User talk:Wjhonson/Archive5

Randolph

Hi: don't be so pessimistic; it might be a great article!--Anthony.bradbury 23:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

underconstruction

My apologies. Have you thought of using an {{underconstruction}} template? PS I did not flag it--Anthony.bradbury 23:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

You're very welcome. All friends here.--Anthony.bradbury 00:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Agnes of France (Byzantine empress)

You marked a couple of facts in this article with the template 'citation needed'. Since both of these details were really relevant to other people rather than to Agnes, I have added the necessary citations at Alexios II Komnenos, checked that citations were already there at Maria of Antioch, and supplied cross-references in the Agnes footnotes to both these articles. OK? Andrew Dalby 16:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Opening style

You may want to review Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Article titles, because I have fixed 3 articles you have started in this regard. Please a) bold the name of the title by surrounding it with triple apostrophes b) make sure the opening sentence is a complete sentence. Your openings have lacked verbs. In general, if you are confused, you can always look at other articles and see what most of them are doing. Hope this helps.--Andrew c 21:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

blogs as sources

Since you participated in the discussion I'd like to point you to this newly created page Wikipedia:Guidelines_for_Blog_Citation to further continue the discussion we started over at WP:RS.--Crossmr 21:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

my wikipedia entry

Dear wjhonson,

I notice that you created a Wikipedia entry for me; thank you for your efforts. I also noticed that there's much discussion of taking it down.

For what it's worth, you appear to be working from a rather old CV. I can provide a newer one if you contact me at j.corvino@wayne.edu.

Also, probably more noteworthy than my publications is that I have spoken to over 100 campus audiences (outside of my own university) on gay and lesbian issues, and that I regularly debate Glenn Stanton of Focus on the Family.

Anyway, regardless of what happens to the entry, thanks again for your efforts.

John Corvino

WikiProject Biography July Newsletter

The July 2006 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. plange 08:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

What is CofS

Just an acronym for Church of Scientology.--Fahrenheit451 17:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Benjamin Freedman

No problem. You're the one doing the real writing. I'm just a janitor. :-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 04:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you WJ, I have corrected that Curtis Roosevelt error, and thank you for all your contributions to this and other articals that I note you have credit for contributing to. Humanity needs more fair minded people like yourself. -Theblackbay 05:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

there are some big changes comming, we have been saying it since th 1990's we will see..-Theblackbay 05:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Your comments on Catholicism and Freemasonry

Thanks for responding to the RFC at Talk:Catholicism and Freemasonry... Question: ... just so I am clear. Are you saying that a) the Remnant is unreliable, b) the article in the Remnant is unreliable, or c) the web-based copy of the article in the Remnant is unreliable? Blueboar 20:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Acadamenorth

The problem here is that the warning was removed about 20 minutes after I left it. That's not a sufficient amount of time. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 23:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I started with a low-level warning instead of going straight to "this is your last warning". I've had problems with him, but I'm not going to be that harsh. :P --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 00:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

jesus

hold off on doing anything on the Jesus talk page until we work this out with Andrew on our Project page, thanks! plange 15:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Biography Newsletter August 2006

The August 2006 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. plange 01:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI Mega Society Judgement

As you may have heard the Mega Society article was deleted awhile ago, at the end of an acrimonious AfD/DRV process. There is a wide divergence between deletion policy (as defined by various policy guideline documents) and deletion practice, as implemented by admins (who claim to be following the "spirit" of the law). Consequently there are lessons to be learnt from the experience, which will not be obvious from reading the guidelines. Here are some tips for future conduct:

• Single purpose users are frowned upon and were a frequent bone of contention during the AfD and DRV processes. So I urge you all to "establish" yourself as Wikipedians: create, edit and even ... delete articles! There are plenty of articles that need attention.
• It is a very good idea to put something on your user page, (it doesn't matter what) to avoid showing up as redlinked users -- being redlinked will count against you in any debate.
• When voting, include brief reasons which are grounded in policy (votes not backed by reasoning may be discounted; too much reasoning will be ignored).

Given the bias against soliciting (see judgement) I may not be able to contact you again, so I suggest you put the Mega Society in your watchlists.

The closing admin's comments on the Mega Society:

Within the argumentation of the debate, the most significant point raised by those who supported the article was that a new draft was available. The article is not protected, so this may be posted at any time and (assuming it is not substantially similiar to the older version) it will be judged anew on its merits. This is good news for you.

The bad news for you is that it is well-established practice within Wikipedia to ignore completely floods of newer, obviously "single-issue POV", contributors at all our deletion fora. I'm among the most "process-wonkish" of Wikipedians, believe me, and even process-wonks accept that these sorts of voters are completely discountable. Wikipedia is not a pure democracy; though consensus matters, the opinion of newcomers unfamiliar with policy is given very little weight. Your vote, that of Tim Shell, and that wjhonson were not discounted. The others supporting your view were. I promise you that it is almost always true that, within Wikipedia, any argument supported by a flood of new users will lose, no matter how many of the new users make their voices known. In the digital age, where sockpuppeting and meatpuppeting are as easy as posting to any message board, this is as it should be for the sake of encyclopedic integrity. It is a firm practice within Wikipedia, and it is what every policy and guideline mean to imply, however vaguely they may be worded. (I do agree that our policies, written by laypeople mostly, could do with a once-over from an attorney such as myself; however, most laypeople hate lawyers, so efforts to tighten wording are typically met with dissent.)

If your supporters were more familiar with Wikipedia, they would realize that, invariably, the most effective way to establish an article after it has been deleted in a close AfD is to rewrite it: make it "faster, better, stronger." This is, in fact, what you claim to have done with your draft. Good show. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

So the outcome was not entirely negative, although I was disappointed by the admin's rather cavalier approach evidenced by the response to my enquiry:

.... why did you discount the votes of, say, User:GregorB or User:Canon? They are not new users, nor did I solicit them. I presume by Tim Shell you mean Tim Smith? ...... --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

to which I received this rather off-hand reply:

User:GregorB offered a very brief comment not supported by policy. User:Canon did take the time to offer analysis at DRV, but he had been among the first voters at the AfD to offer a mere "Keep" without explanation; therefore, I assumed he had been solicited by someone. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

which didn't fill me with confidence about Wiki-"due process".

Anyway, my grumpiness aside, the Mega Society article, is presently under userfied open-development at User:MichaelCPrice/mega, and will reappear at some point, when (hopefully) some of the ill-feeling evidenced during the debate has cooled. I am very heartened by the article's continued development, and by the development of associated articles. Thanks for everyone's help!

--Michael C. Price ^talk 14:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject

Hey, I just created a WikiProject for Eastern Washington, and since you have made some edits on the spokane page, and the samuel havermale page, I thought you might be interested and able to help with the project. Please check it out by clicking on my name, the link is on my userpage. Thanks SpokaneWilly 05:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Eastern Washington

Thanks for adding your name to the list of contributors on the temporary project page. Me and alexandermiller felt that we had enough support to move forward and start an official project. you can find it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_EasternWA it may take a day or two for the project to be fully up and running, thanks for your help!SpokaneWilly 07:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Haughty

Xoloz was accused of being haughty recently. I'm offended that no one has called me haughty. I mean really !! Wjhonson 06:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Biased?

On that question, you might be! ;) Xoloz 15:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Your Creation of Michael T. Carroll

Hi Wjhonson/Archive5, The Article you just wrote, Michael T. Carroll, has been tagged for Speedy Deletion, because the article is about a person who does not assert the importance of the subject. If you wish to contest this place {{hangon}} on the article, and the reason on the talk page. Thanks!--Deon555|talk|e|Review Me! :D 07:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Genealogy of Jesus and User:Gary Sellars

Thanks for your work on Genealogy of Jesus. The user that inserted the commentary that you reverted has been working on Christian views of Jesus. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind taking a look at those edits there as well. I feel that interpretations and POV are not being presented neutrally, however I would enjoy any other editors take on this before I get revert happy. Thanks for your consideration.--Andrew c 04:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look it over. I think its fine to present POVs if they are cited and presented in a manner. However, there is a difference between saying "X states Y belief" and "The proper way to interpret the bible is Y" without any further qualification. Gary seems to be on a POV mission to make certain articles reflect his personal POV without keeping in mind OR and NPOV. I think I'll leave a note on his talk page to try and inform on some of these policies. Thanks again.--Andrew c 05:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see you beat me to the punch. :)--Andrew c 05:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to thank you again for taking a look at these pages and reverting what we both agree to be inappropriate edits. I'm sorry that it has resulted in the wrath of an editor aimed towards you. --Andrew c 01:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome Andrew. I actually find it amusing that I'm evidently a member of the secret homosexual wikiforce formed to stamp out all orthodox Christian viewpoints. Or thereabouts. I wish I'd known earlier, I guess the grand-poobah forgot to notify me. Oh well, back to more of my evil plan. Wjhonson 01:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

UE

UE = unencyclopedic, either in style or as violative of WP:ENC - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Gary Sellars

I am 52 and have been a believer in Jesus Christ since 1972 when Jesus gave me in a vision the Gospel in picture and then spoke to me and told me He wanted me.

Your removing my posts and restoring the old ones was NOT consistent with the heading. Those old posts would be welcome in many places but they are MISPLACED on THIS page. I am new to this and definitely can use instruction and guidance, however, the heading on the page, clearly and without equivocation or ambiguity says, "Christian Views of Jesus." While there are unquestionably differences in views between Christians, and the Bible strongly supports this in Romans 14, this page was full of, not different Christian views, but views of non-believers. You may be an editor, but I am a bona fide, blood bought Christian and an authority on what constitutes a Christian and can support every position I have with Scripture (according to the parameters which the Bible requires) and much of the stuff that was on this page was NOT legitimate Christian perspective. Rejecting ANY part of Scripture CANNOT be supported with ANY SCRIPTURE and the Scripture is the determining factor of what constitutes Christianity, not your opinion or mine. I'll be glad to discuss, help, learn, etc., and I hope that I show due humility in doing so, but the place for MUCH of the stuff that was on here, that you replaced, was NOT Christian and would be placed better on another page since, again, the heading CLEARLY says this page is for CHRISTIAN VIEWS. You said this was not the place for opinion, but that is not entirely correct as "view" and "opinion" can easily by synonyms. Regardless, this is the place for differing CHRISTIAN VIEWS, not a mixture of Christian and non-Christian views. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christian and that is evidenced by a simple and casual perusal of their literature and comparing it to Scripture and I am able to do that and would be glad to give you the evidence if you think you need it. In response to Mormonism, the most evident Scripture that repudiates it is Gal 1:6-9 which I'll give you here in the KJV.

"I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."

It is no secret that Joseph Smith claims his "gospel" came from an angel. Neither is it a secret that "have preached" is past tense, both in Greek and English. Therefore, it necessarily follows that a "gospel" delivered 1800 years later falls under this curse that Paul uttered. What you may or may not know is that the Greek word "other" in the passage I just quoted can be accurately translated "other than or more than." All these facts mean that my saying Mormonism isn't Christian isn't my opinion. Mormonism violates Scripture in many other places which is also easily demonstrated. It's easy for the Biblically ignorant or those that deny the authority of Scripture to claim I'm giving opinion, but if my "opinion" can be demonstrated (to an unbiased examiner) to be the plain teaching of Scripture, then the appeal to an outside source that masquerades as a Biblical authority (that has rejected the authority of Scripture as Raymond Brown has) is not legitimate. I'm appealing to your reason and logic here since you claim those to be strengths.

Again, I remind you: The heading on the page ISN'T "Views of Jesus" but "Christian Views of Jesus." The non-Christian perspectives need to be moved to another page.

Regards,

Gary Sellars

You are welcome to call me to discuss this if you wish. 281-973-4020

NPOV

Under the heading of "Christian Views of Jesus" NPOV would necessarily include opinions it seems. Perhaps someone made a serious violation of Wikipedia policy by making this page in the first place and you simply failed to catch it. I don't know. What I do know is the the statement, "Christians see many passages in the Gospels and other parts of the New Testament as debating the divinity of Jesus Christ. Raymond E. Brown discussed the issue in Does the NT call Jesus God?" is in no way shape or form a legitimate posting on this page as those who question the divinity are NOT Christians. The posting of this shows YOUR OPINION (that sentence), which is CONTRARY to ALL ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY, is acceptable to post, but not opinions contrary to what you believe. How can I think anything else? What is your basis of authority of what is a Christian? It seems that you think the Bible is not the authority, but the opinions of men who were born hundreds of years after its completion. You're welcome to explain, but remember, I'm not a novice to logic myself and I have done my homework.

Allow me to make some more statements regarding the posts that I edit/removed. What was posted on this page, that I removed was not Christian. It had the familiar ring of homosexual activists who delight in twisting the clear teaching of Scripture, and yes, I can show and tell you where they are and what they say and they are NOT the OT Scriptures that the homosexuals spend so much time repudiating, yet they are plain and clear, again, to the UNBIASED.

I say again: This page says "Christian Views of Jesus." This was NOT the page for homosexuals or any other person who wants to twist Scripture to say what they wish it says to espouse their views and pretend that those views are Christian. Those views have MANY OUTLETS, INCLUDING MANY on Wikipedia. THIS PAGE was dedicated to a *Christian* view and I GAVE IT AND YOU REMOVED IT. Your NPOV is not so neutral.

And Gary as I told you on your own talk page. The page may be for "Christian" views, but it is not for YOUR Christian views. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Wjhonson 02:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Gary. I'm sure you are trying to abide by the standards of this encyclopaedia, but one standard is "personal opinions have no place here". Hopefully you can understand that. The "Christian views" pages is not for your own personal views, but rather for cited statements from reliable, secondary, published sources. You can read the pages at WP:NPOV and WP:V to see what sort of things are allowed and not. Wjhonson 02:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Baloney. The crap you had posted was not only NOT "reliable" by ANY ORTHODOX DEFINITION OF CHRISTIANITY but is and has the personal spin of thousands of homosexuals who reject the moral commands of Scripture and are doing their best to CHANGE SOCIETY into the image they want it and you're determined to help them do it while you lie and pretend you want "reliable" sources. What you have posted is a complete misrepresentation of what Jesus taught and would not withstand scrutiny by any unbiased and knowledgeable third party. Your hypocrisy is duly noted.

Forget it. It's perfectly clear that this is YOUR soapbox and your pride in your politically correct reasoning is ludicrous. When and if you ever really want a "Christian View" let me know. You have my contact information. I won't hold my breath.

Your "Christian Views" is a page of fraud, being twisted to the homosexual's perverted spin of Christianity.

Honor you have not, sir.

Okay well, aren't you a fine example of a Christian now. Preaching but not listening. I think your words speak for themselves, "You shall know them by their fruit." And by the way, it's not my page, its the page. I didn't create it. In fact until you appeared, I'd never even heard of this page. It was created by many other editors as you can see from the history, should you care to look. And I'll be awaiting your apology. Wjhonson 06:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Your using Wikipedia to promote your own agenda.

Reading your discussion page, I see I'm not the first to accuse you of using Wikipedia to promote the homosexual agenda. Correction. He refused to accuse you of doing "maliciously." No wonder the "Christian Views" page so misrepresents Christianity. I'm sure it will continue to do so as long as you have the power to censor.

Homosexuals are such hypocrites about censorship. I'm sure you have the language skills to call it by at least a dozen different names that make is sound appropriate. Keep kidding yourself.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gary Sellars (talk • contribs) 08:10, 14 August 2006.

The different Steve Hellers

Yes, please disambiguate me from the one who writes fiction.

Thank you.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stheller (talk • contribs) 13:28, 14 August 2006.

Matthew Stadler

Hullo! I've been meaning to create a Matthew Stadler page for a while now, and here you've gone and done it! Thanks. There's an article on Allan Stein that is mostly me, and I've linked to that. Should I make stubs for the other books, or do you have some text prepared already? Dybryd 23:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have anything, so go ahead and do it. And you're welcome. Wjhonson 00:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

My birth date, etc.

Sure, no problem: I was born in 1949.

In case you are interested in other biographical details, here are a few: I entered Shimer in 1965 after 11th grade and graduated in 1971 in absentia. I met my second (current) wife, Susan, in the process of writing "Who's Afraid of C++?", and we married in 1997. I have been the list owner of Colloquy, the internet-based high IQ society which I notice has a stub on Wikipedia.

I see you have added links to some reviews of my books. There's also a (very short) editorial review on Amazon of "Who's Afraid of C++?" on this page: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0123390974/sr=8-1/qid=1155599548/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-5096013-3045753?ie=UTF8 Additionally, the full text of "C++: A Dialog" is now on my web site in HTML form, linked from this URL, which also contains the instructions for downloading the source code and the compiler used in the book: http://www.steveheller.com/cppad/cppad.htm.

Also, do you think it would be appropriate to list me as a notable graduate on the Shimer College page?

Thanks for your efforts in getting my entry in order. Of course, I'll be happy to answer any other questions you might have.

Stheller 23:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Colloquy

Yes, I was referring to the high-IQ society by that name. I'm not a member of it anymore, even though its web pages are still on my server, because the discussions tended to get too acrimonious, and when I tried to deal with that, I became the enemy. Apparently this is not uncommon in high-IQ societies. Anyway, here's their home page on yahoo groups: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybele/.

Maybe this item doesn't need to be on my bio, but that's up to you.

Actually, as long as your bio survives for say a week or so, I'd say you're good to go. Anything that can be verified by an independent editor, without actually contacting you, would be OK to update to your bio. The main thing is that facts have to be verifiable, so for example, published in Who's Who or something like that. A newspaper, a reliable source website (not a personal website), a journal, a book. You can read realiable sources to get a flavor for all the *acrimonious* (I like that word) discussions we've had on what is and is not acceptable as a source for wikinclusion. Wjhonson 00:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Colin Spencer

It's still there - I just corrected the capitalisation of the surname! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 04:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

They may still be preserved in your browser. Might be worth running long edits in a sandbox until they're done to stop this sort of thing! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 05:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Ta

Thanks for creating the 'Harrison Butler' disambiguation page - I suppose I'd better create the article now (assuming Xolob will let me... :D ).

I don't for a minute want to get into your argument with Gary, but re point 20. on your user page - if you're excluding reported facts from the set of true statements then aren't you limiting yourself to empirical facts and tautologies? And then you've got the problem of correspondence and just tautologies :P .

Also, note Freddy Ayer's point that to make the statement 'X' is equivalent to 'I assert X' or 'X is true' :P .

Seriously (I was just trying to start an argument above :) ), I do think (just MHO) that religious sensibilities deserve a little sensitivity - if the article on Jesus says that he raised the dead I think most intelligent readers (Christian or otherwise) will understand that 'raising the dead' is a mythological truth rather than a literal one - I would have thought that either stressing the unlikelihood of reanimation or trying to argue its literal truth were both pretty POVish - but having said all that I only skimmed the disputed material and don't really understand the details of your or Gary's positions...

I further understand that you feel a little jealous that I insulted Xolob and not you? Rentwa 13:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I deserve to be called haughty. In fact I deserve polysyllabic words that the person of average intelligence would fail to comprehend. The argument with Gary wasn't really on point 20, rather it was on point.... "Do not preach". I guess I didn't actually cover that point since I really hadn't the impression that someone would actually try it. But really, saying things like "Christians who don't agree with me are condemned to everlasting hellfire" is prehaps going a bit far. I'm a bit more ambivalent on whether or not I'm a member of a global homosexual conspiracy bent on the destruction of Western civilization. I feel that, if correct, that might add a bit of mystery to my haughty persona. Wjhonson 18:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, just I have a thing on mythological truth vs. literal truth :) .

Here's the Butler article, btw.

How's this? You are nefarious and mercurial, you stalk the house ranting while your friends cringe. "Kripes, nuts, phooey! Cancel my rhumba lesson!" From the bedroom closet you operate a huge network of computers, sending out incantations, curses, voodoo hoodoo! You've been called an evil genius by assholes (but those people are on your list.) The truth is, you're one of the world's last great medieval thinkers! Your plans have all been worked out quite methodically... logically... (but the ends justify the means)..he he! This user space is all part of the plan, so kitchee-koo YOU BASTARDS! (adapted from R. Crumb) Rentwa 19:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Whoops! Sorry, didn't notice you editing the Butler thing! Yes, the descriptions probably do go better after rather than under. Will now try adding pics... Rentwa 19:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Gay or bi.

Exactly. We don't need to point out that someone is gayon a list of lGBT people. Obviously, the bisexuals need to be labelled but the gay men on that list don't. Which is why I removed unnecessary "gays" in line with the rest of the list. Dev920 19:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

If I saw a name like Pat Roberts, I would assume they were homosexual, regardless of gender. And that's all that matters. If you want to know their gender, you read the article! The reason "gay" is not added is because everyone on the list IS gay(and where they aren't THEN you specify), so it looks messy. Dev920 22:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

KT MacFarland

Hi,

A relisting is required unless the consensus to restore is 75-80%, according to Wikipedia:Undeletion policy. Technically, the article barely had the margin needed to restore, although I would have done whatever necessary to get another hearing here, because the woman is notable. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Cat removal

As it happens, my family has a long and cruel history of this: my grandfather practiced "cat-punting" as a sport, a problem exacerbated by his history of alcoholism. :) The neighbors just loved him! Best wishes, Xoloz 16:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Categorization

In accordance with Wikipedia rules about duplicate categorization, Category:Lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender people is not to be added to articles which already have a subcategory such as Category:Gay writers, Category:Lesbian musicians or Category:Bisexual politicians on them. The category is vastly too large as it is; we need to find ways to take articles out of the parent category (such as subcategorizing them by country, as I've started doing, and/or by occupation), not to put even more in. Bearcat 01:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I have

I have removed the 'H B Assoc' heading from the disambiguation page - its all in the article, so doesn't seem to need its own heading. Rentwa 11:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Nefarious and mercurial

What? didn't you like long character assination plus 2 insults (nefarious (reminds me of a scene from 'Moonlighting') and mercurial)!?! It's adaptpted from the inside front cover of Zap #1 by R. Crumb - in the final frame the speaker is doing mime as if holding a small thing between forefinger and thumb - thats what 'kitchee koo thou bastards' refers to, ie he's got his victims right where he wants them - although it may look a little incongrous....especially in bold...

Just think - if Wikipedia had already had an entry for Butler you wouldn't be suffering any of this... Rentwa 11:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

For Your Efforts

The Working Man's Barnstar I, Xoloz, award Wjhonson this Working Man's Barnstar for his exceptional and creative problem-solving abilities (sometimes used in defense of cats!) Xoloz 15:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Good job defusing the Steve Heller situation at DRV. :) Best wishes, Xoloz 15:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: Ron Caldwell

An article that you have been involved in editing, Ron Caldwell, has been listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Caldwell. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 07:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: Carl Phillips

An article that you have been involved in editing, Carl Phillips, has been listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl Phillips. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 07:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:TotallyDisputed

You just added Template:AFD to Template:TotallyDisputed. Unfortunately, it seems like AFD doesn't like being substed onto a template: any page with TotallyDispued will be replaced with an error saying that AFD needs to be substed — and there's no AFD on that page itself. Is there another way to stick the AFD tag on these pages? --Geoffrey 18:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Deletion tags

You have added an {{afd}} tag to Template:TotallyDisputed (on the talk page). Note that afd is only for artcles, not templates, images, user pages, or any other page outside the main namespace (and [[WP:RFD|redirects). For templates, use templates for deletion. To see the full list, go to Wikipedia:Template_messages/Deletion. I moved that deletion request to tfd, please use the proper deletion method for future requests. Polonium 18:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Right wing people?

I have no opinion on the subject.

Adam Holland 21:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Help create a new Biography taskforce

A couple weeks ago you argued (rightly) for a broader category for "Intellectuals" on WPBiography. Here's your chance to put that in motion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography#Scientists & Scholars Workgroup 24.126.199.129 01:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. (Sorry about kind of advertising it). 24.126.199.129 01:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I have no problem with advertising. I think those who do are reactionaries. Wjhonson 01:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Constructive

You have to revert 4 times to violate the 3RR. I reverted twice.--Peta 03:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• As an admin I am well aware of the rule, and its application, and I have not violated it in any way.--Peta 03:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florian Grassl

You supported the deletion of Florian Grassl partly because there was "no information [in the article] that would establish the individual's notability". I discovered much of the article was removed in a previous edit and have restored the missing information. This may not sway your position, but I thought it'd be nice to let you know. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 08:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk page vandalism

Scurilous — haven't heard that word in a long time. Brings back fond memories of the Old South.

Wjhonson, editing other editors' comments on talk pages (like this [1]) is Talk page vandalism.

If you want to stand on Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks please note that:

1. It's not an official policy
2. The practice is disputed
3. It should, at most, be interpreted strictly and used sparingly
4. It was factual: based on personal observation and your own comments

This observation comes from months of personal interactions with you and observing your interactions with editors elsewhere. In that discussion you have, in fact, not used any paper sources, much less the ones I provided you, yet your called your work doing your "dillience." You were unwilling to look up a detailed source provided to you. You actually demanded to have me type out the reference for you. This was your position:

"You do have to post your "quote" if you want me to accept your source. Doesn't that seem apparent by now? Surely you have enough experience with me to know that I don't accept someone's word for anything."

This attitude of yours is pervasive. You find an online source, cut and paste it in, but demand that others produce their sources in writing before you'll even consider it. Noting that is not a personal attack. It's a personal observation from several various sources.

You have repeatedly stymied collaborations using this tactic — one that will cripple Wikipedia if it becomes pervasive becuase the sum of set of sources is a great deal broader than what's available online right now. MARussellPESE 17:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

You just don't get it. I did not give you "uncited opinion". I started the discussion with two complete citations, and then based the argument on them. Repeat — I began my discussion by presenting two sources. Having tried to collaborate with you in the past, I thought that was the only way to address you. But that just wasn't bloody good enough, and you changed the rules.

You demand to see other editors actually reproduce their sources, but don't hold yourself to the same standard. If they don't, you berate them for not doing their homework. Cutting and pasting online sources is easy, but when editors merely provide a complete citation — that's not doing the research. The hypocrisy is just astonishing, and the collaboration: mind-numbing. MARussellPESE 22:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

NOR

You are way out of line. That post has nothing to do with NOR. This is turning into trolling pure and simple. I have posted a comment to Jon Awbrey on his talk page about the dispute resolution process, and I would appreciate it if you would not interfere. Your behavior on that page has been very poor. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't appreciate your tone. You should not be removing other people's comments. Wjhonson 04:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Eustace Mullins#Resources

I was wondering if these were supposed to be links? Only one is. Adam Holland 22:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Johnny Lee Clary

In the deletion review of Johnny Lee Clary, you asserted that '"Johnny Lee Clary" which certainly only one such person exists, gets thousands of google hits.' Can you explain how you got this result when every time I have searched on that very name I get just 623 Google hits? -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Didier Eribon

the informations you added about eribon's birthdate, etc. are wrong... i do not understand why you insist on giving wrong informations!

Do you have a french source? the data you added are not mentioned in the french version of wikipedia.

are you sure that your sources are reliable? do you have a french source?? If not, try to find one... Do you read french?? Wikipedia in french does not mention any information about birthdate, and so on, since the information which have been previously given (similar to yours) was condidered questionable

if i understand correctly, you add questionable information, without being able to check it n french sources, and then threaten people who edit out your questionable information to block them??? wikipedia in french does not agree with you!!! this may be because your source is questionable, and your information inacurrate! how can you be so sure of your data, if french articles do not agree with you about a french author! your behaviour is really amazing (to block people who do not agree with you!!!)

why did you suppress the reference to the french version of wikipedia? not reliable in your opinion??? or because it does not consider you "truth" as reliable ??

No we are not allowed to use wikipedia as a self-citation. That is, wikipedia is not itself, a reliable source, that can be used as a reference to itself. Wjhonson 13:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes you're threatening to block me because i question the reliability of your information (it has been questioned in france!!!). you take advantage that you can block me and that i cannot block you to impose your "truth". If your information is questioned, you block the questioner? What an amazing behaviour!!! you say that i "reverted without discussing the issue". But i did and do discuss it, and i did and do discuss your information and your behaviour!!! you should know that "respected sources" are often misleading. And several French articles about a French author are probably reliable sources... Who decide what is a "reliable source"? You??? (But i'm sure you do not read French!)

You question its reliability on no grounds whatever. That is you have no reason to question it. I'm not imposing *my* truth, but rather the citation of a reliable source. And no, you reverting many times, as anyone who checks the history can see, without mentioning any reason why or discussing the problem you had. There are not several French articles, there is one, with no sources whatsoever. That is not a reliable source and cannot be cited in the English version. Wjhonson 14:11, 30 August 2006

(UTC)

Once more, you're wrong, there are a lot of articles in French about Eribon. No one mentions the information you want to impose as "reliable" if not "true". Have you read it? At least try to red it??? No, i'm sure you do not read french. So you take advantage that you are able to block people who question your "truth". But i read your disucssions with other people here, and can see very well what kind of person you are!!! Such a pity for Wikipedia to have people like you as editors!

Yes I read the French article. It lists NO sources, none, not one single source is listed in that article. The mere fact that you claim, without proof, that "no one mentions" is not grounds for removing a citation where the issue IS mentioned. And again it's not "my" truth, it is the cited verifiable, reliable source which states it. Wjhonson 14:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

About the reliability of your information : you first mentioned "1952" as Eribon's birhtdate. I edited this information out, since it has been suppressed from the French version of Wikipedia... You then changed your mind and said "1953". So, it is that i was obvoulsy right to question the reliability or your sources!!! This birhtdate has been supressed too from the French version... Why are so sure that you are right now, since you were sure to be right before acknowledging you were wrong?? Is your motto "always wrong, never doubt" ??

I have cited my source. If you have a problem with their accuracy, maybe you should contact them. Wjhonson 14:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

does that mean that you first mentioned "1952" without checking this information? or that you got it from another "reliable" source you try to forget now?? I have here another source in french stating 1952, another 1954 and another 1955... Will you add all these birthdates if i give you the source to reference them??? can i add them all, if i mention my sources (as reliable as yours), or will you block me in order to impose your views about your (new) sources, as you tried first to do with your previous one??

It means there was another source, not as reliable which stated his birthyear only. Gale's however gives his full birthdate and birthplace. If you want to cite your source, go ahead, I have no problem with competing birthdates as long as the sources are reliable.Wjhonson 15:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

And what if there is a conflict between sources? How to choose ? And who decide? Who will be entitled to choose? You, since you have the power (you seem so proud of your little ridiculous power) to block other people when they disagree with you? Or me, or other people, who are more familiar with intellectual history than you ("an expert in local history"! great!)... One of Eribon's publishser states "1955"... Why don't you follow it? (Unsigned)

You don't choose, you post the conflicting sources. Let the reader choose. Insulting me will not get you anywhere on this issue. Wjhonson 18:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Your Take on Eustace Mullins

Given your Wikipedia credentials and your claims to being a professional historian and biographer, I am somewhat disappointed in your article on Eustace Mullins. While I appreciate that you have added some information, and not entirely discarded my contributions, what bothers me is your insistence on labelling a complex man as "Anti-Semite" or "Neo-Nazi" instead of representing his views and allowing the reader to decide. I can understand your opinion that Mullins is an anti-semite, and I was similarly disturbed by the statements he made in The Biological Jew. He himself seems to have later felt that such claims were mistaken. In spite of these wrong-headed works, having read Secrets of the Federal Reserve, I feel that Mullins has made a very important contribution, and that to label him off-hand as "Anti-Semite" and such only prevents the reader from understanding his actual views and writings. Similarly, it is unfair to simply label Ezra Pound as a "Fascist" without any evidence or explanation. You also display a tendency to accuse Mullins of "guilt by assocation" with various "Neo-Nazis" and "revisionists" like Willis Carto. I suggest to you that these associations are parenthetical to the works actually written by the author, and that his arguments deserve, like anyone else's, the benefit of an unbiased reading.

I would ask that you consider revising the article in favor of a truly neutral point of view, which presents the life and work of Mr. Mullins without the convenient labels. Thank you. Alex Laubin 05:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

No, thanks.

The answer is no. If someone held a certain view for 50 years, and then realized "Hey, I've been a real a-hole for most of my life" and recanted on that view, then they don't deserve to be labelled and dismissed for having held that view. The fact is, Eustace Mullins was the first person, as far as I can find, to reveal the truth underlying Jupiter Island and the Federal Reserve Act, which, if he is right, constitutes the hijacking of our currency and our democracy. This is a significant finding, and there is not a single mention of race or religion in Secrets of the Federal Reserve. My point is that the man's work stands, regardless of your labels, and that an encyclopedic article should represent the man as he is, and not debase itself to the lower instincts of those seeking blame. Mullins is not Hitler, or Mussolini. He is who he is. An encyclopedia should represent that.

Jesus

You deal in logic and statements of fact. There are a great deal of arguments, somewhat logical and factual in the man's writings. Weigh them. Explain them. Dismiss them if you have the evidence to do so. Don't just be a stick in the mud and call the man a Nazi because you think it's cool. Have you read Ezra Pound? Do you think he's a fascist based on his work? Is it possible he was against World War II in every way, and that he broadcast from whereever he could? Bottom Line: You need to work on this article, and exile your prejudice, or else I will.Alex Laubin 06:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Ann Coulter

Thanks for removing the dramatic language about Ann Coulter's "age discrepancy". I'd remove the entire "Coulter has not yet resolved the discrepancy" sentence, and even the whole paragraph. (But I'm very reluctant to edit the article in Coulter's favor, since I'm very active on the talk page, and I fear spawning retaliatory anti-Coulter cruft). Some reasons for deleting it: 1) The discrepancy was mentioned in a four-year-old opinion piece. 2) How do we know she hasn't resolved it? 3) If she hasn't yet resolved it, who will monitor to see when she does? 4) She's an attractive forty-ish woman in the public eye, maintaining some mystery about her age. This is notable? 5) The paragraph includes implied accusations of illegal behavior, which is not in the citation.

Thanks again for improving this article and Wikipedia. Lou Sander 18:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Wjhonson hello theBlackbay here:

Thank you for all your help i was wondering if i could ask your opinion :) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G. Edward Griffin here is the Article on G. Edward Griffin that i have just reconstructed up for deletion, i was wondering if you could pitch in a comment in any direction you feel but i believe this man is very notable having Authored such books as The Creature from Jekyll Island a history of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, but also many many more films as well, being an inclusionist of sorts i would rather see changes made rather than a wholesale deletion, what do you think?

Thank you for all your help, I was just starting out in Wikipedia when Co Created the B H Freedman with you.

-Theblackbay 09:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Any help of mine you may need or want in any regard just ask :)

Hello cancel that i'm Awarding you the digitalindustry threepointsymbol for your services to the future of humanity.

If you did not help me/us when i needed it the B H Freedman article would not have been created and I would not have contributed anywhere, some would have liked that, but more important than that is the fact that you have contributed to the future of humanity perhaps in ways you don't know about.

-Theblackbay 15:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is the digitalindustry threepointsymbol Award you Wjhonson are the first in the world to get it

.theblackBay. beta site

• The symbol is the official digitalindustry logo it is used in many places but here today under permission of digitalindustry I used it for the purpose of an award. digitalindustry

No problem great work i won't be giving the threepointsymbol out in future much ever. so you got it.-Theblackbay 16:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Freedman Discussion: Theblackbay vs. Samhook

I'm gradually editing my contributions to the Freedman talk, removing when possible stuff I now realize was inappropriate and reformatting others. Thank you for deleting his most recent spillover from our discussion on his page, spillover I see that I encouraged. I have written him to suggest strongly that we keep our side discussion entirely to ourselves. I will take great care not to spill over myself and even more care not to respond to him.

Samhook 01:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Your comment

No problem. There simply was no content at all beyond a date of death and I had no way whatsoever of knowing what your intentions were. - Lucky 6.9 06:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I saw nothing of the sort beyond the year 1991 in brackets. I apologize for the misunderstanding. - Lucky 6.9 06:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

I'm afraid I have nothing to add to the article. I just wanted to point out that the {{underconstruction}} is most useful on the top where people see it. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

NOR

I am trying to get things moving - step by step - on the primary/secondary sources issue. Since you had been an active participant in this discussion I think you should check in again, here, [2]. I have broken my own proposed edits into four steps. We pretty much achieved consensus on step one and made an edit, the discussion now is centered on step two. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Biography Newsletter September 2006

The September 2006 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. plange 00:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

John Michael Owen Snodgrass

John Michael Owen Snodgrass seems to me to be sufficiently close to the Debrett's text as reproduced here as to constitute a copyvio. The T&C for Galenet appear to prohibit redistribution. Thoughts ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Eustace Mullins revisited

Sorry about the accusatory tone regarding the Eustace Mullins article; I was angry about the extremely POV slant of the article, and, as you pointed out, I hadn't reviewed the entire history of the page to see that you hadn't written it. I would just like to see a decent page there, rather than an Anti-Anti-Semite tirade. Please help in this effort, if you have the time. Thanks.--Alex Laubin 05:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I don't have a problem with the inclusion of the anti-Semitic material - my issue is with the lack of any balance or context or structure. I think an anti-Semitism section is a good solution to a lot of the controversy, so that valid arguments can be included without forcing the opinion that the man is a bigot and his work is worthless.--Alex Laubin 06:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Sources

If you continue to insert holocaust denial sites as sources in articles, I'm going to be forced to commence an RFC about your behaviour. I'd really rather not; the consensus against using them as sources is well established here, and I see no reason to escalate this to an adversarial level. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Quimby

Why is Qumby relevant? Addhoc 13:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes the article says "In the 1860s she began to explore faith healing and associated with Phineas Quimby. His influence on her is disputed; the Christian Science Church maintains she thought highly of him personally but ultimately disavowed his technique as more mesmerism-based than Christian. However, there are many passages in her work "Science and Health" that mirror passages in Quimby's writings." However, I'm not disputing the article content. According to WP:EL, for a link to be included it has to provide relevant information about the subject. The Quimby link doesn't appear to provide any further information about Mary Baker Eddy and in this context should be removed. Addhoc 13:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Concur that our polite disagreement is about "content" as opposed to "blanking" or "spamming". Unless a consensus develops, I don't intend to revert your edit. Thanks, also. Addhoc 21:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

?

What are you so worked up about? Are you afraid that proper process wasn't followed to create a guideline? If so, might I point out that there is no "official" process to create guidelines, and that writing down common practice is a de facto guideline? Wikipedia is not a very formal system. >Radiant< 20:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• It's not a matter of viewpoints, it's a matter of facts. See, the problem is that some people think there is a "change", "promotion" or "upgrade" from a regular page to a guideline. That is simply not how Wikipedia works. Since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, we cannot create legislation; instead, we write down current practice, and mark it guideline. The opposition at present is from people who do not like current practice. Of course they have the right to their opinion - but they are wrong to think that changing that page will somehow change current practice. It's quite feasible to change current practice, and when it changes the guidelines will follow right along. >Radiant< 21:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes. And we have been striving for consensus, it has been in discussion for several weeks and was advertised on such places as the village pump. This page is not saying "we must do this", it is saying "we do this at the moment". The opposition is from people who do not like the way we do it; the onus is on them to change the way we do it, not to avoid documenting the way we do it. >Radiant< 21:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I cannot judge for the majority of English speakers, but WP:POL (as well as {{guideline}}) explain what *guideline* means. It is a misconception that we need to poll or vote on such; whether or not this is common practice can be seen through examining the evidence, e.g. WP:AFD and the deletion log. Tell me, do you think any part of the page as it stands now is not an accurate description of current practice on Wikipedia? This is unrelated to whether or not people like that practice. >Radiant< 21:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability

Please explain what is wrong with this page on the talk page rather than reverting. —Centrx→talk • 20:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Amazing work on that peice of info.

Samuel D. Leidesdorf.... to think the original article was deleted because people questioned B H Freedman existence. .someone even wanted to merge it into a Hoax article.. sure he was hard to track down but thanks to people like yourself that's changed.

I wonder how well indeed they knew each other? also I’d love to have been a fly on the wall at the 1919 peace conference I’m getting a book soon hopefully by Edward Mandell House it's called "What really happened at Paris; the story of the Peace Conference, 1918-1919," I only found it because of a great reference tool you showed me "worldcat" I really want to read that one if you have already please don't tell me about it :) .

Also you should read My exploited father in law it's a pretty good book, in fact I wouldn't say it "the best in the world" but pretty good.

Happy researching!

blackBay.

I see Jpgordon is giving you the old "get the sources right" ..read "get the answer right" or else story, sorry about that I hope I didn't include that sort of unwarranted pressure onto you I believe more in the information it's self and it's viability rather than the source in regard to such political subjects.

Everyone has an opinion it's just that sometimes that we only hear the loudest or most threatening, i choose to listen to all of them. the threats are the fun ones but.

OTCBB template

That was easy: It looks like there already is an OTC template, at Template:OTCBB. —tregoweth (talk) 22:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Pat Nixon

I didn't create the big space, I tried to fix it. I put the photo line at the bottom of the section. Now, when I pull up my edit in history, it looks like I left a huge white space, but I swear it wasn't there when I finished the edit. And now there's a big empty space in the "First Lady" section. Buggy software I guess. — J M Rice 03:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

OT

But the Protestant canon is a view held by the minority. Catholic + Orthodox > Protestant by #'s. That said, I believe the Hebrew Bibile is arranged a bit differently that the Protestant OT. Whatever the case, it is incorrect to link the HB with the OT. Lostcaesar 14:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The change you made that bothered me was using a link [Hebrew Bible | Old Testament]; referencing both is fine, but we cannot link the two terms above. OT its own article, HB is just a couple paragraphs, and as I said, they are not the same. What Jews think about the use of "OT" doesn't seem relevant to a sentence that starts with "Christian views of Jesus...". Lostcaesar 14:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

PS - I did not mean to delete your parenthetical addition, sorry; Lostcaesar 14:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Tanakh

I am well aware of this. However, the Tanakh article is not an article on the Tanakh, but appears to be solely an article on the term "Tanakh". Hence my comment that I wish there was a comprehensive article on the Tanakh/Hebrew Bible/Old Testament and not simply individual articles discussing only the terms. —Aiden 06:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Scandalous use of cites

Dude, sorry my cites have been old school. I'll get with the program :-) Mr Christopher 05:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You're not going to charge me $1,000 to not tell my wife are you? :-) Mr Christopher 16:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not wealthy, but my friends call me Art! Mr Christopher 17:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Owner-placed links

See Wikipedia:External links#Restrictions on linking: "For policy or technical reasons, editors are restricted from linking to the following, without exception....A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked to". I think it is reasonable to assume that a user registered as User:History-net is affiliated with www.historynet.com, at least until he/she chooses to answer questions on his/her talk page. And there were links added to around a dozen articles, with up to three links to this site. Notinasnaid 18:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:EL

Would you be so kind as to explain what is "nonsense" about my edit summary ("while it may be true that "any link promotes a site", we're dealing with intent here: links added in order to promote a site.") -- Mwanner | Talk 02:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

All links are added in order to promote a site. Me, promoting, the history Channel site, is in no universe a bad idea. If I wise to promote the site of the Internet Revenue Service, how is that in violation of wikicore beliefs? The promotion of non-commercial sites was never the intention of this language. The way it was worded before my change, makes ANY promotion a violation of the intent. That makes no sense. All links are promotional, that is their nature. Wjhonson 02:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You're still missing it: is is intent we're dealing with, not effect. The effect may be to promote, but the intent still matters. -- Mwanner | Talk 03:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Then maybe we can find a way to make that concrete on the project page. If I cannot understand it, then its not concrete. Wjhonson 03:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I buy that, but we seem to have come out in the same place in the end. Thanks! -- Mwanner | Talk 03:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

We're not at the end. Wjhonson 03:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Johnny Hazzard real name

I'm going to try hard to write this without giving personal offense, so you won't feel it is a personal attack. Please don't just delete it from your talk page. It's important. I've written much the same thing on the article talk page, but I want to make extremely sure you've seen it.

Please note that I am not just any administrator, but one who has personally gotten in trouble for this exact issue before. What Chidom and Doc Tropics write is exactly correct. The real name of a porn star who uses a stage name is a controversial issue, and can not be added without strong, reliable, verifiable sources. It can't just be added unsourced and marked {{fact}} hoping someone else will find the sources. Until we find sufficient sources, it can not be added. This may or may not be libel, defamation, or a dozen other legal terms, I don't know, I'm not a lawyer. But this is Wikipedia policy, namely Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. I realize you have the best of intentions, and I sympathize fully with them - after finishing writing this post, I'm going to out and run several searches for qualifying sources that can back this information. However, until and unless we find it, we can't add it, and, unfortunately, though I do sympathize, it will be my duty as an admin with knowledge in this area, to back that injunction with administrative powers if this information is restored without sufficient sources. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I had to delete a user space page with the same info that you made before the above note (can't link for obvious reasons). It seems that WP:LIVING says "Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages." I didn't know that it extended to user pages, myself, but it does. If you want, I can send you the contents in an email, but I don't think there is any information there besides the name. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Phil Farber

Thanks for weighing in on the issue of the citation provided on this article. I don't know if you are aware, but there's a mediation case going on against the citations I have provided on a number of articles, most of which I have created. I began editing the Starwood Festival page because it had incorrect information, then when it's notability was challenged, tried to "beef it up" with a list of features of the event and lists of past speakers and entertainers. The "features" section was challenged as "too ad-like", but the rest stayed up, and someone provided links to the pages of some of the artists. When I learned to do that, I created pages for notable individuals in these lists and linked them, and added their appearances to their pages as I did on Phil's (I consider an appearance at the largest Magical, Neo-Pagan and Consciousness-oriented festival in the country to be notable). They were immediately challenged as being uncited, so with the help of others I provided links to corroborating pages containing the programs of the event. Next, I was accused of "google-bombing" and creating "link-spam" (I had never heard of either one; I started doing this in August) because of all the external links, and many were taken down, so I took the rest down myself. Now the same folks are challenging the INTERNAL links to the Starwood article and the notability of the appearances, creating the IMO ridiculously high bar that it's only notable if I can cite a newspaper or magazine having reported that the appearance took place.

Would you care to weigh in on this controversy? I sincerely consider these appearances to be a valid credit in the bio of these speakers/artists, and think at LEAST the internal links should stand. Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-03 Starwood Festival.Rosencomet 19:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

New Starwood mediation page

Your question on the old mediation page is very perceptive. You might want to being it up on the new mediation page too. Talk:Starwood Festival/mediation. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Instructions Check

Thanks for replying to my attempted overhaul of the Category:Families. I recall you queried about Families by profession. I have also created Families by religion, & Families by ancestry to supplement the already existant Families by nationality. You may recall that I said it might be easiest to see the layout looking on the right side at User:TonyTheTiger#Categories Created. I have added instructions at Category:Families by ancestry because it is more complicated than the other pages I created. This is my first creation that was complicated enough to need instructions. I was wondering if people will be able to follow my instructions. If you get a chance, I would appreciate it if you would see if you think you could follow them. Reply on my talk page if you do. TonyTheTiger 13:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if you might have tried my instructions in the first hour and a half. I left one thing out. It works for me now. I am going to create that Legal familes category right now. TonyTheTiger 15:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Baha'i divisions

The issue about content is really over, I suggest ending the debate. Cuñado - Talk 05:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

What a pleasure to have you around

Hello. I'm an editor mostly on Baha'i pages. I don't know if or what affiliation you might have with the history of the Faith, but darned if you don't show up out of nowhere everytime to put the bullies in their place. Several times just when I think my position is about to be overwhelmed due to nothing more than being outnumbered (it's hard to win a revert war 3 against 1), you've swept in and put everyone in their respective places. It's a marvel to behold. I've only been editing for a year, and at odds with most of the editors on those pages. IMHO, they're totally biased towards there one side. I guess we all are, but around here I like to think I'm a good faith editor first. I've gone so far as to defend pages about specific Baha'i groups that I'm opposed to intellectually, but that have no editors from their group around watching their pages. Edit wars like the one you just jumped in on over the percentage of the Bahai divisions is a perfect example of the ongoing debacle that is that page. I can't believe that I'd have to wage a war to get them to use the actual number from the source they're providing in stead of one that they consider "more accurate". And thank you for nipping that biased position paper thing in the bud like you did. I said the same thing and had my obvious concerns cast aside. I watch you work in awe. But, it's really bizarre the lengths that so-called Baha'is will go to in the name of "defending the Covenant" (one of our articles of faith). By definition that has nothing to do with the bad-faith editing you've witnessed and have fought so valiantly against. It's a pleasure to have you around, sir. Keep up the good fight. Jeff 06:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

No, not Ted

But why'd y'ask? --Chalyres 11:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

oh, i understand. self-referential list, that is, list referring to myself, i.e. what i'm editing most. --Chalyres 00:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

You'll want to be aware of this [Request for Arbitration] opened by Paul Pigman. Don't feel left out, he didn't notify me either. Seems the mediation isn't going the way he would like it to... Ekajati (yakity-yak) 04:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Starwood Mediation

I don't want to discourage you from participating in the Starwood Festival mediation but it would be helpful to the discussion if you would familiarize yourself with the background material. This has been developing since late August and some of the issues you have brought up have either been covered or are not points of contention. Besides the mediation page above, you might also want to look through:

• Talk:Starwood_Festival#Request_for_Comment:_Inserting_references_to_Starwood_Festival_in_articles
• Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-03 Starwood Festival
• Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-03 Starwood Festival
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse is also related.

Again, I'm not trying to discourage you from contributing to the dialog. I just think your efforts and comments would be more effective and productive if you read the links I've included here. Just a suggestion. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 05:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 01:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration

Well, the arbitration is obviously open. I would appreciate any advice you can give me as to how to proceed (or not proceed). Someone named User:RasputinJSvengali has already deleted the fact that the Starwood Festival is run by ACE, information which was in the Starwood Festival article when it was created over a year before I first inputted anything to Wikipedia. I have been assembling whatever "3rd party sources" I can find for articles I've created, but I'm not sure I know how to properly list them as references. Since they are not to the ACE website, I hope they will be taken as fulfilling what was asked for. I suspect, however, that nothing will satisfy these folks. Rosencomet 15:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Some action taken

I have just done a round of deletions of names from the Starwood festival page and a few deletions of Starwood mentions on other pages. I also assembled some 3rd-party sources referencing Starwood appearances on the part of many of the subjects who had mentions in their articles and added them. Some include interviews by the subjects discussing these appearances. I also provided links to a couple articles that had only been referred to in the past. (I would not be suprised if I did some of these wrong, in that I may have put links in the body of the text that belonged in the "Reference" section and such, and I welcome anyone changing such errors.) I hope this demonstrates my desire to improve articles and satisfy requests for 3rd-party sources. I have not added to the Starwood Festival page, only subtracted (though I did ask someone to fix a link to a band's page), and though I have added to the Jeff Rosenbaum article it was only to beef it up to avoid its deletion. If it can pass muster, I plan not to edit it any more, and I hope to ask others to handle any direct additions to the Starwood, WinterStar and ACE articles. I may still make more deletions to them for a while. Rosencomet 21:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Citing your sources

Is it still too much to ask that you actually cite your sources? In Subh-i-Azal you used, it might appear, either, or both, of Kitab-i Nuqtat al-Kaf and/or Tarikh-i-Jadid — or were you using the notes or introdutions since the first is in Persian and the latter isn't on-point in the main? Without any citations who can tell?

I'll dig into these and fix these references for you so that they point to useful information, instead of making readers plow though 300 pages of Persian looking for two pages on-point in an introduction (Kitab-i Nuqtat al-Kaf), or 450 pages of gif files for about a dozen to be found in an appendix (Tarikh-i-Jadid).

Always a pleasure. MARussellPESE 23:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Dude, you claim expertises in history, geneaology, biography, etc., and apparently expect that to go unquestioned and unproven. When challenged on your sources, you have withdrawn to the position that specific citations aren't required, merely optional — rather than demonstrate that you did use a source by citing it so that others can verify the point. Experts don't mind having others verify their work.

This last was a characteristic example. You reverted these references back in with the edit summary: "relevant sections are in English". What relevant sections were you talking about? I spent the better part of two hours digging through those references of yours to find what could have been on point. (Digging through scores of gif files was a lot of fun.) But you'd have saved the trouble by stating at the least what those "sections" were.

I'd have been much more enthusiastic about your contributions if they hadn't been accompanied from the beginning with precious little WP:AGF, accusations of bias flying at every turn, insulting edit summaries, and characteristic withering sarcasm and condescension in the talk pages. What was there to outreach to? Shall we compare WP:NPA warnings?

Then you give me a hard time for excavating and untangling your sources? Am I supposed to thank you for all this? Don't preach a faith to me with a superficial understanding. MARussellPESE 05:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Howdy

I live where you do. Would you like to meet sometime? I think you might also be interested in an article I greatly expanded:James McCune Smith. I'm working on all related articles as well - but it's slow going. I have many irons in the fire at present. Feel free to post back or email me. TTFN! Nina Odell 20:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Howdy

That's amazing, because some of my good friends are scruffy trolls who smell funny. The Attic is my favorite place to meet people. In truth, I'm thinking of starting a club. I'll email you.

I've got no clue what you're doing, but it sounds important. Thanks for doing it!NinaOdell | Talk 12:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your support on the myspace issue. See User:Wizardry Dragon for some current discussion on the topic. Also, if you can add on to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources, that'd be great! SERSeanCrane 06:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Spam

The edits you keep reverting are spam. The issue is discussed here. The owner has spammed her site into 70+ articles. IrishGuy ^talk 19:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your edit to Institute for Historical Review

Hi. I noticed that you returned a line to the article that I had previously deleted. The reason for this deletion was that a link to a page of Google search results for "Institute for Historical Review" does not constitute a reliable source, let alone a source for what the footnote was attached to (in this case, a reference to something a CNN broadcaster stated.) Sources should be works published in print or on the Internet, not a page of search engine results (unless, I suppose, if the material cited was a count of how many hits there are for a given topic.) If you'd like to include the sentence as it was written, please find a direct source to substantiate the comment which is contained in the sentence.

Best Regards, .V. (talk) 21:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Kh7

Please reread my message on User talk:Kh7. I always mention putting a request on the talk page (as I am using a template which I know includes it). :-) A Ramachandran 23:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The verbage is a little vauge and distancing. So I made it more explicit. Wjhonson 04:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Okay, can you cite a guideline? There's been a lot of dubious image links in there articles. John Reaves (talk) 09:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for clarifying. John Reaves (talk) 02:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Theosophy

Please keep an eye on the Theosophy article. One user with many IP's 218.167.168.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is blanking the page, and refuses to reach consensus before doing that. Thanks. --Mallarme 09:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Albert Fish

Do you think the article should be in chrono order, or stay as it is, with the murders in the order that they were discovered. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I tried rearranging it, but it looked odd, so I reverted it. Especially since the Gaffney murder depends on evidence provided when the trolley conductor recognizes his photo in the paper, then Fish confesses the details. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Waldorf education

We are seeking an independent editor to give an opinion whether the Waldorf education article, after much rewriting and searching for citations, is now written from a neutral point of view. If you have time, would you please give your impressions on the talk page? Thanks - Hgilbert 16:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, "we" is not correct. HGilbert, who has a confirmed COI on this subject is independently seeking someone to confirm his POV editing. Please feel free to contribute or give impressions, however. Pete K 19:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Re copyright infringement

You have excluded the case where I explain the song with such exquisite beauty that, to the reader, the song can actually be heard in their head. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 08:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right. But in that case, wouldn't your explanation be a brand-new artistic work? In fact I'm not sure you could even say it's derivative since it also includes "exquisite beauty". If I were the judge I'd ... I'd cry. Wjhonson 09:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Donnie Davies

It looks like Donnie Davies has been moved to WP:AFD under February 2, 2007 if you have continuing interest in this subject. Thanks for all your participation thus far. You've been helpful. --SquatGoblin 14:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Succession boxes

I can't believe you would decide that you could just start changing succession boxes willy nilly with no discussion from a form which has been used consistently in wikipedia for years now, especially after I indicated an objection. Would you please try to start a discussion of this, instead of going about it this way? I'd suggest Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and/or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization, particularly the latter. john k 20:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Peers are normally just called "Lord X" in their lifetimes. "Lord Salisbury is the prime minister," one might have said in 1900. "The Earl of X" or "The Lord X" (there are no succession boxes where anyone is called "The Baron X") is simply a more formal variant. john k 21:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops, the comment above should go in the wikipedia talk page. Sorry...but as to your claim, it is utterly not anachronistic to call someone "The Duke of Westminster" or "Lord Butler" or whatever during their lifetime. This is absolutely how these people are properly called. I agree about cases when someone is succeeded in an office by the person who was their successor in a title. We ought to disambiguate then. But you are just wrong to say that this is not how people are called. It is absolutely how people are called. john k

Why the 17th century? I would say that in the 17th century, we're more likely to see "The Earl of Strafford" than "Lord Strafford," but in neither case is one terribly likely to see the first name, except in legal documents. By the early 18th century, you see "Lord Suchandsuch." But I don't see why it is my responsibility to find examples. I'd think it is your responsibility as the person who wants to change things, to demonstrate the flaw in the current way of doing things, and to demonstrate your claim that this is somehow anachronistic. However, to quench your thirst, I give you a pamphlet from 1681 entitled, "To the Parliament of England, the case of the poor English Protestants in Mary-land under the arbitrary power of their popish governour the Lord Baltimore, who, with his father, hath made it their business to have the whole countrey subject to the Church of Rome ever since the first planting of that collony; as doth appear by all their actions." The second sentence of this pamphlet begins, "The Lord Baltimore believing that this might be a Check to his further Designs of advancing Popery, picks a Quarrel with Claburn and the Protestants, and orders the Governour of Mary-Land to raise Forces and fall upon Collonel Claburn and the Protestants; who defended themselves, and beat the Lord Baltimore's Papists off their land." Need I go on? It can be found on the online database "Early English Books Online", available at any major university library. So, um, there we go. john k 04:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Your example does not show "the exact opposite." Your point was that "Lord X" is anachronistic. Pointing to an example that shows someone using "The Rt Hon. Givenname, Lord X" does not prove that "Lord X" is anachronistic, just that the other form is in use, which I have not denied. However, me providing a document which uses "Lord X" does, in fact, prove you wrong, as it shows that people were, in fact, called this, which was exactly what you were denying. john k 04:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Your original claim was as follows:

Masking a new like x y, the Baron of Z by just calling them "The Baron Z" is anachronistic. They were never called "Baron Z" is their lifetimes, but always referred to as "x y, Baron of Z" or something analogous.

I have provided a document from the lifetime of Charles Calvert, 3rd Baron Baltimore calling him "Lord Baltimore" or "The Lord Baltimore." Your original claim is wrong. Now you are moving the goalposts. As far as how people refer to themselves, a peer always signs his name simply by his peerage title. "Baltimore" or "Kent" or whatever. john k 06:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tall women, List of tall men

Please see new combined deletion debate. ~ trialsanderrors 20:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)