Jump to content

User talk:Xiaphias/Archive 1

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

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Xiaphias, 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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Mushroom (Talk) 00:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

What block?

As far as I can tell, you're not blocked. Can you not edit? You posted something at WP:AN, which would seem to suggest that you can. Chick Bowen 23:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

We occasionally have what could be called "rolling blocks." What happens is, an editor ends up on a dynamic IP address that has been blocked earlier in the day for one reason or another, and is blocked as a result. Sometimes it is not a direct block of the IP address, but a Wikipedia:Autoblock that causes it. Generally, the problem corrects itself quickly, as the user is moved onto a new, unblocked IP just as quickly as he or she was moved on to the blocked one. It's inconvenient, but barring all users demanding static IPs from their ISPs, there is nothing that can be done. In future, if you have this problem, you can email the administrator who placed the block, or add {{Unblock}} to your talk page. Make sure to say you believe it is not an actual block of your account, but a block of the IP you are on, and give that IP address (it will appear in the block message you see). An administrator can do a "hard unblock" (acutally input that IP into the unblock page) and force an unblock of that IP, whether the initial block was an actual IP block or an autoblock. Essjay Talk • Contact 23:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
It must have been that...I'm good now, though. Thanks!--Xiaphias 20:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

AOL

If you're on AOL, get OFF of it. Try Firefox instead. Martial Law 22:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC) :)

Removing fact tag on Walrus for missing bladder ?

Your edit [1] removed a fact tag I put on what looks wrong. Please use the talk on the Walrus page at Talk:Walrus#Bladder_problem_in_Trivia_section.. I'll happily admit I'm no expert on marine mammals but this sounds wrong and such an exceptional adaption to solve osmoregulation of urine verse sea water for the issue of salt concentration would easily cited with a reference (ideally listing the other mammals that are part of this group of few mammals that do this trick). Ttiotsw 07:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, apologies -- I was just reverting a heap o' vandalism; didn't notice the one legit change in there! --Xiaphias 07:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Thats OK. It's OK to archive/delete this talk section IMHO. Ttiotsw 08:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Press pass.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Press pass.jpg. 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. 08:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

fixed.--Xiaphias 19:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit Summary

Your recent edit summary "was this written by third graders?" [2] could be viewed as failing to be civil. And in answer to the rhetorical question, yes it could well have been. Thanks. Pedro |  Talk  09:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh gosh, yeah -- what a terrible, hate-filled comment. I guess I was just blind with rage--Xiaphias 09:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry you feel you have to be sarcastic. We'll just have to agree to disagree that the summary was perhaps a little harsh. I'll trouble you no more, and happy editing.Pedro |  Talk  09:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
From Wikipedia: Civility:
"If it is a clear case of ongoing incivility, consider making a comment on the offender's talk page." [emphasis mine]
Before you refer others to a Wikipedia policy, perhaps you should examine it yourself? --Xiaphias 10:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
From Wikipedia: Civility:
Petty examples that contribute to an uncivil environment:
  • Judgmental tone in edit summaries ("fixed sloppy spelling", "snipped rambling crap")
Emphasis mine. And perhaps you should examine it too before quoting back. This not a flame war - I found your summary to be in breach of a guideline but that is all. If you didn't find your tone uncivil that's up to you. It is only a guideline after all, and we all have different opinions on what may or may not be civil. Sorry to have wasted your time. Pedro |  Talk  10:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Great, you’re half-way there! Now, can you demonstrate ongoing incivility?--Xiaphias 10:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I guess that's a 'no.'--Xiaphias 11:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Your points are fair, but maybe you should consider what your ill manered comments in your edit summary (that started all this) would have acomplished before directing the same charge at me. I have apologised that you feel this is a waste of time, and now consider the matter over, unless you feel otherwise. Happy editing.Pedro |  Talk  12:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Really, I started this? No, friend, I believe that was you. Now, don't keep writing "it's over" on my talk-page: it'll be over when you stop talking about it. If you'd noticed, I'd already archived the discussion when you made that last comment. --Xiaphias 05:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Page Creation

Hi Xiaphias, I think you accidentally created a mainspace page that was intended to be a user page. 84.217.176.245 instead of User:84.217.176.245. If that was your intent, just move it. Thanks Ar-wiki 13:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep, my mistake. Corrected. --Xiaphias 13:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Historical fiction

Perhaps the best way to proceed in this matter is to Assume Good Faith regarding Hewinsj. He may have written an article to filled by the improper redirect previously in place (historical fiction redirected to historical novel, rather missing the mark). Maybe you could act as a counterweight ands help improve that article, which actually neede to be writen. You have made some excellent points in the 300 Discussion area, and I donot offer this suggestion as a way to distract you from the article. You clearly have some solid opinions on the subject, and should work with Hewinsj to improve the historical fiction article so that it does present a better overview of the subject. of course, this is just a suggestion. -Arcayne (cast a spell) 10:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to cause any problems I just wanted to get in there and start things moving. Mostly I just wanted to eliminate the old redirect which I felt was poorly done and no one objected to when I brought up the subject. It also an exscuse to get away from 300 for a little bit, so there's that too. I looked around at the literary portal for precedent and when I didn't see any (especially no articles for merger back when that was done) I just decided to be bold. I do find that something like this turn out much better when there's cooperation, so if you would like to contribute by all means. I have since responded to your comment on the talk page over there with some of my opinions on the citations you listed. Take a look and let me know what you think. Hewinsj 15:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

No no, I didn't mean to imply that you did anything wrong--I agree with the page creation. I just didn't want to rewrite anything thing without letting you know beforehand =) --Xiaphias 08:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep, OK

Your reorganization in Horse and Mustang (horse) looked pretty good. Thanks! Montanabw 05:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure =) . --Xiaphias 09:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Now, don't go overboard with the tag thing!  ;-) Montanabw 03:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Your pony pics gave me the incentive to reorganize that article a bit. Wise to avoid galleries in the horse articles, though. They have a way of quickly growing to have 100 images in them (about a year ago, the horse article was a mess in that regard until someone had the courage to toss the whole thing). I kept the ones you added, but incorporated them throughout the article where they were appropriately illustrative. Montanabw 02:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, if you want a challenging wikijob, the organization of the horse photos over at wikipedia commons is a mess. There are hundreds, but try finding one--multiple categories, multiple galleries, arrgh... Montanabw 02:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah sorry, I didn't realize galleries could cause such problems in these articles! I was just trying to include all of the photos, but I see you found a better way to do so. --Xiaphias 06:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

'And' theory

'And' theory of conservatism
Couple of things, there is in fact (?) a {{fct}}, not sure if it's a good idea....

Secondly with the scattering of {{fact}}s do you think we should remove the {{more sources}}?

Rich Farmbrough, 09:37 8 May 2007 (GMT).

Sorry, I was away for a while; and, checking the article, it looks like it isn't an issue any longer. --Xiaphias 08:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Press pass

The article Press pass you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:Press pass for eventual comments about the article. Good luck in future nominations. The Sunshine Man 11:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. I believe you accidentially mislabeled the Press Pass GA review; I have corrected it. If you believe my revision to be in error, please let me know. Thanks, --Xiaphias 06:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, thanks for pointing that out to me! I realised a few days ago that one of the articles I had passed for GA via {{FGAN}} had displayed the text saying it had failed, even though it passed, again - thanks for pointing that out. Happy editing! The Sunshine Man 10:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Powder Keg of Europe

The new graphic you put in the powder keg of Europe page is a nice improvement. Thanks! PS: I don't know if you're trying to be ironic or if it is a genuine mistake, but you misspelled "grammar" on your userpage for your "grammer style" userboxes. --Cjs56 14:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Ha, no, that was an (ironic) error on my part. But yeah, I appreciate the feedback on the graphic =) ! --Xiaphias 07:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Template Fct

Template {{fct}} which you have used has been Nominated for deletion As you have used it I was wondering if you could vote for it to be kept? Ajuk 12:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

More horse politics

Sorry about tossing that article on measurement, it looked like spam when I spotted the "lovelongears" bit. Realize now it was a good faith, but moved your link to the article on measuring equines from the pony article to the Hand (unit) article. The wikilink should be enough for the pony article, but the deeper issue is that a link to a mule and donkey page is considered an insult to some horse and pony people (note article on the Jennet); conversely, the mule and donkey people get very offended with they think horse people are insulting their animals. Just safest for the uninitiated not to even go there, sigh...just an FYI. Pony article gets hit by vandals often enough as it is. Montanabw 03:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

small frog graphic

Hi your small frog graphic looks great but would benefit from some scientific sources. Would you be willing to include Sooglossus gardineri, Stumpffia tridactyla and Mantidactylus madinika if I gave you the data plus citations? They're all barely over a centimeter long but unrelated, so it'd be good to include them as convergent evolution. I'm hesitant to write numbers contradictory to the pet websites you've used into the articles when you've obviously put a lot of work into the illustration. Bendž|Ť 15:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No, that'd be fine -- the graphic as it stands is somewhat ad-hoc, but I can modify it pretty easily and planned to do so (I had some trouble finding good info). I was also unsure which species to include -- E. iberia and the Brazilian Gold were obvious choices, and a good many sites reference E. limbatus as well. It seemed the Little Grass Frog is the smallest that an average person might encounter, so I tossed him in as well. But I'm no expert on the subject, so I'd appreciate any advice on who to include and what size to list (I'd rather do average length than smallest recorded length, I should think). --Xiaphias 15:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm no expert, either really, although the little grass frog may have been the smallest frog Huckleberry Finn ever found, we don't get those here in Europe :) . Here are the world's smallest ones with average snout-vent lengths (SVLs) of males (consistently smaller than females), in mm. I guess the averages should do for those with a range of lengths:

Don't feel you have to use all of them, but let me know if you'd like the next larger ones (a couple of more Eleutherodactylus and a Brachycephalus). Bendž|Ť 21:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's one more. It occured to me that you may want to include only one from each genus, for a bit of diversity. Bendž|Ť 22:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

References
  1. ^ Izecksohn, E. (1971). "Novo genero e nova especie de Brachycephalidae do estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil (Amphibia: Anura)". Bol. Mus. Nac. Rio de Janeiro Zool. 280: 1–12.
  2. ^ a b c Estrada, A.R. & S.B. Hedges (1996). "At the Lower Size Limit in Tetrapods: A New Diminutive Frog from Cuba (Leptodactylidae: Eleutherodactylus)". Copeia. 1996 (4): 852–859.
  3. ^ Nussbaum; et al. (1984). D.R. Stoddart (ed.). Biogeography and Ecology of the Seychelles. Dr. W. Junk Publishers: The Hague, Netherlands. pp. 379–415. {{cite book}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)
  4. ^ a b Glaw, F. & M. Vences (1992). A fieldguide to the amphibians and reptiles of Madagascar. M. Vences and F. Glaw Verlags: Köln, Germany.
  5. ^ Vences, M.; et al. (2002). "New dwarf species of Mantidactylus from Northern Madagascar (Anura: Mantellidae)". Copeia. 2002 (4): 1057–1062. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)


Thanks for the info, I've crafted a new graphic accordingly (though there're a few minor adjustments I'd like to make). I'd like to replace the dime with something less US-centric; a 'AA' or 'AAA' battery would be great, but I couldn't find any suitibly large images of such. Anyway, if you'd like to give my the info for another group of frogs, that'd be fine...though I can't garuntee that I'll actually get around to making another graphic anytime soon. --Xiaphias 15:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Michael Tilson Thomas

...actually, not vandalism. there are certain wikipedians (see mtt talk) that insist that an explicit declaration of his orientation. my edit (albeit sarcastic) was designed to show just how silly and unnecessary it was. my guess is, however, someone will once again make an attempt at purging the cats, and the refs. cheers. --emerson7 | Talk 06:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I realized what was going on right after I changed that. I re-added the cats with a somewhat more subtle justification (adding your source to the 'references' section). --Xiaphias 06:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


Farouk Kamoun

I want this page to exist because he is from the one's who created the mathematical base of networks that are critical to the existance of the Internet --(the preceeding unsigned comment was left by Boulabiar)

Boulabiar, the entire article reads like a resume, it is unreferenced & unformatted, and the subject is of dubious notability. I posted a more detailed deletion rationale on the article talk page. You might consider reading Wikipedia:How to edit a page if you'd like to learn how to properly format future entries. --Xiaphias 21:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I declined to delete it on speedy, becausehe apparently is more than sufficiently important. COI isnotanabsolutebar if the article canberewritten,& I have put it on POD to give him 4 days to do it. (you willl notice I have commented out what I believe to be a good deal of copyvio, Even if he owns the copyright--which he may in his position--the material is too spammy in its current form. Please keep an eye on it--If the prod tag is removed & it does not get improved enough, feel free to nominate it for AfD.DGG 23:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Sure thing, thanks. --Xiaphias 23:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Matrix Education

Hi, I wish to start a page on the place that I work as many former students come back to us as doctors, pharmacists etc several years later to find out how we have developed. I beleive that the college has made a big difference to many peoples choices in life. Is there an example of an article i could use so that this site does not appear as an advertisement, as this is not my aim. Thanks. bevitt_j

Bevitt-- yes, it's totally acceptable for you to create an article about the school. The problem was that the article was too subjective, using phrases like "a great place to learn". An encyclopedia isn't supposed to make judgments like that. Here are some tips:
  • Add objective facts, like the number of teachers, the subjects taught, the areas of focus, or the techniques used.
Example: "Graduates of Matrix earn, on average, over $70,000 annually.[3]"
  • If you want to add things the school has said about itself, make it clear that that's what you're doing.
Example: "Matrix Education advertises itself as the premier learning center in the tri-state area."
  • If you add a subjective evaluation, cite a source for it.
Example: "A recent study named Matrix one of the three best learning centers in the state.[4]"
The above illustrates ways that you can add subjective evaluations; for the most part, though, stick to the objective, and try to discuss the school from a neutral point of view. You may wish to look at other school articles on Wikipedia to see how they are written. With this in mind, feel free to re-create the article.
Hope this helps -- if you have any more questions, feel free to post on my talk page! --Xiaphias 03:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I will take my time to think it through and develop it in an appropriate way. Cheers Bevitt_j

"vandalism" revert

I'm sure I missed something there, so I'm really curious. Why did you revert somebody for "vandalizing" the sandbox? [5] Bigwyrm 07:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Haha, no, that was a mistake...I was using Vandal Fighter to locate malicious activity[6], and that edit by an anon was flagged as 'high-risk'...I didn't notice it was a sandbox until after I'd reverted it.--Xiaphias 07:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Fiesta Online Removal....why?

I've talked to 2 admins so far. One of them still hasn't replied back to my message. The other still needs to reply back to my reply to his second message. According to the second admin, I need to have my source verified. I gave him the links and now I need to get 'em approved...so I'm waiting for the approval. Windrider07 07:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The page, as it stands, is not an article -- it's a collection of broken 'speedy deletion' tags. Feel free to recreate the article, but don't submit it until you've actually written the article (i.e., don't create the page first and then write the article). If you have any questions, just ask me. --Xiaphias 07:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Trust me, if I try and recreate the article with the content I want, it will still be considered for deletion by the admins because the source needs to be verified. I don't want to waste my time to recreate the article if it will be deleted again. Either let me make the full article or let me give you the source. Which one? One of the admins who deleted the content has the source. I gave it to him on his talk page. Windrider07 07:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
It looks like the game is a valid MMOG, so it shouldn't be a problem if you want to create an article about it. I'm not sure why it was deleted before.--Xiaphias 07:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Miles Davis Quintet

Are you joking or serious? The article, which is referenced, states they recorded six albums together on major record labels and each member is a virtual god in the world of jazz. Surely you jest? This article is a stub also, and is not intended to be comprehensive. However, it clearly asserts notability. CLEARLY. (Mind meal 08:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC))

I removed both speedy and hangon tags from Miles Davis Quintet. Xiaphias really should pay attention before tagging pages with csd - he also tagged Estonia in World War II with csd one minute after it was created by Termer... removed the tag from there as well. However, in case of Miles Davis Quintet, I'd recommend expanding it... plenty of sources in Google Scholar and Google Books. DLX 08:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, the Miles Davis thing was definitely a mistake on my part. With regard to the other article, though: there isn't a time-limit one must wait before tagging 'CSD-no context', and the page didn't have an 'under construction' flag -- there was no way that I could have known it would have been expanded (many aren't). --Xiaphias 11:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Invention (band)

what is needed so that this page will fit the guidelines? I've looked through them and i don't see what is wrong. The help would be much obliged! Kevin4ney 09:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Kevin, it doesn't seem clear that the band is sufficiently notable to merit its own Wikipedia article. You could post a link to a newspaper or reliable website which mentions the band, or otherwise demonstrate that the band is popular enough to receive an article. --Xiaphias 09:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

ricardo palmera

I'll try not to, this guy is npte worthy, am not trying to get peiople to check out the http://www.freericardopalmera.org/ so y would you add it. I've for other news sites that cite the info I've supplied. regards --McNoddy 10:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I never said he wasn't noteworthy, I said his page contained controversial/defamatory info with no sources cited. But I added a ref to remedy that. --Xiaphias 10:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
how notice that this guy already has a wiki page, I assumed he hadn't (speedy delete should go ahead)Simón TrinidadI created this page in good faith faith, please don't accuse me adding controversial information--McNoddy 10:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
You said he was a Colombian FARC rebel leader, a terrorist, and a drug trafficker without citing any sources.[7] That's pretty controversial. Anyways, It's all moot now I suppose; I'll redirect the page to the one which already exists. --Xiaphias 10:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I said 'supposely a Colombian FARC rebel leader', stands accused of these actuations but water under a brigde--McNoddy 10:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Bill guide beta copy.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Bill guide beta copy.png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Research Reactor Infobox

Howdy. I noticed you posted an infobox request[8] for US research reactors. Did you still want that? I may be able to craft one for ya; I recently made my first, for U.S. bills, as seen here, and I'd like to get some more experiance. Anyways, let me know. --Xiaphias 09:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah we could use some more work with those! Let me explain a little of the situation.
I made most of the research reactor articles, and I found that any given reactor would have some unique, distinguishing information that had to be written about, but the rest is generally just directory kind of information. I manually put in a table like I thought an infobox could look like into MIT Nuclear Research Reactor along with some others, so that shows what information is needed. But I also discovered this: Template:Nuke Plant Table, someone else made an infobox for nuclear power plants, however, it's only used on a handful of plants out of probably a hundred or so. I was thinking about expanding that infobox to be used for research reactors as well, but there are advantages/disadvantages to either way. That'd be your call if you decided to make it. But either way you do it, I think a "country" attribute should be included, or at least don't make it specific to US reactors.
Infoboxes are still a little above my level. The most advanced I'll make is a straightforward infobox. But I'll do what I can to use the research reactor template on everything. I actually have an excel file with all the attributes for all the reactors ready. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 18:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Cool -- quick question: which of the fields should be 'mandatory' (as in, the field will still display even w/o a value prompting someone to input one) & which should be 'optional' (appropriate when not every reactor has this attribute or it is difficult to find info about & relatively unimportant)? --Xiaphias 19:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Well as long as we're talking about the research reactors, I don't think there should be that many, maybe just:
  • Name
  • School or operating organization
  • Thermal Power
  • Type
  • First criticality
And that's about all that you really need need for the infobox. I guess if you were doing commercial plants, electric power would be more important than thermal power, and you'd use owner instead of school or operating organization. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 03:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

User talk:BBOzzy2

There's really no need for the extra warning and now the suspected sockpuppet filing. I blocked the second account quite a while ago, and this is as obvious as it gets. Grandmasterka 08:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

iphony

i agree with your opinion on the fact that the iphony should be deleted. however someone has removed it from the proposed deletion page... may want to check on that. Robkehr 23:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Seems to be taken care of now, though. --Xiaphias 00:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

iphoney removed. Robkehr 03:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Xiaphias! 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. Daniel 04:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

ICOC article

Hi, I'm fairly new to Wikipedia editing, but you reversed changes I made to the ICOC page that clearly brought it closer to legitimate encyclopedic accuracy. You erased legitimate, third-party references and Non-POV verbiage. You restored propaganda and the same POV verbiage you yourself had cited!!


Reading your talk page, I see you have a history of making rash and heavy-handed edits, rollbacks or whatever. PLEASE, read through the changes before declaring them vandalism, and if you don't know about a subject, move on to a subject you do know about. Your actions have hurt and not helped wikipedia. Mproy 17:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

With regard to the talk page thing, I suggest you actually examine what I've removed before you conclude that -- with the 'Michael Tilson Thomas' edit, the sentence I removed was "MTT is gay" [9]; and I hardly thing an accidental sandbox revert qualifies as "heavy-handed", either. Anyways, I'll explain why I reverted your edit by citing what, exactly, I removed. [10]
[The bold words were removed]
"While a significant number numbering around 20% of those relationships were perceived as authoritarian and abusive, many members somewhere around 80% also acknowledge some of those relationships were also extremely helpful, faith-building and, sometimes, life-saving."
No source for this, and it seems highly suspect.
"For more information on this movement visit http://www.upsidedown21.com."
This is innapprapriate for the end of a paragraph; there were two of these.
"Citing aggressive and deceptive recruiting practices, and authoritarian control over members, they have been banned by many college campuses[11]."
That information you added was not mentioned in the extant source, and thus it's a very misleading edit.
Anyways, as you can see, my knowledge of the subject wasn't particularly relevent. I understant that your intent was only to NPOV-itize the article, and that's fine; but I stand by my revert. --Xiaphias 23:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: your past edits. The fact that one was a sandbox is beside the point. If you are going to delete material, and police others work for detail, you'd better take care not to do so mistakenly. On skimming the page it seems like a lot of the content is people asking you why you deleted something, with more than one of them resulting in you saying it was a mistake, or in the case of Farouk Kamoun, a third party asking you to give it another chance. The pattern that emerges indicates that you are quick to delete. I misunderstood that the horse politics comment was someone apologizing to you. Sorry for that.

Re: What you reverted. This makes no sense. Of the MANY edits I made, only the third one that you cite was mine and indeed the first that you cite was (AFAIK) already gone before my rev. The second is typical of the mess that the pro-ICOC contributors have made of it, in other words The rev that you rolled back to is HEAVILY biased and full of the POV verbiage that you yourself cited. As far as the reference not containing what I said it did, I will double-check. I added at least four references, all critical, all credible. You rolled it back to a version where all of the "references" are from sites owned by the church, so it seems your lack of knowledge is quite relevent. Note that I will be carefully restoring the positive (read: more encyclopedic) changes I made. I will also be posting on that pages discussion page. Please communicate there before making anymore sweeping changes in the form of rollbacks.Mproy 23:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey Mproy,
Looking back on the rb I can see why you were upset -- from my point of view though, I was eliminating a lot of garbage that had been added; but it wasn't from you. Our goal is the same: to improve the quality of the article. Anyways, I suppose it's of little consequence now =) --Xiaphias 10:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Logo-curtiss.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Logo-curtiss.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Logo-curtiss.svg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Logo-curtiss.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Green Corps

A mispelling of a website could have been construed as vandalism. It was not intentional. However, adding true facts to this site is not. Deleting them again would be. The letter cited in the first link was written by two former employees after being fired. The response came from 150 alumni who completed the program. These facts are true and the current text should stay as is.

July, 17, 2007


Response????

Hello

Just to say I like your personnal page and your contributions on WP. Thanks for what you do. MaCRoEco 23:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, thank you!! =)
--Xiaphias 10:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Xiaphias/who

You may wish to just {{db-user}} both User talk:Xiaphias/who and User talk:Xiaphias/who link. We already have templates such as {{who}} which serve the purpose of the former, and WP:WEASEL which is a very well-accepted guideline that serves the purpose of your essay at the latter. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Small frog charts

Given the available data, it appears that your ordering of the frogs is not conclusive. I've removed them from the relevant articles. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Dante-
Howdy. Yeah, I didn't actually have access to the data myself-- the figures were supplied by a fellow Wikipedian. If you scroll up this talk page (or check my archive), you'll see the conversation. Anyways, he also supplied me with the references he'd used, which I'd posted on the image page. Were you unable to confirm the data in these sources, or did you find conflicting reports? Either way, let me know -- otherwise I'll assume it's safe to re-add the images.
Thanks,
--Xiaphias 10:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

new parameter on Template:Infobox Christian denomination

I added the "imagewidth" parameter to {{Infobox Christian denomination}} davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks. --Xiaphias 10:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Vitamin C megadosage

I have done a substantial overhall on the shoddy citation of this article. I would appreciate some collaboration on this effort if you have time!

Regards, Djma12 (talk) 02:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:ICoC McKean.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:ICoC McKean.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Ie discipler.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ie discipler.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

International Churches of Christ

Hi, Xiaphias. I'm having trouble maintaining your revisions on International Churches of Christ; an IP user keeps reverting them. I fear there aren't many people watching that page; maybe you could step in again and lend a hand? Powers T 12:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Ie discipler.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ie discipler.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 13:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:ICoC McKean.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:ICoC McKean.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 14:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


Your request =

I have a feeling that that request should not be in the article namespace. Please have another look and move it to the correct place. I apologise if I am wrong. Phgao 20:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Frog-size Image Removal

Howdy. A while ago you methodically removed [this image] from all the articles which used it. I'm not entirely sure why as you left no edit summaries. The image's main page has a list of references in the section titled 'references' if that was your only concern.

Anyways,in the future, you might want to give the image creator/uploader (in this case, me/me) a holler beforehand, unless the rationale is obvious. Thanks, --Xiaphias 04:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Check section 21 of this page (heading "small frog charts"). ;) The contradictory information was gleaned both from the Wikipedia articles themselves as well as the cited online resources from the articles. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
If there is a discrepency, than it is probably the web sources or wikipedia articles which are inaccurate, not the graphic -- its info comes from published peer-reviewed sources. --Xiaphias 21:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I see no primary sources that indicate that the Brazilian Golden Frog is conclusively "smaller" than the Monte Iberia frog. Maybe you have seen some that I have not, however. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/International Churches of Christ.
For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 04:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.


Hey, I saw this got rejected. Where to go from here? I thought your version was far superior, and far less POV. Anyone dominating the talk page and article edits like Karl is clearly POV and has a conflict of interest. Is there anything that I can do to help? It looks like the article might get permanently swamped by the IPs now. It's admittedly better now than is was a while ago, but still pretty bad. If it was totally my call, I'd semi-lock it, ban Karl and copyedit/re-write the whole thing... I've never even heard of this group, but Karl is giving me a pretty bad first impression. Nswinton\talk 04:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
First off, thanks for the positive feedback! I'd actually never heard of the group either before I stumbled across the article and decided to write a completely new version. It was very disappointing when – after days of research and writing – I found that Karl had casually deleted my work, and realized that I wouldn't be able to do anything with the article until something was done with him. The article's current state is certainly better than when I found it, but in a way that's actually less desirable: before, it was so obviously and clumsily biased that passerbys probably wouldn't by taken in by its falsehoods; but now that it has elements of cogency, Karl's manipulation isn't so overt.
I completely agree with your evaluation, and in fact that's why I filled the 'request for mediation' – I rather expected Karl wouldn't consent (though, had he done so, that would have been an equally amenable outcome). Now that he has not, I can file a 'request for arbitration' which, unlike the mediation, is binding & doesn't require his consent.
I'm going to advocate just what you've said: that Karl be barred from editing the article & that it receive permanent semi-protection. It might be a few days before I get around to writing my report to the ArbComm, but if you'd like to write a statement describing your perception of the issue or highlighting some of the more damning evidence, that'd surely be helpful; I don't know if you're familiar with the arbitration process or not (I'm certainly not), but if not you can use the reports on this page as a model.
Anyways, thanks again for the support!
--Xiaphias 09:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


Hey, no problem, glad to see I encouraged you. I don't have the spare time to work much on Wikipedia anymore - it's kind of a hobby that I have on weekends and stuff. But this article is one of the few that I'm still really following. Glad to see you're still pursuing this!
It may be very complex to block or protect the article. While semi-protecting would block the IP users (which would be an improvement for sure!), I have a feeling that Karl et al will find other ways to work the article. Also, I don't know if you've noticed, but since you asked him to participate in the RfM, he's gone to IP editing, rather than using his user-name. Probably so if/when it goes to arbitration, he can say that he's been offline all this time and doesn't know what you're talking about. He's obviously using IP 195.38.99.103, as the last dozen edits on the talk page were under that IP, and they were telling minan to stop using personal attacks against Karl. Also, IP 85.238.71.37 and 193.6.208.65 have been using his distinct... style on the main article.
I'd be more than willing to help out with this. Let me know if there is anything that I can do - just put a message on my talk page or email me at nate.swinton@gmail.com. I'm actually just personally getting out of a group that is similar, and I was kinda used to work on their particular article, Great Commission church movement. Check out that article and the one about their founder, Jim McCotter. Very similar. I've sorta got an axe to grind with this demographic right now. So I'll admit, I'm not coming from a 100% NPOV. Nswinton\talk 17:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you know

Updated DYK query On 11 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Use of Knowledge in Society, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3 talk 12:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit summary, Restored paragraph, friendly notification

Your edit summary did not entirely match the edit, as can be seen here. Specifically, a cited sentence on Jayson Blair was removed, though the edit summary did not mention this. Since the sentence was cited by a RS, I assume the paragraph in question was inadvertantly deleted. If you intended to delete it, somebody else already inserted it back in. You might want to discuss it on the talk page (in a section that already discusses Jayson Blair.). Thanks. Cheers. Tally ho. Swarm Internationale (talk) 04:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL, my fault. I just saw that you did not delete it. My most humble apologies. Swarm Internationale (talk) 04:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
No worries =) --Xiaphias (talk) 10:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Labels

Your comments would be welcome on the FairTax talk regarding the label for BHI or any other organization or person that would have a political leaning. Thanks Morphh (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Xiaphias/Archive_1&oldid=1148690345"