drastic recent revisions and changes to your prose have been detrimental, and rather lose the flavour of your syntax. Are we bound to accept all of the corrections that Malleus Fatuorum has made? I thought I would ask your opinion before challenging some of his changes.... Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 21:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You'll see that I've now asked him how strongly he feels about the past continuous.... Agendum (talk) 21:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

To answer the question directly, you are by no means bound to accept any of the changes that I made, particularly any you have good cause to feel may be detrimental to the syntax. I assume you mean the prose though, or at least I hope you do. :-) There'a a more detailed explanation of the -ing issue on my talk page. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

FA!

Congrats on the William Wilberforce FA! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Wow!!! We did it – fantastic! Congratulations to you too, Slp1....

Thanks for your congratulations – please accept a bouquet of flowers as a token of my appreciation for your company during this marathon, and for helping me through what has been for me an extremely long, but very pleasant, learning experience.

Cheers, Bruce

IPA help for L'Occitane en Provence

Hi, Slp1, could you add IPA to the article in question if you have the knowledge? Since it is an English encyclopedia, many people don't know about French, so somebody requested an IPA for the article. I have little knowledge of IPA for French language, and although I posted the same request at WikiProject France, the project seems less active. If you help me, I would be very glad. Thanks.--Caspian blue (talk) 02:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thank you very much. Nighty night. --Caspian blue (talk) 02:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! --Caspian blue (talk) 23:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hand

I don't think we should consider expanding the material on ALCOA, patents, Carroll Towing, or whatever. Schick argues very strongly that if you take away Hand's constitutional philosophy, libertarian reputation, and popular image based on his speeches and books, you are left with a series of decisions that do not deserve to be thought of as more influential than those of many other judges. It is the former things that make Hand notable. There seem to be two types of literature on Hand: popular material, like Gunther, Griffith, and Schick, which looks at the whole man, his life, times, and thought; and gritty legal books which delve in mind-numbing detail into a few cases, aimed I should think at legal students and specialists. I think our article should echo the first type of material, since we are providing the general reader with an introduction to Hand. It is the same for any biography on Wikipedia: when Awadewit and I were working on Mary Shelley, we probably didn't go into much depth about each novel. There's a limit to what this type of article should attempt. qp10qp (talk) 17:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I don't think this article needs to be a law review: I actually think we do quite well by mentioning the high points, and if people want to find out more about the specific cases, they can click and read... though as One points out, those articles need a fair amount of help! I wonder whether we might do more about the Patents though. I rather glossed over that in the federal section, in part because it was a very tedious read in Gunther! And Posner, well, maybe he is worth a mention at some point, though as One said in a subsequent post, his promotion of Hand's formula is fairly roundly criticized. How notable is it as compared to other judges? Not sure, will need to look further. I do wish an American lawyer would crawl out of the woodwork to advise! --Slp1 (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I am starting to suspect, though, that the lawyers' Hand is not the same as the peoples' Hand, so to speak. Schick argues that view strongly. It's true that there are published analyses of patents cases, ALCOA, etc., and I waded into some of them in my reading, but one quickly loses sight of Hand. One might say more about these things, but at the risk of moving away from Hand himself. One difficulty I had in working on the article was deciding when to pause and talk about an individual case, because there is the risk of losing forward biographical momentum. I think we have the balance right at the moment. qp10qp (talk) 15:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Richard Williamson

Hi, a few weeks ago you to provided some advice to those wanting to add a views section to Richard Williamson. Can I ask you to review it? As far as I can see it still fails to provide enough reliable sources. Thanks. PaulSoms (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Give the cat another goldfish!

		The Collaboration Barnstar
		Thanks for being such an ace colleague on Learned Hand. You stick at things, madam, and I respect that quality above all others. I'm off to dance round the garden blowing my basset horn. qp10qp (talk) 21:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Main page

Oh, is that right? Should we be expecting vandalism? - hmmm, I'll try to be around more. But I, too, am tied up with a time-consuming situation at work. I'll do what I can, though, of course. Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 05:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah - I see you had to deal with some of those "sensible" (?) changes earlier! I was perhaps a little summary in my reaction to him/her last night.... whereas you were a little more tolerant... guess I'd better get used to it! Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 12:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, that wasn't as bad as I thought! I tried to keep a watching brief during the lunch hour yeterday, and at short periods during the day (although I no longer officially have internet access from work, which is a real pain), and last evening. I'm grateful there were so many other editors obviously on duty to deal with the vandalism – which they did very effectively! And you just got to User W4rg on the Talk page before I did.

I'm also pleased that one or two suggestions were actually very constructive (notably the use of the word 'shrewd' rather than 'smart' - how did that ever get through?), and some of the others didn't matter too much, anyway. Thanks again for everything. Here's hoping that we can collaborate on something again in the future – it's been a pleasure working with you. Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 12:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, you removed a speedy delete tag I placed on an article...

......and you were correct in your action -- I was at fault! The article was for John Brimhall and, I am glad to say, you did the right thing. I just wanted to give you a thumbs up on that good call. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 11:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

deletion review of Brian Eddy

Hi! I just wanted to let you know I've started a deletion review for the article on Brian Eddy that you deleted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_August_10

Please chime in! Thanks! Luvcraft (talk) 06:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey!

Great to hear from you. I missed Sue's return this spring as I was busy and I'm even busier now. Bu t I still check in from time to time. I hope things are going well with you too! Dina (talk) 00:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hah! I love that kind of detective work about people and am guilty of it myself. Because who but a pregnant wiki editor would be profoundly irritated that there was no mention of round ligament pain in that article? (I didn't even know the damn things existed until I felt them.) Our editing patterns are so revealing. You would have had more data when I recently almost-edited Breastfeeding until I realized I probably ought to just skip that mess for now. I checked out your userpage where you finally say that you're female. I was totally in the dark about your gender before, and felt weird about asking, so I had come to think of you as simply genderless, if that makes sense. I couldn't get a sense either way from the way that you write. I don't think it's that you write in a particularly male register, I think the default assumption most places online is that most of the internet is male. Or male-posing-as-female, depending on where you are ;) Being female, I just know better than to assume. You just manage to never say anything at all that indicates that you're female, even in a heated discussion about Canadian violence against women. It's a good thing, I think, don't you? We're very much enjoying our newest addition, though I certainly wish for Canada's parental leave policy. Or even Angola's. It's ridiculous. Cheers Dina (talk) 00:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Robert Latimer dispute

Regarding the apparent edit war on Robert Latimer, please note the three revert rule policy. This should be discussed out on the talk page or taken to dispute resolution. Dl2000 (talk) 02:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Apologies

Hello! I just wanted to pass along my apology for disappointing you in my train wreck of an RfA (there is a scrap metal sale going on now, if you're interested). I am going on Wikibreak and I will let you know when or if I am back on the site -- I am trying to take time away to clear my thoughts and refocus on this and other priorities. Be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 05:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wiilberforce

Would you please explain to me the reason for your removal of: "Wilberforce was instrumental in recruiting Richard Johnson and Samuel Marsden as chaplains to the convicts and soldiers of the penal settlement of New South Wales in Australia, from this foundation the evangelical, low church Anglican Diocese of Sydney developed." in William Wilberforce?BringItOn TheAteam (talk) 02:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

See the talkpage where I posted about this more than a week ago asking for feedback; but in summary, the sentence is not fully verifiable from the source given, nor is the source a reliable one from WP perspectives.>

Are you saying that these:
Sydney Anglicans (1987) _The Australian Dictionary of Evangelical Biography. Ed Brian Dickey, 1994 _The Anglican Theological Yearbook
are not fully verifiable sources?

It is also not clear how notable this is in WW's life given than none of his bios mention it.

Is that autobiography you are talking about?BringItOn TheAteam (talk) 03:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

See the talkpage where I posted about this more than a week ago asking for feedback; but in summary, the sentence is not fully verifiable from the source given, nor is the source a reliable one from WP perspectives.>

Are you saying that these:
Sydney Anglicans (1987) _The Australian Dictionary of Evangelical Biography. Ed Brian Dickey, 1994 _The Anglican Theological Yearbook
are not fully verifiable sources?

It is also not clear how notable this is in WW's life given than none of his bios mention it.

Is that autobiography you are talking about?BringItOn TheAteam (talk) 03:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It is also not clear to me that the source given [23] would be considered a reliable source either: I can't find any evidence that "Lesley Hicks BA DipEd" is a historian with any other publications.

Are these publications? [3]BringItOn TheAteam (talk) 04:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You did not given those references in the article. [1].

Of course I didn't. Please be reasonable here. What a sad world it is, if one cannot place a reasonable level of trust on the official author of the official history of the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican CHurch in Australia, tell me, who else do we trust? I find that quite bizarre.

Hicks does seem to have written some books, well done for finding them, though she is obviously not a historian by training.

So, are you saying that information provided by non-historians cannot be accepted on Wiki biographies? And this is written in Wiki guidelines? (a layman (to Wiki guidelines) as I am, you'll have to forgive me that)

So, I might be convinced that we could consider her a reliable source except that she doesn't say what you had her say in your sentence.

Anything can be corrected and re-edited.

I disagree with you. Unlike others, this is not a trivia-type kind of information. This is significant and absolutely related to the evangelical part of his life and has a present-day relevance up to this day. But of course, depending on who it is, two words may be two words too many if they don't believe it is relevant. And this is more than two words.BringItOn TheAteam (talk) 07:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

But Wilberforce's actions had some influence on Christianity in many other countries. Do we need a sentence on each of them,

This is of your own volition and yours alone. I had never advocated doing anything remotely close.

Who am I to edit any Wiki biography? Or to participate in any biographical talkpages? I am not a historian. I am not qualified. I think I'll let those who are to carry on. Because after this, I have lost all appetite.BringItOn TheAteam (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Data Treasury

I assume that you're now writing an explanation for the article's Talk page exactly why material from the Washington Post, Politico, and Newsday are unreliable or unacceptable? (By the way, I don't have a dog in this fight. It's just obvious that one or more persons have been attempting to whitewash this article for quite some time and they're doing so without even pretending to discuss their edits and collaborate with others.) --ElKevbo (talk) 02:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Google Newspapers

According to a Reuters report today, Google intends to expand its search engine capabilities of digitized historical newspaper articles. [4]

Let's hope that this free service becomes as useful as Google Books. It would be a relief to replace my paid subscription to LexisNexis with any equally powerful free newspaper database search engine. The benefits to Wikipedia editors wanting to improve their reliable sources on some issues would be many, not to mention help the research process in general, and attract more users wishing to contribute. Best, J Readings (talk) 01:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The old stuttering issue

See here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion seems to have moved here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been referred to your experience

SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) suggested I contact you about some fringe/conspiracy issues in an article.

Yesterday I posted a completely overhauled version of Harvey Milk, hoping to get it featured in the near future. Within the past several weeks, an editor has been attempting to connect Milk with the Peoples Temple and Jim Jones in his article. While Milk was as involved as any other politician in San Francisco (the version I wrote stipulates this near the bottom of "Race for state assembly", edit wars have ensued over the section "Peoples Temple investigation". The primary source the editor is using to suggest the Peoples Temple was a much bigger part of Milk's life, is an essay written by an amateur historian who was calling for volunteers to give research for a book that never materialized. For a full discussion, see Talk:Harvey_Milk#Peoples_Temple_information_in_expanded_version. The archives will show the preceding interactions. The edit wars between Mosedschurte (talk · contribs) and Benjiboi (talk · contribs) appeared on the AN and ANI pages several times within the past several weeks. I did not get directly involved until I read everything I could on Milk to be sure that there was no mistake.

I would appreciate your looking at the discussion and article and weighing in on the talk page if you have time. I would be happy to produce what the sources I've read say. Thank you. --Moni3 (talk) 16:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Any chance of a hand?

Hi Slp,

I wondered if, following your input into the Paul Gustafson RFC, you might be able to give me a bit of a hand with the article, if you're not too busy?

I'm going to leave the RFC for a bit longer until attempting to edit but I thought I'd enquire early to see if you can lend your advice. I'm thinking about creating a copy of the article in my userspace somewhere so that I can do edits there and see if I can get acceptance of them before actually editing the article... to avoid any problems.

If not don't worry. I've contacted another admin for help (haven't had a response yet) but considering I saw you wander past I thought I'd see if I could grab you. :-D

Cheers, OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 16:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• No probs; thanks for the note! Cheers, OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 09:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Username question

Slp1, if I never hear back from User talk:AllieJTdimeco11, what am I supposed to do next about the user name? She's one of the Naked Brothers Band, Nickelodeon, Wolff Bros. gang. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, I'll keep an eye and take care of it, if you like. --Slp1 (talk) 13:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Slp! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Grise Fiord, Nunavut

I've restored the sentence for now as it is referenced. Can you add the references that sya the Inuit in Grise are not dependant on welfare? Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 00:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I just reverted it after seeing your comments at Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#Suggestion to start "Human flagpoles". Most Canadian Arctic communities have a high dependence on welfare, relocated or not. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 00:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

DYK for High Arctic relocation

On 3 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article High Arctic relocation, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BrainyBabe (talk) 06:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Jlone78 and 220.253.23.184's violation of 3RR rule

3RR report of Jlone78 and 220.253.23.184 Hello, the user obviously violated 3RR using sock Australian IPs. Could you take a look at the report? Thanks--Caspian blue (talk) 23:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

149.254.192.0/24

Hi, I've reactivated the rangeblock for a month. By the way, this is quite useful for rangeblocks - just enter the lower and upper IP range into the top boxes, and it gives you the CIDR range at the bottom. Thanks, Black Kite 17:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Henry Paulson edits

I have added more references (http://executivesuite.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/08/about-that-hank-paulson-memo/)to the criticism section. Proofs included are actual testimony to senate and a nytimes article as well discussing it. Please read it before deciding to delete!!

Also here is a reference from the wikipedia's own net capital rule page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_capital_rule "As Chairman of the SEC, Mr. William H. Donaldson presided over the April 2004 meeting. It was held at the request of the major Wall Street investment houses, including Goldman Sachs, then headed by future Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson, Jr.. The firms requested the release from the net capital rule. The complaint that was put forth by the investment banks was of increasingly onerous regulatory requirements -- in this case, not U.S. regulator oversight, but European Union regulation of the foreign operations of US investment groups. "

Another reference added: http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/10/03/business/03sec.php

~~Katydude

Henry Paulson edits

References: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9806E1DB123DF934A1575AC0A96E9C8B63 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/business/03sec.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2

"On that bright spring afternoon, the five members of the Securities and Exchange Commission met in a basement hearing room to consider an urgent plea by the big investment banks.

They wanted an exemption for their brokerage units from an old regulation that limited the amount of debt they could take on. The exemption would unshackle billions of dollars held in reserve as a cushion against losses on their investments. Those funds could then flow up to the parent company, enabling it to invest in the fast-growing but opaque world of mortgage-backed securities; credit derivatives, a form of insurance for bond holders; and other exotic instruments.

The five investment banks led the charge, including Goldman Sachs, which was headed by Henry M. Paulson Jr. Two years later, he left to become Treasury secretary. "

http://banking.senate.gov/00_02hrg/022900/paulson.htm Check the bottom paragraph: "In addition, we and other global firms have, for many years, urged the SEC to reform its net capital rule to allow for more efficient use of capital. This is the single most important factor in driving significant parts of our business offshore, so that our firms can remain competitive with our foreign competitors risk-based capital standards must become the norm. The SEC has made it clear that risk-based capital rules can be implemented only when the Commission is confident that firms employing value-at-risk models have robust credit and risk management policies in place. This means that needed net capital reform is likely to come only when the SEC is prepared to conduct these risk management examinations with its own staff or is confident that SROs have the capability to perform them. This degree of oversight will require development of staff experienced in this area. We believe there is little incentive for the SROs to meet this responsibility. "

What else do you need?

How can we then add that Paulson was one of the CEOS of investment banks who lobbied actively for the Net Capital Rule? The SEC memo and the minutes prove this beyond doubt. I do not think the wikipedia moderation is impartial. There are plenty of sources out there that can add to the google search engine to show the truth about the criticism as being valid. Blogs and articles from NY times juournalists are not considered verifiable? We have the biggest economic crisis of our time and I guess the truth has to be told elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katydude (talk • contribs) 12:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I am planning on making these changes in the Conflicts of Interests section or maybe we create a new section- please edit if appropriate

According to the NY Times" Paulson was also one of investment bank chiefs that requested the SEC to amend the Net Capital Rule. Changes to the net capital rule are thought to be an important factor in the credit market meltdown of 2008. The rule concerns the responsibility of brokerages regulated by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission to hold capital reserves.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Katydude (talk • contribs) 03:06, 16 October 2008

Hey Slp1- still trying to figure out how the talk page works. I like to manage my talk page like my mail box.. keep it clean. But then ended up cleaning yours. Apologies!

I like the new information that has been added so far. It does make sure that readers understand how regulatory changes helped lead to the current mess.

I am still trying to figure out if there are any verifiable references to show Henry Paulson was an eagle scout. Most of the information source is on the wikipedia site.. which makes it circular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katydude (talk • contribs) 15:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Just found this link- http://www.nndb.com/honors/410/000041287/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katydude (talk • contribs) 15:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

William Wilberforce & Hendon Park

Hi Slp1, I noticed that you are one of the principal editors of the William Wilberforce article. I'd be grateful for your advice on Hendon Park. This article has contained a large amount of nonsense, which I have deleted. It refers to Hendon Park as a former home of Wilberforce - which may be true or may be nonsense. The Wilberforce article refers to "Highwood Hill, a more modest property in the countryside of Mill Hill". Could this be the same as Hendon Park? with thanks for any light you may shed, Mick gold (talk) 13:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your very helpful response. Mick gold (talk) 12:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed ArbCom decisions.

Hey there.

While, in general, copy editing proposed decision pages from the ArbCom isn't verbotten, it's generally wiser to avoid doing so on cases which are highly contentious and controversial like that one.

In particular, given the additional talk page restriction currently in effect and the very high number of eyes watching this page, any edit by someone not a member of the Arbitration committee might be viewed with a jaundiced eye even if the edit would have been uncontroversial anywhere else. Would you consider enduring typos you might see for the time being to make extra-double-mega sure no spark ignites the powder keg?  :-) Thanks a lot, — Coren ^(talk) 03:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I certainly wouldn't want to start a fire, though things are in a pretty sad state if a couple of typo corrections (that I read somewhere were fine to fixup) act like flint. But maybe they are?.--Slp1 (talk) 00:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It's clerk paranoia. We're sometimes considered to be overly timid, but that's what we're (not) paid for.  :-) It's really not a problem in the general case but given that things got far enough out of hand that the arbs needed to outright ban people from editing that talk page... you know the rest. — Coren ^(talk) 01:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Slp1, you're probably recalling the time NYB specifically told me on his talk page that it was OK to fix typos, even on the arb-only pages. (I understand this case may be different, but that's the general statement from NYB.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You're probably right... I know I read about this from him somewhere, sometime, and your talkpage is a likely spot :-). I'm glad I haven't being going totally mad. But I can also certainly understand that discretion is the better part of valour sometimes! Or in less poetic and more WP terms, be bold but not always.--Slp1 (talk) 01:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Can't find it now, it could have been NYB's talk page, my talk page, or a case talk page, but he most certainly assured me that I could correct typos, even on the arb-only pages. But I'd leave these case pages alone, for other reasons :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Or, it could be this post we're remembering. Who knows ? It seems the arbs don't mind, but clerks might. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe that was it. Anyway, I guess this might be a special case, (though that one was too, I guess!). I can understand changes from strangers might cause alarm to those with nerve endings already tingling, so I'll will take all the advice and keep turn my human spell-checker off for the duration! --Slp1 (talk) 01:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

And, indeed, correcting typos and such on nominally "arbs only" pages is normally quite okay— that particular case is special given arbs went out of their way to state that non-arbs edits would result in blocks. While common sense dictates that copy editing is still okay, not all participants in ArbCom cases display much common sense during them.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 02:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the warning on the three reversion edit rule. Michael H 34 (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

You're welcome.--Slp1 (talk) 02:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Deceptively unsimple question

Do you have anything to add to my answer to this question? I thought it was simple when I started answering on his talk and then I realized I wasn't sure about the answer in anything except American English. Also, I'm curious too, now. Google was no help, but it's one of those tricky things to google. Hope you're well! Dina (talk) 01:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

RfA

Hi Slp1! Thank you very much for your support in my RfA, which passed yesterday. I hope not to let you and the others down, and use the tools for the benefit of the project. Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Articles by User:Gdaly7

Hello, Slp1 …

Would you please check these other articles by Gdaly7 (talk · contribs):

• Adria Dawn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Billy Ray Cyrus: Home at Last (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ruth Williamson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

You recently deleted the last one as Blatant copyright infringement … Happy Editing! — 72.75.110.31 (talk · contribs) _{02:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)}

Verifiability

[5]. Please read WP:V. "Reliable sources may be print-only, electronic-only or be available in both print and electronic formats." This is not a reason for deletion. --Slp1 (talk) 00:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The use of the word may here is permissive and the print only format of a source does not necessarily mean that a source is verifiable. Michael H 34 (talk) 00:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

With regard to your message on my user page, I disagree. Without doubt, a citation needs to be more than just print format or electronic format or both print and electronic format to be verifiable. Michael H 34 (talk) 14:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

Please see My contributions - a tale of research ... it documents something that I knew, but needed to verify ... I got help from a fellow Mensan at the Library of Congress. — 72.75.110.31 (talk) 15:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of print-only sources in the FRM article and I have no intention of deleting them. I do not plan to seek clarification of the Wikipedia policy. Michael H 34 (talk) 17:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

Frank Murphy

Dear Slp1 : Given your evident interest in Felix Frankfurter and sources, etc, I would appreciate your taking a look at Frank Murphy. Happy editing, and thanks for your many "Learned" contributions (pun intended). 7&6=thirteen (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Stan

I understand. However, Murphy is no ordinary American judge. As one of the Frankfurter articles mentions (can't remember which, rating current SCUS members as to their importance), Murphy let his emotions overshadow his legal analysis -- more or less their words -- and was a champion of the disempowered and disenfranchised. They conclude that his lasting effect will not be particularly great. In any event, he is an outstanding example of New Deal public service, and his career on the court was the capstone on a sterling (and consistent) career. A quick read that will get you the flavor of Murphy is the article from Hour Detroit (which I would say was at least somewhat leavened by the existence of the revised Wikpedia article). Another one that merits perusal in the labor law article by Theodore St. Antoine (link to most of it included in the article -- I actually have the entire article on my computer, and can sent it to you electronically, if you are interested) which puts that aspect of his political and judicial careers into harmony. I don't mean to wax so euphoric, but this was a truly remarkable career by a truly remarkable man -- whose very being is somehow relevant in these trying, hopeless, and hopeful times That is why I had this compulsion to redress this article, which I felt did not do him justice. Anyway, I hope that my enthusiasm is contagious, and can fire you up to work your magic. Best to you. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 01:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC) Stan

I am avidly looking forward to your thoughts, perspective, and writing. Happy Armistice Day. Three cheers. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 03:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC) Stan

Happy holidays to you. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 00:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC) Stan

May we all have a happier and brighter New Year. Sorry, can't turn it off. {:}> Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 17:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC) Stan

Apologies (apparently the sequel)

Hi Slp1,

My apologies for my sporadic intervention on the FRM page. It's on my list of things to look into when I have the time (in 2009 I expect...) but I know it will be controversial, contested, and require lots of reading on my part. Generally when I start making time to do the reading I tend to be quite dedicated (like, bulldog dedicated, have a look at satanic ritual abuse and associated talk page's histories if you don't believe me) but given real life business I'm mostly sticking to quick bold fixes that won't hit revert and discuss. The FRM looks sufficiently interesting that I'll probably go back to it, and please feel free to drop notes on my talk page as a reminder or if you've a specific point you think I can help on. Again, my apologies and for what it's worth it is tickling at me to go back. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 20:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Your 3RR warning to Azurefury

Hi - hope you don't mind but I deleted it as he was already blocked for edit warring by me. This user is clearly aware of 3RR and edit warring - he's been blocked for it before and there is discussion on his talk page about 3RR. dougweller (talk) 21:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

No, not all! I was agonizing about whether to block him myself: it was time, I think. What I can't understand is why I didn't get a edit conflict with your block notice... but anyway!! --Slp1 (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Season's greetings

Season's greetings and a happy new year to my Learned colleague. Hope you are well. qp10qp (talk) 14:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy holidays

Thanks for making 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me; I wish I could have been of more assistance with Learned Hand, but you and the rest of the team were brilliant!

Wishing you and yours a joyous holiday season, and happiness, health and hopefulness in 2009. I trust you'll enjoy this little token, a favourite performance of Baby, it's Cold Outside, for your holiday amusement.
Best, Risker (talk) 02:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Season's greetings

Hi Slp1, how are you keeping? I hope you're enjoying the holidays. I have a little favour to ask - could you add Dowry, Dowry law in India and Extortion to your watchlist? I'm basically on sabatical from WP for the moment and a few users who may be involved with Save Indian Family or a similar organization are making inappropriate additions to these pages. See the contribs of User:Jagreuben and User:Parthasarathy_B. I'm contacting you because you're familiar with the situation at the Save Indian Family article so you'll recognize what's going on. If things hot up take it to ANI and do feel free to email me. Best wishes --Cailil