Welcome[edit]

Hello, MilesAgain! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place ((helpme)) on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Marlith T/C 20:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

December 2007[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Anna Eshoo, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Chris the speller (talk) 22:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My vandalism warning[edit]

I didn't think it was vandalism, I thought the work of another "artist" was vandalism, but clicked on the wrong link of the anti-vandalism tool I was using. Sorry, the fog of war. Happy editing! Chris the speller (talk) 22:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IRV[edit]

Hi, good luck on getting a settled IRV/criteria section. It was getting too crazy for me, but I just will stop looking and keep my bliss! Tom Ruen (talk) 09:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Megan McArdle[edit]

Restored to User:MilesAgain/Sandbox. Please note that this was previously deleted under an AFD discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megan McArdle). Make sure that you meet the concerns in that discussion before attempting to recreate this in article space. If you do attempt to rewrite it, perhaps you could ask for an opinion on an appropriate forum? Good luck. Woody (talk) 01:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rorschach[edit]

I added the citation you requested. And the Rorschach is not "subjective" when interpreted with the Exner system of scoring. For more details, read the article and read Exner. Ward3001 (talk) 02:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Frankly, I do not believe you. Please provide the page number(s) and edition of Exner along with the excerpt(s) which support the claim that this page contains "incorrect interpretations." MilesAgain (talk) 02:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The whole book is about Rorschach interpretation with the Exner system, so the page numbers you need to read before presuming that you know anything about the topic are 1-545 . And I can give you a dozen or so more references (on your talk page), for starters, if you want more to read. Read Exner before you start slinging around accusations about someone else's expertise. I don't care whether you believe me or not. I know what is correct regarding the Rorschach, especially very elementary interpretation, because I am an expert on the subject, including a Ph.D. in clinical psychology, extensive training by Dr. Exner, and adminstration/interpretation of roughly 300 Rorschachs. What is the basis for your expertise? Ward3001 (talk) 02:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is very suspicious that you claim to be an expert, but you are unable to provide any excerpt or specific citation supporting your claim that Dr. Exner's work calls the interpretations here "incorrect." For starters, anyone with the first-hand expertise you have should easily be able to provide a specific excerpt for your claim. More importantly, it seems extremely unlikely to me that you would be able to find any source from 2002 which says that specific interpretations made in the 2007 external link are "incorrect" on a projective evaluation, for which several easily-googleable, apparently reliable sources say there are no "wrong" answers. Consider, if an answer suggests a personality problem which the examiner is screening for, how can it be "incorrect," when it is furthering the objectives of the test?
To answer your question, I have absolutely no expertise with the Rorschach test. However, I am certain that I can understand the plain language of Wikipedia rules as well as you. They include:
  • "any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question.... Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim [including] surprising ... claims that are not widely known.... The requirement to provide carefully selected qualitative sources for exceptional claims especially applies in the context of scientific or medical topics...." -- WP:V
  • "conflict of interest edits are strongly discouraged.... Adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, ... employer, associates, or his business or personal interests, places the author in a conflict of interest.... If other editors suggest that your editing violates Wikipedia's standards, take that advice seriously and consider stepping back, reassessing your edits, and discussing your intentions with the community. In particular, consider whether you are editing tendentiously." -- WP:COI (emphasis added in both)
The fact that you found it necessary to use all caps in an reverting edit summary suggests to me that you are emotionally involved with this subject which clearly represents a large portion of your life's work. Since you cited the entirety of the 2002 book instead of providing specific page numbers per Wikipedia:Citing sources#Say where you got it after I specifically requested them, I can not assume enough good faith to bring myself to believe that you are not conflicted here.
I must renew my request for the specific excerpt(s) or exact citation(s) supporting your claim that the external link contains "incorrect" interpretations, and I will be reverting the edit suggesting that it does, in accordance with the foundational WP:V policy. Thank you. MilesAgain (talk) 04:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Exner vs. a nonsensical website[edit]

Because you don't know what you're talking about and your edit weakens the article, I am giving you considerably more detail than what Wikipedia would require in the article. After making this post, however, I will no longer accede to your irrational demands. You have needlessly wasted enough of my time, time that could have been spent improving Wikipedia rather than bickering over a nonsensical website that you inexplicably have concluded is more expert than the world's leading experts on the Rorschach. After reading this post, if you revert the edit again without providing adequate sources or because of unrealistic demands, I will immediately and simultaneously copy all of our comments on this topic to the Rorschach talk page, post an WP:RFC, and submit the case to mediation. Mediation on Wikipedia requires the participation of all involved parties. If you refuse to participate or unnecessarily delay the process, I will then refer the case to formal arbitration, which can proceed with or without your cooperation. Continued reversion based on your belief that a random website is a better source of information than the world's leading expert on the Rorschach (Exner) is POV-pushing and malicious editing.

Whose responsibility?

Here's a point to remember: You have a responsibility for verification also. I will provide detail below (with page numbers) about what is in the Exner system, and then it is your responsibility to provide citations from legitimate, reliable, and expert sources to rebut my arguments before making any reverts. It is your burden, by Wikipedia standards, to provide evidence that the website has more legitimacy than any Exner sources that I provide. If you want to argue against Exner's expertise, I can find a number of Wikipedian psychologists, as well as peer-reviewed publications, that will disagree with you. And the website in question cannot be your source for two reasons: (1) the website is the point of disagreement; (2) the website has no demonstrated legitimacy as expert on the Rorschach. Exner has unparalleled legitimacy as an expert on the Rorschach. Regarding the website, just because someone puts up a website and claims this or that about the Rorschach (or space aliens, or Bigfoot, or a million other issues) doesn't make it true. If you believe something is true just because it's on a website, I have some property in the Everglades I'd like to sell you very cheap. Just because something is "googleable" doesn't make it accurate. I can google arguments claiming that Comet Hale-Bopp was a signal for all of us to commit suicide, but that doesn't make it true.

False assumptions about me

One more point before I get to the details about the Rorschach. To use your own phrase, you make an "exceptional claim" based on an unfounded assumption. You stated: "The fact that you found it necessary to use all caps in an reverting edit summary suggests to me that you are emotionally involved with this subject....I can not assume enough good faith to bring myself to believe that you are not conflicted here." The operative words there are "suggests to me". Read WP:NPOV. Your assumptions are your opinions, and not necessarily facts. I could assume that your reversion of statements that cite a legitimate source are an indication that you are "emotionally involved" so that I "can not assume enough good faith to bring myself to believe that you are not conflicted here". But that doesn't make it true or false, just my opinion.

Let's suppose you are an expert on Topic X; it could be a Wikipedia article about you. And let's suppose someone came along and started making ridiculous reverts to your edits, claiming that they don't believe you and that you are not an expert, would you sit back passively and ignore it? I doubt it. You might use a few capital letters yourself. You seem to be getting a lot from your crystal ball: that I am not an expert on the Rorschach; that I am too emotionally invested in a topic because I used capital letters; that my citation that you demanded is not legitimate. You're quite a mind-reader.

And let's look at your logic. You argued that "a subject which clearly represents a large portion of [my] life's work" is something that I should not comment on. I should not comment on the Rorschach because I have studied the Rorschach for 30 years. I'll let everyone come to their own conclusions about that kind of reasoning.

One of your irrational demands

And now a preliminary point about your demand for page numbers. For you to expect a specific page number for something that Exner does not say is the height of absurdity. When I told you to read pages 1-545, that means you will not find support for anything on the website within those pages. No one can prove a negative; that's fundamental logic. As an analogy, you can't prove that there is not life somewhere in the universe besides Earth, no matter how many sources and page numbers you come up with. If you want proof that Exner does not say something, read his books and journal articles. And if you find that he did say something that contradicts me, then you cite the page number. Otherwise you are demanding the impossible just so my edit can be reverted, and I think any administrator for Wikipedia will agree.

Very brief summary of Rorschach interpretation

Very concisely, this is the interpretive strategy for the Rorschach as delineated by Exner (2003) in The Rorschach: A comprehensive system: Vol. 1, Exner & Erdberg (2005) in The Rorschach: A comprehensive system: Vol. 2 Advanced interpretation, as well as two additional books and hundreds of peer-reviewed journal articles by Exner and many others. Page numbers are from Exner (2003) or Exner & Erdberg (2005):

INTERPRETIVE SEARCH STRATEGIES BASED ON KEY RORSCHACH VARIABLES: (from Exner 2003, p. 348):

(From Exner & Erdberg 2005, p. 11):

Here is the sequence for interpretation for each cluster identified above:

CONTROL & STRESS TOLERANCE (Exner 2003, pp. 370-403)

SITUATIONAL STRESS (Exner & Erdberg 2005, p. 11-12)

AFFECT (Exner 2003, pp. 489-505)

INFORMATION PROCESSING (Exner 2003, pp. 450-461)

COGNITIVE MEDIATION (Exner 2003, pp. 462-473)

IDEATION (Exner 2003, pp. 473-488)

SELF PERCEPTION (Exner 2003, pp. 506-521)

INTERPERSONAL PERCEPTION (Exner 2003, pp. 522-540)


Now let's look at some of the statements on the website that you seem to accept unquestionably as accurate:

And that summarizes the entirety of the website. All they tell you is not to flip the cards, not to take too long, and where you might see something sexual. The website addresses nothing about the interpretive process from Exner summarized above, and the information it does provide is wrong.

It is now your responsibility to come up with the verifiable information to refute Exner and me. And the information in this post is much too detailed to put in the article, which is only a summary of the Rorschach, so don't make demands that I paste this information into the article. I have provided it for you since you are the only person who has objected to the edit the way I have written it. If there are details you don't understand about the Rorschach because of inadequate reading and training, that is no one's responsibility except your own to acquire that information since you have decided to edit an article that you know nothing about. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a graduate school course on the Rorschach. Do you think the Encyclopedia Britannica seeks opinions from someone who knows nothing about a topic, and makes changes based on the demands of someone just because that person found a website that they are impressed with? If you need more detail, find Exner's writing and read them, take a class on the Rorschach, or inform yourself any way you see fit, but don't demand that anyone turn an encyclopedia into a doctoral dissertation just because you don't want to go to the trouble to read the sources. That is beyond the scope of Wikipedia. Ward3001 (talk) 01:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Miles's reply

Thank you for your lengthy reply here. It seems that you are quite familiar with Wikipedia rules, but you seem to have disregarded Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I am sure that you realize "you don't know what you're talking about" is a comment on a contributor, not content.

It is clear from your message that Exner does not actually say that the interpretations given on the web page in question are "incorrect." Indeed, you wrote that I, "expect a specific page number for something that Exner does not say." If the source does not actually support the statement that the interpretations given are "incorrect," then it is wrong to imply that it does. I will grant you that there are statements on that page that do not apply to Exner's system. You say that a quote on the page, "was written in 1983, well before most of Exner's work was done." If the commentary is outdated, that is what should be said. If it is not true that the page includes "incorrect interpretations," then that should not be said.

Much of your reply was comprised of ungrammatical lists of codes and terms for which you gave no description other noun-phrase headings such as, "IDEATION". I have no idea what you expect to communicate by, for example, "Sum Shad > FM+m or CF+C > FC+1 or Afr < 0.46: Affect > Controls > Self Perception > Interpersonal Perception > Processing > Mediation > Ideation."

I was particularly confused with one particular aspect of your reply, when you repeatedly wrote, "A sexual response is not identified as pathological by specific card (plate) in the above summary of Exner, nor in any of his writings." But two paragraphs later, you said, "Sex response become important only when used in multiple responses and in combination with other pathological indicators...." You do not disagree with the web page's suggestion that, "responses should not be overly sexual," given that responses is in the plural. If indeed you do disagree with that assertion, please let me know.

To respond to your remaining bullet points, I am sure "sane" is a legal term, but it is also a common English word defined in multiple dictionaries as "mentally healthy," which is clearly applicable to a subject's results for the "clusters" you described in the "interpretive strategy." According to the Rorschach inkblot test article, prior to Exner's system, card turning and timing was in fact scored. I agree those statements is outdated, but they are not "incorrect interpretations."

I will edit the article with a proposed compromise. MilesAgain (talk) 03:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Compromise accepted. It is not inaccurate, and it informs the reader that there are flaws in the website.
By the way "you don't know what you're talking about" is not a personal attack any more than your incorrectly telling me that I am too "emotionally involved", especially when you yourself said "I have absolutely no expertise with the Rorschach test."
You said: "If the source does not actually support the statement that the interpretations given are "incorrect," then it is wrong to imply that it does." Let's look at that from another angle. If a website's interpretations are incorrect, a Wikipedia link to it should not imply that the interpretations are correct. To simply state that the website has "suggested imagery" implies that it provides healthy Rorschach responses, which it does not.
You criticised me for the "lists of codes and terms for which you gave no description". You're the one who requested more detailed information, and I gave you the name of the sources for even more detail. I cannot copy and paste the entirety of Exner's work (roughly 5,000 printed pages) on your talk page. You have a responsibility to read something if you wish to argue against it.
The website's statement that "responses should not be overly sexual" is utterly simplistic. Someone can make one or more sex responses, and in the context of the entire test profile, may have no significance or tremendous significance. No single test variable can be interpreted out of context. And the website's only context is whether you flip the card or say something about sex. That's equivalent to a physician diagnosing the cause of stomach pain without any other information, such as CBC, blood pressure, X-rays, or examination of the patient.
Regarding the terms "sane" and "mentally healthy", how do you define "mentally healthy"? There are entire libraries written on the topic. A Rorschach profile can say a thousand things about someone's mental health without any reference whatsoever to whether that person is "sane".
"Card turning and timing" are incorrect interpretations unless you can get in a time machine and go back about 30 years. My assumption was that the Wikipedia article needs information to be current (i.e., 2007), not 30 years outdated. Ward3001 (talk) 04:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gold standard disadvantages[edit]

Please see my response at Talk:Gold standard#Sources supposedly unsupported by claims. --C1010 (talk) 06:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your note[edit]

Some philosophers argue that Kant adhered to the correspondence theory, and others argue that he didn't, which is why secondary sources would be needed to examine the issue. That was my only point. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 04:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you look in the same encyclopedia you're using as a source, you'll see they also discuss Kant as adhering to the coherence theory, so the matter is not clear cut. I do agree with removing that section of the article unless secondary sources are used to support it and opposing views are given. We can't base edits about Kant on the views of individual Wikipedians in areas that specialist sources find contentious. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 04:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Capital punishment[edit]

Thanks for adding to this article, but for future edits, could you do all your changes at once rather than several times within a few minutes? Simply do a "Show Preview", then once all looks ok, do a "Save Page". That-Vela-Fella (talk) 12:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

H1b crisis[edit]

Thanks for your interest in this article. Please revisit the article to see its expanded sources. This article is highly notable as evinced by sources that include sources Bill Gates testimony to the U.S. Congress, the U.S. Senate itself and the Wall Street Journal. Gates for example indicates that this issue threatens the entire U.S. economy. The article is already much longer than hundreds of thousands of articles on Wikipedia and is now better sourced than 95 percent of Wikipedia articles. I think the expanded text and sourcing will change your opinion regarding the disposition of this page of Wikipedia. Thanks in advance for taking the time to revisit the article in its present form. Tynetrekker (talk) 15:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stop edit warring on Instant-runoff voting[edit]

MilesAgain, as you know, a sock is expected to strictly refrain from edit warring on articles. Please do not make controversial edits to the article without *first* seeking consensus on Talk. You have now replaced, many times, language in the introduction that is POV, specifically mentioning Robert's Rules in a manner that appears promotional for Instant-runoff voting, resulting in an out-of-context reference, not a quote, that is an interpretation of the source. This is a warning, my last step before requesting administrative assistance. --Abd (talk) 17:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see that I misread your last edit, you did leave the critical language in; I think I was led astray by the return to the sentence with a dangling conjunction. I do think that if the RR mention is there, it deserves its own paragraph, so I'll be making that small change. It is in a different class than other forms of usage. --Abd (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop reverting my edits; please discuss the issue[edit]

I notice you have reverted, without explanation, several of my recent edits, such as in the article In God We Trust. Please note that I posted in that article's talk page an explanation of the issue, why I was adding a tag that indicated improved referencing is needed. Please respond there. The issue has been raised elsewhere, you may want to take a look at talk page of WP:REF. Please don't just revert my edits, which are meant as constructive calls for some improvement to articles. Sincerely, doncram (talk) 22:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for explaining on my talk page. I do recognize that the tag "nofootnotes" seems to assert that there are no footnotes in an article, but what it displays is "This article or section includes a list of references or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks in-text citations. You can improve this article by introducing more precise citations." I felt what it displays is accurate for the articles I added it to, as they did lack at least some of the in-text citations that are needed.
Use of "refimprove" displays "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." This option seems insufficient, as the source from which material is "incorporated from" is explicitly stated in the articles.
Your suggested alternative "citequote" displays "You should always add a citation when quoting published material, and the citation should be placed directly after the quote, which should be enclosed within double quotation marks — "like this" — or single quotation marks if it's a quote-within-a-quote — "and here is such a 'quote' as an example." However, it seems to be directed to cases where a quote is indicated but not formatted correctly, rather than directed to cases where quoting is needed. It has to be attached to a given point in an article where a quote is needed. The problem is that it is not general enough, it does not tag the article as a whole, and it is unclear where the unquoted copied text is located. Besides, the editors who copied text are usually not wanting to quote anything, they want to copy without quoting.
Thanks for correcting me at my talk page. ((citequote)) displays in small letters "cite this quote". Again, it does not tag the article as a whole, and in a big article every sentence is suspect when one of the general disclaimer "incorporates text from" disclaimers is present, but it is not practical to determine which sentences are in fact quotes, vs. which are worded by wikipedia editors. I am not sure now where that text I said it displayed is pasted from then, perhaps originally WP:CITE#HOW, no I have lost it. Sorry for mistating what it displayed, no harm done tho I suppose as you knew what it displayed. doncram (talk) 04:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought the "nofootnotes", plus explanation on the Talk page, was best in most cases. I still think that, I guess. But anyhow, I would prefer you would change from nofootnotes to some other tag and provide some explanation, if you revisit any of my edits using nofootnotes, rather than merely reverting my edits. I think my edits were more considered than you at first assumed. Sincerely, doncram (talk) 00:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Billscottbob/Assessing reliability[edit]

I left a note for you on the talk page of Assessing reliability. Just thought I'd let you know incase you don't have it watchlisted. Billscottbob (talk) 03:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can see for Miles and Miles[edit]

Miles,

I saw your note on Mike Godwin's page:

Mike's resume is "information relevant to working on the encyclopedia" because it shows that he works for the Foundation. MilesAgain (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry , that's incorrect. WP:NOT#WEBSPACE says otherwise:

Personal web pages. Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog or to post your resume, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet or any hosting included with your Internet account. The focus of user pages should not be social networking, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration.

On top of which, his resume is not essential for showing he's a board member. An icon or a line of text is sufficent for that. He's displaying both a resume and personal information, both of which are not allowed per guidelines. FWIW - I think your off by Miles  :)

That friendly alien formerly known as Kosh from the Vorlon home world, out in the Taurus star system. Currently somewhere beyond the rim of outer space —Preceding comment was added at 20:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

613 Mitzvot[edit]

Hi. Thanks for your interest in 613 Mitzvot, sorry if I sounded abrupt in my edit summary. I supplied refs. If these are sufficient, if you don't mind, would you please remove the citation tags? Thanks muchly, HG | Talk 19:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure, they are supposed to be removed by whoever supplies the sources. MilesAgain (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Air car dubious tag[edit]

There already was an unanswered section on the talk page about that tag, so I have reinstated the tag. Greg Locock (talk) 21:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of massacres[edit]

Please see my comments on your comments on Talk:List of massacres#Request for Comment: Fallujah 4 --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is homeopathy pseudoscience?[edit]

Personally, I think it would have been wonderful if ArbCom could have ruled sensibly on this matter! Sadly the fringe notice board is not going to help much, I suspect, since those in favour of homeopathy will argue that it is somehow biased. You have no real reason to apologise yourself, you did what you understandably thought was right and would be useful. My own apology was the result of attempting to defuse talk page messages (follow the history, it's a bit silly). LinaMishima (talk) 05:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

a thank you note[edit]

Thanks for participating in my RfA!
Although it failed 43/27/0, I'm happy because the outcome has been very helpful in many meaningful ways. Your support and remarks contributed so much to this. If you followed my RfA you know what happened. Most of the editors who posted opposing opinions have never edited with me. Some articles I edit deal with controversial topics and with respect to a very few of these, editors who didn't know much about me had some worries about confrontational editing and civility. Since I support their high standards I can easily (and will gladly) address this. The support and ecouragement to run again soon has been wonderful, thanks again. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 05:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RfC on Rachel Corrie[edit]

Hi - what's this about an RfC on this article? I don't seem to be able to see one, but I can tell you the process is intended to get the opinions of the community, not be swarmed by involved editors. In some cases, examining the contributions indicates that the community expresses an opinion that is not taken up at the article. PRtalk 23:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you the third opinion on article Comparison of programming languages?[edit]

If so, could you make that fact known?

Thanks. 06:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa[edit]

My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, and I'll do what I can to ensure your opinion of my suitability for adminship improves. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--MONGO 04:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guy Ottewell[edit]

As mentioned at WP:AN, there's nothing in the article to restore - it was a single line with no information but a weblink. I'd suggest starting from scratch. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agent Orange[edit]

My revert of the vandalism was correct, thanks for reverting it back. Dureo (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That one is mild compared to articles like Vicente Fox, history here they just kind of gravitate to some. Dureo (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA)[edit]

I guess the talk page on this article mustr seem very odd. Cyrus wishes to add material that links the expansion of the haplogroup to the Kurgan model of Indo-European expansion. Rokus wishes to minimise the link. Both have reasons for doing so that arise from their personal beliefs about IE expansion and "race". Cyrus usually seems keen to link Europe and Iran. Rokus generally wishes to argue that IE originated in the Netherlands. There is no single or clear dispute about a specific edit, but rather a series of edits designed to promote of minimise a particular position. In my experience, Cyrus's edits are generally sincere, but very naive and clumsy. He often simply cuts and pastes chunks of text from one WP article to another. Rokus's are generally sophisticated and highly disingenuous and manipulative, but that's just my opinion. I know it's not ideal to "explain" a dispute in terms of editors rather than edits, but in this case the dispute is otherwise probably totally incomprehensible. There is a real issue about placing undue weight on the connection between this haplotype and IE expansion. Paul B (talk) 13:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Stanislav Petrov.jpg)[edit]

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 04:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A note re: Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review[edit]

Please be advised that I have recently conducted a review of the Rorschach test (formerly Rorschach inkblot test) talk page and archives. At some point, you have commented on the issue of the display and/or placement of the Rorschach inkblot image. Based on my understanding of your comment(s), I have placed you into one of three categories. I am issuing this note so that you can review how I have placed you, and to signal if this is an appropriate placement and/or to make known your current thoughts on this matter. You may either participate in discussion at the article talk page or leave a note at my talk page; but to keep things in one place, you should also clarify at Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review/addendum. Longer statements may be made here or quick clarifications/affirmations based on several pre-written statements can be made here. Best regards, –xenotalk 14:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More