User talk:Claritas/Archive 1

Brandon Sletcha

Hey. I really wanna start a Brandon Slechta music page or band page bcuz he's my hero. How do I do that ?

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. I would advise you to read WP:MUSIC first. As far as I can see, Sletcha doesn't currently meet the notability requirements. If you can find independent coverage in reliable sources (national newspapers etc) which, contrawise, demonstrates his notability and source your material, your article may very well be acceptable. However, as the article has already been deleted, I would recommend creating the article in your user space, and once it is sufficiently developed, asking an administrator to move it into main-space. Wikipedia isn't for fan pages (WP:NOT), and there are plenty of other venues for showing your appreciation of a particular musician. Regards. Claritas (talk) 19:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Whittemore Peterson Institute

Please explain your recent reversion of my edits at Whittemore Peterson Institute. Restoring reliably sourced information and removing unreliably sourced opinions (personal letters, no less) is not, in my opinion, a violation of WP:NPOV.

Also, your comments above and in your edit summaries reveal a Wikipedia fluency remarkable for someone who joined only three days ago. Have you previously edited with a different account? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be using certain words which carry POV in your edits to the article - "purported" in reference to the connection suggested in the article published in Science. I will restore the encyclopeadic content I deleted in the revert. Claritas (talk) 16:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Concerning my Wikipedia fluency, the system is intuitive, and I generally pick these things up quite fast. I can't wait until I'm autoconfirmed. Claritas (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I see, thanks. I used "purported" because the results have been contradicted by numerous subsequent studies.

BTW, you're not just fast! You're super-fast! I wish I had some of your neurones...Congrats and good luck. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Purported was incorrect in this context. "the association of XMRV and CFS reported in Science" is neutral, whereas "purported" doesn't add anything apart from POV. Claritas (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I respect your opinion, but "purported" lets the reader know succinctly that the association has been widely disputed. The wording is clunky, though, with pur- and re-ported in the same sentence. Since you haven't restored the encyclopaedic content as promised above, I'm going to go ahead and put this in...but without the "purported". Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with the reference that already exists in David O. Moberg??

You tagged the new article as lacking a reference. Did you even look at the reference? It directly supports the major claims. What's the problem? Please respond on my talk page. Thanks. Health Researcher (talk) 19:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the tag. And thanks for your patrolling work, too. I imagine its a long slog, easy to make a mistake every now and then. Best wishes. Health Researcher (talk) 19:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Win Shares book PROD

I removed it because I'd rather it was settled in an AFD. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 18:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. Thanks for notifying me, I'll participate in the discussion. Claritas (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy tagging

Hi. Thanks for tagging Delaware High School Speech League just now, but after you tag a page for speedy deletion you should copy to the author's talk page the warning which is generated for you on the speedy template, towards the bottom. Otherwise the newbie author doesn't know what's happened, thinks he pressed the wrong button, and often just puts the article in again. Also, if it's a new contributor who has never had a Welcome message, it's useful to give one before the speedy warning - it makes it less BITEy, and gives useful links that may help him do better next time. {{subst:firstarticle|<article name>}} is a good one. Keep up the good work - New Page Patrol needs all the eyes it can get! Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the newbie was notified, because I placed the tag on the first time round with TWINKLE. The author then removed the tag while trying to place a hangon tag on the article, so I added it again manually. I thought it would be superfluous to add another notification to his/her page. Correct me if I'm wrong. Claritas (talk) 19:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you have a point; still the warning template has useful links for a newbie to study at leisure after the article is gone, and the welcome paragraph in particular has WP:YFA - if only all newbies were compelled to read that, how much easier life would be! JohnCD (talk) 21:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

They don't. I've come to favour the short welcome simply because there's some sort of chance that people will read it. Claritas (talk) 21:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that - the welcomes that cover a whole screen seem to me counter-productive. I keep toying with the idea of proposing that at the point of setting up an account new users should be presented with a basic screenful of "What WP Is and Is Not" and have to click an "I have read and understood the above" before proceeding. It wouldn't keep out the kids and the vandals, but it would head off some of the people who come here in innocent good faith thinking this is a sort of super-Myspace for them to write about themselves, their garage bands, their startup companies, their unwritten series of novels... Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 21:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

It would have to be really short and straightforward, otherwise it wouldn't work. I agree though. What's kept you from proposing it ? Claritas (talk) 21:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I did float it in the middle of the unsourced BLP panic, but it was a bit of a side issue and nobody supported it. The real answer is, I think I ought first to draft a proposal for the page, and it's hard/I'm lazy. Maybe I really will get round to it... I think the "we must welcome everybody in" ethos is very strong and there would be resistance (from people who never come near New Page Patrol) to anything that seemed to be setting up a barrier. JohnCD (talk) 21:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

If you want, I'll help draft a proposal. I can understand the resistance, but from my point of view it's less welcoming not to explain exactly what wikipedia is for and then place warning templates all over their talk pages when they edit than to have a stern little message saying "Please don't make [insert description of articles which tend to be speedily deleted]". Claritas (talk) 21:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I might take you up on that - if I do a draft, I'll certainly bounce it off you. Thanks. JohnCD (talk) 22:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Willem Jan Otten

Dear Claritas, What is wrong with the article Willem Jan Otten? Why did you add the Rough Translation Tag? It is in large part not a translation at all. Yours sincerely, Theobald Tiger (talk) 10:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be a partial translation of the Dutch Wikipedia article about him - [1], and there are some mistakes in the English which could be corrected. If I was incorrect in tagging it as such, please remove the tag. Regards. Claritas (talk) 10:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Tag removed. I hope someone will be prepared to correct my mistakes. Theobald Tiger (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll put a tag at the top of article to alert other editors that there are minor mistakes in it. Apologies for incorrect tagging. Claritas (talk) 10:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Never mind. Theobald Tiger (talk) 10:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Win Shares (book)

A man after my own heart. Though we may disagree on how to interpret the current guidelines, anyone who can mention both Friedrich Nietzsche and Karl Marx in the same sentence and tie them together gets my respect. Take care and thank you for the comments ShoesssS ^Talk 20:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - it seems I'm not the only person with a wide taste in Hegelians ! Claritas (talk) 20:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

LOL - Looks like we broaden the discussion on interpretations of notability based on the comments at the AFD. ShoesssS ^Talk 22:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Genesis creation myth

As per the admonition you delivered in the edit summary in your revert, the discussion can be found here. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Claritas. You have new messages at JohnCD's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Pedro Martin

Someone claimed to be on a national rugby team can usually be easily referenced, which is more productive than adding a blp prod. DGG ( talk ) 21:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I will do so in the future. Thanks for the advice. Claritas (talk) 16:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Monette Sudler

Hmmmm...yes. Let's not get too eager-beaverish with PROD tags; especially when I'm in the middle of adding references. With over 4000 edits, I'm not exactly a newbie at this. Cheers.--Phyllis1753 (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Java to UML Sequence Diagram

This article was not written with an intention to promote the tool. It was written with the intention that if someone is looking to do reverse engineering in java how can they do it. Also the article's intention is no different than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flowchart4j.

If you think that the article needs some improvements, please write them on my talk page and I will try and make those changes. Please try to be specific.

War of Ideas

Claritas- You're very adamant at not want the War of Ideas page up. If you think that it needs work, please let me know SPECIFICALLY what would please you. You've tagged it numerous times, most recently concerning its "tone" and "neutrality." I created this page due to its current (and past importance) in American Foreign policy and general International Relations value. You recently commented (and faulted it may I add) that it makes no mention of Ayn Rand's book, which I can explain...it wasn't even considered. This is NOT based on the book, this is based of three decades of working for the United States Government and being (I like to think) some what knowledgeable about Public Diplomacy and Political Warfare. In addition, may I add, that I disagree with you on that "Islamic Extremist" doesn't relate to "Terrorism." Though it would be foolish to speak for so many people, I think that most of Western Civilization, certainly for the majority of English Wiki users, it ("Islamic Extremism") equate to "Terrorism." Perhaps you would find it kosher if I changed the words to "Jihadi Terrorist"? Please let me know. Googling "War of Ideas" (as a phrase) comes up with 160,000 hits. Its real Claritas. Have you checked the site lately? There is a link of an al Qa'ida spokesman speaking at great length for their media stategy in waging the War of Ideas.--Friedrich Dusseldorf (talk) 04:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)Friedrich Dusseldorf

It's not currently an encyclopaedic article, because it has multiple issues. I'll suggest what you can do to make it better:

• The article focuses heavily on the USA and Islamic extremism, whereas the article needs to explore all historical and present "wars of ideas". Hence the "disproportional coverage towards one or more specific regions" tag. If you only intend the article to be about the USA, you would be probably be best to move it to a title which suggests this, as opposed to the current broad heading.
• There are plenty of little grammatical and sentence structure mistakes - the article needs a good copyedit.
• The article could do with more internal links.
• You can't just equate Islamic extremist militants with "terrorists", because not all Islamic extremists are terrorists, and most terrorists aren't Islamic extremists. It's essentially in violation of WP:NPOV - "terrorist" is a POV word if it's not used in connection with specific acts of terror, in the same way that it would be POV to call them freedom fighters. Chose a neutral term, like "Islamic extremists", or "Jihadists". It's more appropriate to Wikipedia.
• Parts of the article are written in an unencyclopaedic way - like a how-to guide, especially "Methods to counter your opponents". I would strongly suggest that you read WP:MOS and rewrite the article to comply with it.

I'm not too adamant that it should be deleted at the moment, but it does have certain problems which need to be fixed. Once you've made improvements to the article, feel free to remove the tags, or contact me and I'll review it. Thanks. Claritas (talk) 08:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

High

You're right, it doesn't need to be there, but "high" makes it less ambiguous, unlike "perceived" which is truly pointless. "Because of its difficulty" - because it was easier? Or harder? I'd prefer to be anonymous (talk) 14:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion "because of its difficulty" unambiguously suggests that it was difficult, whereas "because of its easiness" would suggest that it wasn't. "High difficulty" is OK, but it just sounded a bit awkward. "Perceived difficulty" doesn't really make that much sense in context because the article doesn't say who perceived it to be difficult. Just a note : I would be careful about being civil in your edit summaries. Criticism should be constructive, and some editors might take offence at being told that they sound like asses. . Claritas (talk) 14:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glass Tower

Hi. Twinkle seems to have broken when you nominated Glass Tower for deletion and a discussion page was not created at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glass Tower. Do you want to do that now? Cheers, --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, my internet is playing up, so the problem may lie there. Do I need to add it to the log too ? Thanks for informing me. Claritas (talk) 17:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

just saw your query

There is no requirement that, for a book to be notable, there be "a book whose main subject is" the book that is up for AfD.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread WP:NB. Thanks. Claritas (talk) 07:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Have a nice week. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Removed PROD on List of Slavophiles

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from List of Slavophiles, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! I think this list is appropriate as it was broken out from the main Slavophiles article in Sept 2006. It clearly meets WP:list but has room for improvement. As it exists today, it could be embedded in the main article, but is probably better off as a standalone list. I intend to give it a little care over the next few days to improve it.--Mike Cline (talk) 13:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Advice

You have been editing wikipedia with this account for less than one month. You have made comments about sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry on an AfD about regular users who are well known distinct editors on this encyclopedia, some of long standing with emormous numbers of edits. As a recently arrived editor, I would suggest that you take more care in making this kind of comment: if you have no experience, why come out with unfounded statements like this? It's simply disruptive. Have you thought of looking for a mentor? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 17:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's quite possible that this sort of thing is going on. The article for deletion has been put on hold because of it. Check these:

• User:166.190.187.183
• User:69.228.170.24
• User:Bpesta22

All single purpose, and that sort of thing could be sockpuppetry.

And despite the fact you have an "enormous amount of edits", your record is hardly clean. I'm not going to be "disruptive", but you've received some topic bans, which suggests there are issues with some of your edits. I'm not a complete newbie either. I've got over 1500 edits. Claritas (talk) 17:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Ellie Levenson

I've deprodded and expanded it with sources. Fences&Windows 01:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Tony RUDE

You recently blocked this user, as a sockpuppet, but you haven't linked his userpage to either the WP:SPI page or the (banned) sockmaster's userpage. It currently states that he was blocked as a sockpuppet of himself, which doesn't make much sense. I presume that this was in error. Thanks. Claritas (talk) 16:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, i should have replaced the suspected sock puppet notice with a {{sockpuppeteer}} template after i blocked him. Fixed :). Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 16:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Secret Page

Well I'm sorry to break it to you but that was my fake secret page! It's not that simple! Please let me finish, then you can gain your award, but for your efforts you can have this.--Ezekiel 7:19 ^{†Go Canucks! (sign)} 17:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, now see if you can find it. Without cheating.--Ezekiel 7:19 ^{†Go Canucks! (sign)} 17:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. You signed the wrong secret page once again (Note: There are 2 fake secret pages). Yet you took the barnstar for the real secret page, probably by looking through my contributions. If you followed the link on the page, you would have come to a page that says that you actually didn't find the real one. Sorry, I can't let you have the barnstar until you sign the real "real" secret page. It's never as easy as you think, so keep looking.--Ezekiel 7:19 ^{†Go Sharks! (sign)†} 20:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You actually find my other secret decoy....nah I'm just kidding.--Ezekiel 7:19 ^{†Go Sharks! (sign)†} 16:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks =) Claritas (talk)

Hi there

Hi, I removed a CSD tag you'd put on Agarwal Packers and Movers as it's India's largest transportation brand. Just leaving a note. Contact me if you believe this message was erroneous. Best. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 14:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Sorry I Went Psycho

Hello Claritas. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Sorry I Went Psycho, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: you tagged this very quickly, the same minute it was created. I think what he is trying to do is use another band's article as a basis for his own band's. His own may well not be notable, but let's let him finish it and see. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 10:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you userfy it ? He hasn't made any recent edits which suggests that that's what he's doing. Thanks. Claritas (talk) 10:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll watch it and userfy, or maybe delete and tell him to try again if he thinks they meet WP:BAND, if nothing happens in an hour or two. He may have been put off and given up when it was tagged - I see he has had a couple of article speedied before. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Nothing more happened, and a quick search doesn't suggest to me that the band is notable, so ratherbthan userfy an article that won't get anywhere I have deleted it and told him he's welcome to re-create if he thinks they qualify, but suggest he starts it in a user page. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Overzealous with the Speedy Deletion requests

This user is particularly overzealous with the Speedy Deletion requests. I had just created an article for Harvey Carignan, a notable serial murderer (the notability illustrated by the fact that a book was written about him by best-selling true crime author Ann Rule), and included an "under construction tag" indicating further work would be done on it. Within, oh, ten minutes of the article's creation, this individual appeared and requested speedy deletion on the grounds that the subject is not notable.

Please see the page for the Serial Killer Task Force, a work group of WikiProject Crime and recognize the importance of and demand for an expansion in the breadth of articles, on Wikipedia, about serial killers. All serial killers receive substantial media coverage, and are of particular attention to criminologists, sociologists, and forensic psychologists, therefore making them notable and Wikipedia-worthy by default. Carignan is not a particularly obscure name, and given the sizable collection of already extant articles on serial killers on Wikipedia, the Harvey Carignan article should be more than welcome by the user-base. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGreatUnsolved (talk • contribs) 13:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Killing people doesn't make someone notable, unless there's significant coverage in reliable sources. You've made no claim of notability whatsoever on the article itself. I've restored the template. Regards. Claritas § 13:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Claritas, your argument is wrong-headed, for one. Please review the already extant articles in the category. Many of these individuals have been far less covered than Carignan, who—as stated here and elsewhere (including now in the wiki)—was the subject of Ann Rule's 1983 book The Want-Ad Killer. Are you familiar with Ann Rule? Rule's is the most recognizable name in American true crime nonfiction. I state this to substantiate the notability of the article's subject.
And to reiterate what I've already stated, the article was just created. Must an assertion of notability (that's adequate by your judgment, aside from that which already accompanied the first published edit of the article, be present from an article's inception? The article stated that its subject was an American serial killer with multiple criminal convictions. There should be some assumption, then, that the individual is notable, based upon this. If you were familiar with Carignan yourself, you'd likely have not made the request, and your rationale for doing so is highly contestable. There's enough coverage of this individual and his crimes in public sources that no original research would appear. --TheGreatUnsolved (talk) 14:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

A fictional "true crime" book does not meet WP:RS. I know nothing about Carignan himself, but unless you make a claim of notability or supply sources demonstrating notability, the article will be speedily deleted. Claritas § 14:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Claritas: http://www.nndb.com/people/423/000027342/. There you go. There's your proof of notability. Non-notable people are not in the NNDB. And furthermore, Rule is not an author of fiction, unless your use of the word "fictional" was an attempt at denigration. I think you're more of a menace than an asset to Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGreatUnsolved (talk • contribs) 14:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a story. "True crime" books are fictionalised versions of real events, if I'm right. I've never read one. They're not written by criminologists, I suppose ? Just add the references to the article, and I'll remove the template. I'll switch to a BLP prod. Claritas § 14:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Your statement about true crime books is opinion, not fact. It applies to most, I'm sure, but that would depend upon the integrity of the author. I've not read Ann Rule, but as previously stated, she is the premier American true crime writer, and she didn't invent this individual (as your argument seems to imply). References have been added.--TheGreatUnsolved (talk) 14:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Henry le Despencer

Thanks for your suggestion, I'll look at the Wiki Despencer article and see what can be added. Also please can you tell me more about the proposal for speedy deletion notice for my Battle of North Walsham article? Amitchell125 (talk) 22:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems that Battle of North Walsham was tagged for deletion by mistake: it's a perfectly good article. For Henry le Despencer, there are a good deal of sources to be found on Google books (although most mention him in passing) - [2]. Good luck ! Claritas (talk) 08:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I've expanded the le Despencer article, any suggestions on what I can do to improve it? Amitchell125 (talk) 09:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

You want to bring it to a high enough standard that it meets the Good article criteria now it's a proper length. I'll go through it now to make any straightforward stylistic/formatting tweaks as needed. Otherwise :

• Citations are needed for the Chronicle of Henry Knighton in "The Failure of the Crusade". "Other sources" is pretty vague, you need to say which sources said this, and cite them.
• The section on the Norwich Crusade could be enlarged, seeing as there is no main article on it.
• A picture of a depiction of le Despencer would really improve the article. Can you get a free-use version of [3] or another picture showing this wood-engraving in the stalls at King Lynn's, Norfolk ?
• You could add more internal links in the second half of the article, but be careful not to overlink (see WP:LINK for guidance)

Very good work so far ! Claritas (talk) 12:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking another look, I'm pleased with the image I have obtained of Henry (I went to King's Lynn today and found his carving in the parish church) Amitchell125 (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Am I right in thinking that that's the only depiction of him extant ? I spent around 10 minutes looking on Google a few weeks ago and found nothing else. You've significantly improved the article recently, so we could give it another shot at WP:GA if you like. I think it's certainly close. Regards. Claritas (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I need another week or so to improve some of the sections at the end. I'll ask you to check it over then, if that's all right. Regards, 86.147.77.183 (talk) 09:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem, Wikipedia is a work in progress. We've got all the time in the world. Claritas (talk) 12:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Finished! Any obvious things I need to improve? Amitchell125 (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to give the article a quick copy-edit, and then I'll report back. Claritas (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Claritas. I'm working on Anna of East Anglia now, with far fewer sources of information. Similar articles about Saxon kings seem to have a lot more 'background information' than subtantial facts, I'm interested to see what I can dig up about Anna that is actually relevant to his life.Amitchell125 (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll be watching the page - you've done good work so far. There tends to be very few sources available for such early topics, as relatively little is known about such individuals, but I'm sure there is enough to expand the article considerably. Ask me if you want any pointers. Claritas § 20:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Birlik

What are you talking about? I would never remove somebody's comments form discussion. It must have been caught in an edit conflict. Worse is the fact that you thought I would actually do that. I am free to reword my own comments though... Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

You removed your own statement that I was someone who "obviously loves to waste his life". You can't just restructure your comments as you like without making a statement or an apology explaining why you are doing it. Claritas (talk) 19:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

REDACT says "it is best not to remove your own comments". It does not say "wikipedians are forbidden from modifying their own comments to seem less harsh in a debate". I modified slightly what I had said as I thought you found it offensive. But then you restore it and have the nerve to come to my talk page and warn me about modifying my own comment. Do you realy genuinely think this belligerence and aggravation is the best way to deal with this situtation? I am ignoring anything you have to say and the nomination page and resuming with some worthwhile work now. Once again I wish you luck in chasing something you'll never have success in on here. This article will not be deleted, whether you gorvel and moan at village pump, ANI or whatever. Once again you are wasting valiable time that could be spent improving content. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Look, it's not really acting in good faith if you insult me, then remove the comment that insults me because it makes you look bad. You're welcome to apologise to me, but don't remove your own comments without an explanation in the edit summary or on the page. Claritas (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is response to what you said here . It is disappointing to me that you did not mean it and think it worth repeating exactly what you did just days ago. That shows very bad faith to me, sorry, but my behaviour tends to be a mirror of what comes my way. If people are complimentive and eager to collaborate I am very friendly, if people seem intent on trying to delete my work and embarking upon renominations like you did when you were clearly shown that there was a consensus this seems disruptive to me and I'm likely to tap the foot switch on my control panel and tip you into the piranha tank!. I actually happen to agree with generally about coverage in reliable publications. This is why I no longer bother with starying content which can't be expanded online right now and stick to developing where the sources are first. Eventually I an certain information will become readily available on places like this. I've seen articles on small towns I created in the developing world now blossom into full length articles now goverment data online and travel guides has improved. Creating them as short stubs in a generic fashion without reliable sources is "pathetic" I agree, but it was only because I wanted to at least work towards a coverage of Kazakhstan on wikipedia. If I didn't really care about content I wouldn't dedicate so much time to generating and improving it. Excellent work on that historian article BTW, good luck with that. I only wish Kazkah cities has the same level of sources. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, they don't. And I'm allowed to change my mind. Claritas (talk) 19:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I wish you luck. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for recognizing my contributions. I feel that it would be better for us to deal with each deletion nomination in a civil way in the future, but feel free to remove anything you want from the AFD discussion page (with an edit summary) if you feel that you need to. Claritas (talk) 19:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Small communities

Hi. Thank you for the notice. I've looked in on the discussion. I don't think I have anything to add to the several reasoned comments. Maurreen (talk) 10:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for your help with the article Nureongi!

No problem. I'd advise you to replace the "Italic Text" with the description of the dog breed soon. Claritas (talk) 20:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Nureongi

Hi. I saw your question on my talk page. Unfortunately I could not find any defininte source that can answer your question. (One source that might be helpful is the English homepage of Ahn Yong Geun, Ph.D., discussing dog meat consumption culture in Korea. See Section 8 - Pet dog and edible dog. http://wolf.ok.ac.kr/~annyg/english/index.html) What I know for sure is 1) Koreans have raised a certain type of dog (Nureongi) for food; 2) Nureongi has not been officially recognized as a breed by any international breed clubs; 3) Some cases of illegal use of pet dogs as food have been reported in South Korea. According to some informal Korean sources on the Web, Nureongis are dogs mixture of different breeds (mongrels), with certain characteristics such as short and yellow hair, black masks and large body.Hkwon (talk) 08:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much, I'll place the link on the talk page of the article for those editing it. Regards. Claritas (talk) 08:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I have read the article "Nureongi" and took a liberty to make some edition of my own. Please revise anything if it is problematic. I've also noticed that the user Melonbarmonster2 has been messing with this article. This user has been reverting my edits on other articles too, without any reliable sources. I will make efforts to stop this user's disruptive behavior and make some contributions to the "Nureongi" article. Hkwon (talk) 18:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I too had issues with Melonbarmonster2's disruptive edits - if he continues, please simply report him at WP:ANI. I read the article, and it's in a much better shape now, but I'll give it a quick copyedit. Thanks. Claritas § 18:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Clemuel thanks you

	<font=3> Thanks again for your support and kind words. Clemuel Ricketts Mansion is now a featured article! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

some information

I have propose to delete few articles on wiky regarding notability. As a example such as Chinthana Dharmadasa,Ajit Gunewardene . but how ever most of articles are still exists . if somebody has few links do you think she or he Notable? please follow my link and like to know your comment? Thanks(wipe 05:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC))--wipe 05:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wipeouting (talk • contribs)

Chinthana Dharmadasa is a borderline case of notability, as is his film How I Wonder What You Are. Feel free to nominate them for deletion via WP:AFD - the deletion may be controversial, so a discussion will be needed. It could go either way - but just because an article is sourced or verifiable, it doesn't mean that it meets inclusion criteria. Ajit Gunewardene is already being discussed for deletion - it doesn't seem particularly notable to me. It really depends on the particular case, but the two article you've provided are probably suitable candidates for deletion. Claritas (talk) 06:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Slimband

Why was Slimband deleted? The page is for a company and a medical procedure. Other companies like Xerox, for example have entries. It is also a licensed medical device registered with Health Canada.Sbta (talk)

Wikipedia has guidelines for inclusion: please read WP:N and WP:NPOV. It was judged that the article you created had little substantive content and simply advertised its subject. If you want to recreate the article in a neutral manner, please go to WP:Deletion Review or WP:AFC. Thanks. Claritas (talk) 17:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Brian Paterson – your nomination for deletion

This author was one of the dominant figures in the children's book market in the 1980s. Please see my reasons why he should not be deleted on the 'Article For Deletion' page. I think your research must have been rushed.Tomintoul (talk) 07:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Hanks

I'd like you to take a look at the progress I made on Jim Hanks and advise what else I might do. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It's looking much better than it was previously - good work so far. The main things I would consider doing to the article would be:

• Clean-up the Background section. The tone isn't quite encyclopaedic - "baby Jim", and I think the sentence structure is slightly awkward sometimes - merge the sentences "His actress wife Karen Praxel had a job as a receptionist for an agent. The agent encouraged Jim to get into acting." However, well sourced. I would suggest "Jim Hanks is the younger brother of Tom Hanks" and not the other way round, to give a formal style.
• If the film Buford's Beach Bunnies is notable, create a stub for it, but if it doesn't meet WP:FILM, remove the link.
• You should expand the section on his career and add something about his personal life - normal "He is married with x children and lives in x, y.".
• Add a photograph, if one is available.

Good luck. Claritas (talk) 21:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Good eye. I gave it the suggested tweaks. As for a photograph, I'll keep my eyes open. Thanks much. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Why

Really I don't Understand why it has to be deleted because there are all kinds of articles with the name Pause so I added Pause (Boondocks) Sondow209 (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi ! Welcome to Wikipedia. There's a guideline which determines what sort of content we can have on Wikipedia, called WP:NOTABILITY. All information on Wikipedia has to be notable and verifiable. I think that Pause (Boondocks) does not meet this guideline, as there is no significant coverage of it in reliable sources, so I have started a discussion to decide whether it should be deleted or not. You are welcome to contribute - there's a link to it on the page. Thanks. Claritas § 19:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Query

I wanted to know about a user called Ruin Cireela. Someone mentioned him on the Adventure Time talk page. Who is he? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adventures r cool (talk • contribs) 14:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi ! Ruin Cireela seems to have been an editor who was indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing on Adventure time related topics. Claritas § 14:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Mikaya Heart

Hello Claritas. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Mikaya Heart, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: author of several books is an assertion of importance. If you think that untrue or the books unnotable then by all means take it to AFD. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers 19:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Pro-Administration Party (United States)

FYI, I removed the PROD template from Pro-Administration Party (United States). Please see my comments on the talk page. — JPMcGrath (talk) 12:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

...for AfDing the Westwood College schools pages. I'd been meaning to get around to it after they were de-prodded, but you beat me to eat. Cheers! --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 20:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem. The current consensus is to redirect/merge, which seems sensible. Thanks. Claritas § 20:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Richard Arthur Norton

Hi Claritas. Just in case you didn't know this established user has gone through hell over the past week or so. SPAs, socks and other bad-faith phenomena have descended upon this editor over a relatively short time. Could you possibly just go easy on the Afd noms for this user over the next while? Thanks. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 20:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if that nomination was inappropriate. It just seemed to me from the pervious discussion that there was a case to delete, despite the fact that the nomination was acting in bad faith. Should I withdraw my nomination and speedy close the discussion for the time being ? Claritas § 20:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

No need to apologise Claritas. You are obviously a great contributor and your nomination clearly is in good faith. I wish to thank you for understanding my point and it is clearly a very pleasing moment for me to meet someone who really cares. I would give Richard a few days to recoup from this stress and then, by all means, everyone must do our jobs to better the 'pedia as best we can. Thanks again for your kind consideration. It was a pleasure meeting you. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Robotboy (character)

Hi Claritas, it seems Twinkle did not properly complete your AfD nomination of Robotboy (character). I have removed the entry from today's log because I could not find your rationale anywhere. You might need to re-submit that, or you can ask me to complete it for you if you provide the reason. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 10:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me. On second thoughts, I think a thorough clean-up is probably more appropriate for this article. Regards. Claritas § 11:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Someone else nominated it yesterday; you find the discussion here. --Pgallert (talk) 15:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thisara Imbulana

What is your comment about this article?--Wipeouting (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment . what do you think about article of Thusitha Laknath

--Wipeouting (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

He almost certainly meets WP:GNG, because of the awards he has won. Regards. Claritas § 18:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Telegraph Act 1870

Courcelles (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

My talkpage

Before reverting please read the message of the IP. It is a personal attack. Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I really don't understand why it is a personal attack. All the IP's asking is why you removed the reference to the politician's marital status. I've given an explanation on the IP's talk page. Claritas § 17:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Did you see how they address me? Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see, they have more issues with literacy than civility - "it will be better if u reply on discussion page why do you think that word 'unmarried Mayawati' should not be included on article page" is hardly the epitome of politeness, but is certainly not a personal attack. Claritas § 17:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid you are skirting the issue Claritas. There is nothing wrong with their literacy. They are literate enough to attack me. Do not make me expalin this again please. I refuse to engage with IPs who personally attack me. If you be so kind as not to insist that I talk to abusive socks I'll appreciate it. You know also that it is a weasel way to criticise Mayawati by putting "unmarried" into the lede and into a fact that has no relevance to the facts being discussed and it is unduly highlighted per WP:LEDE. It is also a copyvio from the BBC website which uses the same expression exactly. So be my guest and explain these things to the socks, but I did it anyway in my edit summaries. Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

What happened to WP:AGF ? This really doesn't seem to fall under the bounds of Wikipedia:NPA#What is considered to be a personal attack?. Claritas § 17:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

If someone distorted your nickname to something bad would you like it? Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

For obvious reasons I don't want to give you examples. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oh ! Didn't notice that. Sorry - your actions make sense now. I probably would have simply edited the comment to my actual nickname, but what you did was justified. Again, my apologies. Claritas § 17:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Ok. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:DTTR

My reversion of Snottywong's disruptive edits is already at ANI. Threatening to block another administrator with an "only warning" template and without discussion is not congruent with expected admin-to-admin AGF'ing. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 07:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it was entirely appropriate, as Snottywong's edits at WP:AFD were not clearly disruptive (not enough to warrant rollback), and rollback of !votes without an edit summary is considered a disruption of the AFD process. I didn't realise it was already at the Administrator's noticeboard, but there's no policy which suggests that templates should only be used on new-users. Claritas § 11:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Seax of Beagnoth

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:JClemens

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Jclemens (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jclemens. SnottyWong talk 23:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Holy Thorn Reliquary

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: WP:ANI / Crash

Hi. I don't consider it a personal attack - what I consider is that I'm comparing the closers original comments of a "quick renomination" with a wait of less than a day before it's renominated... There's quick, and there's too quick, the latter of which this is. Give someone else a chance to find sources on it before you jump on it again :) BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | ^{My contributions} 19:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you point to a policy or guideline which says that it's inappropriate to restart an AFD if no prejudice is given against speedy nomination ? Although WP:Deletion policy states that "users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again", per WP:NPASR, "if the closing user indicates no prejudice against speedy renomination,, if anyone wants to immediately nominate the article a second time, he/she is free to do so." Hence, my actions were entirely justified. 19:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

No I can't. However, I will refer to the comments made at the AN/I thread (about the first afd being open a fortnight and ending as a keep), and ask you a simple question. How many times would you have renominated this before you actually accepted a keep vote? BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | ^{My contributions} 19:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Additional comment: Would you please also note that WP:NPASR applies for "No consensus" closes, per: "When a no-consensus result is due to lack of participation, the closer may specify no prejudice against speedy renomination. In such cases, if anyone wants to immediately nominate the article a second time, he/she is free to do so." - I don't see that mentioned for keep closes... BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | ^{My contributions} 19:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

If the closer specifies a "quick/speedy renomination" is possible, I presume he/she refers to the process outlined in WP:NPASR. Claritas § 19:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Thank you for the welcome message you have given me. I have been undoing a load of vandalism edits done by the user called Lucky Part of Me. Is there any way of stopping this user? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elton Bunny (talk • contribs) 12:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I see now that the user has been blocked, so that's OK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elton Bunny (talk • contribs) 12:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Clegg Shadow Cabinet

Hi. Just added the Clegg Shadow Cabinet to {{UK Shadow Cabinets}} template, but it's appearing blue. I'm not sure what the code is for the LibDem colour. Can you help? TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. Have just put in a request for help so don't worry if you don't find this till later. :) Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Ghulam Hussain

Why did you revert the page in what way was the box I made unnhelpful? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.139.142 (talk) 19:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The edit wasn't necessarily "unhelpful", but you removed content without providing an explanation in the edit summary. Regards. Claritas § 19:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

WitneyTV

This article is about a non profit local tv station that has started in West Oxfordshire where I live. They provide video news to the community about what's going on in and around Witney, West Oxfordshire and are recognised by the local council and people of West Oxfordshire as providing a valuable service to the community. I'm new to actually putting articles on wikipedia and not sure what all these messages about deletion etc are all about. I just thought as lots of my friends and family have been asking what WitneyTV was I thought I'd make a page on here and then tell them to wiki it :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by B Babonde (talk • contribs) 19:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sorry if I'm returning messages to you the wrong way...when you say reliable sources, WitneyTV was recently covered by the BBC. BBC Oxford TV did and expose on them. They have good relations with the local council WODC too if that helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B Babonde (talk • contribs) 20:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Ghulam Hussain

Why did you revert the page in what way was the box I made unnhelpful? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.139.142 (talk) 19:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The edit wasn't necessarily "unhelpful", but you removed content without providing an explanation in the edit summary. Regards. Claritas § 19:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Living Dead in Dallas

Hi - I am curious as to why you decided my changes to "Living Dead in Dallas" were a "joke". I was attempting to improve the page, by tightening up the character links (there is no need for duplication when character descriptions already exist at the link), by putting the characters in order, by correctly entering their names (Maryann, not "Maryanne"), and by making sure that the descriptions referred to the novel and not the television series (which has its own section at the end of the article). I really don't appreciate your presumption that I was being mischievous or superficial in my changes, nor do I appreciate you casually flagging my work, putting a black mark on my name. If you had a problem with my edits, you could have at least made the effort to discuss them with me, rather than just reverting all my work. Your approach strikes me as dismissive and highly disrespectful. Amos True (talk) 07:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Please Do not Chastise Me for Someone Else's Text!!!

Hi there - so your problem was that you believed I used inappropriate text? Could you please be a little more vigilant? I did not add that text, I simply rearranged what was there previously. Blaming me for someone else's choice of quotation is unfair, as is undoing all of my edits rather than changing the one thing that bothered you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amos True (talk • contribs) 07:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the article now, having seen that your edits weren't vandalism, I've simply removed the objectionable content. Claritas § 07:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Welcome

Thanks very much for your welcome note. I will be looking for advice in the future. Aspatrian (talk) 07:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem. You can contact me here anytime if you need any editing help. Claritas § 07:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Lists

I'm coming here so as not to clutter the AfD more. A list contains only those elements which ARE the item listed. Categories however, contain pages which are topical but not necessarily among the "items" that the list would contain. I'm certain I'm explaining this poorly, but I'll provide a hypothetical example. You have Province A, Province B and Economy of Province A and Economy of Province B. A List of provinces of Exampland would include only the "items" of the list, whereas it would be completely sensible to tag the Economy articles with Category: Provinces of Exampland. Even if you created an Economy category, that category would likely be added as a subcat of Provinces, cluttering up the list of provinces with (presumably multiple) subcats. Additionally, a list has better options for dividing things subjectively. A category does allow a header (if it didn't I would toss categories out the window as methods of informing readers), but sorts alphabetically, whereas List of provinces of Exampland could chose to sort the provinces differently, perhaps by major, culturally meaningful, geographic groups. Lists are versatile, while categories are at best a sorting tool. I would ask that you take for granted that some people prefer lists, and that they benefit from them, even if you do not agree that they are best. - BalthCat (talk) 09:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a real issue with lists which function well, but there are plenty of lists which indiscriminate to the extent that they serve no useful purpose or function, and thus deletion may be a good option. In the case of List of fictional worms, as it's been kept, I'm going to do some work splitting and sorting it out, but I'll remind you that some of the lists I've been bringing to AFD have been deleted with a fairly strong consensus: see WP:Articles for deletion/List of fictional schools (2nd nomination), WP:Articles for deletion/List of fictional military organizations (3rd nomination). I appreciate that there are advantages of lists in some cases, but I regard lists only to be advantageous when the subject matter is fixed in some way. List of provinces of Exampland is fine, List of fictional people from Exampland may be contentious. Regards. Claritas § 12:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Ethel&Bobby

You left a note at this user's page concerning the removal of material from the David Rakoff article. I believe most of the material had been added by this user, who was then criticised for the huge length of the text. It was, and probably still is now, one of the 10 largest articles on WP, and did contain trivia. I haven't looked yet, but please take into consideration that the article should be rationalised. Tony (talk) 14:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It certainly may need to be rationalized, but Ethel&Bobby should discuss removal of content. Too short is just as bad as too long. Claritas § 14:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

WitneyTV

I just wanted to thank you for being so helpful to the creator of this article. I do a lot of work in deletion and whenever I see a response to a new editor like this, I have to say "Well done". This is exactly the kind of help that I wish we could provide to every user (and it's unlikely that this particular editor knows how lucky he's been). He may not appreciate it, but I certainly did. If I can ever be of any administrative assistance to you, feel free to call on me. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

		The Helping Hand Barnstar
		For one of the most helpful responses to a new user I've seen in quite some time; thank you for being so helpful! Accounting4Taste:talk 21:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

That's very kind of you. I always make an effort when users try to contribute in good faith - I feel that being bombarded with templates is generally not a great experience, and can put off new users - personal comments tend to be much more effective. Claritas § 06:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Beautyshop Music

I closed the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beautyshop Music, as a redirect per WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Merge and delete

Given your extensive participation in and initiation of fiction-related AfDs, where merging minor elements into other articles is a routine outcome, I'd encourage you to read this. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I think all my Merge !votes can be interpreted as "merge and redirect", by the closing admin - per WP:CHEAP, it's not a problem if it doesn't serve much function. Claritas § 15:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

deletion of several articles

I read through several articles related to "How I Met Your Mother" just a few days ago; there was a page for each main character on the show. There was information about the characters that no longer exists after your deletions in the article. Doesn't deletion of an article require discussion before any action is taken? 75.24.81.225 (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

No articles were "deleted", they were redirected. There's a Wikipedia policy called WP:PLOT which limits the amount of coverage of fictional coverage on Wikipedia. If you want to read them, tell me which ones - you can find old revision online still (Ted Mosby, for example, is at [4]). There's no discussion needed for uncontroversial redirects, although if other users challenged it, a discussion could take place. Many thanks. Claritas § 08:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I have read through the wiki policy that you linked and there isn't anything about "redirecting" articles. The "Ted Mosby" article that you linked [5] is unaccessible from any link on the HIMYM article page. From my understanding, one of the purposes of redirects are supposed to get you from a main article page to a subtopic article page if there is one. If I'm reading about HIMYM and I decided to click on "Ted Mosby," it should redirect me to the subtopic "Ted Mosby" page that was formerly accessible before your changes to the pages. Other TV shows (for example, The Office) have separate character article pages like [6] which seems to be no different from the old Ted Mosby article, however like Ted Mosby, all main characters are "redirected" to [7] which is the same page. I don't know if I'm getting my point across, but either you correctly edited HIMYM-related character pages or numerous other TV shows are improperly formatted. 75.24.81.225 (talk) 19:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

No, the point is that the content of the Ted Mosby page was not appropriate for Wikipedia, and therefore is not directly accessible. The guideline is WP:PLOT. All relevant information about the character is on List of How I Met Your Mother characters. It's not necessarily good that there are article on every single character in the Office, and I'll get round to merging/nominating for deletion if I can't see any independent notability later. Regards. Claritas § 19:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The Ted Mosby page provides information about his romantic interests which is left out in the HIMYM characters page. The romantic interests characters are surely relevant to Ted Mosby in the show. Instead of merging/deleting/redirecting or whatever jargon wiki uses, wouldn't cleaning up the articles be a better solution to the clutter of information on fictional character pages? The original Ted Mosby article is wordy, but I believe it should be reverted back to the way it was so that another person has the opportunity to tidy up the article rather than losing relevant info because of being poorly written. 75.24.81.225 (talk) 19:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:GNG. Ted Mosby has not received significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. The "romantic interests" of the character can be added to the summary in the list if you or any other editor feels that they should be there. Claritas § 19:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unseen University (3rd nomination)

My apologies for closing this as "keep". None of the "keep" !voters really addressed your concerns but there were no delete !votes so it couldn't have been closed any other way.

As a side note I started a thread at WP:VPP about the issue of the consensus in AFDs running counter to policy. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Anguilla

The group was created as a sub-group of the Caribbean project because I didn't expect a lot of interest. I am in the gradual process of trying to get together separate bibliography articles of a lot of these areas, Anguilla included. With any luck, that shall be accomplished by the end of the summer. Once that is done, I think that there is a much better chance of getting improvement. I'm also going to try to get together a list of websites, etc., preferably news and such, which regularly include pieces on the area. Again, with luck, that can be accomplished by the end of the summer. Once those are in place, I think the chances of getting interest parties more willing and able to increase the relevant content will be a lot better. But these lists take some time to generate, unfortunately, and with various financial and medical problems of late my time has been reduced a lot. John Carter (talk) 17:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. Are any of the bibliographies/weblists you've compiled accessible through WP ? I'm very likely to find them useful. Claritas § 17:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Here you go...

		Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
		For doing a great service, if yet unappreciated, at AfD. ThemFromSpace 16:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

All of your recent AfD arguments have been cogently thought out, and those which you have nominated and have not yet been deleted only serve to detract from Wikipedia's quality work. ThemFromSpace 16:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much. It's good to see my efforts recognized. I think the problem with the fictional entities in particular is that there seems to be a consensus at WikiProject Comics/WikiProject Fiction that most major fictional entities are notable but this is a violation of the general notability guideline and specifically WP:BKD. Therefore, AFD on such articles tend to either closed as keep simply because there's an almost unanimous keep (even if it's not policy based), or be closed as no consensus. There have been a few just deletes so far, but I'm considering taking a few examples to deletion review to discuss local/global consensus issues. Thanks for the barnstar =D Claritas § 20:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

SPI

Hi Claritas, I opened a new SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Fyodor7 regarding the more recent socks. I didn't realize you had already opened one on Mathenkozhencherry already, but I commented there as well. The backlog is pretty bad.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It's very hard to distinguish between Fyodor7's socks and legitimate SPAs working on the Thomist Church (of which there are many), but Mathenkozhencherry seems to be too similar in editing patterns and those diffs you found show him to be likely a sock of Fyodor7. Claritas § 20:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Clemuel Ricketts Mansion review

I got Tomasak's 2008 biography of Colonel R. Bruce Ricketts and as a result have added about 4 kB of prose to the Clemuel Ricketts Mansion article - dif. I am asking the FAC and PR reviewers to please take a second look at the Clemuel Ricketts Mansion article and make sure it still reads smoothly and clearly. If you find problems, please raise them on the article's talk page. Thanks in advance, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Cambridge Chronicle

Thanks for the review of the Cambridge Chronicle. Hope to find some time soon to act on your suggestions. -- Jordan1976 (talk) 07:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Patriot Bible University

I'm aware that Mdis (talk · contribs) has been distinctly unhelpful there (and I've just blocked him again) but please be aware that you definitely violated the three revert rule yourself there - his PoV pushing is not unambiguous vandalism and as such you were still edit warring. Consider this a friendly warning! :) ~ mazca ^talk 19:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I was a little too annoyed to behave sensibly there....Claritas § 19:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Ken Buck

I'm new to editing wikipedia, but I'm hoping to help update information on Colorado political races. If I'm reading correctly, you deleted the "Ken Buck" entry. It looks like previous incarnations of the "Ken Buck" page were electioneering, but a valid page should exist. Buck is one of 4 major party candidates for the US Senate in Colorado and is running a serious campaign. He won the Republican state assembly and has been airing television ads for several months. I would be happy to insert information about Ken Buck in addition to information I'm inserting about Michael Bennet, Jane Norton, and Andrew Romanoff if the page is unlocked. Thanks. CoPolWikiLvr (talk) 14:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)CoPolWikiLvr

DYK for Clemens von Delbrück

The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to Comment

You recently reviewed Eckhart Tolle for GA status. An issue has arisen regarding some content in the article. One editor has suggested that you might like to comment here at the BLPN where the issue is being discussed.[8]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

William H. Prescott

I've finished the review now. Let me know when you think you're finished, or if you have any questions about anything I've said. I can see that you've put a lot of research into this, and it deserves to be at least a GA. Malleus Fatuorum 20:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• From an FAC perspective, the main problem with this article is the prose, as it is with many good articles. I'm fairly convinced that the material is all there, but FAC demands a higher standard of writing than does GA: "its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard". Take a look at the third paragraph of the Early life section, for instance:

He relied on his wife, friends and paid assistants to read for him. He resorted to using a noctograph to write. He was admitted to the Phi Beta Kappa Society as a senior, which he considered a great personal honour. He graduated from Harvard in 1814. After a short period of illness (suspected to have been rheumatism), he made an extended tour of Europe.

That's four consecutive sentences beginning with "He". The trick is to make an engaging narrative, not just to list facts one after the other. Malleus Fatuorum 21:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I'll give this some work over the next few weeks. I'll prosify the list of children with the scanty amount of information available. Thanks. Claritas § 21:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I wish you luck, but it's a worthwhile article as it stands. I've written quite a few articles I never intend to take to FAC; sometimes it's just more hassle than it's worth. Malleus Fatuorum 22:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I doubt it will be too much work seeing as I've already done the sourcing (which was hell). Claritas § 22:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

How I Met Your Mother Characters Re-Direct

I saw that you re-directed the main characters of the popular How I Met Your Mother TV show from their respected pages to a re-direct page to all the characters. I've been doing a little research, and I've realized that a show like The Office not only has their major characters have their own pages, but also many of their minor characters as well. And I've also been checking the ratings to see, that maybe, if The Office is more popular than How I Met Your Mother and I found out that they are pretty close in ratings through most of the seasons, although seasons one and six of The Office are significantly lower than the rest of The Office and How I Met Your Mother. So how come you have two shows that are about as popular as each other, but The Office gets to keep its own pages for their characters? It seems a little inconsistent to me. I say either remove all the specific character pages from both shows, or keep them for both shows. I personally vote to keep them for both shows. Having a few pages about at least, the main characters of both series seems like a logical thing to do. I think it is notable enough, and despite having long pages, they are quite concise, in my humble opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mackerni888 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't have enough time to merge/redirect every single article on television characters on Wikipedia by myself. Per WP:PLOT and WP:GNG, most of these characters aren't suitable subjects of Wikipedia articles. If you want to revert my redirects, I'll initiate a discussion on the subject. Otherwise, feel free to merge and redirect the Office characters. Thanks. Claritas § 19:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Claritas. You have new messages at Neutralhomer's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

...and again. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

• Thanks Mandsford 03:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

My response.

I am afraid that I have no idea what you are talking about. You said that I need to "stop creating unsourced articles with no claims of notability on films which have not yet been released." Firstly, all the recent film articles which I created have been about films which are either in filming stages or post production, meaning that they do not violate Wikipedia's policy of films needing to have at least started filming in order for them to have articles. Secondly, all movies are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles. Also, the film articles that I created were not stubs and also contained a lot of references. They are not unsourced. Please look at the articles before sending someone a warning.The Editor 155 (talk) 14:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

What about Marvel Super Hero Squad: Infinity Gauntlet ? Your claim that "all movies are notable" is false - see WP:GNG. Claritas § 16:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

That is not a movie, it is a video game.The Editor 155 (talk) 17:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, sorry, I find it difficult to tell the difference (I haven't really experienced either). In any case, there's still no claim of notability or referencing. Claritas § 17:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Carbonite (polyatomic ion)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Carbonite (polyatomic ion), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Carbonite. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 17:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

RfA

I have a question for you at my RfA. Connormah^talk 00:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Foot odor

I have proposed that Smelly socks be merged to Foot odor. Since you contributed to the recent AfD on Smelly socks, you might be interested in participating in the discussion to merge at Talk:Foot odor#Merger proposal. SnottyWong ^gab 05:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Theological hermeneutics

The article Theological hermeneutics has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article consists of nothing more than a definition of a neologism.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bigvernie (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Theological hermeneutics

I have nominated Theological hermeneutics, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theological hermeneutics. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Bigvernie (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Goodbye

[I got a bit emotional writing this, and it was fairly rightly described as a rant over at ANI, so I've blanked it. Check in the history if you want to read.]

I've left a note requesting that the FAC be kept open for a bit longer first, as I am emailing you now. —fetch·comms 22:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'm quite happy for you to finish the FAC for me. E-mail me for all queries. Claritas § 16:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Haverfordwest election, 1571

-- Cirt (talk) 06:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Standard offer.

Hey, I've been reading the ANI discussion, and I've got a suggestion of something which might be acceptable as a compromise for conditions for unblocking me. It's essentially an extended standard offer. 1. I will not edit/sock for two years. 2. I will make a list of every account I've had. 3. During the period in which I am prohibited from editing, I will produce complete articles on subjects either chosen by me or other editors, in wikiformat, which can be copied/pasted into the mainspace (so the work for others is trivial). I would prefer subjects of which there is ample coverage online (through GBooks) etc, so that there is no need to assume good faith. If anyone is willing to act as a proxy for me, GAR/PR/FAC is always possible. 4. Once the two years is up, assuming there is consensus to accept this or any other amended version of this, I will return to the project, but:

• • I will not participate in community discussions, including AFDs of pages I have created. I will not nominate any article for deletion per CSD, PROD or on AFD, and I will not de-CSD or de-PROD any articles. The only exceptions to these would be discussions related to my conduct, or discussions which have no vote element which I have been explicitly invited to join.
  • I will look forward to being mentored by Jack Merridew if he will commit himself to doing so (question left by BOZ on his talk for you input).
  • I will accept any other sanctions placed on my editing by community consensus.

Would this be feasible ? Claritas § 17:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Oh, some more of my reactions to the ANI thread. Jclemens thinks I may have vote-stacked on all the AFDs I've contributed to (hundreds). This simply isn't the case - I've never vote-stacked at all, although I can understand why the suspicion is warranted. If you check a few ones at random (just by the age of the other accounts - I really started editing circa Dec. 2009). Also, in response to Andrew Lehan's comment, which basically is asking for a ban, I can say two things: 1. I'm a minor (not disclosing my real age due to all your lovely child protection policies), and I think I'll be a little more mature and a little less likely to want to "game systems" (obsession was an exaggeration, promise =D) in two years time. Secondly, Jack Merridew seems to have got into rather more serious trouble than me (check out Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick), and he's been allowed back. Sure, be harsh to me, but I think a ban is excessive. Claritas § 17:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find any evidence of vote-stacking; the small number of articles edited by more than one of the accounts is shown here. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted your removal of this section. You may not remove declined unblock requests while blocked.  Sandstein  18:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Can I hide them with <!-- --> ? This is my talk page, after all. Claritas § 16:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

No. WP:BLANKING explains what you may and may not do when it comes to removing stuff from your talk page. Favonian (talk) 16:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'll just move them to a separate part of my talk page to avoid clutter. I envisage some more (thought probably in rather better faith than those above). Claritas § 18:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Unblock requests archive

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

Claritas (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

82.21.30.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Nefesf9". The reason given for Nefesf9's block is: "Disruptive editing".

• Blocking administrator: CactusWriter (talk • blocks)

---

Decline reason: Given that the other three editors recently on that IP -- User:Nefes9, User:Anton dvsk, and User:Blest Withouten Match -- have exactly the same editing patterns as this account, I find it obvious that this is the same user as the other three blocked editors, and have blocked this account directly. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm making a request for my IP to unblocked so I can discuss my unfortunate recent activities with other editors and contribute to the FAC of William H. Prescott. Please feel free to monitor my edits or refuse the unblock request. Claritas § 17:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Claritas (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

They're my alternate accounts, I admit it. With over 6000 edits, though, I think it would be preferable if I could have a reasoned dialogue outside this page. There was no consensus at the WP:ANI discussion to block me ([9]). Please reconsider. I'm not saying that a block will not eventually be appropriate, but I'd prefer to participate in the discussion concerning it. Claritas § 17:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Declined due to admitted sock-puppetry, and severe disruption from User:nefesf9, from which you requested a block yourself [10]  —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 18:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Claritas (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am User:Adorno rocks, User:Jan 1922, User:Nooba sooba booba looba. Sorry about that, I'd block them all

Decline reason:

Thanks for sharing. I'll look into it. TNXMan 17:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Claritas (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Please ban me. I'm sick of being "just" blocked when there's never been any consensus that I should be unblocked in the future.

Decline reason:

This is not an unblock request. If you continue to misuse the unblock template for messages that are not unblock requests, you will be blocked from editing this page.  Sandstein  20:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

WP:AN

Since it is clear that you will continue to edit Wikipedia no matter what, I have proposed that you be unbanned and unblocked. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Unban proposal on User:Claritas for details. –MuZemike 23:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Wikipedia !

{{admin help}} Hi. I haven't socked for nearly a month, and in that time I've got three featured pictures and a good record at Commons. I'd like to ask whether I might be able to proxy edit through someone, or on a subpage of my talk (is this possible ?). I'm willing to make a clean start here as soon as possible - it's probably rather too early for me to request unbanning, but I hope my contributions at Commons show that it would be possible in the medium term. --Claritas § 23:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's only been a month. That being said, I'm not an admin. The "manifesto" at this talk page on meta linked from this old Administrators noticeboard page is kind of astonishing. User talk:86.6.32.228, etc. I feel (without having looked more into why you were blocked) that this type of hostile attitude (a sort of metaphorical finger to the bans) is probably what got you banned indefinitely in the first place. I would suggest continuing to build a good track record elsewhere, possibly for another year. A month is a long time to someone beating their head against a wall daily, but generally speaking it's not that long. Banaticus (talk) 01:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

You said here you would wait 6 months. A block is just that - it means "no editing by any means" - If you found someone else to add your data, it's likely that they would be spotted and blocked as a sock.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 12:54, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Really ? I've previously made proxy edits through Wikipedia admins. I can list them if you feel like blocking them as socks. I said I would wait 6 months, but I've had a really positive response from Commons concerning my contributions. It's pretty clear I'm editing in good faith. If I make one edit out of line, I can be blocked with a click. and anyway, I'm not requesting unbanning, simply the preliminary step of a proxied editing arrangement.--Claritas § 12:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Lucky you. The only edits I know allowed, from a blocked user, are ones to their talk page and via others to relevant discussions about the user at admin noticeboards, etc. If you know of such a policy (maybe I've missed that one) then please provide a link. Maybe you could also supply the names of these admins who are editing articles for you - I think that could start a nice discussion at WP:AN.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 13:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I won't give you their names, because unlike you, they consider a banned user who's interested in contributing positively to the project a good thing. The relevant policy is ignore all rules. --Claritas § 14:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I was just explaining the normal block policy. If others wish to put their heads above the parapet, and go for WP:IAR then that's own decision, and they have to be prepared to defend that decision if so asked.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The Unban proposal on User:Claritas from a month ago seemed to pretty clearly indicate that community consensus is against an unbanning at this time. Admins who wish to lift the ban should review that response before taking any action. BOZ (talk) 22:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, that was before I became a productive contributor to wikimedia projects who stopped socking. There are issues with it in that it was essentially a pointy action by MuZemike to protest Jimbo's unilateral unbanning of some sock. He's right that it would be essentially impossible to technically prevent me from editing Wikipedia. --Claritas § 23:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

If you believe there might be a reason to think that you would have a better result now, you might ask a simpathetic person to try it again, and let it run longer this time. Otherwise, I think anyone unblocking you would be overturned because of lack of consensus. BOZ (talk) 01:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

(note) removing day+ old adminhelp request as you aren't really requesting adminhelp here. I personally agree with the comments above that it is likely too soon to request an unban. I would also not personally support editing through a proxy.  7  05:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll keep my current informal system running, and I'll apply through the ban appeal committee of Arbcom in a few month. Cheers guys. --Claritas § 10:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?

An editor has asked for a deletion review of How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. aprock (talk) 23:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, but I'm currently banned. Hopefully will be editing again in June or so. --Claritas § 12:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Treskilling Yellow

{{helpme}}

Please could a user add a talkback template to Crisco 1492's page. I can't because I'm banned. --Claritas § 22:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done. JohnCD (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Claritas, do you have a link to where you got the digitization of the Treskilling Yellow? At the featured picture nomination, it has been suspended until a source has been listed. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, from http://www.glenstephens.com/Sweden-TreSkillingYellow.jpg. I'm pleased it's going to achieve FP status here too ! --Claritas § 22:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Alright, thanks a lot! It is a striking picture... and an even more interesting topic. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Papal States - Piastre 1675.jpeg

It would be great if this picture could be added to Jubilee (Christianity) - I just noticed it didn't have an image of any Holy Year issues. --Claritas § 21:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why this should be considered an acceptable exception to the principal that blocked and banned users can't edit by proxy. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Per ignore all rules, this edit would improve Wikipedia, therefore the "ban" on "proxying" which de facto doesn't exist (see previous talk page subheading for a trivial example) should not be invoked. I'm trying to positively contribute to Wikipedia by creating useful photographs, but if they're unused they add little to the project. --Claritas § 20:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done, reluctantly, under WP:IAR. Feel free to revert/re-edit if I've done something wrong or you don't feel I should have added it. --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 21:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks =) --Claritas § 16:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

William H. Prescott

Please could an editor post a message on Moondyne's talk page politely asking him or her to discuss with me the addition of the category "Blind people" to William H. Prescott. I believe this is incorrect, and it is clearly stated in the article that Prescott was visually impaired, not blind. --Claritas § 22:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I have read through the article and asked User:Moondyne to consider changing the category here. Dru of Id (talk) 00:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Moondyne (talk) 02:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --Claritas § 07:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Also, there's a weird malformed "Gardiner, p. ixGardiner, p. 143" at the end of lead, which should be removed, I'm not sure where it comes from. I'd look at the history to see if someone's been messing up the cites. --Claritas § 07:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid that this edit by 173.59.72.36 (talk · contribs · info · WHOIS) has been the root of several problems on that page. However i have reverted back to a revision prior to his edit, so that should be sorted now (i believe i have also restored any additions made to the page afterwards). Cheers, benzband (talk) 08:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Again, thanks =). --Claritas § 23:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

File:A drinking fountain in Saint-Paul-de-Vence.JPG

{{admin-help}} Could an admin please undelete this and upload it to Commons, or e-mail me a copy of it so I can upload it myself ? I'd reupload it myself, but I deleted the copy on my computer. --Claritas § 08:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from inappropriate use of the {{adminhelp}} template. You are banned, and I don't intend on restoring images created via your puppets. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, you might not answer a courteous request from a fellow human being, but I'm sure another admin will do so. It's not inappropriate, I'm requesting help from an admin. It's a great photo, and I'm sad that Wikipedia would lose it if most admins were like you - how many banned users are only socking to improve the wiki? --Claritas § 19:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You are banned from editing. Further requests like this one will lead to your talk page access being revoked. Favonian (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

=P --Claritas § 19:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 3

{{Help me}} Hey, could someone direct MuZeMike to my talk page with a talkback template ? I'd like to talk to him about something. --Claritas § 09:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• • It should be mentioned in that RFC that when a user is technically impossible to block (because they have access to essentially an unlimited range of IP addresses through VPNs and the like), and their contributions are overwhelmingly positive, the user has no real motivation to go through the whole standard offer process, and yet it would be still advantageous for them to return for the fold from the community's point of view. I'd suggest that Arbcom/CheckUsers only check accounts when they have been disruptive edits from that account. Disruptive edits of any nature, mind you, but if the account is 100% good-editing, per IAR, there's no point unveiling it.

I'm not sure whether you agree with me about this, following your unsuccessful block request of me, but I'd rather have my name cleared and edit from my primary account. It would cause a lot less trouble if people actually knew which edits were mine, and could just watch what I'm doing, in case I get out of hand again. I've made 10,000+ edits from my socks, and I've created several good articles, and only received one (3RR) block, which suggests that I'm a net asset to the project, and Wikipedia would be worse if I wasn't block evading. Thanks for listening. --Claritas § 09:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism, please revert

{{help me}} Shapurji Saklatvala needs some rollback applied. I'd create another sock, but cba. Cheers. --Claritas § 20:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done. JohnCD (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

help me

Please chuck Template:You've got mail on Jimbo's talk. Thanks. --Claritas § 20:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

If you mean User talk:Jimbo Wales, it isn't protected, so you can do it :)  Hazard-SJ  ㋡  21:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Claritas is blocked, Hazard-SJ. The only thing he can edit is this page. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done  Hazard-SJ  ㋡  23:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Cheers, hopefully lol. --Claritas § 02:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Same request. --Claritas § 00:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

   Done  Hazard-SJ  ㋡  01:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Ban appeal

In 2010, after a few thousand productive edits, I focused my energies on removing hoaxes from Wikipedia. Foolishly, I made a sockpuppet in order to see what would happen if a partially hoaxed article was created. This was an abuse of the trust of the Wikipedia community, and I regret it. I did, however, make sure that all the false information was eventually removed, and the end product was an article on an individual who otherwise may not have been covered.

When this activity was discovered, I foolishly started editing from another account, with the misplaced conviction that if all my edits were constructive, I would not be found out.

I am committed to improving Wikipedia, not disrupting it, and I regret my occasional outbursts. If you care to consult the contributions of my last sock, He to Hecuba, you'll see high quality mainspace contributions, such as the GAs on Gregory of Nyssa and Clement of Alexandria. I feel it's unfair that my sockpuppets are blocked not because I'm doing anything wrong but simply due to my past misdeeds. I was banned for block evasion, not disruptive editing.

If unbanned, I will never use an alternate account again. I will focus my contributions to article space. I'd obey a 1RR across namespaces and assist in work against open proxies and sockpuppetry, which I have significant experience with.

I am a teenager, and I feel I've matured a lot in the past two years. I recognize the problems with my past editing patterns, and I hope the community will offer me a second chance. I'm willing to wait out whatever time the community wills me to.--Claritas § 12:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I have copied your request to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive249#Ban_appeal_from_User:Claritas for the community to weight it on, you are free to post comments here and somebody will copy them to that discussion. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi there

Please crosspost to WP:AN discussion under Carrite's comment

 Done. I've copied your comment across, and provided a link back here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I've offered to serve as a mentor for you in the event that your ban is rescinded, hoping that will help your chances. Realistically, you're probably going to need to be disciplined enough to be repentant and free from socking for a bit of a longer period before there is critical mass to end the ban. This doesn't mean that you can't be building articles even if banned — research and write and save things on your computer as Word files. Then when the ban is ultimately lifted, you won't have lost a year of research time or whatever. I very much appreciate that you're a serious person with the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. I believe also that you might ultimately prove to be an excellent and valuable content contributor in the future. Your socking transgressions are pretty serious though and it's going to take patience and maturity on your part to get over that hump. Feel free to contact me either on my user page or by email at MutantPop@aol.com if you'd rather. —Tim Davenport, Corvallis, OR, USA /// Carrite (talk) 05:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

That's terribly kind of you to offer to mentor me.

I was thinking about an intermediate solution, wonder what you think about this. My content contributions are good. My ban evasion is a problem, but people seem surprisingly positive about a return in like three months.

I'm happy to wait it out. Would it be possible for me to have a proxying system agreed ? I could have a workspace at the bottom of my talk page, and copy articles there to improve them. Without having anywhere else to edit, my contributions could be completely supervised and it would probably result in a few more good articles for Wikipedia which simply wouldn't be created otherwise. I understand that BOZ thinks my proxying requests are a sign of immaturity, but I think they should be understood as an attempt to help Wikipedia out. --Claritas § 08:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's one that supports that idea. Peridon (talk) 10:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Great. Hopefully we'll be able to instate it without much fuss once my ban appeal fails =S. --Claritas § 15:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Bwilkins on AN

Please talkback BWilkins for me. Doesn't need to be copied to AN.

 Done. See User talk:Bwilkins#Talkback -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Per the blocking policy bans are preventative, not punitive. Could you point out an edit made by He to Hecuba which was disruptive in any way ? There has to be a tangible reason why the block is no longer necessary. If I'm capable of editing well, my past shouldn't matter.

I understand the problem with the original behaviour which led to the block, and I understand that I've wasted checkuser time by socking. I understand why I have been blocked in terms of conventional practice, but I am ambivalent as to whether it was a good call to block He to Hecuba, seeing as in my last unban request I had been encouraged to make a "clean-start" good editing sock. --Claritas § 11:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Please post the following under Bwilkin's comment on AN:

• Please assume good faith. I know it's not easy in my case, but my intention was not to badger you about your !vote. If you explain why the edits from He to Hecuba were problematic (outside of the block evasion) I'll better understand how I should behave once I'm unblocked. --Claritas § 15:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

First law of holes

An interesting little article... Peridon (talk) 18:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Bye guys

ping Reyk with talkback please I'll see you all later, most of you are jerks. --Claritas § 21:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Btw, facing the pitchforks at AN wasn't my idea, it was Jimbo's. --Claritas § 21:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Lashing out like this isn't going to help, although I do agree that some of the opposes are unfair to the point of cruelty. Besides, this AN thread hasn't been a complete waste; you have some clear criteria for what you need to do and a good chance of being successful if you try again later in the year. Reyk _YO! 22:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sad enough to beg the upper echelons of this place for another chance again. Too much of a humiliation. I'm a volunteer here, it's not that fucking important in my life, I'll just quit.

You think, we've lost Ottava and Malleus to the goons who run this place. These were the two absolute best content editors here on the humanities.

I respect you, but you shouldn't bother staying here, the culture of Wikipedia is toxic. I'm glad I've helped people by the content I've produced here, but all this bickering is pointless. Look at Wikisource or Wiktionary, they don't have all this shitfest of drama. You get vindictive fools here who really can't move on from their pathetic grudges and look at the wider picture. I'm offering Wikipedia my time for free, and they're rejecting it. Fucking stupid, I'm going to do a PhD in Theology instead. --Claritas § 22:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

At least neither Ottava nor Malleus have resorted to sock puppetry to deceive the community. --MuZemike 07:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, true. They're a bit more mature than me. --Claritas § 07:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• Heya - You've got to develop patience and discipline. I advise you to redact this melodramatic lashing out right away. Growl under your breath and get to work researching and writing on your own computer without posting a word, directly or indirectly, to WP. You've dug yourself into a hole. There are people willing to throw you a rope, but you're gonna have to STOP DIGGING IT DEEPER!!! Carrite (talk) 01:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Yeah, sorry about all that, I'm going to get this account locked for the moment to prevent me expressing my anger. See you all around in six months or so I guess. --Claritas § 07:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Best of luck to you. I hope to see you back in October, and I'm sure you'll get a more favourable response then. Reyk _YO! 08:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Temporarily locked

As per your request above, I have full-protected this page for 6 months, as opposed to making it equal to the indef block. This will, as you say, help you get over your anger and will give you an exact timeframe for your next attempt. Cheers (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)