Jump to content

User talk:Vary/Archive01

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Note - I'm in the process of refactoring this page to make it more readable and to fix some comments that were added out of order or without time stamps. Most of the responses from me were originally made on the other editor's talk page, not on mine.

Welcome!

Hello Vary/Archive01, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  RJFJR 00:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


Semi-protection

I saw you just reverted vandalism on George W. Bush, and wondered what you thought about the proposals to curb what's going on there. If you have time, check out Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy, and weigh in (there's something of a large discussion page, so be prepared. For a quick run-through of what's been said and done, see #rehashing) Hope to see you there. -Mysekurity(have you seen this?) 02:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Concordia RV

Thanks for reverting the Concordia page, it's nice to not be the only person eyeing it...just a question, the same guy keeps on reverted to the massive POV version, do you know if there's a way to block him (or her I guess)? djheart 14:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I see that - he's done it seven or eight times now, hasn't he? On first glance, it read like straight-up vandalism, but from the talk page it looks like it relates to a real controversy. I'd think maybe if someone who knows the university could take a stab at a NPOV writeup of the event, that might pacify him. Maybe start the project on the talk page and invite the anon to contribute? He seems to be using a static IP, so if we a message is left on his talk page, he'll probably get it. -- Vary 17:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Bush

I was just curious why you deleted what I wrote on the George W. Bush article? I wrote that Jesus was not a philospher. He wasn't a Philosopher, he was a religious leader, a theologian perhaps, but not a philosopher. Why did you delete what I wrote? —the preceding unsigned comment is by Sgoldbe2 (talk • contribs) 06:03, December 19, 2005

Yeah, I meant to leave a message on your talk page, but I didn't, did I? I must have closed the preview page without saving - I've done that before. Sorry!

Anyway, a belated welcome to Wikipedia. Here are a few good links for newcomers, if you haven't seen them before:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date.

Anyway, I took the line out of the Bush article because it's really an editorial comment. While it may well be that Bush chose Christ as his favorite philosopher because he couldn't think of any other philosophers, there are many solid arguments for classifying him as such. [1] [2] [3] Thomas Jefferson, who was not a Christian, saw Christ as a philosopher and even wrote extensively on his philosophy. [4] You're right, he was a religious leader first and foremost, but that does not mean that he can not be seen as a philosopher.

You may have noticed by now that the edit you made to Jesus has also been removed. In case you miss the edit summary (that page tends to get changed a lot, and edits can quickly get buried) it was removed here because that fact is stated in the intro paragraph. I believe that's a change that's been made and removed before, so if you really think it should be in that paragraph, you might want to try starting a discussion on the Talk Page before putting it back in, as it will probably just be taken out if you don't try to talk it out first.

Also, out of curiosity, what question was unresolved that led you to remove the lines you did from the Minim disambig page? It seems like it would be useful to anyone who wanted to look up the word and only knew one of the three alternate terms.

Anyway, welcome to Wikipedia! -- Vary 16:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey

Thanks for the feedback I was not expecting such a well thought out response. I am mean that genuinely. I removed the minim section because there is a controversy as to the true identity of the minim. It is interpreted as heretic, apostate, Gnostic, Jewish Christian (like Jews for Jesus), and many other terms. As you may have guessed I am interested in religion, I am currently a theology major. Anyhow I am writing my thesis on the minim, and I removed the term because it is misleading to say they were apostates. I did not however label the page as disambiguous that was done before I got there. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Sgoldbe2 (talk • contribs) 03:27, December 20, 2005

That's interesting, about the minim. It seems like defining the word should be a simple matter, but it's clearly pretty complicated. Well, when you finish your thesis, I'm sure you'll be able to add a lot to the Minuth and Minim articles!
Since you seem to know the subject, maybe you can shed some light on why the word 'kofeir' on the Minuth page has an external link to a bio for one Richard Joel? On the surface, considering that the page says that a kofeir is an unbeliever, and Mr. Joel is the president of a Jewish university, it seems like it might be a jab or an in-joke? It certainly doesn't seem to add anything that will aid the reader's understanding of the word, but I could easily be missing something, because I've never heard the term before. -- Vary 04:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Yea you were right that was a jab at the guy. I changed it. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Sgoldbe2 (talk • contribs) 05:43, December 20, 2005

Cool, I thought so, but I wasn't sure. Nice additions to the Minuth article, by the way. -- Vary 16:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Graham Christensen

I have placed a tag on the article Graham Christensen, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. I did this because the article seems to be a biographical account about a person, group of people, or band, but it does not indicate how or why he/she/they is/are notable. If you can indicate why Graham Christensen is really notable, I advise you to edit the article promptly, and also put a note on Talk:Graham Christensen. Any admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. You might also want to read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles. -- Vary 03:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to delete the page. I intended on writing a article, but put that as a placeholder. I left for work, came back and someone took the papers with the information. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Itrebal (talk • contribs) 20:47, December 22, 2005

Ah, I see. Well, it seems to have been taken down now. Thanks! -- Vary 20:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


Popups assisted revert

Can you help me understand how this works? Is it just that when you hold your mouse over something it gives you the option to revert? or does it have a "recent chagnes" kind of list. thanks in adv - Trödel•talk 02:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Once you've installed Popups, when you hover over a link for a particular revision of a page, you'll get a little window. There will be an 'actions' menu (usually right next to the article title,) and 'revert' is one of the options that will come up, a few items down from the top. That will revert the article to the revision you had your pointer hovering over. It does it by opening up the version you've selected to edit, plugging in the default edit summary, and clicking the save button for you. It saves you a few clicks, anyway, and I like it. Let me know if that doesn't make sense; I'm not sure I explained it very well. -- Vary 03:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation - I can't seem to get it installed correctly - I'm using firefox - but I'll give it a shot again today. Trödel•talk 11:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry it's giving you trouble. I wish I were techinical enough to be able to offer more help. Good luck with it! -- Vary 04:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Pacea lui Cristos

No problem. I only know about WP:PNT because I hang out there. Besides, it's less work to add {{notenglish}} and list it on WP:PNT than it is to go through an AfD nomination.  :) About 1/4 of what we get is copyvio, and gets speedied as such. Some of it is a copy/paste from another language's WIkipedia, and those get speedied as such. Finally about 1/2 to 2/3 gets translated within two weeks. The rest gets sent back to AfD when the two weeks are up.

If you'd like to give this article some time on WP:PNT, you might want to retract your nomination. And andmin would then close it as speedy keep, and the article can always come back here from WP:PNT if it doesn't get translated, or if it turns out to be garbage.

Jamie (talk/contribs) 06:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The Italian Job (2003)

Thanks for your correction to the figure of $80 million for the amount of gold carried in the MINIs. I had heard the number $80M used at the beginning of the movie - and forgot that Steve spent most of it before the gang grabbed it back again. I've corrected my entry on the page - but there is STILL far too much weight for a real MINI Cooper to carry.

SteveBaker 20:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi, thanks for the kind guidance about {{unsigned}}. It took a while, but I finally worked out how to do it just before you sent that message. What a messy history I left behind me though... It's still nice to know that there are people here to help us bumbling buffons. :) Thanks again. Dan 22:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

    • Oh and I must say, you are into the theatre? No doubt I'll be insulting you by discussing musical theatre, but I simply adore "A Chorus Line" have you ever seen or heard it? Dan 22:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

One last thing... I thought US English dictates theater? You wouldn't believe my issues with Noah Webster... Dan 22:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC) Oh most certainly bizzare enough. I'm glad to see good english debate hasn't stagnated over there as much as it has here... all we get now is news programmes reminding us of the latest neologisms and slang. Chavs et al. Wow, now I must get back to revising GCSE Biology... oh the boredom! Oh the inaccuracy! Good...um... Day (?) to you. Dan 22:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

CMC

Hi Vary. I could not find the articles online. Please note that, while you conduct research this week, I will not make any major edits. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 66.13.145.210 (talk • contribs)

Aurora (astronomy) saga

Thanks for balancing that situation, Vary, but I dont we are through yet, he is the expert after all, and I come from somewhere small down south. It is 100% my own image gifted to the planet and specifically for that page. I'm sad that this stuff can be so divisive, but I didnt think his attitude to 'his' article helped much. I have to learn to be patient with the newbies until they get a handle on it. Paul Moss Mozasaur 20:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Well I got around to checking and the current images ( Aurorab ) used to replace the earlier image that I gifted for the purpose is in fact unable to be verified as legitimate public domain content, and on that basis alone should be removed. Th esource is given in the Commons as [3] Public-Domain : [4] The user who delivered that image is unknown and unable to be communicated with, as far as I can tell. It has been relabeled as Aurora Borealis and even that is now called into question; are they possibly Aurora Australis? David Stern asserts (incorrectly) that both North and South Polar aurora have identical characteristics. The other main image ( Polarlicht ) appears to have been delivered by a user 'Photo by Craig M. Groshek' ( Cgros841 that has some small wiki history, but again, it is not possible to verify the authenticity of the image, and it should be considered for deletion. I can supply a GREEN aurora image that I can verify as 100% my own work and as the two polar aurorae are identical, it should be acceptable to David. The assertion of "..carefully assembled.." is now clearly wrong at best and outrageous to those contributors who have been trampled on. On another point, the Astromical Almanac for Australia 2006 (Quasar publishing ISBN 0-9756070-1-4 Glenn Dawes Peter Northfield Ken Wallace) has a two page aurora article by Peter Skilton, (Director, Southern Australasia Aurora Alert Network) with 7 aurora images, 4 of which are reddish and 3 green. Hardly a statistically valid sample, but check NASA Spaceweather for thousands of worldwide aurora images. And a third point; the article claims that Aurora are typically a reddish glow, so now I'confused by David Sterns claim that red is not representative of aurora, as a basis to reject my reddish pic at the top, although the first pic is also reddish. Sometimes wiki-ing gets a bit absurd (sigh) Mozasaur 16:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC) Mozasaur 17:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

REMAGINE

Please note on the talk page why you have replaced the advertisement tag. This is a muli-page dispute, which you would see if you looked at the talk page, involving a couple admins, three regular editors, a sock account, and international trademark issues. I suggest you follow Melchoir and not get yourself involved. Not that I wouldn't love your help and input, but it is very complicated. Please comment, or reremove the tag. Alternately, you could list it for AFD, which I will do tomorrow if there is no notability added. WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 23:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Coburn

If you refer to the discussion page on the Coburn site you will see no reason to have the controversies section unless you can make it ubiased. I will be deleting it until someone can clean up the page to make it balanced. If you wish to campaign against Coburn do it on your own, not through wikipedia. If it was just a simple mistake please help me stop biased articles being written on wikipedia by liberal and conservative academic political hacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.219.235 (talk • contribs)

Responding, too, here in case you don't get the message I left on your current IP's talk page. The problem is that you blanked a large part of the page, rather than talking out changes on the talk page. Deleting sections of a page, rather than rewriting them or discussing what's wrong with them, is uaually considered vandalism. If you feel the sections page need to be cleaned up, tag it as POV and start working on it, but please do not just delete it. -- Vary | Talk 18:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The Coburn piece is pathetically biased! If you are going to leave it up there you need to defend your actions on the talk page. I demand if you refuse to make an attempt of fairness that you atleast put the warning that shows that the neutrality of the article is disputed.

listing vandals at AIV

Hi Vary, I just wanted to ask that you list vandals at WP:AIAV, as shown here in this difference. Thanks. Secondly please warn vandals with {{subst:test}}, {{subst:test2}}, {{subst:test3}}, {{subst:test4}} again thanks! KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 20:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

If you have irrefutable evidence that they are sock puppets or meat puppets, then they do not need to be warned to a test4. The orignal vandal should be just incase (s)he stops, before a test 4 is needed. As you might know sock puppets are ok as long as they are known, and there are legit reasons for them being created. I never block sock puppets unless they are vandalizing, or are attempting influence, RfA's AfD's etc,. As long as they do not abuse their accounts to create non-sense articles, or remove AfD, or CSD tags, I see no reason why you can not remove them from AIAV. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 20:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing my user page! Didn't even notice LOL. Mike 13:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for showing me how to create a section in a user page. HD 123321 06:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC) HD 123321, 10:32 pm January 20(PST)

Memphis article

Vary, I noticed that you've commented on the Memphis talk page about some problems with the article in the past. Well, aside from the fact that the article is something of a mess right now, look at the article history and you'll see a bit of a revert war going on. I would love to hear your comments on the talk page. Thanks. - Jersyko talk 04:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Hmm, I suppose you might be right, though I think it's more "direct" than "roundabout," myself. I wonder how long we should continue this without pointing out what appears to be obvious here regarding the identity of the persistent editor? Oh, and I like what you've done with your username format, Reneec, it looks quite nice. - Jersyko talk 20:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't worry about it. Surely an admin will come along and bother to read everything down there eventually . . . and that comment won't help our friend. - Jersyko talk 22:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Herman Talmadge

You will see what I wrote about herman talmadge jr. in the news very soon, my buddy according to the hospital was pistol wipped nine time in the head and over 20 over his body, kicked. among things.

look up herman talmadge jr, he has a history of doing stuff like this.

if I had known it was his property we would have never went driving around on the dirt roads back there only to have this guy follow us to publix and beat the crap out of my buddy with kids in the freakin parking lot. not to mention firing a shot and grazing my buddys forhead,

I thought my buddy was dead.

people deserve to know how crazy this guy is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.112.83 (talk • contribs)

If the incident is reported in the news, and it can be verified, then it might be appropriate for a more encyclopedic and NPOV version of the information it to be added to Mr. Talmadge's article. Until then, though, a serious and unverified accusation like that one should not be included on Wikipedia. Thanks. -- Vary | Talk 05:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

For the vandalism revert on my page :-) Butros 09:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Lionheart

Sorry, I misread the diff. I thought you had reverted to the version that includes vandalism, when in fact you had reverted to remove the vandalism. My mistake Cynical 22:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Classen

Thanks for the revert on Classen SAS. -Arjache 00:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi, I noticed that you caught the same vandal I did on the Great Wall of China hoax page. How do you revert vandalism using popups? Mgummess 05:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't have my own computer and am wasting a whole lot of time on a school computer. Do you think I could still install the popups feature, or is it something the system's likely to prevent me from doing? Mgummess 05:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind, I just tried it and it works. Thanks! =) Mgummess 05:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks again! Mgummess 05:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

My userpage

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my userpage!

Regards, PJM 12:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Glad I could help. Cheers. PJM 00:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

No Problem

Anytime Chuck 09:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

More cowbell!

lol I just noticed this userbox on your page! I love the SNL sketch and I love BOC too. Anyway - the reason I came to be here (apart from my mother and father getting together etc etc... ) is because of the user 68.117.217.115. I notice this person has had multiple warnings, though I can't find any of the articles he has modified. I would suggest that someone with that many warnings should have been banned by now. They're obviously counter-productive. I'd be quite happy to nominate an IP block for the attention of the administrators. What are your thoughts? --Mal 00:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

OK Vary. Thanks. --Mal 05:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

You should see the number of warnings I handed out tonight!! (make that tonight and this morning!) --Mal 05:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

i also wanna give props to a fellow cowbell campanologist W guice 16:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Dieppe Raid

Ha, sorry. I guess you found the proper revert at the same time. Thanks! TKE 23:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanking you

Hi, thanks a lot for the tip, sincerely Sreekanthv 17:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Nomination for Adminship

Hi there. I've been looking into your contributions, and I am impressed. I believe that you should be given the crystal mop and bucket Would you accept a RfA nomination? --Jay(Reply) 18:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Master Jay would like to nominate you to be an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Master Jay to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Vary/Archive01. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.
  1. Go to your RfA subpage, and either accept or decline your nomination. If you decline, be sure to inform your nominator.
  2. After you accept your nomination, make sure to answer the standard questions for all candidates.
  3. Change the time on your RfA page to indicate the current time.
  4. Edit this page and add the following text above the most recent nomination (replacing USERNAME with your name):
    {{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/USERNAME}} ----

your response

Hi - thank you for replying to my question. You will make a great admin, although I do encourage you to write a few articles on something you like, to improve your standing as a writer.

Your views on anti-vandalism makes me feel its important to have your opinion and ideas on Wikipedia:Defense of content - its a proposed measure to combat vandalism before it takes effect. Please have a look at it. Thanks! Rama's Arrow 17:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

rv vandalism statement..

I'm curious to understand what part of this:...

This message is regarding the page Pacific Scandal. Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. Thanks. JoanneB 20:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! RexNL 19:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. RexNL 19:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. RexNL 19:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

...forgoes proper warning? Cheers! --Sadhaka 11:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC) Talk to me

Got it. Thanks! --Sadhaka 12:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Successful RfA

Let me be the first to say congratulations on a successful RfA. I put forward a decent nomination, but it was your good track record that ultimately resulted in a support consensus. Its been a pleasure. Use the mop well. --Jay(Reply) 23:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Francs2000 00:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations on your new mop! Sango123 (e) 17:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I congratulated you twice - so let it be thrice: congratulations. --Bhadani 12:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Congrats

Congrats on becoming an admin! I was hoping you could help with something. In deletion review (and the deletion process for that matter) and article was deleted that I believe should not have been. User:Tony Sidaway agrees. The article was deleted for notability, but the person in question was mentioned in about a dozen different mainstream media articles, included a recent front page article in the New York Times. Can you take a look and vote accordingly? The review is here. Wikipedia:Deletion Review#John Bambenek. Thanks. -- Alpha269 04:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Best wish for your adminship.--Jusjih 06:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Welcome new admin!

Congrats on your adminship Vary. I'm currently sending you (and in fact all recently promoted admins) a quick request to use your new admin powers to assist in an important area: deleting images that have been tagged as having no source information after 7 days. The category is at Category:Images with unknown source. Most of the images have been removed from articles, but some may have been skipped. It would be fantastic if you could assist in this matter! - Ta bu shi da yu 14:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


Accusation

You are accusing me (or someone in this school district IP Address: 209.7.7.47 - when not log in) of vandalizing this site. I would like to know what I'm being accused of vandalizing since you didn't say. Dstorres

  • I can assure you that while someone at the IP address must have done something it was not (based on the info you provided). The IP address provided is (like I previously stated) for a school district and will be impossible to trace. I will do my best to try to ensure that it does not happen again. Dstorres

Signing of comments

THanks for signing my comment for me on that vandals page. I was not aware of the need to sign warnings to vandals. Can it not bring unwanted retribution?--Light current 16:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it OK...

...to delete content on a user's page (specifically, User:24.136.105.18) that was supposed to go to the anon's talk page? I was trying to warn against vandalism, but I guess I went to the wrong page. --Tachikoma 16:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

(my reply to your message on my talk page) Thanks. I wanted to make sure, since it was technically another user's page. Anyway, you beat me to warning the anon about vandalism. --Tachikoma 16:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

"None had been warned?"

What do you mean that "none had been warned"? Warnings were left on User_talk:70.225.183.99 two weeks ago. Jgp 23:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the vandalism on my userpage...

Reverted within a minute, twice. Nicely done. I see that you are a recently created admin; if you have any questions about adminship, or need help with anything, feel free to ask me. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

re:Thanks!

Thanks for reverting my user page. -- Vary | Talk 15:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Your welcome, your userpage has vandalized more than mine. I need to work much :) Cheers --Ugur Basak 16:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. . .

for the help at dental amalgam controversy. Check out the talk page for some wacky fun if you get a couple hours of free time. - Jersyko·talk 04:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Kids at play

Dear Vary;

Thank you for your message and not jumping too quickly to censure. It does look like a bunch of young friends who are having fun on the Internet.... The facts should not get in the way.... The page on dental amalgam controversy has been posted by a dental student who may be well intentioned ( benefit of the doubt ) but is certainly lacking in clinical experience and knowledge.... That would not be so bad if there was not a concerted and biased effort from his group to maintain his POV. Facts are not biased like POV. I gave a simple example regarding the phrase " Most dental amalgams contain some mercury " contained in the introduction. The fact is that ALL amalgams contain mercury and they do so in a proportion of approx. 50%. You can check any medical dictionary for proof. Stubbornly sticking to a erroneous statement and using friends to reverve any editing to avoid breaking the three revert rule simply shows narrow mindedness and an agenda other than presenting honest and unbiased information. It does not help the credibility of Wikipedia in any way.

Since I have other more useful things to do I will let them continue playing... of course I now have a better idea how Wikipedia really works and that was a worthwhile experience that I can share with others.

Sincerely;

Dr. Imbeau —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Imbeau (talk • contribs) as user:222.154.132.31

May be it is too obvious for people to see....

Dear vary;

What is false is the statement " Most dental amalgams contain some mercury ". The correct information is that " ALL amalgams contain mercury ". The use of the word " most " is misleading as it implies that some amalgams do not contain mercury which is false. The use of the word " some " is misleading as it implies that most amalgam contain only some mercury when in fact it is a significant portion of the components.

In metallurgy the use of the word amalgam automatically implies an alloy of MERCURY with at least one other metal.

I hope that is clear enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Imbeau (talk • contribs) as user:219.89.170.5

Responding here, too, in case you don't see it on your talk.
Fair enough, but I did think your edit summary was worded a bit too strongly, and I did not want to seem to agree with what you seem to be implying - that the author of that sentence was deliberately lying about dental amalgam. Just saying that you were 'clarifying' or 'adjusting' the wording would have been plenty. Being argumentative in an edit summary can put people on the defensive, which is a good way to get your edit reverted, no matter how constructive or helpful the actual change you made might have been. Also, once an editor has begun using a registered account, it's considered good wikiquette to always sign in when editing. Please remember to sign your posts with four tildes, like this: ~~~~ -- Vary | Talk 23:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough

I agree, however it should be noted that yesterday I did write directly to the person who seem to be one of those " policing " this article , pointing out the fact that the wording was incorrect and he did nothing to correct it.... This raised the possibility in my mind that he may not want to make the correction...


219.89.170.5 23:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I've read the comment in question, as well as some of the other changes that have been made to the article in the past day or so, and again, I think the strong wording, along with the nature of some of the other material added at the same time as the change to the intro that was made this afternoon, may have been what was turning other editors off. You catch more flies with honey than with accusations of POV ;). If you have a problem like this in the future, a good first step is always to go to the article's talk page and initiate a discussion, using the most neutral, un-accusatory wording possible. Getting aggressive never helps around here. -- Vary | Talk 23:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Swedish notification on amalgam ban

Just to let you know that I have added a link and a short phrase about the recent announcement by the Swedish governement notyfing a ban on mercury, including amalgam, in January 2007. This, apart from being factual, is also evidence that not all governments are supporting the use of amalgam as may be implied by the FDA statement.

Dr. Imbeau Dr. Imbeau 23:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • The Swedish ban was already mentioned in the article text. I moved the link from the intro to the text, but removed the mention of it in the intro. If we're going to have a conversation about this, I imagine that Vary would appreciate it if it continued on the article's talk page instead of here. - Jersyko·talk 23:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree as long as you consider the other side of the situation

Dear Vary;

I do agree with your comment on attracting flies with honey. I would be fair to point out that I was myself initially treated with repetitive accusation of POV such as " sorry, no POV. Amalgam is still considered safe by overall research of dental and medical health. Also, science is not based on a single experiment. Besides that, the wording was non-encyclopedic.) " or " please, no original research since amalgams are still considered safe by medical, dental, and research communities. there is no basis to claim that amalgam is unsuitable as a restoration " or " but your selection of facts is POV ".

I am not sure if you realize that the above comments regarding no evidence that amalgam is unsuitable as a restoration or that the medical, dental and research communities still consider amalgam to be safe... by other editors are actually incorrect. There is evidence that amalgam is not a suitable restorative material for humans and I know a great many doctors and scientists who do not consider amalgam to be safe. It is too easy to say there is no evidence when you are unaware of the existence of such evidence. Deleting the info is certainly not going to increase awareness !! And what about this rule of no original research ? If we cannot learn from new scientific findings how are we going to solve the situation.... wait until those of have made a mess decide to own up and say sorry we have been misleading you...

I admit that I should have learned the rules better before editing but the information that I initially put in is true, verifiable and accurate and it was summarily deleted ( the word dumped comes to mind ). Furthermore it was done by two " friends " co-operating together to avoid breaking the 3RR and then conveniently lodging a complaint against the NEWBIE as you call them. I admit I got somewhat frustrated by it since I happen to have some relevant " real " experience in this field having treated a large number of individuals suffering from amalgam related micromercurialism over the past 15 years. To be told that true facts are POV because they do not fit into the design of an editor who , in the end, does not have specific qualifications on the subject and to have my editing summarily dismissed was not my idea of a open minded environment so I responded in kind. Not that I should have but after reading the HISTORY , I realized that quite a few contributors have experienced summary deletion in the past and I did not intend to let it slide. I also realized that summary deletion seemed to be a preferred tool...

In the circumstance I would suggest putting a warning above the article that contributors should first propose their changes to the editors in question so that summary deletion is avoided. I respect the desire for the editors involved to maintain a good structure to the article but that should not be done at the expense of the facts. New contributors cannot guess at their intentions and will only see their hard work of editing deleted in a matter of minutes.... and that in itself can be quite aggressive...

Sincerely;

Dr. Imbeau 07:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Re: Murderous

A quick "thank you" for the block on Murderous. He was one of those who stretched my ability to assume good faith a little :-) I appreciate it, and your other fine work on Wikipedia. Best, Gwernol 15:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thans: re Wicca

Thanks for catching the vandalism I missed--I forgot to check the history before I reverted. Justin Eiler 16:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Dental amalgam

Vary: I apologize for asking you about this, but things are getting out of hand at Talk:Dental amalgam controversy. It's exhausting me to deal with Dr. Imbeau by myself, and would like to get another user's input on the type of changes he is suggesting. I might file an Rfc, but wanted to see what you thought before resorting to comments from users entirely unfamiliar with this complex issue. - Jersyko·talk 04:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

What did I Wrong? Anti-Semitism in Armenia

this page page contains no copyrighted material. I edited the material and post it. You may control the page mentioned. I added anti-semitism links to Armenia and NK pages because anti-semitism is a vital subject for any country. If there is anti-Semitism in a country, it should be considered one of the most important info regarding that country. I could make more contributions in different subjects in future to these pages, however I wanted to add these usefull links to all relevant Armenia pages and I could not understand why they were deleted. I have different opinion but I did add very little opinion. I just add couple of links from various sources, including British NGO IWPR.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankaram (talk • contribs)

Hi Vary, I think you should know this about the isuse. [5]
Regards. Fad (ix) 22:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the redirect

Vary, appriciate your help in correcting the redirect page from Apsheron Peninsula. md 11:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Karan Kutty

WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DELETING MY ARTICLE FOR?!

It has relevance in the fact that the article i made was about the guy who invented the MMOAG game genre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soccermike (talk • contribs)


.... I said he made MMOAG not MMORPG.

Let me rephrase this... He invented the first TRUE mmoag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soccermike (talk • contribs)


....

Would a design document be enough proof?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Soccermike (talk • contribs)

wow

We're working on going through the same set of pages! Even though you're an admin and I'm just a hopeful newb, I'm glad that I'm helping. Cheers! HubHikari 15:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for having my back when Grog made that article on me. I was doing right by the community, and Grog stabs me in the back. Ah well...comes with the territory, I guess. Hell, I expected him to vandalize my talk page. :D Cheers, HubHikari 16:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Please unblock me

I have been blocked for 3 hours. I am trying to work on a page I just created (Bob Rosburg). You are after someone named Smokedsalmcybloxon, not me. Apparently I have been caught in an AOL user "wide net" block.--Hokeman 19:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Care to comment?

I perfectly understand if you'd rather not, but there's a content dispute at Talk:Water fluoridation, and some newer users are threatening to skip steps in the dispute resolution process, going straight to arbitration after I filed an Rfc only a day ago. I would appreciate it if you would throw your hat in on the content dispute, but, if not, perhaps you could post a message as referee? Thanks! - Jersyko·talk 22:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that you're so busy. I hope things cool down for you soon. Talk to you later. - Jersyko·talk 14:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

RfA Notification

Hello! I noticed that you have interacted with user:Staxringold who is currently undergoing an RfA and thought that you might be interested in participating at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Staxringold 2. You have received this message without the endorsement of the candidate involved, and this is not a solicitation of support, it is only an effort to make RfA discussions better (for more information see user:ShortJason/Publicity). Thank you in advance for your participation. ShortJason 19:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Don't know quite how you spotted the vandalism on my page, but thanks for removing it. --JohnO 22:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Edits I didn't make?

Hi, i'm not really new to wikipedia, but I don't edit that often. I think the last edit I made was thanking somebody for making an article on their talk page. Recently you gave me a "final warning" because I was making edits that I assure you I did not make. You said it was on the article for Bacon, but it was not me. I checked my istory and did some research, and found that it does say I made those edits, but it wasn't me who did them. I'm not that familiar with IPs, so possibly it could have been someone with a similar IP as mine or something? I'm not sure how this happened but I assure you that who ever is vandalizing those pages isn't me, and i'd like to solve the problem in a way that doesn't involve myself getting blocked from editing. Also, i'm not sure if this is the right approach as to messaging you but I was a bit confused as to what to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.183.134 (talk • contribs)

Responding here, too, in case you don't get the message I left on your talk page. Those edits were probably made by someone else with the same ISP as you, who was using the IP currently assigned to you back in February, when the edits in question were made. You don't really need to worry about it; we understand that IP addresses frequently change hands, so edits that are months old won't be held against you. You can avoid this kind of confusion, though, by signing up for an account and logging in. This does not require any personal information, not even an email address. There are many other benefits for logging in to Wikipedia.
It's helpful if you sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~). This will add a timestamp and a link to your contributions, making it easier for other users to contact you.
You're welcome to continue editing anonymously, of course, but a lot of the cool features of wikipeida, like the ones in the link above, are only available to logged in users. Anyway, sorry about the confusion! -- Vary | Talk 16:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Nobody Likes Onions

It's my show (the article I edited).

The characters we portray on the show don't go by their last names in any way - they are characters. I edited tons more besides the names, and you undid it all.

SketchEtch 19:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Wrong AfD closing

Hi Vary, We haven't chatted before; but I noticed your name on the AfD for that silly stolen sidekick thing (in a minor way, defending an edit I made, so I skimmed your user and talk pages). You seem like a good admin to be in contact with (in general, but also for the specific issue below).

Could I ask you to take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sadullah Khan? I voted on this late, and cleaned up the article around the time I voted (probably just after). I am pretty much certain that the delete voters were simply put off by the poor writing of the original article—and probably an unfamiliarity with that characteristic excessively deferential Islamic style—and failed to examine the actual notability of the biography subject. It was closed as "delete" with only two "delete" votes by registered editors; that just seems wrong to me.

Actually, I wish now that I had saved the article text so I could recreate my slightly cleaned up version. I wonder also if you, as an admin, are able to grab that deleted text still (and maybe copy it to my talk page or somewhere). I did raise an issue at deletion review, perhaps you would opine there as well.

Since I don't have the text in front of me anymore, I am going largely from memory. But basically, Sadullah Khan was author of the "Ask the Imam" column at Beliefnet.com (which had a readership well past 5000, I'm sure); and he also apparently was co-founder of the Freedom University in South Africa (which meets the "professor test" to my mind). I guess nowadays he's director of some Islamic Center in California (I forget which one now, maybe Los Angeles or San Diego). That last thing by itself might not quite reach notability, though I think it would make a plausible argument; but combined with the well-read authorship and university founding, I think it's a slam-dunk keep if someone looks closely. LotLE×talk 00:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Flower Children

I'm confused. I started a page on "Flower Children" since there didn't seem to be one, and now there is a "Redirect" icon that takes one to "Flower Child"--yet the page I started still exists. Please comment.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Founders4 (talk • contribs)

Sorry: forgot to sign off! I went ahead and added some things to the "Flower Child" page, rearranging it to reflect the chronology of the term and its evolution through time.

One thing though--since the "Flower Child" article made a point of mentioning that originally "Flower Children" was almost always used in the plural, wouldn't it be more logical to have the article named "Flower Children" instead of "Flower child"?

By the way, "Flower Children" was usually capitalized as well as put in parentheses.Founders4 08:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Vary. I understand the changes you made, and the article does seem tighter with your revisions. And I appreciate the "fair use" issue.

However I do believe the article loses too much without at least some of the song's lyrics and mention of the explosive nature of its worldwide popularity. Although it was written to promote the Monterey Pop Festival, it achieved an identity of its own that transcended its original intent--most people, including myself, appreciated the song (and its message) on its own merits and knew nothing of its origins. That's why so many thousands came to San Francisco that summer. Not much time this A.M., though I will try to write something that achieves some middle ground later this evening. Please let me know your thoughts.

P.S. I would like to de-emphasize the link between "Flower Children" and "hippies," as the two were not quite synonomous and conjure up somewhat different images. The former carries more of the lighter "peace/love" spirit of the period between 1964 and 1968, whereas the latter is associated more with the negative drug use, general dissolution and political violence that began to spoil things by the late 1960's.Founders4 17:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Dinodin14

He has reverted his page Settersr 18:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for moving my misplaced warning to the correct page. Good catch. - EurekaLott 21:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Arsemuff:

You recently protected[6] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. Be sure to use protection summaries when you protect pages. VoABot will list such protected pages only if there is a summary (part of the deleted pages filter). Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 22:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thaks for redirect the Orfeón lamas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GJRFMorelligu (talk • contribs)

Cedericrichards user page

Hi, Thanks for restoring it --- but what did I do wrong? I though I just moved it from the main space back to the user space, but it appears that I didn't do it correctly (or you wouldn't have had to intervene). If I blanked it (and the diff suggests I did), it was accidental, I was trying to accomplish what you did. Just trying to learn from my mistakes :-) Thanks, Brian 15:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)btball

Thanks, that explains it

Got it. Thanks. Yes, cut-and-paste would have been safer :-) Brian 15:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)btball

Doug Obey Article

Hi, this article you contributed to is up for deletion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Obey User:Pitchka 17:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vary/Archive01&oldid=1082598556"