User talk:WeniWidiWiki/Archive2

Windows Live OneCare

Hello! Thanks for noticing my edit and making changes to the Activation section. Thanks for posting on my user talk page as well, it's so empty on there!

Thanks very much once again :) --rjcuk 21:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Badmouthing

Please cease refering to my conflict of interest work on Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism as harassment. It was determined that it was not, and they furthermore it was not related to the Starwood arbitration. If you continue to characterize me as having harassed anyone, I will take it as a personal attack and request admin intervention. Thank you, Jefferson Anderson 22:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You are really on a role, threatening editors today. I said nothing about CR, I was referring to the voting on the same AfD's and following editors around and being generally antagonistic along with your friend /doppelganger Frater Xyzzy. Pointing out inconsistencies and mischaracterizations is fully within my rights. Personally, I think that you should probably just quit editing the same entries and making the same votes as Frater and you'd be fine - I don't have anything against you. - WeniWidiWiki 22:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yuser

Ok, personal attack removed and discontinued. But why's it NOT OK for somebody to "attack" an editor, when it's OK for an editor to resort to ad hominem arguments such as those displayed by Yuser31415 (i.e., replying "WP:ILIKEIT" to any argument he disagrees with, even if ILIKEIT is irrelevant) 66.254.246.198 05:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Refute with logic and critical thinking. I am not justifying Yuser31415's behaviour in any way: he has rubbed me the wrong way as well by being overbearing and bullying. But it is best to not take it personally and deal with issues, not people. Critique his actions at his edit review page or bring it up the next time he runs for admin. - WeniWidiWiki 05:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Anti spam

Thanks for the anti spam move. Nik Sage ^{(talk/contrib)} 15:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not leave that picture of the Boston bomb scare on there- I was honestly trying to fix the article but I was not sure as to how to fix an image problem. If you'll look, 206.48.0.60 left the picture and altered the text of the article right before I came and fixed it back. I fixed the text, but I could not fix the image. I totally understand your assumption that I changed the article, but I did not intend to perform vandalism- I was attempted to thwart it myself. Both changes before 20:26, 3 February 2007 were an attempt to fix the image before I gave up and fixed the text only.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.159.107.72 (talk • contribs)

My apologies then - everyone screws up wiki mark-up now and again. Thanks for trying to help, and if you ever have problems let me know. - WeniWidiWiki 15:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Paaerduag

thanks for dealing with that for me. i've posted on the Administrators' noticeboard about him and i hope all this nonsence can be put to rest. thank you. oh, and PS. i love your user name. it made me laugh :) Kiran90 05:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

History of the Roman Catholic Church

The intention of that passage is not oldest continuously religion, but oldest continuously existing religious hierarchy. Can you think of a better phrasing that more accurately conveys the sentiment? Slac speak up! 21:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, is that true though? I think more specificity or a direct quote would be helpful, because as far as I know that is not an accurate statement. It currently states:

"The History of the Roman Catholic Church covers a period of just under two thousand years, making the Church the oldest continuously existing religious institution in history."

Editing it to state "making the Church the oldest Christian religious institution in history" or something to that effect would be more accurate I think, although you could get into some semantic debates with the Eastern Orthodox about this. You could also edit it to state "making the Church one of the oldest continuously existing religious institutions in history." Maybe I'm misunderstanding the intent of the statement? - WeniWidiWiki 21:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Irminenschaft

The Irminenschaft article you keep changing is ignorant of the fact that Wilgut's interpretation was built around what Himmler wanted and not an actual religion. Irminenschaft is an actual living breathing religion and is what Hjuka Coulter practices (as well as myself to a degree). Irminen-Gesellschaft is the name of the organization and not the religion. I'm removing the references to Wilgut because they have no reason to be tied to a religion that has nothing to do with it. As a polite suggestion you might to read about the subtle nuances of Nordic/Germanic religion and how much damage the Nazis did to us.

I'm not doing anything other than going with consensus - read the talk pages. The Irminism entry on wikipedia falls under Nazi mysticism and if you want to paint the IG with that brush, go ahead and proceed. Believe it or not, I'm pretty knowledgeable about the currents involved and this topic has been discussed. - WeniWidiWiki 01:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem with WP is that it is populated with your ilk. Enough said. 86.42.176.24 02:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

What? People who scold you for calling another editor a "bitch" diff and being generally unpleasant? - WeniWidiWiki 02:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If your the editor for this section why don't you edit it ? You're the one who should be using their knowledge of it to educate people not slander someone. On another note, I'm a new "adherent" and am not not knowledgable enough to write something for everyone. By the way I've email them as well and asked that they write it not me.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Willmosley (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia doesn't have assigned editors. As I said on the talk page, I created the entry to differentiate between the two currents, because before I got to it, there was no differentiations whatsoever. Don't be so quick to throw accusations around. Read the talk pages and previous discussions on the related pages. I know modern Irminenschaft is not a neo-nazi current - but I don't have the sources and books someone heavily involved would have to refute the claim. - WeniWidiWiki 19:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Then no offense intended, why are you the editor for the neopaganism section if you don't know these things ? Why isn't someone more informed in charge of that ? Willmosley 20:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not in charge of anything Will! "Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia anyone can edit." Read the links provided on the welcome blurb on your userpage about wikipedia policy, because I think you are misunderstanding how this whole thing works. I just want to reiterate: other sources have been provided which portray Irminenschaft as a current of nazi mysticism. Other sources must be provided to refute this and add balance to the entries. You can challenge sources and statements - it is encouraged. But please read through some of the policy pages so we have a common ground to work with. - WeniWidiWiki 20:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that reminds me, WWW; Flowers called, he wants his job here back. Joking aside, Wikipedia is a project to give away a free encyclopedia. It's an entirely volunteer effort, and we rely upon people citing reliable sources when they edit articles, not upon claims of expertise. You can learn more about Wikipedia and how it works at Wikipedia:Tutorial. Jkelly 20:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok heres the thing, the original author of all this, i.e. James Hjuka Coulter, Posted here yet his info was removed. Why is that if I post secondhand from the books I have the info will stay and not be removed ? Oh and whats this flowers crap ?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Willmosley (talk • contribs)

Citing a book would probably be very helpful. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources to see examples of what we're looking for. The Flowers reference was a joke; perhaps it was too obscure to be funny. Jkelly 20:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Or perhaps you don't need to joke about something that has no point to the current discussion. Again I'm asking you what happens when I rewrite the article and cite sources from what I have ?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Willmosley (talk • contribs)

Please don't be rude to people on my userpage. It was a joke about Stephen Flowers. Hjuka didn't cite his sources he just cut & pasted off his website. You could cite Germanic Heathenry all you like - just list what chapters, pages, etc. - WeniWidiWiki 20:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

So your telling me as long as I cite where then info is coming from it will be left? I can actually show if I cite that this is not some Neo-Nazi crap but was loosely named around theories of a German Madman during WW-II ? Willmosley 20:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yup - just read the policies on what is a usable source. See WP:VERIFY, WP:RS and WP:CITE. - WeniWidiWiki 20:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry the blanking was an accident. Willmosley 21:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I will reread the book of Coulter's and rewrite the article. If things get removed I'm coming to you though. 21:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what good "coming to me" is going to do, but I look forward to you expanding the entries. - WeniWidiWiki 21:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Rollback didn't cut it

Actually, that was a bit of a mess. Your user talkpage had been moved to User talk:Willmosley. It had then been edited by someone leaving a warning for that user. I had to delete the whole thing, restore everything but the edit intended for Mosley, and move the rest back. Jkelly 21:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually it was probably a warning to me for contradicting our friendly neighborhood super-hero slash vigilante would-be admin. - WeniWidiWiki 21:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Really? Have you been removing CSD tags? Are you sure enough that I should move that edit back over here? Jkelly 21:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Look at my contrib history. I'm so ashamed... - WeniWidiWiki 21:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Ho hem? Yuser31415 21:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry for deleting the talk page. It was my error. I was trying to get a copy of your over to mine and I fouled things up. Again sorry for the problems. Willmosley 21:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Removing speedy deletion tags

I suggest you do not do so again. Please read WP:CSD. Yuser31415 21:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice job at rounding up your posse, sheriff. As I said before: a rampant over eager effort to get patted on the head for "laying the smack down" on editors and then throwing policy jargon and acronyms around to justify your actions. Archiving discussions on ANI, "slapping templates", ending AfD's prematurely contra policy... - WeniWidiWiki 21:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Archiving discussion on ANI: correct (was later archived by another admin). Slapping templates: correct (page was deleted CSD G10). Ending AfDs prematurely: correct (WP:DELPRO is not policy). I'm not entirely sure why you are calling me a "sheriff". I'm also not here to hold grudges against you, and I expect you not to do so either. Yuser31415 21:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Because you are conducting yourself like a loose cannon and are over eager to act rather than discuss. - WeniWidiWiki 21:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a time to discuss things, but when we find an attack page we don't wait around; we certainly don't remove CSD tags. Attack pages should be deleted whenever they are found, as quickly as possible. Yuser31415 21:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well no matter how you feel about it *my* user page was not an "attack page" and I have stumbled across literally hundreds of such dossiers on wikipedia which are concerning Arbs and mediations and documenting instances of conflict. If someone says something, and it is quoted elsewhere, how is that an attack on the user who made the statement? did you even read what you tagged? This isn't just about WP:CSD or WP:NPA - it is about going off half-cocked in dozens of instances and basing them on the lazy non-policy of WP:IAR. (I'm on IRC too.) If you really want to be an admin, show a bit more restraint, or some of your actions may come back to haunt you. - WeniWidiWiki 21:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I'd love to chat with you on IRC. Which channel are you on? Yuser31415 22:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Whichever you prefer - I can't right now, but give me a channel for later or drop me an email and we can chat. - WeniWidiWiki 22:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The #wikipedia-en channel on Freenode, say? (See WP:IRC.) Please let me know on my talk page when you want to talk. Cheers. Yuser31415 22:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Familiar?

Speaking of familiarity, check my recent talk page history. Does that remind you of anyone? Khabs 23:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Not really. Can I have another hint? - WeniWidiWiki 23:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

cryptic comment Khabs 23:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Eh, still not gettin' ya. If you (as a new single purpose editor) are attempting to correlate the actions of another (new single purpose) editor to some other editor's past actions involving other editors I am unfamiliar with, why don't you just speak your mind? Your motivations at wikipedia seem quite clear, and it is apparent you have edited under another username. Your nonchalant demeanor, and feigned ignorance indicate we've interacted before. If you have something to say, say it. My email address is accessible on my user page if you prefer that route. - WeniWidiWiki 23:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

For context, check who else the troll has tried to bait and with what article. That's all I'm sayin' In fact, I think I'll go now... but certain things need to be seen by a different set of eyes than saw them b4... Khabs 23:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Thanks for the note. Can you show me where I have violated the 3RR rule? I don't believe I have. I, along with others, are simply removing original research, which the other party keeps replacing. I have already discussed and made clear on the talk pages the reasons why the text in question is unacceptable per the norms and standards of Wikipedia, and the other party has not addressed the problems (only make a small word change). I think that NPOV and OR, V, are more important rules than edit warring, provided that the latter is in service of the former, and provided that I do not violate the 3RR rule. Unverified, and Original Research, and violations of NPOV, should always be removed to protect the integrity of the project, even if it entails some unavoidable edit warring.Giovanni33 18:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll reply on your talk page... - WeniWidiWiki 19:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree. This will be my next step to try to resolve this edit dispute. The the reverts are there, but I thought the rule was not MORE than three reverts. So, I don't think I violated the 3RR.Giovanni33 19:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Just glancing at the history, you are right - the fourth revert fell outside of the 24 hour period. I was just giving you a heads up, as the next step is the opposing party snitching you off at WP:AN/3RR to try to get you blocked or asking for the page to be protected. - WeniWidiWiki 19:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.

Articles - Please help me protect

I gave well referenced sections - after long work - to the articles Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs and Nazism and religion. Would you please take care of guarding them? User:Giovanni33 does not like the conclusions of these historians, and removes whole sections of text. I would be glad if you could help me with keeping it in. I do not have the time to guard these texts due to my obligations at work (university). Thanks in advance.Smith2006 08:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You guys need to have an RfC on this. The edit-warring is counter-productive, and no one should have to "guard" articles. I am not going to get involved, unless you have an RfC and some sort of consensus is reached. - WeniWidiWiki 08:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Line of succession to the Swedish Throne

What are you doing? My removal of irrelevant material is the right thing to do. Read the discussion page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.67.244.185 (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

letting you know

In case you didn't have it watchlisted, this comment might interest you. Jeffpw 14:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Freya Aswynn article

Why should charges be mentioned? They are against Freya's friend, not Freya. Also, are the charges relevant? According to Diogenes Laertius, Socrates first met Phaedo in a male brothel, and today the relationship would be a felony (adult male and a young boy.) but should it be in the Socrates article? --Tsmollet 00:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it should. You should probably source the entry, lest it end up on AfD. Unsourced biographies of living people are not thought of too highly. The news article is the only instance I know of that uses her legal name, and the bio at Llewellyn was probably penned by her, but is better than nothing, I guess. - WeniWidiWiki 01:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

WeniWidiWiki,

Thanks for the note. I've decided against doing that, instead posting a message on the Wikiproject Neopaganism talk page. I hope people with more knowledge in these matters can make the entry worthwhile. The reason i proposed deletion was because the entry creator was uninterested in even responding to my question about it. From the edit history it seems that no one else is interested in editing it either. Anyway, as I explained on the Wikiproject page, my concern is simply that Wikipedia should contain well referenced entries on notable people while not being a forum for what amounts to advertising and self-promotion. I can post an AfD if you think it will help the entry but from the response to my initial proposal i find that less than likely. Again, thanks for the response.PelleSmith 00:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the creator of the entry has been around lately, as he has left several projects and articles in arrears. You are correct about unsourced biographies of living people, and the blurb at Llewellyn is a fan kruft puff-piece. - WeniWidiWiki 01:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Musings from Thecrak, Re:Diff

But Theresa Knot unreasonable cancelled an article on contemporary artist —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecrak (talk • contribs)

Do you mean "deleted"? Cheers, Yuser31415 20:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Chandralekha

Sorry got distracted by 3 year old. I notified the editor and removed the other picture. I'm not sure which other bits are copyvios but I don't like the look of the images at Simhalan Madhava Panicker. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Rv your comments at ANI

Sometimes it's hard to tell the trolling from the real comments.ConstructionCarl 04:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't a troll - ANI is not the complaint dept, and his issue has been discussed at great length. You created an account just to revert my comment on ANI? That's pretty... odd. - WeniWidiWiki 04:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

WeniWidiWiki - I'd like to speak to you on IRC sometime soon. Will you be online in, say, an hours' time? Yuser31415 05:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm coming on now... - WeniWidiWiki 05:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Had tea, I'm coming on too ... Yuser31415 05:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the chat WWW :P! Yuser31415 07:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, thank you as well. - WeniWidiWiki 07:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

re:3rr talk

Could you be as good as to let me know why this report has been ignored? Catchpole 22:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but probably because it is not a clear-cut issue, or because people glancing at it think you are in the wrong. Blogs, after all, are no longer usable as per WP:RS. Contacting an admin who has edited the article or starting an WP:RFC is probably the correct course of action. - WeniWidiWiki 23:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Unrelated to the above, but bloggish: Can blogs still be used when they are the official blog of the subject of a biographical WP article? I remember that used to be an exception to the rule, is it still? ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I think so... This is the policy I think. However it is apparently OK for people to use their userspace like an attack blog with no editorial oversight or fact-checking, so who knows. - WeniWidiWiki 23:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently it's ok to attack established editors without evidence/diffs, but *not* ok to be critical of the concept of IP editors not having to register. Who knew? ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Wikithanks

Thanks for the thanks, but I would have thought that you would have withdrawn or at least softened your AfD nomination based on showing sources and some publication data. Did you just not notice in time? Khabs 17:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Well it still needs better sourcing, so I'm hoping it will be an ongoing project. Note that there was no consensus on deletion, so it could be relisted, but I won't do it. The circumstances around the creation of the article are my biggest concern, and the fact that it was a cut-paste from elsewhere. One cannot write vanity articles (whether self-penned or not) and expect them to go unnoticed, especially when close associates are editing the entry. - WeniWidiWiki 17:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD on reality nobodies

I saw your AfD on Kevin Smith, and would appreciate your vote on the following articles, which are also about reality tv non-entities.

Leonid the Magnificent , Rappin' Granny, Tyler MacNiven,Sarah Reinertsen,Ron Young,Kandice Pelletier, Alison Irwin,Fred Holliday,Kendra Bentley, Tyler Denk & James Branaman. All the best & thanks --MacRusgail 03:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

RFC: Jeffrey O. Gustafson

I have just created this RFC regarding this Admins behavior. Since you have been marginally involved I thought I should inform you in the hopes that you would look over the case. Thanks. Captain Barrett 04:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

RFC Govi_Supremacy_Myth

Your comment about malicious use of tags is very timely. Some of the editors involved in this afd are known to be abusing the tags consistantly as well as stalking other editors. How do I resolve this matterRaveenS 20:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow quick work on the references

Thanks for the quick action on those references. Ancient to Medieval Norse/Germanic history is based upon so many different types of disparate sources that unsourced narratives are rather uncompelling. The issue with the Uppsala Temple, for instance, is a great example. All of the sources are textual and to my knowledge no archaeological evidence exists to support these texts which has made others speculate that the accounts had confused another structure for the temple. I have to take a look at the source you referenced and I just updated. The summary of that article makes it seem less than likely that the 2003-4 investigation supported the existence of the temple. In fact it makes the Temple at Uppsala sentence using the reference seem rather missleading. I'm going to try to get a copy of the paper sent to my library (good thing I speak/read Swedish). Anyway I wanted to explain my tagging. It is important to know what type of sources specific "facts" are based upon. For the temple I think maybe referencing Adam of Bremen is the most accurate, and the most common, way to go. What do you think?PelleSmith 18:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

There is an even more recent archaeological study by Lars-Inge Larsson which maps out the foundations of the royal halls from the pagan period as well as more recent structures. I don't know if the findings have been published yet, but they probably have - we discussed them at a seminar a year or so ago. The problem is correlating the destruction of the royal halls with the temple. The main issue in my opinion, is people not factoring in that most "temples" in Scandinavia were actually halls much like Heorot in Beowulf rather than the grand classical Graeco-Roman Mediterranean temples. Bremen particularly bears this out, and even the temple par excellence in Scandinavian literature Valhalla attests to this. The article is in shambles, but I'd appreciate it if you were more specific about what you want sourced with {{fact}} rather than tagging the whole section. I think if you feel that the Temple is just a literary device rather than a historical place, you should probably bring it up on the talk page and make a subsection to that effect. - WeniWidiWiki 19:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Well the whole section should be sourced for the basic reason I stated above. I thought about what you were saying but when a section has no sources and someone feels that several pieces in it need sourcing then the tag is the most appropriate action (the temple issue was just an example). I was going to try to do some of it myself but you jumped right at it. I feel that tags are there to get people to realize that help is needed that's all--they aren't an indictment of the accuracy of the text nor were they meant that way. As a student of religion (though contemporary) who is interested in his heritage (I'm half Swedish) I have only a cursory understanding of historical Norse paganism. Even so, having read books like DuBois' Nordic Religions in the Viking age has made me appreciate the fact that the picture we have is a patchwork quilt of archeology, the accounts of travelers, (frequently post-pagan) native Scandinavian stories and histories, etc. DuBois makes this point very clear throughout his writing, and I think it is an example to aspire to. Gives the reader a sense of how we know, or assume, certain aspects of ancient or Medieval Scandinavian culture. Just my two cents. But thanks a ton for the refs.PelleSmith 19:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't indicting you for placing the templates, just making a suggestion. Keep in mind the history of the entry and what was merged and removed from it. This contributes to it's fractured state, just like many /most of the articles on wikipedia. I fully agree on correlating scholarship, anthropology and archaeology. I think that early history of many peoples and nations are predicated on mythology to an extent, and it is part & parcel to sort out the abstract from the subjective. It becomes even more complex when evaluating foreign or religious sources with conflicting paradigms or ulterior motives, and then having to factor in nationalism or revisionism... Thanks for working on the articles. - WeniWidiWiki 19:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hey. Thanks for the antivandalhammer. It looks very effective, so I'll try to make good use of it. Thanks again, Prolog 19:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Wait a Minute!!!!

I wasn't attacking the writer of the article, but the people that he was talking about. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rex1932 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

What people? The people who are adherents of the religious movement? Why? - WeniWidiWiki 21:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply:WikiThanks

Happy to do it WeniWidiWiki. 声援 -- The Hybrid 06:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Wait, I just looked at your page history. ;D sorry for messing it up. I got it out of his contributions. Peace, 声援 -- The Hybrid 06:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

thanks

thanks for the massive revert to my userpage. --science4sail ^talkcon 19:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Excuse Me

Could you please teach me how to make my homepage as cool as yours? Ryan Atwood 20:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

How do I revert vandalism? Ryan Atwood 00:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Great username!

I love your username! --Coppertwig 04:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Dab

Hi WeniWidiWiki. I had to term Dab as hypocrate ( in this matter ) becuase he is not allowing harsh critics in related articles. It doesn't matter that those critics were from linguists. It was Dab who created this IAT article and introduced this term as a theory in other related articles of AIT, IAM, OIT etc. He was opposed from the Day One for creating this unheard term. So, his behaviour is of publishing Original Research and introducing it into other related Wiki articles without listening to opposition. I have given one example of Substratum in Sanskrit, which I faced. He is masking his motives by accusing other opposers as Hindu trolls. He is using his denigrating writing style in article & talk pages.I will not term him again until he starts accusing others in this whole controversial subject. WIN 05:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hanuman Das Interest

Thanks for the heads up, but alas I couldn't find it digging through the archives. Do you remember what it was about? KV(Talk) 02:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I was just pointing out to you that you were apparently being tag-teamed by one (schizo) user with multiple accounts. Link. - WeniWidiWiki 03:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

note to self User:King Vegita < User:SynergeticMaggot < User:999 < ?

User:70.109.90.252 ?? One of those "just a few edits today only" types but edits after Kathryn. Mattisse 14:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Gilliflower wine reference

Thanks for your Msg. I've only just found it:-( Thanks for the cookbook advice, the reference is on a couple of other recipes I've written, Figgy Hobbin is one. I'm just starting to make a userpage, so will look for further notes there, eventually. --Archolman 07:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorted. sorry about the delay, & thanks for the assistance, I'm a Wikinewbie, with a dial-up connection:-) I think I have one of the few xtant copies of this particular recipe book, & am slowly loading them onto Wikibooks. I now have the start of a userpage. --Archolman 00:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood

The above-named arbitration case has closed and the decision may be found at the link above. Rosencomet is cautioned to avoid aggressive editing of articles when there is a question of conflict of interest. If edit warring or other conflict arises, it may be best to limit editing to talk pages. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 17:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Numinous?

I'm surprised no one else had yet taken issue with the addition of the obscure term numinous to the first paragraph of prophet since it was inserted February 7. It is redundant and unnecessary in a broad encyclopedic definition of "prophet," (because divine does the trick) and indicates religious ideation of whoever placed it there. In the past, I've taken issue with the "Jesus is God" crowd, who wanted the wikipedia article to reflect their own religious views. I object to the word "numinous" in the introductory sentence for the same reason. It would be fine futher down the page, where the finer points of the controversial topic are hashed out. In fact, I'm happy to become acquainted with the word numinous, and pleased to see mention of Rudolf Otto...just not in the first sentence, see? 70.242.76.201 11:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess it was only the syntax previously which made 'numinous' look wrong. Looks fine now, & you're right, it is more all-encompassing. So now there's some high-falutin theologizing in the first sentence, which is a good thing...it helps ward off the over-simplistic. 70.242.76.201 16:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

BMR Response

Dear WeniWidiWiki:

I am one of the contributors to the BMR article. It appears that you are now contesting the usefulness of the Controversies section and I would like to know what section of the section needs a reference. I have included ample references for the entire article and with each dispute I have been able to answer from the reference section.

What specifically are you questioning? I believe McArdle answers the section and his work is included at the National Library of Medicine in the reference section. The controversy section was addedd when the BMR section was ranked number 30 on Google. Since the section was added the BMR article has risen to the number two ranking on Google and Yahoo. The other search engines include it after Cornell's explanation which I think is temporary.

I turned to the Cornell site five years ago when I wanted to understand BMR in regard to my work with patients in the Long Term care setting and I just assumed siince it was an Ivy league school that they knew what they were talking about.

However many trips to NIH and the Library of congress have helped me to see that the topic is a little more complex than "If you gain muscle BMR goes up and if you gain fat BMR goes down." If I was an educator I would use a red pen on that part of their website!

This topic is very strongly covered and explained by McArdle as listed in the Reference section. For just one aspect of the issue and I can do this through Mcardle on each controversy. If you have access to a library where Exercise Physiologists attend lectures I am quite sure you can get a hold of this text to verify that Corneel is wrong and that McArdle is right.

As a very clear example take Chapter 25 from McArdle: Exercise and Thermal Stress- Mechanisms of Thermoregulation. During vigorous exercise exercise, the metabolic rate increases to 20 or 25 times the basal level which theoretically can elevate core temperature about 1 degree C every five minutes. Yet if you do a simple experiment and ride a bike with a thermometer in your mouth as I have done you'll observe a very interesting phenomenon. You body temperature will balance throughout the ride!

Another experiment is to go into a pool of water. One would think that body tmeperature would go down. It stays the same because the hypothalamus contains a coordinating center for the various processes of temperature regulation which regulates the temperature by plus or minus 1 degree Celsius from 37 degrees Celsius.

A third experiment suggested by McArdle is to put your hand in a pan of water at room temperature. Using the simplistic reasoning from the Cornell website you would think that because the two temperatures are the same it will feel just the same. But the water feels colder. Why? Because (according to McArdle) water can absorb several thousand times more heat than air and conduct it away from the warm body. And McArdle sites Craig, A.B., Jr. and Dvorak, M.: Thermal Regulation of man exercising during water immersion. Journal of Applied Physiology, 25:28, 1968.

So how does this apply to the controversy Weniwidiwiki? It applies becauses fat has a metabolically significant role in thermal regulation and when fat is gained, more thermal regulation can occur therefore more metabolic activity is available not less.

I can apply the same analysis for each section of the controversy section Weniwidiwiki from each of the articles and sources already sited. So what else is of concern to you?

Sincerely,

Bill - —Preceding unsigned comment added by BRileyPTA (talk • contribs)

Hi Bill. I replied on your talk page. - WeniWidiWiki 20:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Would you please use edit summaries.

Sorry; I didn't know it caused any problems not to put them in. I'll try to remember in the future. Rosencomet 21:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and your positive feedback!

Dear Weniwidiwiki:

Since this is my first effort I obviously have a lot to learn about the encyclopedic side of the equation! There are so many citations to the topic that I have been troubled by which direction to turn so that the references don't become problematic. For example there are some articles which are old that support the notion that women have a lower BMR because they are women! In fact women are closing the gap on men in every sport so I think in time that will be considered anachronistic. The woman who I work for in my day job used to be the Deputy Surgeon General of the U.S. Navy and she is quite extraordinary for her intellectual acumen but also for her considerable ability to knock out sit ups (50 a day at least!) During her rise as a Navy Nurse to the rank of Rear Admrial she was in charge of the facilities that house NIH at Bethesda Naval Medical Center. She agrees with me that we need to improve the understanding of the scientific process on the Internet since so many people turn here for information. I think the controversy section, although in need of clean up, is a good effort toward that ideal. I was at the Jefferson Memorial on Friday looking at some of his ideas and the quote that our country is founded on the principles of energy, light and liberty seems to hold application for this situation. Yes there is darkness associated with a misconception such as slavery. Yes it took many individuals to become educated on basic principles and an adherence to a body of knowledge that was secured through trial and error. And yes finally in due time with much discourse in an academically acceptable way, the changes did occur which could have ripped our country in two, but actually made us a better more ethical country. So the energy of discourse eventually led to the light that a grievous misconception had brought incredible misfortune and misery to millions, and then the knowledge and action that brought a greater fulfillment of the very freedom we profess to offer to all. That is what I hope will happen with the controversy section. Knowledge should never be so dry and apathetic that it leaves us with eye lids that are heavy with fatigue. Rather knowledge should be filled with energy, light, and finally liberty from misconceptions! But I'll look into a spirited foundation for the points that are contended so that the main thrust of the information is not overshadowed! Thanks for your help! References will be forthcoming!

Sincerely,

Bill BRileyPTA 21:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)BRileyPTABRileyPTA 21:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Good lookin' out

		The Hawk Eye Award
		This award is bestowed upon you for diligently watching the watchers. NeoFreak 06:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Religio Romana

Did you by chance save the text of the deleted Religio Romana? I want to save it at WikiPagan. Thanks. --Tsmollet 00:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No I didn't, but you can read all about it here or here. Also, any admin can pull up the text for you, although there wasn't really much to begin with. - WeniWidiWiki 00:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I really did not know about the article until after it was deleted. I will write a new one for WikiPagan. --Tsmollet 19:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Honeymoon

I found the cites! See Talk:Mead. :) --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 18:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Great username!

I think your username is outstanding. I have heard that in classic Latin the "V" was pronounced as a "W," so that "vicissim" was pronounced "we-kiss-um," making the username all the more meaningful. Edison 22:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

(Darn - got here before me...) I second Edison's comment, and also smile at you: :) Goldfritter 19:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Polytheism Portal, or something?

I was noticing we have a Wicca portal on WP, but not a Neopagan one. As many Reconstructionist traditions are not all that comfortable with being identified as Neopagan (even if it is a technically accurate descriptor), I'm wondering if there would be any interest in putting together a Polytheism portal? Perhaps it could cover both ancient, traditional and reconstructionist polytheistic traditions? Or is that too broad? Anyone interested on working on such a thing? My WP time is limited right now - I'm very busy with offline work - but I would be interested in participating in putting something like that together, if there's enough interest. Thoughts? - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Germanic Polytheism

Hey WWW, you may be interested in my comments over at Talk:Germanic paganism regarding articles with titles using "paganism" over "polytheism".. :bloodofox: 22:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

All Things Yule & You

When is a better time? :)

Hello! It's that time of the year again. As you might know, right now there are an amount of subjects relating to Yule that I feel your valuable contributions would greatly assist with. Since these pages will soon see some heavy traffic (and subsequently information derived from them will too), you are most welcome to join me on editing and sourcing these subjects:

• Christmas ham
• Yule goat
• Yule log

Santa-related:

• Santa_Claus#Influence_of_Germanic_paganism_and_folklore

• Talk:Santa_Claus#Germanic_folklore_section_going_bye-bye_soon

There's probably an amount more too. I've passed this on to some other users who I think would be of help in this area also. Again, any help would be appreciated! :bloodofox: (talk) 09:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. We Highly appretiate it.Bold text —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiMohderator (talk • contribs) 14:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Polytheistic_reconstructionism

Dear HroptR a.k.a WeniWidiWiki:

I am Taoiseach of Clannada na Gadelica the only Gaelic Traditionalist organization in the Diaspora, and the first (1991) to use the term Gaelic Traditionalist/Traditionalism on the Internet. The origin of the useage of that terminology actually dates back to the mid-1980's, when we developed it in collaboration with authentic cultural Tradition Bearers in the Gaeltachtaí of Ireland, Scotland, and Nova Scotia, and with authentic Tradition Bearers in the American Indian Nations, who call themselves Traditionalists, and counseled us to do the same. All of these folks with whom we've worked for the last 15 years are recognized by their own cultures, as authentic cultural Tradition Bearers. I also own the copyright to all Clannada materials as well as the term of art (and definition thereof) Gaelic Traditionalism, as well as the many variations and derivative terminologies & definitions, of same. We've posted that copyright notice on our web page and on our Yahoo list page.

I'm writing to you because I'm trying to round up all references in Wiki to GT so that we can then see about going about things in a more organized way. I read the article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Polytheistic_reconstructionism and saw that you were trying, in 2006, to be very fair-minded about leaving in GT references, and felt that Kathryn nic Dhana was trying to exclude those references out of political angst. You were probably right about that. I'm very grateful to you for your support and fair-mindedness.

However, we really aren't reconstructionists in any sense because we don't use that kind of methodology, and in that respect, she was right. In fact, our *only* methodology is to simply take back up the already extant, intact, roughly 2000-year old Gaelic Traditional Culture, meet it on it's own terms, and re-employ it in the art of daily life. We don't reconstruct anything because there is nothing to reconstruct, and that, in a nutshell, is the critical difference between Gaelic Traditionalism and all of the Reconstrucitonist neo-pagan-based modern religions. Nor, for that matter are we derivative of CR, notwithstanding our occasional correspondence and consultation with some individuals in the modern neo-pagan reconstructionist communities.

So, actually, we don't have a problem being deleted entirely from that article, if you could find it in your heart to go along with us on that.  :)

We are working closely with authentic cultural Tradition Bearers and with academics to publish two volumes of research and we'd really like to be able to influence the useage of our terms of art until the time of publication. We think that is only fair.

Can you help us work something out?

Best Regards,

Ktho64152 (talk) 05:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Kathleen O'Brien Blair

Taoiseach, Clannada na Gadelica: A Confederation of Gaelic Traditionalists in the Diaspora and the Hearthlands since 1991 © Clannada na Gadelica 1991-2008, and Iain Mac an tSaoir 1991-2008, and Kathleen O'Brien Blair 1991-2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.159.213 (talk) 05:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Afd of Mucoid plaque

Mucoid plaque is up for AFD... again.

The latest discussion is here. As a previous participant in a AFD discussion for this article, you are encouraged to contribute to ongoing consensus of whether or not this article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion.--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

26 Nov 2011

SOrry for vandalizing your page in the past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan Atwood (talk • contribs) 20:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)