User talk:Sophie means wisdom/Archive2009

Spiring Spam

Thanks for reverting some of the material added about Paul Spiring. I just removed some more. I agree fully with your comment in one of your edits about notability. If he is that notable he should have an article. Meantime I'll keep an eye open for more. --TimTay (talk) 15:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So now he has created an article about himself - Paul Spiring - and is adding himself back into all the articles where he was deleted from. At least there is an article. Other wikipedians (or you) can decide if the article is notable enough to stay. --TimTay (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'll AfD it and see what happens - AfD seems to be as much about problem-solving as about deletion nowadays. Totnesmartin (talk) 21:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

I've stuck a COI notice at Ted's page, but really, the Bristol City edits are a bit of a giveaway. If he doesn't get the COI hint I'll open a sockpuppetry case. Totnesmartin (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one. --TimTay (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Years

This user subpage is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you might try contacting the user in question or seeking broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

In 2009, WikiProject Years developed a essay for the inclusion of events "recent year" articles.

Important policy discussions took place in January 2009 at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years.

Deilvered by §hepBot (Disable) at 01:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC) on request of Wrad[reply]

RW

Come back. We need you. --CUR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.58.103.177 (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was arguing with you that finally peed me off. What'd you need me for that the others can't do? Writing humorous articles about European countries was my kind of thing. Anyway, read my recent post on my talk page there. That's pretty definite. Totnesmartin (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

McMoneagle's predictions

Encyclopedic content must be verible. When presenting data for the purpose of teaching history copyright laws are waived. Of course the list comes from McMoneagle's book. This is the primary source. Where would you expect to come from? Someone other than McMoneagle himself? Anything else would be a secondary source. I try to get it from the horse's mouth when possible. This is the way I work. This is the way all critical historians work. Why would you rather believe these are McMoneagle's predictions if they came from someone else's mouth? Please reply. Kazuba (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia prefers secondary sources where possible. If no-one else has mention the predictions, then are they notable? who chose to list these on WP? are they the only claims in the book? What about his failed claims? These questions arise when using his own book as a primary source. If another writer came along and reviewed the book, they may find discrepancies and other faults which McM naturally would conceal. this is the benefit of secondary sources - without them, biographical articles would degenerate into puff-pieces written by fans. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do these look like predictions that became true to you? Remember you deleted them. The Future:

2000: A bill authorizing a teenager's "Right to Work" will be passed, lowering the normal hiring age to fourteen.

Between 2002 and 2005: There will arise a new view of religion designed to bring religion and science together without the emphasis of Christianity. This new religion will address the science of the soul. By the year 2050 it will have established a firm base in alternative healing practices as well as comforting the distressed and dying.

Before the year 2004 a vaccine for AIDS will be discovered.ref McMoneagle

Sometime between 2004 and 2006 a new movement will begin to eliminate television.

By 2005 new temporary tattoos will be in vogue. Initially women will wear more tattoos than men. The greatest use of tattoos will be to emulate clothing not being worn.

So you think every personal diary and autobiography is worthless? WOW! Sometimes people conceal their faults and sometimes they don't. You can learn some surprising things. Especially what the author thinks, and certainly how he or she heard and saw things happening. It is generally accepted by critical historians that the authors of autobiographies will try to make selves look good. For myself historical detection is puzzling and a lot of fun. Kazuba (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two points - I have no opinion on the veracity of McM's predictions. I only went to the article because it was mentioned elsewhere. Point two - it's not for me to decide how accurate each and every diary, autobiography etc is. Wikipedia has a policy on primary sources (linked above, did you read it?) and I applied it. If you disagree then take it up on this page. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

could we add

don't patronise the oldies to don't bite the newbies? Talk:Conservapedia#Sexism.3F--Mongreilf (talk) 09:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it's okay. judging by your edits you seem to have a fine interest in all kinds of good nonsense. and last time i was there totnes had many excellent vegetarian restaurants--Mongreilf (talk) 09:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I just had a bad day. Totnes still has many fine restaurants (plug plug)! Totnesmartin (talk) 09:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I heard you call me, My Capitaine!

At one time I was handing out gorillias but nobody wanted one. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 14:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK template

The template broke because you didn't close the wikilink...you had "[[No Parking Whitebeam" in the hook, which messed up the formatting. I've fixed it now. Shubinator (talk) 16:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So one little error breaks the whole thing. That's why I hate templates. Totnesmartin (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gone?

?Toast TheresaWilson (talk) 13:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, just being silly. Unblock me if you like (self-unblocking spoils the joke). Totnesmartin (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See you're back :) TheresaWilson (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)@[reply]

thanks for your comment

I've responded at Talk:Thelema. Dan (talk) 17:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thelema

Don't know how much you are around on Wikipedia, but could you look in on the developments on this article? User:Dan is on his third revert so far today. Will in China (talk) 01:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Rollback

Hmm, thanks for the notification. I'll keep a close eye on it. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 13:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"dive in" please

I still want your opinion on the dispute at Thelema, and I think we need more than a procedural objection to a rollback that would have had no effect on the outcome. You may find the discussion long, with some breaking of comments by WiC, but I think my citations pretty much speak for themselves if you read them as intended (WC appears to say he only read the edit comparisons, an understandable mistake but one that may have prevented him seeing one or two crucial quotes.) The dispute concerns the scholarly consensus on Rabelais, and the quote from Sutin that refers to it. Dan (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edits in context here. I should note that WiC moved one of his comments to the end of mine, so breakage doesn't seem like a major issue. Dan (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving?

Sad to see you go, man. At least you're not leaving every wiki on the internet. That would be a bit weird. :) Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 03:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm forever Leaving And Never Coming Back. I'm such a drama queen on the internet sometimes. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of celebrity and notable guest appearances in Doctor Who

There's a new AfD nomination for an article you've previously discussed. Please stop by to voice your opinions again. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 11:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Sockington

A tag has been placed on Sockington requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Empire3131 (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Sockington

Hello! Your submission of Sockington at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Kingpin¹³ (talk) 12:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

I know you're an experienced editor (and a regular contributor to the project already), but thought I'd "officially" welcome you anyway!

Hi, and welcome to the Birds WikiProject! As you've probably guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of bird-related topics.

A few features that you may find helpful:

Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, outreach, and other tasks.
If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention.
Read our current newsletter, and sign up for (or opt out) of future issues.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any experienced member of the project; we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! MeegsC | Talk 15:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!!

FX (talk) 23:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Animals

Are you still an Active participant of WikiProject Animals WP:ANIMALS ? Please let me know. Zoo Pro 05:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't even on my watchlist... I guess that answers your question. In any case I'm laying off wikis for a while, personal problems are affecting my temper and I'm snapping at people instead of arguing the case. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I forgot all about that issue. FX (talk) 06:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]