Jump to content

User talk:WilliamThweatt/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Squandering Time

On this topic, I can certainly relate! Welcome to the wikifamily! Kukini 23:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

NSA warrantless surveillance controversy

If you want this moved, please submit this to Wikipedia:Requested moves. For the record, I oppose the move to the title you suggested. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion, Ta. I have responded to your comments on the article's talk page. I acknowledge your both your civility and expertise in this area and your opposition is duly, but sadly, noted. I don't have time tonight to continue but I will take it up again tomorrow.WilliamThweatt 02:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

5/15/06 Thanks for your help with requesting the NSA warrentless surveillance controversy article for deletion. I had some problems, but somebody kindly got it up. The vote is on, please, WilliamThweatt, throw your two cents in at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_15#NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy it is needed.

Little Help, Please

I'm trying to type in Thai and Khmer fonts to add to/edit/create some articles and I just can't seem to figure out how. I have several fonts for these languages and have the latest editions of Windows XP and IE Browser.--WilliamThweatt 16:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the problem is. Is this a Wikiepdia problem, or just a general computer one? Could you explain in more detail please.--Commander Keane 17:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I found the following category on meta which you might can browse for some clues. CQ 17:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Multilingualism
Thanks guys. To answer your question, Commander, the problem is all me. I just don't know how to do it. I look at my keyboard, I look at my screen, I push a key and I get this font. How do I shift fonts to type in Thai or Khmer? --WilliamThweatt 17:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Does this Microsfot link help? I'm not sure if you have the Thai or Khmer characters on your keyboard - or if that even matters. If this doesn't work, then I recommend you ask at the Reference desk, where someone who deals with multiple language like this will be able to help.--Commander Keane 19:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Your question on fonts

For the fonts you need to download some input software on your computer. I don't know what's your operating system. Softwares vary from operating system to operating system. Check for more details at www.seasite.niu.edu for instance. Personally I do not input Khmer characters, because they don't show on most computers. I prefer to create image files and upload the image files directly into the articles, so I am sure everybody can see them. For Sanskrit I have never used Devanagari fonts. If you mean the Sanskrit transliteration, the way to input them is to type { { Unicode|here what you want to write} } (no spaces). For letters not appearing on my keyboard I go to Sanskrit article and do copy and paste of the letters I need. Hardouin 20:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Tontie

You may have noticed earlier this evening, I blocked him for 1 month. This is after previous blocks of 1 day and 1 week. The next time, he should be blocked permanently. However, he has used sockpuppets before. --rogerd 02:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

BrE vs. AmE

Despite my deliberate use of the AmE-N babel template, I am ambivalent as far as the use of BrE or AmE in articles about Cambodia. Since it is neither inherently a British of American topic it really doesn't matter to me. I'm actually surprised though, Markalexander100 normally keeps the Cambodian articles in BrE, I'd have thought that he would have been the one doing the reverting. Actually the more I think about it, he looks mostly at the Angkor related topics. As far as the Loung Ung piece goes, I think AmE is appropriate since she is a Cambodian-American. Anyway, happy editing. --Easter Monkey 03:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Feet washing question

William, I had posted this on the Free Will Baptist Church discussion page, but you probably didn't see it. You mentioned that you have done research into the history of feet washing. Do you know any exceptional sources/resources that you would recommend? I am looking at (though not necessarily using) anything I can find for a source book I'm compiling. I really like records from individual church and local association minutes, such as notes about the local practice and articles of faith, but these are some of the hardest and most time-consuming to research. In U.S. Baptist history, I am keying on the groups not usually known to have observed the rite -- IOW, almost "everyone" knows that Primitive Baptists and Free Will Baptists practice feet washing, but many would and do assume that Missionary Baptists never did. Thanks. - Rlvaughn 18:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your well reasoned defense of my editing methods. I've tried, as best as I can, to address my concerns at a few articles with those fellows. In my assessment, Nescio is the hardest to deal with, Kevin next and Ryan 3rd. However, at various times, each of them have directed harsh commentary towards me and/or have been otherwise very difficult to dialog with. Frankly, I am surprised at the grab-bag of invective they are now heaping at me. I do not intend to respond in kind. So, whether officially rebuked by these proceedings or not, I'll resume my editing efforts, chastened, but unbroken - and more careful about whom to expect honest dialog from. Merecat 00:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Your revert

On here was uncalled for. You did not even read my full reason on the talk page. Such edits may be counted as WP:Vandalism. -- - K a s h Talk | email 10:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

How do you know what I read? I did read your full "reason" for deleting an entire section and did not agree that it was a legitimate "reason" to delete an entire section. I stated such on the talk page and gave a reason before reverting, that's not vandalism. Your unilateral deletion of content is closer to vandalism.--WilliamThweatt 14:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Nonsense can be removed from Wikipedia safely, your statement on the talk sounded like you did not read my reason and only focused only on the Zoroastar part of it, just as you have now.
In any case "unilateral deletion of content", it was removed before and discussed in the talk before too, a user came on my talk page and said he has given correct sources for it, however when I checked back, I couldn't see any correct sources as such, yet. -- - K a s h Talk | email 16:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Tools

Find on my userpage a list of tools and other Wikipedia protocol for your use. Martial Law 05:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC) :) Go ahead and make yourself a copy. Martial Law 05:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC) :)

your voted needed

Please go here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination). I voted for delete. You may also want to (if that's your preference) Merecat 08:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

About

"..at risk of being flamed again by Kash.."...

Look, there is no reason why you can not be WP:Civil. Try to keep relaxed and do not talk like that about other editors. It's easy and it makes contribution a much better experience -- - K a s h Talk | email 18:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

International Peace Bureau

Thanks for keeping an eye on that page. We need more WP:AGF at more articles more often. - Sal 09:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

'Obscenity'

This is a bit silly, now, don't you think? The original article said, 'Some advocates of not voting for Hillary Clinton in 2008, point out that she's a mother fucking dyke on a motherfucking plane with some motherfucking snakes.' In that context, me saying 'motherfucking' once can hardly be construed as an attack against anyone, let alone the creator of the article. Now, if you'd said it was an attack against the person who deleted it (since I said 'motherfucking deletion'), I could see your logic (I wouldn't agree though) but I simply can't bring myself round to understand why it'd be an attack against the article creator. And English not being my first language has absolutely nothing to do with it, thank you very much.

You know, perhaps we would both be much more useful to the project if we didn't spend our time arguing about one tiny little word that can't possibly harm anyone. - ulayiti (talk) 10:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


Potato judge

Thanks for your kind note. I do intend to expand the Potato Judge page, and respectfully request it not be speedily deleted. Its notability is that the character has become a cult figure among Conan O'Brien fans and, as noted in the article, a metaphor in the Conan fan community for a cruel or arbitrary person or process. A Google search supports this.

DHeller

Thanks for the update!

DHeller

Cleanup tag at Ranulf of Alife

Why the cleanup tag? I removed it because I can see nothing wrong. If you'll please just post at the talk page the reasons for the tage so that the article can be cleaned up, please add the tage back. Thankyou. Srnec 05:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Name Change Request at Terrorist surveillance program

As the creator of the Terrorist surveillance program article, I thought you might be interested to know there is a name change proposal being discussed. Your input is welcome. Talk:Terrorist surveillance program--RWR8189 14:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Country Music

Thanks for signing up at WikiProject Country Music! I see you've made some contributions to the articles on Kenny Chesney and Gretchen Wilson. That's good, too, because the wikiproject could use some more active members who know a little about contemporary music. (It seems like the project has been focusing too much on the more traditional artists and neglecting the newer ones.) We're really just getting started, though. As the project grows, we will hopefully attract more editors who have knowledge in the various subgenres of country. Feel free to join in the discussion on the project talk page if you have any questions or comments. Once again, thanks! --TantalumTelluride 02:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, WilliamThweatt! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Prodego talk 02:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Your vandalism policy is to excessive

You simply reverted my edits automatically on page Chosen people without having a look at it's contents. 63.225.118.147 00:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I never revert without first analyzing the content. Below is the text that you inserted which I reverted. I assume the reasons are obvious (the last sentence, in particular):
"Another example is that some Neo-Nazi groups believe that their members have supernatural powers that come from God because they are Aryan race. Altough some of them have such powers indeed it is very rare."--WilliamThweatt 01:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Country-music collaboration

You supported Hank Williams, which has been selected as WikiProject Country Music's next Collaboration. Please help improve this article to featured-article standards. --TantalumTelluride 15:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Joycelyn Elders quotes

Elders was interviewed for that episode and said those exact quotes. I watched the episode and verified them. --waffle iron talk 00:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, that wasn't evident in the wording. They appeared to be extraneous quotes by the comedians themselves. However, there's another problem, your "verification" by watching the show qulifies as Original Research. Technically, we need a third-party source to cite quotes.--WilliamThweatt 01:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Television shows are sources just like books and newspapers are. Are you saying it would be wrong to cite something said on CNN? I don't think so. --waffle iron talk 01:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Only if you can prove that it was indeed said, whether it be on CNN or ComedyCentral, otherwise all we have is your word--and that is not how an encyclopaedia is compiled. I quote from the Wikipedia:No original research policy: "...it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data, has been published by a reputable third-party publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Wikipedia) or through a public library." You have to be able to point to a written transcript (published by somebody other than yourself) of what was said.--WilliamThweatt 01:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I went to the Penn and Teller Bullshit site, watched the episode preview video and added a relevant quote she said in that clip. I linked to the video after the quote. That work? --waffle iron talk 01:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
That's all I was asking for. Very thorough and commendable work.--WilliamThweatt 02:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It's alright.

I'm actually a guy, but people seem to come to that conclusion a lot... it's happened so often I've gotten fairly used to it. I'm not upset. Kasreyn 02:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Note.

Regarding this edit: did you know that you can include templates easier by typing {{tl|TEMPLATE NAME}}? That way there is a direct link to the template. So for instance, {{tl|blp}} shows up as {{blp}}. Didn't know if you were aware of this little feature. Hope this helps. If not, oh well, it's a wiki world. :-) --LV (Dark Mark) 16:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


Request

Greetings WilliamThweat!

Can you please kindly help me create this article which is based on this English article. Just 2-6 lines would be sufficient enough and your help would be very gratefully appreciated. (I do not know what the correct Khmer title should be).

Best Regards -- Jose77, 05:20 Wednesday 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

Check out Wikipedia:Naming conventions (immigration).--Rockero 21:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Masashi Tashiro

Hello, I read on the Hatto's RfC that you plan to clean up the Masashi Tashiro article. If you could have a look at my changes of the article (obviously reverted by hatto) and, if you approve of the changes, revert it to that version to start off with, I'd be thankful. If I did it myself I would break the 3RR. Of course, I ask you to do it only if you approve of the changes I made, I'm asking you because if you make worthwhile changes I won't be able to simply revert it to my version which is at least a small step towards cleaning up the article. Thank you Mackan 10:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

re: User:Theonlyzarni

Thanks for the analysis and links. Having only had a cursory look at his contribs, in the context of wondering "WTF is he spamming my talk page with a paragraph of incoherent shouting?", I did consider whether he might just a clueless newbie enraged by some editing dispute, but that looks far worse, as you say. At least that account's no longer an issue... Alai 03:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. :) But it looks like another admin blocked him already. --Woohookitty(meow) 22:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

FAC? Scotland

Yeah, I had started to spot your name a lot too!

Peer review excellent idea, and there are absolutely tons of Scotland-interested editors. Spread the word here too:

If you are super, super keen, then you could send round a quick memo to all these folk:

If we do Peer review, then I will also stick a note up on the "Wikipedia" box at the Portal (or you can do it yourself, remember: "anyone can edit"; Wikipedia:Be bold):

I totally agree that References are a major problem with the article at present; and my own pet bugbear is that it is far too long (especially the History section) at 58 kilobytes (recommended is 32, although major articles like this can be a bit longer). Surely the latter can be sorted by shunting off more stuff to subsidiary articles, or creating a few new sub articles. The first one is a bigger problem: we have asked for References on the Talk page before, but only a few (mainly religion I seem to remember) were supplied.

Have a look at the already FAC'd Scotland-related articles at the notice board (History of Scotland was recently de-FAC'd).

I look forward to working with you and hopefully many others on this task. --Mais oui! 09:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Scotland#.2AWikipedia:Version_1.0_Nominations_-_Peer_review.3F. --Mais oui! 09:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Pages listed on Categories for deletion

Discussion on CFD - proposal to merge all subcats of Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Scottish constituencies up into the main cat. Relevant categories which would be deleted are:

I think that this is a rather important discussion for editors interested in Scotland-related articles, especially Scottish politics and Scottish biographical articles (particularly local history). Please have a read and ponder, and contribute to the debate if you like. Thanks. --Mais oui! 18:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It would also be relevant in this context to consider the discussions in the parent category for the UK parliament: Category talk:British MPs. I find it regrettable that Mais oui! has engaged in a restructuring of that category without entering into the discussions there. --BrownHairedGirl 18:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi William, just been reading your thoughtful comments on the CFM. Dual classification would seem to me to be be perfectly acceptable and sensible compromise, which meets everyone's concerns, but unfortunately that is not on offer: User:Mais oui! insists on deleting any such dual classification. Since dual classication is not going to be possible, may I ask whether you would like to conside changing your vote back to 'merge'? --BrownHairedGirl 15:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Mmmmm.....

Okaaayyy. You are displeased. I have an excuse for my "aggression", as you put it, but like all excuses it is pretty lame, so I won't rehearse it on you. I do try my best, but sometimes some folk would try the patience of an angel, and I am very, very, very far from one of those. Believe it or not, I am actually an awful lot less aggressive than I used to be! Frightening. --Mais oui! 18:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL! No offense intended, friend. I wouldn't (and didn't) say "displeased". Everybody has their own sytle. I don't see anything wrong with "aggressive" editing, in and of itself. And I also said, I tend to agree with most of your more "controversial" edits. However, personally, I have found that making unilateral changes while others are still trying to reach a consensus is usually counterproductive. It backs the others into a corner, and they're forced to argue their position defensively which, (whether because of pride or other reasons) makes it more difficult or, indeed, sometimes impossible, to find common ground. So, in order to avoid the inevitable edit wars, wiki-enemies, and wiki-stalking that occurs in these situations, I like to encourage everybody to reach consensus first on contentious edits. Now, as for the current situation, I think your sub-categorizing by constituency could be useful and sould remain, however, I also think it is important to keep them dually listed in the upper-level category to maintain a list of all UK MPs representing Scotland. This is not only permitted, but I believe encouraged by WP:SUBCAT. I think it is a logical compromise and it seems BrownHairedGirl is willing to go along with it.--WilliamThweatt 20:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

English grammar

I'm not one to engage in an edit war over grammar. To me it makes very little diffrence. However, in the Wikipedia universe it seems to lean towards the plural. And there are a great many British Wikipedians who make it their "Wiki-goal" to make sure that there's a 'U' in humour, rumour, behaviour and favour...that it's authorised and not authorized...and that collective nouns are treated as plural. As a Canadian we use UK spelling but tend to use collectives in the singular. If there are UK/US spelling/grammar battle throughout the article the "Wiki rule" is: American subject-American grammar/spelling....Non-American subject-UK English spelling/grammar. I am simply falling in with the how other articles are treated. If I had time, I'd copyedit the entire article(plus many others). There are several Admins who are language experts who could provide a much better mediation than I can. I will check in with them to see just what the Wikipedia policy is. In the end as long as the article is written in an encyclopedic form and not written like a teen magazine article(which many of the music articles are) would be fine with me. I saw Led Zeppelin in concert 3 times in the early 70s. I keep the article in my VandalProof watchlist because it gets hit so often. A nice barrage of positives edits would be a welcomed change. And ignore Ishmaelblues' comment on the LZ talk page. He's ruffled enough Wiki-feathers that, somewhere along the way, he got himself VP Blacklisted. I doubt you'll see very much in the line of positive contribution where he is concerned. He recently did a cut/paste job on the LZ article to try and soapbox their "borrowing" of music/lyrics from blues artists. It was a copyvio that got rv'd quickly thanks to someone doing some internet snooping. I don't think he has the articles best interests in mind. Cheers and take care! Anger22 22:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Ann Coulter

Reverting "Name calling and Original Research???" Sometimes it seems as though most of the article is name calling and Original Research. There needs to be a WikiGossipColumn where all this stuff can end up. ;-) Lou Sander 01:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit Fix

Thanks for formatting my edit over at Michael Savage. I'll keep your comments in mind. Take care and again thanks. Delta x 18:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland

Pre-script: we are currently undergoing peer review, see: Wikipedia:Peer review/Scotland.

I am beginning to think that the Scottish Wikipedians' notice board is not the best vehicle for pushing up the quality of the Scotland article (we ought to try to get it to WP:FA, in order to get into Wikipedia:Version 0.5, or, failing that, Wikipedia:Version 1.0), and the other key Scottish articles. It is becoming increasingly obvious to me that we really ought to start up the long-mooted WikiProject Scotland.

Most of the stuff at the notice board (at least on the bottom half) is actually WikiProject material anyway, and the Talk page is really being used as a WikiProject talk already! The notice board should be just that: for bunging up brief notices and signposts. I am thinking of launching a Wikiproject and correspondingly radically clearing out, and chopping down, the noticeboard (a re-launch if you like). The Scotland Portal concept is fine (but currently mediocre/undynamic content), but in stasis: it needs a good kick up the jacksie.

For comparison, have a look at:

And, if you are at a loose end, have a look at:

Thoughts? Please express them here. --Mais oui! 20:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Sean Hannity

Your revert of User:Tregoweth on this article reinserted poorly linked (external links instead of wikilinks) and copyrighted material (a cut and paste job from the Fox News website) originally inserted by User:Zonerocks. I'm sure this was an innocent mistake, but please be more careful when you dive into an edit war. Gamaliel 16:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Hank Williams article

Please feel free to continue working on the Hank WIlliams collaboration or go ahead and choose a new article. The collaboration started out pretty well, but then I got distracted and everyone else just wandered away and left the article alone. If you do choose a new collaboration, you probably shouldn't worry about setting a time frame, since the fifteen-day time frame didn't quite work for the Hank Williams collaboration. I wish I could help, but I'm much too busy with other things. Hopefully I will be able to help out soon. Thanks. --TantalumTelluride 21:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

3rr

If Calgacus or you is allowed to revert so many times, then so am I. You do not have some higher placing on Wikipedia trhat allows you ot break the same 3rr rule while others are not. 69.157.126.241 02:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

What ?

What do you mean ? I did not have an account so I created one. What am I doing wrong here. Eoganan 05:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You violated WP:SOCK and WP:3RR. Your sock account has been indefinitely blocked. alphaChimp laudare 14:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm probably just going to block the range and indef the user. Lemme investigate some more before I do anything else. Please let me know if you see any more evidence of sockpuppetry. alphaChimp laudare 20:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks,

It's good to be back.  :) Kasreyn 23:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

More thanks

Thanks for understanding that "to the best of my knowledge" is kind of like, is more or less somewhat on the order of, or could possibly be construed by some unthinking person as "original research." ;-) I was beginning to think I was the only one who thought that way.

I'm still wondering if there's anybody but me who thinks that it's maybe a little out of line, and possibly not quite in keeping with the spirit of sensitivity and evenhandedness of WP:BLP, and might just possibly bias the work of other editors, for an Administrator to say on the Ann Coulter talk page that "Me, I just think she's making shit up instead of using [Lexis/Nexis] poorly." Lou Sander 02:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland

Following a successful period of consultation WikiProject Scotland has now been launched. As a participant in the Scottish Wikipedians' notice board I wonder if you may be interested in this new endeavour too? If so, please sign-up here. The WikiProject will be replacing some of the functions of the notice board, especially those in the lower half.

While I am here, please also have a look at the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Scotland and give it a "Watch". It was started up by User:Visviva a few days ago, after long being mooted at the notice board, and effectively replaces all the AfD listings at the notice board. Being a transclusion of all the on-going discussions it is a much more useful tool.

Even if you do not want to spend too much time on the WikiProject, please give it a "Watch" and feel free to contribute to Talk page discussions: the more contributors the merrier.

All the best. --Mais oui! 11:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Non-notable collectible card game players

I noticed that you recently participated in the discussion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy St. Clair (4th nomination). You may also be interested in the following discussions for the following collectible card game players:

Thank you. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 19:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi

I couldn't help but notice your recent disagreement with a certain vandal that appears on the Scottish people discussion page. I have a great interest in the area of ethnic groups, especially Europeans (since obviously that is my heritage) and most importantly, the importance of descent in ethnicity and culture and associated traits (I'm a fourth year student of anthropology and history, but have also taken many courses in molecular genetics). There are certain aspects which I will argue with to include on the Scottish people article when I have more time, but I really got interested by your diasgreement on the existence of some unified "American ethnic group". I have lived in Canada and the US for all my life and I've never heard such a term mentioned, ever. It is something I'd really like to discuss with you and the user you were involved with, if he ever comes back on this and I have posted this on his page as well. Ciao, Epf 05:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

In reply

I was about to ask you for working on the entire article's presentation and grammer etc. Enclyclopedic language is definitely something I'm not entirely at home with, I look forward to your contributions to the article in the future, whenever you find the time.

As for the negationism, it means revisionist history. During recent times, efforts have been made by Chinese cultural nationalists and a section of martial arts community linked to mainstream China to revise traditional claims held by the Shaolin and the martial arts community in general regarding any Indian influence on Chinese martial arts.

The history of martial arts is a contentious topic. However, with respect to Kung Fu, Batuo is the undisputed founder of the Shaolin itself and Bodhidharma is endorsed by the majority mainstream, the shaolin itself, the news institutions, martial arts institutions etc. Freedom skies 21:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I and many others would disagree with the above statement on revisionist history and the fact that people support the legends as fact. Thanks for helping out though... Kennethtennyson 02:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You really should take a look at the articles Indian influence on Chinese martial arts and Disputed Indian origins of East Asian martial arts and compare the "many people" for yourself. Then you'd see the extent of "microscopic" in the "microscopic community of revisionist authors" a little bit clearer. Freedom skies 18:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Gentlemen, as much as I am enjoying learning about this topic, this discussion would be best carried on at the talk page for the article(s) in question. However, if I may weigh in on one thing here, "microscopic" is not an appropriate adjective to use in an encyclopedia in the sense that it's being used in these articles. In fact, even using "small" or "large" to describe the numbers of people that hold a certain view is inappropriate unless you are citing somebody has counted them. It is original research to say that "only a few people" believe certain issues unless you provide citations.--WilliamThweatt 23:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Michael Savage

Why is MichaelSavageSucks.com still being used as a source in this article? I'm asking you because you have more pull than I do around here. I'm tired of the edit wars.Politician818 02:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Turkey (the country)

"(→Etymology - [citation needed] tag......................(mmmm gravy))" Very funny. (?) Mu5ti 05:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


Michael Savage Edits

Hello,

Just wanted to let you know that that paragraph you removed may have been unsourced in the sense of not being referenced to an article online, but I'm pretty sure it was accurate. "I heard it on the radio" does not count as a reference? I don't know. I'm not going to re-add the paragraph, just wanted to let you know.

Kc8ukw 03:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hannity

Thanks for removing the controversial remarks on Hannity. I'm fairly new, it's a touchy page right now, I've already removed quite of bit of unsourced or poorly sourced criticism and I was reluctant to keep removing criticism each time it appears. --PTR 23:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:GinsbergLetter.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:GinsbergLetter.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Help Prevent Article Deletion: Religious Perspectives on Dinosaurs

Hello, I'm leaving you this message because I notice you've made at least one edit to the Wikipedia article Religious perspectives on dinosaurs. The article has recently been nominated for deletion from Wikipedia, and there is considerable support for that position.

I'm hoping you'll help me support the continued existence of the Religious perspectives on dinosaurs article by registering a keep vote on the article's request for deletion page. The article contains some good information, and represents an unobtrusive way to present notable minority viewpoints about dinosaurs that cannot reasonably be elaborated on in the parent article. It shouldn't be deleted simply because the viewpoints it presents aren't "scientific."

Thanks! Killdevil 03:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WilliamThweatt/Archive_1&oldid=1190102641"