This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
We have a valid fair use claim on the logo, we do it with lots of companies and organizations. It only spreads their new logo around and gets it out there (personally I think it's ugly, I like the old one better). Anyway, we have solid grounds for fair use on logos and I tend to err on the side of being restrictive of fair use. --Wgfinley 00:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I hope you know you violated the 3rvt rule....Chooserr 03:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Your attention is required at Safe sex and Condom. Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Since I know your so much in favour of the truth mind reverting the IP that has just vandalised the Condom Page - skewing facts in the process...? I don't know if I'm alowed to due to my previous reverts. Chooserr 23:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I was told this by someone else, and recently did some study. Look over the link and if that isn't satisfactory I will add another. In the mean time I will revert your edits. Chooserr 01:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't really want to revert it myself so please look over the link and revert yourself. I don't think it would warrant a block even if I exceeded the 3rvt because after reading the rules it said that you can revert vandalism, and repeated blanking, but I don't believe to much in the admins so....please look it over. Chooserr 01:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll look for more information concerning the Casual Sex article, but my additions to the Safe sex article are in order, and shouldn't be deleted. I struggled all day to keep it or fix it according to complaints voiced by hipocrit, and bent over backwards several times, but overall it's better than it was at the beginning. Chooserr 02:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate what you say, but if I did commit a 3 rvt violation it shouldn't count according to the 3 revert rule which says that you can revert blanking and vandalism, which is what I was doing. Chooserr 02:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
No repeatedly blanking things is vandalism. I'll prove it to you when I take a section out of the masturbation page 3 times. Chooserr 02:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Looking over your last edit to Safe sex I can't help but wonder how you could re-add that statement. It blantly contradicts the Catholic beliefs telling anyone who reads it to "USE A CONDOM"!!!!!!!!!! I mean seriously...that's not even wikipedia standard. It pushes a POV. It isn't neutral. Damn my edits might not all have been good but removing phrases like "without the benifit of birth control" or "Use a Condom" can hardly be objectionable. The are making the damn article Neutral!!!!!!!!!! Objective!!!!!!! Chooserr 03:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what to say. I just wanted to improve wikipedia. I know it isn't just for Catholics, but I don't see why it should endorse condoms. Anyway I didn't imply anything about you being devout or not being devout, being good or not being good. If I did I'd most assuredly be blocked by a dozen editors. Bye, Chooserr 04:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I inserted it due to this AfD. I'll do it. Thanks for the notification. --Deathphoenix 02:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Hm. It gave me something else. I'll go fix it. MSJapan 06:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
The link I provided goes into the pros and cons of the product, but it hardly substantiats the claims made by the "advantage" side. I do want some sorces or I'll put an unsourced template up. Chooserr 06:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I will revert your edits to casual sex, because this time I 1) made it neutral 2) cited a specific group 3) gave a website to a member of that group 3) provided a link to another wikipedia article which deals a bit on the same subject 4) and was going to ad another external link that isn't so biased. I don't want to get into any edit wars, so I will remove the last sentence if you can bring proof...I'll work with you if you want add information instead of getting rid of it. Chooserr 06:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if my reply was a bit snappy. I just would like to have an objective view here. If you don't erase that I'll search (and you can too) for a scientific view to combat it. Alright...as it stands now though it isn't using weaselly words. :) Chooserr 06:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
He's blocked now. If you wish to add commentary, please do so at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Basil Rathbone.--Vidkun 18:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Are you or anyone else stalking Chooserr and/or I? --Shanedidona 21:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Please email me.-Vidkun 14:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
No Skull 'n' Femurs 17:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I replied on safe sex to your comments, including your false quote. Chooserr 00:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Edit ended, thanks.Skull 'n' Femurs 23:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm trying to give myself a week off here. See you in a few days!--SarekOfVulcan 17:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
A usercheck revealed that Rathbone = Lightbinger, and he revealed his true colors and intent. Even Seraphim was disturbed, which is saying something. Anyhow, he's gone, and my initial suspicions were correct after all. So, your Wikibreak should find you coming back to a much more hospitable environment. MSJapan 03:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
DELETE - This Category is not required, each article has a reference to the "Canada Campaign" in the "Battle Box" and all the battles are noted at List of conflicts in Canada and Category:Conflicts in Canada. In addition, the +cat name is in appropriate and the sentence at the top describing the Category "Provence of Canada"...What is this? The creator of the +cat recently created a similiar +cat called Category:Battles of the War of 1812 (Northern Theaters), which was deleted see discussion here: Discussion. Please note that the individual User:Mike McGregor (Can) that created this category is the founder and sole member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Canadian military history task force SirIsaacBrock 13:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi again Esperanzians! Well, since our last frolic in the realms of news, the Advisory Council has met twice more (see WP:ESP/ACM2 and WP:ESP/ACM3). As a result, the charter has been ammended twice (see here for details) and all of the shortcuts have been standardised (see the summary for more details). Also of note is the Valentines ball that will take place in the Esperanza IRC channel on the 14th of February (tomorrow). It will start at 6pm UTC and go on until everyone's had enough! I hope to see you all there! Also, the spamlist has been dissolved - all Esperanzians will now recieve this update "newsletter".
The other major notice I need to tell you about is the upcoming Esperanza Advisory Council Elections. These will take place from 12:00 UTC on February 20th to 11:59 UTC on February 27th. The official handing-over will take place the following day. Candidates are able to volunteer any time before the 20th, so long as they are already listed on the members list. Anyone currently listed on the memberlist can vote. In a change since last time, if you have already been a member of the leadership, you may run again. Due to the neutrality precident, I will not vote for anyone.
Yours, as ever, Esperanzially,
--Celestianpower háblame 09:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
(message delivered by FireFox using AWB on Celestianpower's behalf)
I came here one day before your edit anniversary day. Happy anniversary day, and please continue to work here. And, I have brought some grapes for you. Do you like grapes? In case, you want something else, just tell me. Happy editings !!!!!!! --Bhadani 16:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
|
|
Since this isn't the result of an AC meeting, I have decided to go Old Skool. This note is to remind you that the elections are taking place now and will end at 23:50 UTC on 2006-04-29. Please vote here. Thanks. --Celestianpower háblame 20:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Of your first edit! --Quentin Smith 13:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
we spiffied up the page... how do you like it?Slasher600 00:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
|
|
I saw in the MS MVP article discussion page that you were an MVP. Just curious, but what product group are you in? Thanks. --Michaelk 09:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I've asked for a peer review for the Knights of Columbus article, with the hopes of making it a featured article. Any help you could give would be great. Thanks! Briancua 13:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.
As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Wikipedia:Esperanza/June 2006 elections.
Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, —Celestianpower háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Why did you remove every instance of Pope John Paul the Great? --Briancua 23:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Dochvam vISop net pIH'a'? --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 02:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Just saw it, so I did it. :-P -^demon[yell at me][ubx_war_sux] /02:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello, SarekOfVulcan/Archive 2, and welcome to the Wikiproject Catholicism! Thank you for your generous offer to help contribute. I'm sure your input will be much appreciated. I hope you enjoy contributing here and being a Catholic Project Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to discuss anything on the project talk page, or to leave a message on my own talk page. Please remember to sign all your comments, and be bold with your edits. Again, welcome, and happy editing! —Mira 05:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for tagging Image:David cicilline.jpg with its source. Unfortunately the image is non-free per the source site's copyright statement, so I've tagged it accordingly and it will be deleted soon. Thanks! --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 22:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your contribution! Wjhonson 22:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
The important thing is that his edits are reverted and that a RFCU is filed. I wonder if he'll ever tire... WegianWarrior 07:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if Sebyers (talk · contribs) who wrote this article for a class assignment will be back to Wikipedia, so I am letting you know I have removed the prod notice. An AfD may do that article more good, though, acting as a mini-peer review, so I would support it's start (but I would vote likely oppose). My reasons: not WP:NOR (summary of academic research, see references), and any encyclopedic article is 'summary of references' - unless it is NOR, so your prod is somewhat oxymoronic, I am afraid.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus talk 00:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
No worries. That's such a contentious topic that I can't blame you what you did. I thought I hit the Preview button and I guess I didn't. My fault. St jb 03:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I changed the sentence you inserted to make it NPOV. --evrik 20:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Greetings; do you think there should be a disambig page for MM? There seem to be at least three or so notable MMs. THanks, Sproutviewer 22:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Sarek,
If you want your reversion to Greenwald's page to stick, you should probably come justify it on the talk page. I'm certainly not in love with putting in some accusations from fairly unknown bloggers on Greenwald's bio, but obviously others want it there. Just saying someone will bring it back.--FNV 15:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Can I edit from here? --SarekOfVulcan 20:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
unblock|I'm at a King County Library System (kcls.org) public cluster Any more info I can give you before I log off?--SarekOfVulcan 20:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Clearing an autoblock
Due to the nature of the block applied, we need additional information before we can decide whether to unblock you. It is very likely that you are not personally blocked. If you are prevented from editing, it may be because you are autoblocked or blocked because of your IP address. Without further details, there is nothing further we can do to review or lift your block. Please follow these instructions:
|
|
|
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 19:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I have deleted a userbox template you recently created, as userboxes should no longer be created in templatespace per the terms of the German userbox solution. Here is the userbox code so that you can recreate the userbox in your userspace ("userfying") if you wish.
<div style="float: left; border: solid #CCCC00 1px; margin: 1px;"> {| cellspacing="0" style="width: 238px; background: #FFFF99;" | style="width: 45px; height: 45px; background: #FFFF00; text-align: center; font-size: 9pt" | '''[[Perl|perl]]-5''' | style="font-size: 8pt; padding: 4pt; line-height: 1.25em;" | This user is [[Larry Wall]]. |}</div>
--Cyde Weys 15:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
There is a vote at Talk:Roman Catholic Church: A Vote on the Title of this Article on moving Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church. You are invited to review it. --WikiCats 04:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
|
|
|
Sorry about pre-emptively spearing your article ... apparently my initial search wasn't thorough enough ;) - Che Nuevara 18:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Heads up at Freemasonry... note the ISP. Blueboar 13:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
|
|
|
I am new to this and have been trying to figure out the correct procedure. My name is Greg Hartford. I live in Maine and have devoted the last several years to photographing and compiling information about the Acadia National Park area in Maine along with many of the surrounding communities. This has been compiled online at AcadiaMagic.com and, because of its broad and comprehensive scope, it has lots of content that is relevant to many different areas. It is used by people all over the world to plan their vacations, to relive their experiences, and to share with others. I just happen to often use the user name of AcadiaMagic because I am the one associated with the work. My entries were not meant as spam but provide very useful content, at the very least as relevant as those external link sources that I have seen. Is there someone that I may ask some questions of? AcadiaMagic 03:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply in my User talk, SarekOfVulcan. I responded there in length but will leave a short note here. When you can, please access my User Talk. I am interested to know what I need to do to post the external links again, or even if I am allowed. AcadiaMagic 19:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
To the Members of the WikiProject Catholicism
I have proposed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism an infobox for Catholic Dioceses. I have not gotten any feedback on this proposal, so I’m culling feedback, advice, corrections, etc. for this. If you have the time, would you check out User:SkierRMH/Diocese_Infobox and give me some feedback! Thanks much!!
This is a courtesy note to inform you that I've mentioned you in a comment on Talk:Masonic Temple (Providence) today. Timothy Titus 13:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey what was the result of all this? I remember something about him absolutely not being a Brother [sic], & it's a touchy subject.... Here's our work on it, a year ago!
Huh. Guess it'll play out. I'm working on some kind of Template to use, so if that's finished & implemented, then I'll address this, I guess... Grye 02:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks I for that heads up. I'm glad you didn't give me one of those long reports about how wrong I am. I'm still a little new to posting article but all comments are apppreciated. I would also appreciated some pointers and/or advice.YungLegend07 15:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Granted that WP:NOR is not a reason for ((speedy)), WP:COPYVIO is.--Anthony.bradbury 17:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Re the DeMolay vandalism, wasn't sure how to roll back an entire page. I need to make one more correction, the version now up has some errors re the chapter officers. .--Darwin16 17:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Can't you put up the citation tag instead of reverting the whole section? --Here's the stuff on how Sharing Knife is based on her childhood in ohio http://lists.herald.co.uk/pipermail/lois-bujold/2006-December/023761.html
The stuff put up is not original research but stuff she she's said over the years in places like Baen bar's chat forums and stuff. No idea how you will cite stuff there since Baen started password protecting the place. I remember her telling us about how Barrayer was from her question of "What does it mean to be a mother" and all the stuff with the uterine replicator and protecting the unborn child in the middle of battle came from there. The Bujold article is rated as "START" by wikipedia, and the definition says it needs more stuff added to it. That's what I was doing until your reversion. It would be better to let the stuff remain and add a citation tag, so ppl can help source the info. For a START article, it's necessary to add stuff instead of trim it.
Also, there's a section I wrote on the article about her involvement in cover art and the various controversies. It was several paragraphs....but it disappeared somewhere between my writing it and your reversion. It covered stuff about the Sassinak/Borders of Infinity controversy over gloves, her statement about Ruddell changing Mile's hair color, and her complaint that the "Pillsbury Nazgul" (her words) cover killed her Chalion series in the UK. When I clicked save after I'd spent an hour writing it, it came up with something about me having new messages and I found out about your reversion. Did the info get lost and not saved? It's not in any of the versions I checked and I'm not spending over an hour rewriting all of it from memory or looking up the citations again. I'm not used to wikipedia nor do I want to really get involved. Only helping out since I like the author and saw the article rating said it needed stuff added to move beyond START class as judged by the wikipedia evaulators. Well, I'm done here with this article. Good luck to you and the article. Maybe you can fix all the stuff lost.
Also, the the stuff about her father and her reason for writing the book is right in the foreword or afterword of the book Spirit Ring. How is that original research?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.205.176.157 (talk • contribs).
I'll leave it up to you to fix it since you're the wikipedian. And yes, she did say she doesn't want to revisit a theme she's explored. We were asking her if she would write about Ekaterin having Miles's baby. And she said she would not because she has already written a motherhood book. So she chose to focus Diplomatic Immunity on something else instead of motherhood. This was several years ago when she was writing Diplomatic Immunity or immediately prior to it, when she was chatting with us in the Baen Bar. Baen Bar has undergone a few server moves and since then, as well as a new password protection scheme to prevent internet users from browsing its content to presevere copyrights of unpublished material posted there. The discussion on the Bujold Article says that it fails to move beyond STart status according to the Wiki evaluators because it lacks content. Since you've chosen to revert my stuff, I'll leave it up to you to fix it and search out the citations. I see no reason why you couldn't have just added a citation tag to the section. If you're going to revert stuff without even bothering to ask for citations first, I'll leave the article up to you to fix. The "cover art" section is indeed missing and not saved in any of the versions. I was saving the Cover Art edit just as your message popped up and prevented me from doing so.
The gist of the cover art section is the Sassinak/Borders of Infinity/gloves controversy and fan uproar; Bujold's humourous observation (don't remember if this was a comment she made in chat on Baen's Bar or something she wrote up elsewhere) that the Ruddell (who is blonde) was morphing Miles blonder over the successive covers even though she wrote Miles as being dark haired; and the statement she made blaming the "Pillsbury Nazgul"(google it, her words) cover change by her foreign publisher for killing her Chalion series in the UK. Since Wiki ate my "cover art" secion edit with your reversion message when I tried to save, I'll leave it up to you to write it up.
The last edit by a wiki evaluator on the article's discussion page rated the article as "start" which the wikipedia defines as "Substantial/major editing is needed, most material for a complete article needs to be added. " In the course of your reversion, not only did you remove the personal themes section (as well as prevented me from adding another section about cover art), you also broke the link from another section to the Vorkosigan Saga entry for Dreamweaver's Dilemma.
The Romulan was just a visiting assassin posing as a Vulcan. I had thought about that briefly, but unless you live in the central Illinois area I'm confident Admins will see through any allegation on that measure. Don't know how public you are, but my identity on the web is fairly open. Should anyone question that, I think we could point out that if sockpuppetry was the goal a Vulcan would do something much more logical than come up with such closely connected names. ;) Or maybe we could appeal to the Vulcan consulate; it is good to see a fellow Vulcan on WP. :D LaughingVulcan 12:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Gosh, I don't think he was expecting that result. ;) NawlinWiki 20:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
You are fast. But then, it's logical. I tried to revert some vandalism, but you did it a second before I did.VK35 20:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Has been restored, next time just ask ;) --Steve (Stephen) talk 23:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
...and be the first to endorse your candidacy for the Board. :D LaughingVulcan 01:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi! My name is Ral315, and I'm the editor-in-chief of the Wikipedia Signpost, a weekly newspaper on the English Wikipedia. I'm sending out an optional questionnaire that I hope you'll respond to. These questions will be published in next week's issue, and hopefully translated into many languages and copied to the Meta-Wiki prior to the election. (So, if you speak multiple languages, it'd be fantastic, though certainly not required, if you'd be willing to translate your answers into any languages you speak fluently.)
There's no word limit on any of these questions, but I suggest that brevity (maybe about 300-400 words per answer) is best. If at all possible, answers should be submitted by 16:00 UTC on Monday, June 25 (though late responses will also be accepted).
I'm posting these to your talk pages because they don't really fit well on question pages (since many will repeat questions you've already answered). You can reply to me by e-mail, or at my English Wikipedia, English Wikinews or Meta talk pages.
Thanks again for answering these, and good luck in the elections.
Sincerely, Ral315
Thanks for uploading Image:AtwaterDonnellyScituate.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
((Replaceable fair use disputed))
, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I was just browsing the USGov PD category, and I realized that Image:092205burns023.jpg is mistagged. It's got the Template:PD-USGov tag, but it's a work of a state government, which is specifically excluded in the fine print of the template.
In addition, http://www.uncwil.edu/www/copyright.html seems to contradict what you were told, but permission is permission. :-) I figured I'd leave it for you to straighten out as you like.--SarekOfVulcan 15:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
We should be honored... the Grand Secretary of the Grand Lodge of All England (splinter group out of the irregular RGLE) has graced us with his presence. He seems to be focused on the History of Freemasonry article at the moment. Just thought I would given you the heads up to look out for POV edits. Blueboar 13:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning up my references in the Acadia article. I'll be following that format from now on. Feel free to clean up any more though :-) Cosentino 19:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I understand. -- DS1953 talk 02:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
SarekOfVulcan,
Please revert all of the External Links edits that you had made to my articles using Connecticut Explorer's Guide as References. These links are references citing copyrighted material and you do not have my permission to remove these sources as references. This is in violation of copyright law and against the policies of wikipedia. Czimborbryan 14:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Even though the GNU gives permission to edit the content mercilessly, it does not give permission to remove cited sources under References. This is a copyright matter and protected by law. Otherwise, it would be assumed that the information posted is original to the author. Czimborbryan 13:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
WP:NLT Legal complaints A polite, coherent complaint in cases of copyright infringement or attacks is not a "legal threat". I have requested repeatedly that you revert the external links edit back to the appropriate References label. Yes, this is protected under copyright and no this is not a threat. It is also a Wikipedia policy to cite all sources appropriately. You have denied my right to have my copyrighted material cited as a source. Czimborbryan 13:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Sarek. You say it's POV to speak of accurate/inaccurate bible translations. Not at all. The King James, for example, is based on the translations available in the 17th century, and therefore inevitably inaccurate (it has poetry, but not the access to modern scholarship that would produce what today would be called an accurate translation). The bulk of American bible translations deliberately give translations that will sell to fundamentalists - this becomes an issue when they get to OT passages that the fundamentalists regard as prophetic of the Messiah. So, no, accuracy is objective, not POV. PiCo 11:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Sarek. Thanks for your help with the articles. I am having a hard time finding online sources to back up some of my entries on Biscayne Landing and Munisport, a lot of it was going off of memory. Also, can't find anyone who has hard-copies of some of my stronger points. I am going to tone down the articles for now and move on to other subjects. Feel free to modify/revert/whatever my toned down versions. --RandomStuff 16:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I have tagged Image:AtwaterDulcimer.jpg as ((replaceable fair use)). If you wish to dispute this assertion, please add ((Replaceable fair use disputed)) to the image description page and a comment explaining your reasoning to the the image talk page. MER-C 06:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello Sarek,
You recently commented that it is Wiki-policy to highlight only the first occurrence of a term in an article. Sometimes users have no need for an entire article, but only a particular section. Forcing the user to navigate his way to the top of an article in search of a term's hyperlinked instance can be equally as distracting as I agree over-hyperlinking -- or, if you will, hyper-hyperlinking :-) -- to be. Therefore, I respectfully suggest that perhaps the first occurrence of a term in each of an article's sections be hyperlinked. What do you think?
Thanks for your time,
An Anonymous WikiWanderer
how do i maintain this article. please give me specific details. i'd be happy to add any references. i have so many. thanks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rena Silverman (talk • contribs) 18:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Sarek, on editor assistance, you said you'd be willing to be an extra pair of eyes on article disputes. If you have time to take a look at such a dispute, please leave a note on my talk page (which already has a note indicating the problem article, a bio of a deceased U.S. religious figure which keeps being censored by one person over and over, long before I contributed earlier today). I've never been in this situation and am bewildered about how to stop a dedicated partisan from deleting such neutral bio info as numbers of children and marriages. Any help you have time for would be appreciated. -- Lisasmall 06:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I reviewed you. Shalom Hello 03:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, if it's not him, it's clearly a SPA. Assuming it is him, one thing I am a bit puzzled by, though, is why he would want to push his commentary on the shock troops controversy at this stage (which is seemingly more of a non-controversy as more details are revealed), which makes me think it might just be a devoted fan. Meh, I dunno. · jersyko talk 14:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
LOL... MSJ and I had quite a time convincing a brother from one particular state Jurisdiction that this should be discussed in a general article as opposed to one article on HIS GL's program.
By the way... could you respond to the quick poll on UK vs US English. It may help us choose one over the other. Blueboar 21:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Sarek,
You seem very neutral in your edits and perspective with the Armstrong article. What is your take on my controversy and deliberations with Lisasmall on the discussion page, if you've read the postings? Though I acknowledge that I make some strong aruments to persuase third parties, and vigorously try to thwart certain kinds of edits (ones I objectively see as POV ax-to-grind editing--making the article look bigoted toward a religion), she is currently contacting Wikipedia administrators and describing my efforts with the article in the most negative light imaginable, even being dishonest about it. Any advice?
208.253.158.36 17:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady
No worries. Jebbrady 22:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady
Sarek,
Have you seen the latest development with the Armstrong page? I was directed to add citations and the editor driving the controversy said they would hang back until then, ans there was talk og puttingin a section on "controversy" which I had proposed. I spent hours putting the citations in, now she has put the article up for deletion, without any discussion. Someone with knowledge of the subject and some neutrality needs to intervene.
208.253.158.36 13:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady
208.253.158.36 15:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady
You're welcome. :) That user was both a vandalism-only account and an account created to attack you. Acalamari 20:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Sarek,
My friend, you have been quite possibly the best third party I've seen yet in this article--one which rouses lots of passion. I'm going to proceed under the assumption that your actions and comments towards me--which have been distressing--of the last couple days have been due to extenuating circumstances. I had never disrespected you in any way, but your tone changed dramatically toward me even after I apologized for the clumsy decision to revert (based on false information, as I explained--I'm not necessarily the brightest bulb in the bunch and never claimed to be). You seem to have, at least for the time being, developed a sort of kinship with a user who has been very difficult for me and apparently others to deal with, and who snipes at me incessantly, and I'm struggling to get them to move forward constructively (I have not read today's postings so that may be changing). But with you, I've seen a very reasonable, likable, and intelligent spirit in the recent past, and I guess I just will go ahead and expect that to continue as if this never happened. I hope that you can disagree with me as in the past (and I have yielded to your ideas at times), yet can at least acknowledge and respect that I am sincere, though at times very bold in criticism of a certain editorial approach that I decry. I am sincere in my distaste for it, and I hope you can respect the stand I take, whether or not you agree with that stand. I hope you can see that I have to deal with personalities, but that, for me, is not about personalities. I have a passion for the subject of religion and Armstrong, and how the former and the latter are portrayed in the media, and have high expectations of Wikipeida--much much higher than the mainstream media--as you do I'm sure--and I hope you can respect that too.
Well, have a good weekend. Peace. Jebbrady 23:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady
"I was brought in by User:Lisasmall as an extra pair of eyes on the article, per my listing on WP:ASSIST. When I got here, I found that referenced material was being deleted as superfluous by User:Jebbrady and his various (2?) non-logged-in IPs. He feels that WP has an anti-religious bias, and is battling to keep out changes he regards as problematic, such as Armstrong's marriage (after his wife's death) to a divorcee with a living ex-husband, despite having taught for decades that remarriage in this case was unacceptable.[19] I would like to see a wider selection of references, and a more balanced presentation of the subject."--SarekOfVulcan 17:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are referring too in most of the accusations you make here, and the others are obviously out of context. Please remove this passage form the posting, and we can then proceed according to the olive branch I extended above, written before I saw what you wrote.
69.115.162.235 03:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady
I disagree, but feel free to change it back. Perspicacite 18:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi SOV,
I am aware of the arbitration case. I guess Jebbrady has to make a statement before it will go anywhere...
Cadwallader 19:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Sarek. I added a comment to the case without adding myself as a party, as has RelHistBuff. I kept it short. You say "1996" in your initial presentation; maybe you meant 2006? Would a strikeout correction work best there? I've placed the "stuck" template on the WQA, which effectively closes that. Jebbrady did not comment there, and he didn't comment on either of the sock cases nor, so far, on the RFARB. I assume that eventually, the ARBcom will decide whether to take the case regardless of whether he's commented on the request or not. Thank you again for getting us off the dime and for all the heavy lifting. -- Lisasmall | Talk 15:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
It's been suggested by an Arbitrator that it be taken to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct first. Let me know if/when that happens. 24.6.65.83 05:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Sarek, I'm reading over the evidence and I noticed two things.
Hoping for a swift and conclusive resolution to the RFC/U, -- LisaSmall T/C 18:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
BTW, I am keeping an eye on the RFC/U on Jeb; I haven't added to it because I'd rather not create the impression that there is a cabal out to get him. Pairadox 18:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)