User talk:Tearlach/Archive1

Archive1, July 2005 - January 2006

PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE

If you have any majorly urgent need to contact me on any of the topics below, use the E-mail this user link on User:Tearlach page. Tearlach 16:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! RJFJR 17:56, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Reference work copyrights

(Re John Edward Bernard Seely, 1st Baron Mottistone)

Thank you for you help. I have removed the section that you referred to...despite being on this site for 6 months+ and on the following sites: [1], [2], [3]

I dont want to turn this into an endless exercise. can you assist me on updating the entry? I presume that it now complies. (User_talk:63.117.78.2).

It looks OK now apart from minor cleanup issues (assuming any input from other sources such as Burke's Peerage is sufficiently rephrased). All those sites say The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. Copyright © 2001-05 Columbia University Press which means - I hope - they've a licensing deal to reproduce the text. That doesn't mean it's OK to reproduce elsewhere (and the time it's taken for someone to spot the problem is irrelevant). Tearlach 15:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Charles Taze Russell

Thanks Tearlach for you comments and insights on Talk:Charles Taze Russell. It's much appreciated! --K. 12:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I think you might have inadvertantly overwritten some changes I made to the intro paragraph. Or were you reverting them? If not, I'll put them back in. :) --K. 03:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about that - clash through near-simultaneous edits. Only thing I intended to do was liposuction on the siblings bit (e.g getting rid of the gucky "tender of age of 5" stuff, and I think we can guess whether they're brothers or sisters by their names). Tearlach 03:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

No worries. Your edit definitely makes it more readable; just need to do the same for the *rest* of the article. --K. 03:31, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Formal RfC

In response to your suggestion, I have taken the unpleasant, tedious, and painful step of writing up an Request for Comments about a user's conduct. It should be at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pastorrussell. If you will visit it and sign it, it will become a certified inquiry.

I did not like to do this. However, the fact that there was a way, however painful, for me to do this, illustrates how Wikipedia is not Usenet.

Robert McClenon 12:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

It is a pain. But I can't see any alternative. I've co-signed it and filled in some of the detail: hope this helps. Tearlach 14:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Good luck and I hope this can be resolved eventually. Best, Meelar (talk) 14:48, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

User:Pastorrussell has been emailing me about the issue; should I mention that at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pastorrussell? --K. 00:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, I'd take the view that discussion should be "on the table". Tearlach 00:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay I've put them up at redacted. Do you think they are relevant? I really don't want to make trouble for Pastorrussell, but I really think he doesn't understand how Wikipedia works. Having said that, I'm fairly new to a lot of the policies myself. ;) --K. 01:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I didn't quite mean that; posting them could be a copyright breach. I meant that I'd refuse to engage in discussion except via the editorial procedures here. Tearlach 01:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Whoopsydaisy! Thanks for taking it down. :) --K. 01:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

For extensive thorough and tedious work in putting in the links in the RfC, you have received the Workingman's Barnstar on your user page. (You may move it to this talk page if you prefer.) Robert McClenon 00:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

That's very kind of you. I hope this is all resolving (and your work ahs been instrumental in negotiations). I'll be very glad to get back to normal stuff. Tearlach 23:14, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Another controversy if you're interested

I seem to be a magnet for controversy at the moment, but would you mind having a look at Talk:New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures#Removal_of_Reaction and writing something in response to this gentlemen's post. He seems so worked up that I think a response from a third party would do more good than a response from me. Thanks! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 11:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Ugh. I think I'll give that one a miss. The situation doesn't look amenable to reason: see m:MPOV. Tearlach 14:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

About the Copyright on the keyword "Filipino Basque"

I have already been granted the permission to copy the said article as a contribution to wikipedia.org provided that the said article is not altered in any way, and that I credit the author and cite the website it was taken. You can email Jill of Center for Basque Studies at berner@unr.edu for the confirmation. Thanks! User talk:TruthComission#Filipino Basque

Understood - but this causes a clash of rights. Posting here buys into the conditions at the foot of the edit page: GNU Free Documentation License and freedom to edit mercilessly. You can't have that simultaneously with a condition not to alter it. If the Center for Basque Studies are not prepared to allow edits, then it shouldn't be posted here. Tearlach 01:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Mannixes (Mannixae?)

Fixed. Adam 14:27, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Sorry about that - messed up disambiguation attempt. Daniel Mannix is obviously the correct primary one. Tearlach 14:40, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Copyright

The articles are not merely translations. I have used the data provided by the city of Roermond as a basis but there is a lot more info in the files. If required I can rewrite them completely but since these are the facts, the text will be almost the same. User:Jorgenpfhartogs

That isn't how it looks to me. Whole sections are very close translations of text at www.roermond.nl. For instance:

St. Christopher Cathedral

Building the cathedral

While building the defensive walls the original parishchurch was still outside the city. The people therefore decided to build a newer, bigger church inside the walls. They started building, in late-gothic style, in 1410. Originally, it was being build in the traditional shape of a Greek Cross with 4 arms of the same length. In the following centuries a lot of extensions were build and now it has its current shape: a 5-beam basicalnave with built-in westtower. In the 16th century they tried to make it a hallchurch by building 3 high choirs all the way to roofbeams. This can still be seen in the eastern transept.

St. Christoffelkathedraal

De bouw van de kathedraal

De oorspronkelijke parochiekerk kwam buiten de vestingsmuren te liggen. Daarom werd er besloten om binnen de muren een nieuwe, grotere kerk te bouwen. De bouw van de nieuwe kerk, in laat-gotische stijl, begon omstreeks 1410. Oorspronkelijk werd de kerk gebouwd in de vorm van een Grieks kruis met vier armen van gelijke lengten. In de loop der eeuwen werd de kerk vele malen uitgebreid tot haar huidige vorm: een vijfbeukige basicaalschip met ingebouwde westtoren. In de 16e eeuw heeft men van de hele kerk een hallenkerk willen maken door de drie evenhoge koren ook in de beuken door te trekken. Dat is nog het beste te zien in het oostelijke transept.

And don't forget the images. Tearlach 09:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

HIV Progression Rates

Re the copyvio alert: hard to say what the makeup is. It's not a single article: Googling on some phrases like processed peptide epitope presented in the groove leads to different papers, and much of it doesn't lead to anything. Biggest problem is that it simply isn't encyclopaedic: it's jargon-choked researcher-speak that ought to be flagged with Template:Technical even if it's not a copyvio. Tearlach 02:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm moderately sure about the overall copyvio status, even if the Wikipedia article was patched together from multiple sources. If the References section is to be believed, it's actually a fairly recent article (there's a cite from 2002). The article as a whole seems to hang together, at least as much as I can tell through the jargon. It's not surprising to get hits on some of the phrases. Most technical fields have their own vocabulary and grammar, which results in common patterns in written materials. Ken 03:01, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Rathfarnham

I've taken a look at those sites.

I did not create these sites, but I will certainly take a look at them. 

I've adapted them a bit now. Jorgenpfhartogs 15:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

You might want to...

... take a look at User:R.Koot/Jorgenpfhartogs. Cheers, --R.Koot 23:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Aiful

Since you marked this article for cleanup, I wanted to know if I did a good enough job. I would appreciate any advice or thoughts you have. Thanks! Geoffrey 12:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Aecis actually marked it for cleanup; I just added the comment about context and where to find English source. Anyway, your cleanup looks very good. Tearlach 15:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Marlay Park

Hi, I see you marked the article as possibly a copyright infringement, and I guess that's my fault. I did use the page from Dun Laoighre County Council as the basis of the initial article I wrote, but it's only on re-reading that I realise I could have done a better job of re-writing to present the facts differently.

Anyway, I've emailed the site owners asking permission to use information from their site for a Wikipedia article, and if they give permission, I'll revisit the article and update it. In the mean time, I'll try to be a bit more careful.

AndrewH 09:46, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Microfinance

Thanks for tracking down the source; I checked the first few paragraphs but idn't find any matches, so assumed that it was a close paraphrase from the web site mentioned in the article. If it pops back up from the redirect, it'll just get flagged as a copyvio.

Ken ^talk 00:19, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Belzebuub

Nobody's really debating it except for the original author, who began his Wikipedia career as a vandal before creating the Belzebuub article. Zoe 04:59, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

That was some impressive ass-kicking-through-source-review on Pritchard. Good job tracking that stuff down. JDoorjam 17:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for destroying my page ass hole. Adreamsoul 21:10, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

It's not your page. Everything here is collectively edited. You destroyed it yourself by infringing a bunch of Wikipedia guidelines, specifically including POV and copyvio, and unspecifically including dubious promotional claims. Tearlach 23:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Eric mandat

Hello, Tearlach. I've made my reply on the redir for deletion page. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 21:42, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Kakazai

I wrote that post/article to educate people about Kakazai/Kakazai Pathan Tribe which is a non-English ethnicity. I am the copyright holder.

Those images are for those people who understand Urdu and I made sure of that in description which I posted along-with the post/article/images.

Should you have any question then please feel welcome to contact me @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:McKhan

I don't appreciate what you are doing... Speically when you have admitted by yourself that you don't know enough about the subject.

Please, don't try to show me that you are in control. I have cleaned-up that page as much as I could. AND I have explained to you in detail.

Should you want me to remove that post altogether then I will be more than happy to do that.

Please, let me know...

McKhan

Please don't take offence. Read the guidelines that Longhair posted. This is nothing to do with the quality of the information. I added cleanup tags to help others bring Kakazai into line with the format and procedures that Wikipedia works by. Cleanup is just copyediting. Wikifying is tagging words with links to related articles. And verification is needed: if you post something, even if you know it's true, you have to show where the information came from. Tearlach 03:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Eek! Zoe 04:32, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry but....

I am sorry but what you are doing is intimidation. When the source (s), THOSE IMAGES, were there - your objection was that they are NOT good enough because they are in Urdu. And NOW those images have been removed, you still insist that "verification is needed."

Why don't you Wikify the post by yourself? After all, it is a team-work... Isn't it? It shouldn't be place for people to excercise their authority because they CAN.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:McKhan

This is not intimidation. It would be the same if this was the Urdu wiki and the images were in English, or the Chinese wiki and the images were in Welsh. Wikipedia articles are always in the language of the particular Wikipedia language version. If the Urdu source has useful information, that's great: translate and summarise it. As for verification etc, read the guidelines: Wikipedia:Cite sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. It's the same for everyone. Tearlach 03:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

That article is well-referenced

I have read those guidlines. That article is well-referenced and I have done my homework very well.

There is NO much material avaiable in English because British castigated Kakazai Pathans as criminals before the partition of the sub-continent as they refused to serve the British Colonial interests in then subcontinent. That was the main reason that I posted those images with that article.

After the partition, the third Governer General of Pakistan and several Hight Court Judges were from Kakazai Pathan tribe.

Having said that It is quite oxymoronic for you to ask me about quoting 'Tazkir-e-Pathan' and / or 'Tazkara' because both of them are in Urdu which you have already over-ruled as unsufficient using the WikiPedia guidelines.

And last but not the least, I just don't understand that you don't even know about the subject as per you own admission and yet you have got the audacity to comment back and forth and continue with the monlogue of WikiPedia Guidelines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:McKhan

McKhan

Our buddy User:McKhan has decided to delete both the article and its talk pages. He's this close to getting blocked. Zoe 05:28, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. I had to block him for 24 hours, he was claiming to own the copyright and kept blanking the article. Zoe 06:02, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

He sent me the following email:

Hi,

I am the author and sole copyright owner of "Kakay Zai / Kakazai / Kakezai :: Pathans :: (Published at: http://www.kakazai.com/aboutus/ ) as well as the article posted on WikiePedia.

I did NOT give permission to any of the editor of WikiPedia under any license or cirumstances to edit that article NOR I realeased that article under ANY Free License, knowingly, to WikiPedia.org or its affiliates.

Therefore, my article must be removed from WikiePedia.org and its affiliates in next 24 hours unless you add the copyright statement and link back to my official web-site: http://www.AliKhan.org

Looking forward to hearing from you soon.

Sincerely,

Ali Khan - http://www.AliKhan.org - http://www.MediaMonitors.net

I'd just as soon delete the damn page. Zoe 22:41, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Bevan Spencer Von Einem

hello there Tearlach, I see you moved this article to capitalise the "von" however this is a name of German Origin and it is never capitalised. I did a Google search and the results are identical with or without capitalisation. I do not have police records obviously, but as far as I know his last name (as are all "von"s regardless their nationality) is written small. regards Gryffindor 17:08, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

I did a Google search and the results are identical with or without capitalisation - You'd expect that, because Google isn't case-sensitive. I made a best guess based on existing spellings on Wikipedia and a skim of major web accounts (even official Australian accounts aren't consistent on "v" vs "V") - plus you never know what people do with names once they're outside the country of origin. But if you think it's majorly wrong, I won't contest a revert. Tearlach 18:14, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh yes right of course. Hm, I am assuming the author who created the article obviously thought something when he created it with a small "v". I tried looking up other examples, the only one I can find (although not a very good one I admit) is Wernher von Braun, who became a U.S. citizen, keeping the "von" small. I also had a friend, she was American but of German origin, her last name also kept the "von" small. It´s difficult to say what this case is, since we do not have official records. I can only speak from my knowledge, that it is always written small (since it either connotates nobility or place of origin, somewhat like an english X "from" Place). Since the articles in Wikipedia are kept with a small "v", I would recommend we keep it consistent. Should a user be able to officialy refute the small v, we can of course change it again. Gryffindor 18:37, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

A request to u

Due to the continous vandlism of User:Truth aspirant-- the article Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman has become a ‘business-propaganda-feature’ rather an ‘encyclopedic article.’ Just see history of the article [[Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman and Talk:Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman page--You are requested to take intrest in this serious editorial issue and make things straight in this global phenomena (Wikipedia). Thanx. Wiki4u User:andylarken

Creation of Solent (see Isle of Wight)

Thank you for the interesting note about the land in the solent sinking to create the channel, but (not being knowledgable in this area myself) I am curious as to whether the sea levels would have also risen at the end of the ice age as would be expected, thus meaning the creation the channel was through a conbination of both phenomena? Or is the rising sea not really a major reason for the geographic feature we now know? I would be interested to find out if you know. Dainamo 09:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't know whether there's any direct evidence for sea level change - but the evidence for land level being the main cause in this case is that in Britain deeply flooded estuaries (rias) are characteristic of the south coast alone. In Scotland, you get the opposite: raised beaches. So the overall picture is that post-glacially the land level has tilted, up in the north, down in the south (ie post-glacial rebound). Tearlach 12:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Wiki4u vandalizing again

User Tearlach and SGBailey: Since you are are original and serious Wikipedians I want to make this request to you. Please try to see what Wiki4u actually is. He is the only person who is adding content from Islamabad, Pakistan with changing IPs and also with user name Wiki4u. He wants to write evil about an individual. Wiki4u and his other IPs have little contribution to other articles on Wikipedia except the said article. [Please see contributions by these users]

They are misusing Wikipedia to malign a person with self created accusations. Please take necessary action and stop them. One can take legal action against Wikipedia if it is allowing such people to talk ill of others.

They are the people who are vandelizing Wikipedia by adding hateful and contemptuous content against a person. Wiki4u is the person who is committing cyber crime and must be banned from using Wikipedia.

Urgent and substantial action in the right direction is requested.

Looking forward to a positive response.

Truth Aspirant

Copyright Reply

In response to your message in Taikomochi. Yes, I am Caroline Seawright, and I do you release it under those terms. So I added the link that Wikipedia seems to suggest I do for writings copyrighted elsewhere. Not sure what to do now, though. 203.63.199.41 02:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Your interest in the ACIM/ comparison article

Thanks for your recent interest in the ACIM/ comparison article. A followup comment/ reply to your comment has been posted at the talk page of that article. I was wondering if you might be ablte to comment? :-) or  :-(  ?

-Scott P. 02:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Further re: the ACIM/ comparison article

Dear Tearlach,
          I honestly do believe that my most recent edits to this article will make it quite obvious that there is no longer any original research in this article. If you might agree, then perhaps you might consider retracting your submission of this article to the list for deletion, as nobody has yet commented on it, and I feel that it is likely that if you agreed to this, that the proposal could be retracted. Again, any comment you may have on this at the talk page of that article would be most appreciated.

-Scott P. 02:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, have it your way, ignore me....

-Scott P. 03:15, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I haven't been ignoring you - just waiting to see what the general view was. As the original article stood, I thought it wasn't a summary of external material on a topic - but rather one person's view of the comparison between two religious systems. It looks far better in context. Tearlach 17:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Coipel

Hey. In light of the rewrites to Oliver Coipel, can I convince you to change your vote? DS 19:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Certainly! Tearlach 12:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Tearlach and friend pigsonthewing

External comment: I agree that this situation needs admin attention. However, I think it's a bogus report: I can see no vandalism, but justified removal - supported by other editors - of inappropriate material posted by Scottfisher (talk · contribs): notably audio files, non-standard HTML coding, and links to poor-quality pages like this at his own website. Tearlach 22:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Well if you think its a problem, it won't be much longer as I am correcting it. As you can see multimedia was moved to external links and was still deleted, as I was going to build it . I will delete the ones back.

PS: Burt is a personal friend of mine, and he even signed the pic for me. He must like it, why do you not? I will delete the ones back, and not give you limmies the pleasure LOL. You can keep on taking sides of ruining by deletion. Sorry for you...What a waste of time.

PS: Burt is a personal friend of mine, and he even signed the pic for me. He must like it, why do you not? I see you don't have his status, LOL Nevermind, no need to answer, as I have wasted much unconstructive time with you already. Life is much too short to be bothered Scott 23:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC) Nevermind, no need to answer, as I have wasted much unconstructive time with you already. Life is much too short to be bothered Scott 23:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Material that's fine for a personal page about a friend is not necessarily appropriate as a reference for an encyclopedia. Tearlach 01:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey this isn't an encyclopedia...LOL Your questioning the validity yourself....LOL

This is not a place of shared information, It's a place where people want to give you the information they want to give you! Your too much. Go chase your tail with pigsonthewing, I deleted most all information I put here, so you all don't have the pleasure with your alias's, LOL

It's turning into a Yahoo board....Can't you see that? Have fun, Run rabbit run, chase the sun, dig that hole, in the ground. Later Scott 02:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I've no idea what you're on about. Go read the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Tearlach 02:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

What about it? I don't think you read it youself. Any rules about deletion of your own stuff? LOL, You and your limey friend Pigsonthewing can find someone else to bother now, Go for it! Scott 14:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Tearlach I ask you to read some of this please: You can always delete it. Thanks, What a waste...

POTW

Personal attack deleted as suggested Tearlach 15:10, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I am not pigsonthewing, if that's the implication. I've run into this dispute by accident. I'm aware from recent discussions that some view the style of some of pigsonthewing's edits as contentious. However, in this case, I can see nothing to object to. The edits/deletions I've seen (to your work) have been justified in my view. Tearlach 09:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you.

Many thanks for your level-headed comment on User talk:Scottfisher. Andy Mabbett 07:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Vacuum

You made a confusing change on the vacuum page with the deletion of the jpg ranges of vacuum, but I do understand and like your idea, of what you have changed. It is showing dashes in degrees of vacuum between the ranges, and since a vacuum is a negative pressure that really confuses things. I am not going to change it, I'll leave that up to you since you made the change to put the word "to" in. Anyone in this field would understand this. Thanks Scott 13:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

True. I see someone else has already tidied it. (I changed it to text because it's important information, and shouldn't be in a form that blind users can't read). Tearlach 13:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Win

When you moved Win to Win (baseball), was it just for general consistency or for any particular reason? I ask because I note that there's already a disambig page at WIN, and I'm wondering whether that material should be incorporated into a new, bigger, better disambig page at Win, which would be made possible by your move. Or did you have something else you wanted to do with it? Chick Bowen 00:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

General consistency (in line with Hit and Hit (baseball)) as there are plenty of other meanings: Win (band), Ne Win, etc., that definitely could be merged with the WIN disambiguation. I didn't realise how complicated a move it would turn out to be; an older attempt to do similar has left many pages linking to Win (baseball statistics) and other variants. Anotehr side issue is that Winning links only to the baseball definition, despite none of the pages linking to it meaning it in that sense. Tearlach 00:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Tangled indeed. Well, I started with Winning--I changed all the links to the film to Winning (film), changed the Bangladeshi band to a redlink as well, and just took out the other links since they seemed self-evident (by winning they meant winning). So I would say that a disambiguation page at Win could leave those out. Anyway, it seems useful, so I might start working on one later tonight, if I get to it, and if you don't first. Chick Bowen 01:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Rope tricks moire

I've just cleaned it up in Image-Pro Plus: Fast Fourier Transform; clip out the frequency spikes for the pattern; Inverse FFT. Tearlach 10:03, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks!--Deglr6328 17:18, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: Your help with cleanup

Thank you for your sensible edits, including your latest revert, to the Phish article and for your sane contributions to the talk page. Level-headed outside voices are one of the best remedies for frustration. Much appreciated. Psora 21:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Re:British Sea Power

Excuse me there, i've tried to take Pigs under my Wing, so to speak. He contributes alot of good things, but his behavior is deplorable, as shown as his campaign against me for some reason here,here, and here, the last one you know about somewhat since you testified in a part of it. Ultimately, my goal is to get him to end these seemingly daily revert wars and just get him to focus on the positive things, but it's unlikely he's going to do so without an WP:RFAR, which seems imminent. Karmafist 06:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Kakazai / Kakayzai Web-site have been updated with a Family Tree (Shijra)

Tearlach, I have updated Kakazai :: Pathans :: web-site with a Family Tree (Shijra) as per following:-

• Qais (Qais Abdul Rashid)
• Kharshabon / Kharashboon / Khair-ud-din + Sharakhbon / Sharkhboon / Sharaf-ud-din (Offsprings of Qais)
• Kand / Kanhr / Gand (Offspring of Kharshabon / Kharashboon / Khair-ud-din)
• Khashi / Khashai / Sheikha (Offspring of Kand / Kanhr / Gand)
• Tarkanrhi / Tarkalani / Tarkani / Tarkanri (Offspring of Khashi / Khashai / Sheikha)
• Harak / Tarak (Offspring of Tarkanrhi / Tarkalani / Tarkani / Tarkanri )
• Mamond / Mamund (Offspring of Harak / Tarak)
• Barhozai / Warhozai + Barmkazai + Salarzai + Kakazai / Kakayzai (Offsprings of Mamond / Mamund)

Sources:

• "Tareekh-e-Kakazai" (a.k.a. "Hidayat Afghani - Tareekh-e-Kakazai Tarkani" (Originally Published May, 1933) ::
• "Tazkara" by Khan Roshan Khan :: Kakazai / Kakayzai Pathan tribe is mentioned between Page 176 - 181 ::
• "A Dictionary of the Pathan Tribes of the North West Frontier of India" published by The General Staff Army Headquarter, Calcutta, India. :: Kakazai / Kakayzai Pathan Tribe is mentioned on Page 12 (under 'D'), Page 22 (under 'K') and Page 39 (under 'M') ::
• "Frontier and Overseas Expeditions from India" Volume One published by Government Mono Type Press, Simla, India. :: Kakazai / Kakayzai Pathan Tribe is mentioned on Page 555 ::
• :: Dara Kakazai (Valley of Watlai), Federally Administered Tribal Area in NWFP province, Pakistan ::
• Family Tree of Qais Abdul Rashid :: Spelled as Kaka Zai under the offsprings of Kharashboon (Khair ud Din) ::

Peace

McKhan

The Jim Rome Show

The reason you claim why I nominated this article for AFD is incorrect, but thanks for assuming. I nominated it for AFD because I wanted to bring attention to the fact it was too long and unencyclopedic...not because I didn't like it, but because it didn't fit with the vision of Wikipedia. Next time, make sure you know about the subject on which you're talking before you claim to know it all. --Zpb52 01:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Whatever the reason, an AFD is not the way to achieve cleanup. Any further attempts to blank articles or talk pages wil be treated as vandalism. Tearlach 01:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Any further attempts to assume my intentions will be treated as vandalism. Now, let us all bow before Tearlach, the Greek god of Wikipedia.--Zpb52 01:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Carbon forensics

Outstanding find! I hadn't gone far back enough and had assumed that the paragraph had been inserted short before its deletion. The info you found has even, in the tag line, info about the source of the paragraph. It mentions the USGS (US Geological Survey) as source. I'll do some more verifications, etc. before writing a report about "virus propagation". It now appears that the user you quote found the info in the USGS site, then lots of websites copied it, then it was deleted from the wiki but those sites keep quoting the wiki as source rather than the USGS. Now, from where did the USGS got the wrong info and why they didn't correct it since 2002? It raises interesting questions about the use of our tax dollars and the reliability/trustability of the USGS, in particular re hydrology studies. I'll try to track how such erroneous info was "created". Thanks a lot again. I'll let you know of my final assessment. It might take me some months. Jclerman 04:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Phish

Hey, thanks for the message. My typical policy is to protect the page in whatever state it's in when I see the protection notice, unless the last edit was vandalism or otherwise blatantly against policies. This appears to me to be a pretty pure content war (albeit frustrating since one side won't talk), so I'd take no sides about which one's content is more right than the other. But, if you have a consensus on the talk page for any certain version then that's enough to sway me. Can you show me where on the talk page other folks are agreeing with you on that specific version? · Katefan0^(scribble) 01:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see from the history that you and Psora have been reverting. I'll switch versions for now. · Katefan0^(scribble) 01:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Brisbane pictures

Thanbk you for the information. I will look into it. Figaro 01:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your comments on my talk page. This whole imbroglio has been incredibly depressing and it was good to see that I'm not entirely alone in my take on things. At least I know I'm not crazy... or not the only one who is. :] --CBD ^T _C ^@ 23:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

User_talk:Pigsonthewing

Thanks for your comment there. I just wanted to let you know that I replied. Best regards, Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 04:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Academic fencing

Your assumptions on the feeling about scars are right, I tried to correct that, please check my English. At least since WW2 the majority of fencers does not go for visible smites, though you will find some weirdows in every social group. A good fencer knows, how to protect himself against being hit, so the really good ones don't have any smites.--Kresspahl 15:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Lanchester Car Monument

Thanks for the Lanchester Car Monument link; I've started an article. If you're in the area, it's well worth a look - theres a lot of small detail. Andy Mabbett 20:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

John Fullerton

Guy sure is persistent, isn't he? - orioneight (talk) 00:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure looked like vandalism...

Sorry, though! You want me to revert or do it yourself? Charlie Richmond 01:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you consult Wikipedia Vandalism#What vandalism is not. If you think it's a breach of WP:POV or Wikipedia:No personal attacks, mea culpa (except a generalised comment about some genre of study - akin to Henry Ford's "History is bunk" - is not a personal attack against any editor here). So it's not vandalism. By the way, blanking your personal Talk page, destroying record of discussion, is considered bad form. If you don't like what's currently there, archive it per instructions. Tearlach 01:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Türkistan

Cheers, I dont know how many names this place has had over the years! Jameswilson 04:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Biffeche

Hi, I've done a complete rewrite with references and am requesting people who voted to have a look at the new version. Thanks. Dlyons493 Talk 16:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Excellent work! I've changed my vote to Keep for Biffeche. Tearlach 18:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

A word about MY "Gang-stalking" article

i) I guess I can get licence to modify the article, and work on it until getting a text that could be acceptable under every standard. But

ii)it seems I can't because the very issue "gang-stalking" has being "banned from recreation" from the wikipedia. I don't quite understand this. Though I can accept it's a method of working and you don't want to discuss it. Is there any way to reconsider the "banning from re-creation"? (No, I won't keep discussing this eternally).

I haven't read the previous article that has been deleted, though I am aware there has been attempts to include this issue in the wikipedia.

Gang-stalking is a difficult issue. It's very essence is to not be something that can be easily demonstrated, but it's a kind of social phaenomenon, which appears under similar forms in cery different parts of the world and is not clearly explained. Personally I think it may have to do with social control exerced by power groups (legal or illegal) against dissidents, whistleblowers, etc. I think the content of the page I adapt is clear and no "esoterical" or "strange" at all, and that the external links are illustrative and objective.

I think the wikipedia should include a Gang-stalking article in its corpus, and account a phaenomenon which is really happening and has a great power for explaining how psychological violence works at a very different level from mainstream issues as "mobbing at the work-place", etc. Fernando Santamaria Lozano 17:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The comments for the Delete votes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gang stalking show what other editors see as the problem with this topic. No-one doubts that various forms of stalking exist, but this particular source appears to be based on a personal theory (for instance, interpreting mundane events such as losing a ring or chronic illness as signs of external persecution [4]) that would not be widely viewed as reflecting reality. Tearlach 18:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Laurence Obadiah Douglas-McLeod

Hi there, thanks for following up the McLeod hoax. N McLeod is supposedly the author of two books published in the late 19th century, yet the British Library has catalogue entry on them. Likely hoax and so tagged. The reference to L. Maddox (no entry, thankfully) in the entry on the Pouch of Douglas was assed by User:Jidai, who contributed to three articles altogether. So that reference is likely spurious. Pilatus 05:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I found N McLeod - see Talk:N McLeod. Tearlach 05:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

It would be useful to know where the information in the entry comes from so it can be properly sourced. A clan history, perhaps? Pilatus 05:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Trimble

How do you know the nautical term trimble from AFC yesterday was a hoax? -- Mgm|^(talk) 11:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have explained. Basically it's so packed with details that don't verify: Terembel, Trimblism as a mystic tradition, "bloviation" misused, the post of "First Vicar of H.H.R.N", the claimed book Kaluma! Upanishad of War, a Thomas Waddington involved with retaking the island of Anatahan (an active volcano that no-one would want), Captain Johannes Jornmeinnes, the frigate "Locust Eater", the other claimed book The Graeme Willcox Anthology of Martime Lore: Vol 3 - The Blight... Tearlach 11:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

RfAr notice

Due to your grossly extreme violations of the policies Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and your combination thereof with the description 'frivolous' so as to create a setup, I have created an RfAr for you. IrreversibleKnowledge 15:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

What Now?

The ArbCom may reasonably do any of three things:

1. Reject the RfAr as frivolous.
2. Accept the RfAr in order to declare the troll a vexatious litigant and take other action.
3. Block the troll administratively.

Robert McClenon 22:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Salvage

Pages such as

• British diplomatic peace proposes also political struggle between Toho Kai and Kodoha groups in 1942
• British diplomatic action and political movements in Japan during 1942

are quite salvageable (I've just come across your November 2005 nomination of these at AfD). The editor(s) responsible are prolific contributors here. I have made a point of collecting all I can of this material at User:Charles Matthews/Imperial Japan. Much better dealt with by copy edit, merge and redirect. I'd appreciate it if you'd just let me know of any such pages you find in future. They are quite characteristic, and are not machine translation (I found these by googling some signature typos). Charles Matthews 19:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've replied at User talk:Charles Matthews/Imperial Japan. Tearlach 20:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Benjamin T. Brockman

I removed your {{unreferenced}} tag from this article. The contributor does have a reference for this material in his References section. He provided it in response to what appeared to be a copyright issue (see talk page). The reference section simply needs to be formatted correctly (along with the whole article). -- JLaTondre 12:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Oops, sorry: you're right. I was skimming a bunch of articles for cleanup and mistakenly read the description as only giving more information on the regiment, rather than Brockman himself. Tearlach 13:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Tom Rubython

I think the best solution might be if you fix the ocntent to a veriosn which you (from your knowledge to date) know to be suitably NPOV, then I can watch it and semi-protect or protect as necessary; I think I put more back in than is supportable but you will have a better idea. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 18:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm reverting to your stub, by the way, which is what I should have done in the first place - well done, that was exactly right and it was my mistake going back to the wrong version. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 18:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! That looks the best move. I'm busy this week, but I have access to the NewsBank newspaper archive and can try to get a more balanced picture. The individual items about litigation history and failed companies do check out, but the overall feel is still of bias by cherry-picking negative material. As you say, suing each other and having business ventures fail is par for the course on the newspaper publishing circuit. TR's version, OTOH, is certainly a whitewash for failing to mention that aspect at all. Tearlach 09:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Donald Neilson

You asked for a cleanup; I've done it. It's less emotive and less dramatic, although by some standrads the previous version was a fine job for the sort of article it became. I was the writer of the first expanded piece on Neilson in the days before compulsory IDs, though in between my era and the last version, it got ruined by editing which exposed a lack of objectivity. Anyway, 'tis now done. Bentley Banana

Neanderthal Flute

Note to Tearlach: We are done with the basic editing of this submission. Fink provided Greenwich volunteers with a write-up describing his published views on the flute, and also provided published copies of the work of others for our accuracy at making quotes, describing views and other references, which we then placed on your "articles for creation" page, and continued editing it there. We tried editing in order to meet Wikipedia article requirements as best as we understood them -- and also largely to make sure our attempts at formatting of our diagrams worked out -- as your program seems unpredictable to us and often changes what we see here into something else on-line. In any event, except for minor adjustments and adding to the list of references, reading and links, the article is ready for your acceptance or rejection or suggestions for further changes. We are not wikipedians nor can we undertake the encyclopedic effort required become such (pun intended). We are already way behind in the work of our chosen professions. We apologize if our ineptness at the process led to any unintended removal of any comments you or others made so quickly before we finished rewriting and editing the article. We had no idea how quickly you pounce. Apparently we have been locked out from our submission, so I'm writing you this way, if it works. If you need anything verified about what Fink has already published or any other claims or facts, we will provide them if we get access again. -- Greenwich.

Thanks. As I think I said, the topic is definitely worth including. The problem was just that its stance came across as polemical - defending the truth of Bob Fink's interpretation - rather than a neutral look at the topic. Tearlach 09:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

--

As we wrote above: We thought articles by scholars about their work was permitted. Finding out we were wrong, we took Fink's data and rewrote the article. We removed every partisan remark Fink had in it, and relied only on factual content. We gave full weight to his critics by making sure we didn't "load" the dice against them. We could have written several sentences of formulas and math, but we wanted to make this analysis understandable to at least highschool students as well as other scholars. We can assure you that ALL the literature available on the subject is in our possession, studied and all the quotes and references are accurate. Furthermore, the "summary" is still far shorter than the mathematical set-up and discussion that can be located on our musicolgy website as well as in the "Studies In Music Archaeology III" conference proceedings.

The publisher of those proceedings is a noted publisher of world archaeology papers and international gatherings of scholars for years. They invited Fink to rebut those who believed the bone was made by accident.

What exactly do you want? Is your suspicion founded on any specifics we can rectify? We'll comply to whatever you require to feel assured. Give us a word limit if we're too wordy for you. But we cannot quote the entirelty of the critics of Fink's views or their illustrations without infringing their copyrights. (BTW, one of "their" illustration ideas was "borrowed" without credit or permission from Fink's book, which we proved at http://www.greenwych.ca/paypiper.htm ) If I was you, I'd be suspicious of them, not us.

Shouldn't it be up to them to submit their work, or edit what we wrote if it is wrong or biased. Who else do you expect will write about this topic you say is worth an article?

Fink has written reams about the matter since 1997, been published world-wide about it, including covers of magazines and journals: see http://www.greenwych.ca/reviews.htm. Fink served as a juror for Nature journal on ancient music, and is qualified. The others have retreated into silence after having written probably no more than 40 pages on the subject taken all together. Their earlier reputations carry the day for them, but their silence on the issues about the bone that to this day they refuse to address should not weigh more than those who do address the issues, we would hope. Finally, here's a quote that may help allay your suspicions from the editor, along with others, of the anthology published by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press in 2000 "On the Origins of Music."

Bjorn Merker wrote a few years ago in a letter to Fink:

Bob:

...I have not seen your argument against d'Errico - I guess that's the publication in Antiquity arguing against the "flute" on the basis of thousands of bones, some with holes in them, yes?

I read it and was appalled at the bias that pervaded their write-up (and wrote Turk about it). Their bone collection convinced me in favor of Turk, because the one thing they maintain studious silence about is the linear arrangement of the holes - they do not have a single bone among those thousands which comes even close to the striking linear alignment of Turk's holes (I gather from what you say that this is part of your argument against them), and not to discuss this central and crucial issue is just bad scholarship and bad science.

But {there are} academic theories about the status of Neanderthals...at stake, and so they fight with the fury of theologians... The strange thing about science is that it progresses despite the biasses of its practitioners, but that can be a long process in which lives are ruined along the way.... B.M. 1/9/2000 Sweden

All you need do is check out the links we provided to know we are not falsifying anything. If the facts we are posting seem to make the critics look wrong to you, it would seem to us that the truth of the facts are alll that need confirming. Let the chips fall where they may if Fink's critics still look wrong, wouldn't you agree? Read the last paragraph of the article quoting Nowell and Chase, who are Fink's critics. They raise the importance of "probability."

Did we make a mistake in the math? Do you want a photo instead of a drawing of the object? Tell us how the story of this debate gets told in Wikipedia, please?

Best wishes, For Greenwich Publ.,

Terry Beebe and others volunteers here. green@webster.sk.ca

As I said in Talk:Divje Babe, the big problem is the whole dynamics of the situation. Wikipedia:Autobiography advises that "Creating or editing an article about yourself, your business, your publications, or any of your own achievements is strongly discouraged". Even with the best intentions, having everything on a topic written by a person or company with a strong investment in promoting one viewpoint, raises the risk of bias.

It's perhaps only a gut feeling, but I'm not getting the impression of objectivity here, but of an invasion by the Bob Fink PR department.

As to what I'd want you to do, I suggest following the guidelines at Wikipedia:Spam#How not to be a spammer. Tearlach 10:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Articles for creation

BTW, you don't have to humour people on the Afc page, just delete the article suggestions immediately, if they are of no merit. -- user:zanimum

Good idea. I have to admit Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation hasn't come up with any very clear guidelines on when straight deletion is called for. Tearlach 09:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I basically look to see if the contributor seems innocent, and might be coaxed into improving. If not, I just release the canons at it! The creation of the page was necessarily sudden, it would have been great if Jimmy had let at least a few other people in on its creation, a few days before, so they could have done the initial ironing out. It has worked remarkably well, and since the new formatting for the page, I've noticed more vandal-types being confused away from messing with the system. Talk to you later! -- user:zanimum

Clear Channel UK tagged for cleanup

You tagged Clear Channel UK for cleanup. The template says that you have ledt your rationale in the Talk page, but it doesn't seem that you have? --Concrete Cowboy 17:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - I wrote it, but must have previewed rather than "Save page". Main reason was the format: generally Wikipedia's own markup is preferred here to HTML tables (see Wikipedia:How to use tables). I also felt the level of detail on the corporate structure was overkill, but looking at articles for similar companies, I guess it's fair game. Tearlach 18:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)