/Archive

Archives

/archive 1

That does not follow Wiki policy

even your phrase is pure propaganda and point of view, because Renan wasn´t a racist, and his critiques to Islam are right.

You are the most reasonable of the editors on Wikipedia I am not so clear on the notability policy. As I see Wikipedia is a "free" enciclopeadia, that implies that any knowledge must appear and must not to be deleted or kidnapped. I will present some documentation that will improve the info but that will take some time. Thanks in advance. Cartof

Hi Judith,

Sorry for the mess down at Talk:Gilad Shalit. I'm the one who started the RfC and have not been careful enough managing it. Your opinion on the matter, though, as well as anybody else's, is more than welcome. Input from uninvolved editors usually gets less flack than that of the usual suspects and probably would defuse the debate somewhat...

Cheers and many thanks, pedro gonnet - talk - 10.12.2007 16:46

Dear Itsmejudith, receive my greetings for this new year. I would like to know the position of the Bhavabhushan article, now that it has been "discharged".--BobClive (talk) 17:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)--BobClive (talk) 07:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are named as a party at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Cold fusion. Please either agree to mediation, or strike your name from the list of parties. MigFP (talk) 05:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Cold fusion. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 19:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have accepted the mediation case regarding Cold fusion. Can you provide a brief summary of your view points regarding the issue here? Thanks, Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you have a look at the article, especially regarding the text regarding Flannery's description of five (four?) forms? The text is substantially as you wrote it. It says that Flannery described five forms of antisemitism, yet only four are listed and bulleted. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with your revert of me here, however, the reason I added it was due to a dispute in Distributed generation. Please help resolve the issue there with a commonly accepted price range for PV. Thanks. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Itsmejudith, on finding new interesting points on BAGHA JATIN, I have added them to the article. Some kind of a censure allows only parts of my addition to be incorporated. It is rather frustrating. What do you think of it ? Anticipated thanks.--BobClive (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a part-time User, I failed to notice your message proposing how to proceed with improving the Bhavabhushan article; most welcome, since it will also be uselful for the other articles i am looking after. Thanks.--BobClive (talk) 06:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A long explanation as to why that wasn't a particularly weird sentence....

Cheers. Relata refero (talk) 08:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to hearing from you then. I don't know much about the Regulation school, I must admit, but I my schooling in economics revolved around one of the traditions of neo-Marxism that gave it birth. Joan Robinson is my personal hero. Relata refero (talk) 13:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, not sure I know you or you I. However, I noticed your removal of text in Palestinian people on DNA. While you may well be justified in your edit, if you don't mind my saying so, this is a pretty abrupt entry of yours into the article. This is a contested article. So, it's always good to check Talk, where you'll see much debate on this section. Therefore, I would really appreciate it if you would self-revert and, instead of directly removing now, state your proposed edit and rationale(s) on the Talk page. Please? We'll trying quiet the sense of combativeness in this topic area and your cooperation would be appreciated. Thanks, HG | Talk 15:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well. Are you thinking this won't get a reaction? Hmm. Well, perhaps you could at least mention it on the Talk page and give a bit of your reasoning. If somebody objects, will you self-revert then? Thanks. HG | Talk 16:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of the substance, it's hard to judge because the section has gotten reworked or maybe mucked up. Going back (e.g. January/Dec), the paragraph led into topic-related discussion of population genetics. So, some intro sentences like these would make sense. Check the history and you'll see what I mean. On the larger question of the fringe or minority aspects of the section, I've commented above in Talk (and am not expressing a strong opinion). Thanks for what you wrote in Talk and being so responsive. All the best, HG | Talk 16:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sent you a quick email fyi HG | Talk 16:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That article is in a sorry state. It is an inherently notable topic and there seems to be some openness within Vietnam recently to discuss it. When I have some time I would do some research and improve its quality. DHN (talk) 07:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Microsoft_open_letter_used_as_reference regarding my question. I have asked for clarification and the person who answered seems to contradict your original reply. Could you please read and possibly post on this topic again? If I am wrong in my interpretation so be it. Thanks. Kilz (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I say you removed the "New research" section as linkspam. Now another user has recreated the section with links to the same site as that deleted. Not sure what is going on here. :-/ Mjroots (talk) 10:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First I would like thank Itsmejudith for her helpful comments on the information I posted on Jenny Lind, and subquently removed.

Mjroots, sorry for the confusion. It took a little while for me to realized my mistakes :-). Jean de Beaumont (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Judith, as per your suggestion, I have now uploaded information and evidence on the assumed name of "Captain Harris" and consequently restructured the paragraphs a bit. The footnotes you requested with "secondary" (or prime) sources are a little bulky, but there is obviously not one single piece of proof (otherwise others would have seen through Jenny Lind's cover-up a long time ago). Please let me know if you have any comments, and thanks for your time. Jean de Beaumont (talk) 15:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated Quantum-Touch, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum-Touch (3rd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heya Itsmejudith.

I would first like to apologise on behalf of the Mediation Committee for the delay in this case being dealt with, which is due to a shortage of available mediators. I have expressed interest in taking this case to help with the backlog and to assess my nomination to join the committee. As i am not currently a member it is common practice to for the involved parties to consent to mediation of an RfM from a non-committee member. To give your consent for me to act as mediator for this case please sign as you have for the acceptance of the case on the case page. I look forward to working with you and finding a solution to the dispute.

Seddon69 (talk) 17:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Judith,

How are you doing? Hope everything is going well with you!!!

Could you please take a look at my proposal here [1]. Thanks in advance, Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 09:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should have received an email from yours truly. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 18:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Oh, well. The smart people almost never run for admin these days, not that I blame you for a minute. Still, it's good to have you around all the same. Cheers, Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you given up on this as too tedious for words or am I not making myself clear? [2] Fainites ^barley 19:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you all know, the case has been started. I have created a little navbox for you to navigate between pages and will be expanded as the case goes on so that its easier for you to navigate. The first page you need to visit in this case is here so you can give youre opening statement. There i have left a few questions for you all to answer. For those that have been busy and unable to confirm their participation in the mediation, they are welcome to join the mediation at any stage.

I can be contacted in several ways in the event you need to. I am normally present on the wikipedia-en, wikipedia-medcab and wiki-hurricanes IRC channels at some point between 15:00 UTC and as late 02:00 UTC depending on college and real life commitments. To find these channels and instructions on how to access IRC go to WP:IRC. Throughout the day, even when i am in college, feel free to email me using the email tool or by emailing the email address on my user page or both to make sure. You can also leave a message on my talk page which again ill do my upmost to reply to as soon as i can. Seddon69 (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kind of uncertain about your statement that fringe journals are not usually published by academic publishing houses, but agree that it's probably correct if taken as I wrote it, which was thinking of creationist journals, and not other fringe journals. Can we have a talk at Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Questionable_journals. and see if we can come up with something better? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the reason for bolding "Direct Grant Grammar Schools" was that there are some links to this article with that as the anchor text, and Direct grant school redirects here, so this is where readers will be looking for the definition of that term. Kanguole (talk) 10:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read Studies in the Labour Theory of Value for years! But what I do remember is that much of it grew out of long conversations between Robinson and Meek (and, presumably a couple of other people who were partially in awe of Piero Sraffa, like JR's husband Austin, but mainly JR herself) on the subject. He didn't succeed in convincing Robinson - a lovely little passage in a recent review article says "that he did not succeed in making a dent on Joan Robinson, likely a most sympathetic listener, is apparent from perusal of her booklet On Re-reading Marx" - but he did succeed in making her revisit her earlier assumption (1942?) that Marx was essentially useless as an economist. Of course, she wound up explaining the similarities between Ricardo, Marx, Marshall and Keynes in terms of rates of profit and periodic crises.

If you're interested, here's the only recent Nobel-winner who cut his teeth on these issues talking about them. I can't access it at the moment, but perhaps you can. For something available online that discusses Robinson's legacy, go here.

About Meek, what I remember most vividly is Social Science and the Ignoble Savage, which demonstrated effectively that historical materialism didn't begin with Marx, but was intrinsic to the Enlightenment itself; and also, in an interesting way, serves as a prelude to dependency theory. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you hadn't left your statement here regarding the New Antisemitism case. Its important for the success of this mediation that you stay involved in this otherwise i cannot guarantee that your views will be taken into consensus agreed upon by the parties. I hope that you will be able to participate soon. Seddon69 (talk) 23:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will certainly provide the exact references that I mentioned earlier, but I am trying to avoid editing too many such articles. Not only because they are painfully full of clashing agendas, but also because I don't want to risk being considered "involved" in these issues - under the ArbCom's colossal copout of an Israel-Palestine adjudication, any admin could hop by my talkpage, tell me I am subject to editing restrictions, and subsequently I would find the real editing I want to get round to, on genuinely encyclopaedic topics like the Basic Laws of Israel, various aspects of the codes, החקיקה בישראל, and so on, would be constrained. Which is why I tend to only go to such areas in response to to an RfC or a post on a noticeboard. This is by way of explanation for why it would appear that I'm not getting my hands dirty myself. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Access to books - I doubt it. Currently I'm relying on a few things I have lying around, and seeing if what I remember is also available on Google books. I hope to be back in the vicinity of a decent library soon...

The ArbCom case I mention closed some time ago, recommending a general amnesty (cop-out), discretionary sanctions (counterproductive) and a working group (MIA). [Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles|Here]] is the main case page. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above article has been redirected to Saturday Night Live since at least 8th March. What can I do about this? Kathleen.wright5 13:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback Judith and I have gone through and tried to make adjustments to the articles as to not support a conservative bias, your critique of my work is quite welcome, apologies over the misunderstanding. I would be very happy if you would check the changes that I made and see that I am conforming to what Wiki policy dictates. Have a great day.

When did I refer to the edits a "vandalism"? Yahel Guhan 23:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You were mistaken. I never said they were "vandalism". Yahel Guhan 21:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to choose the simple name for it - not sure whether there's a relevant convention. I added a mention of it to Abbey Mills Pumping Stations - which is the modern occupation of the site. There's a reference to BritHist online there, that may also be of use. Good luck. Kbthompson (talk) 13:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stratford Langthorne was nearer the Lea than the current centre of Stratford. Marvellous place, migrated across a river (Stratford at Bowwe) and a mile up a hill. Now set to move closer to the International railway station ... cheers. Kbthompson (talk) 13:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably needs a damn good copyedit - but has now gone beyond stubby. I put it in for DYK, as well, so you might get one of those. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 23:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 6 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Stratford Langthorne Abbey, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 04:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As much yours. Cheers Kbthompson (talk) 08:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the barnstar! It encouraged me to go a bit further in adding to the lists and the main Cistercian article. :-) --Grimhelm (talk) 17:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I wish I knew. It was because I was hoping that someone with some knowledge of Tibetan Buddhism would be able to fix it that I left it there. As dab has said on occasion, something causes articles about Tibetan Buddhism to be written in that turgid manner. The best thing to do is radical removal. Trim all quotes, remove anything political to a new article on Dorje Shugden controversy, and revert changes. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch! OK, you might be right at that. Can we in fact separate the political controversy from details about the worship of the figure more generally? Or are they too mixed up? --Relata refero (disp.) 12:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a reasonable approach. On this occasion, it might help to put up {{inuse}}, get it to your preferred version and then we have something in history to revert to... --Relata refero (disp.) 12:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think thats its time we got moving. A couple of the points have been raised before and felt they were the foundations to the dispute:

• Firstly whether the picture can be confirmed to have been taken in the rally in San Fransisco.
• Secondly to come to an agreement on what new antisemitism is and then to decide what the image is depicting and whether it purely illustrates New Antisemitism or whether it also addresses other issues which could be confused with new antisemitism by new readers.
• If we cant confirm the those then we need to find a viable alternative.

A point i would like to raise is that at some point a lead image might need to be found if this article got to FA. The image in question is not free and couldn't be put on the main page with this article as todays FA. Although not an immediate point a long term solution might wish to be found so that this article could feature on the main page with a viable alternative.

Does anyone have access to Lexis Nexis? It might help as a search on the network could uncover something not readily available on the internet. Reliable sources that use the image would be helpful. Do you reckon that there would anyway of finding third party images that might possibly contain the poster/placard? Also i would be grateful if images of other placards at that rally could be found to find whether this was a small minority at this rally or perhaps a larger group.

Whilst that is being done i wanted to find out on what the consensus view is on what New Antisemitism is? I have read the article and the previous discussion and attempted to get a proper understanding but i wanted to ensure that this was current.

PS any sources you find can you please post in the section at the top of the mediation talk page. Seddon69 (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for your contributions to the "energy (spirituality)" article. I notice that this is the first time you have contributed to this article. Given the history log, I think perhaps you were prevailed upon to do so as part of a group, please correct me if that impression is mistaken. However it may be, your edits may be ill-considered, particularly given their unannounced and largely destructive nature. I should be grateful if you would defend your edits on the relevant talk-page and listen to the case for the re-inclusion of the material you removed. Redheylin (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for your contributions to the "energy (spirituality)" article. I notice that this is the first time you have contributed to this article. Given the history log, I think perhaps you were prevailed upon to do so as part of a group, please correct me if that impression is mistaken. However it may be, your edits may be ill-considered, particularly given their unannounced and largely destructive nature. I should be grateful if you would defend your edits on the relevant talk-page and listen to the case for the re-inclusion of the material you removed. Redheylin (talk) 21:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following discussion at the mediation talk page, i would like to bring up a suggestion that until the end of the mediation to remove both images from the article. There is currently no real consensus on the images so in the interests of fairness it seems best to simply have no images. If you have any suggestions or comments then please come to the mediation talk page to be discussed. The discussion will be open for around 5 days if there are no problems. But the discussion will go on if there is ongoing discussion. ŠξÞÞøΛ ^talk 00:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ATTN: PelleSmith, Pippu d'angelo, Itsmejudith, Blnguyen, Angusmclellan, Conman, SQL, Ned Scott and AussieLegend

I think it is in all our interests that we resolve the debate on the cited number of Chilean-Australians.

TeePee and myself have presented our arguments and rebuttals for some days now.

I thank you for your attention to the issues, and especially for bearing with us in this challenging debate. While I can not speak for TeePee, I would assume he is equally grateful.

But now is the time to get this debate finally finished.

I have drafted a comprimise version here (15:58, 17 May 2008 ) which provides references to the Jupp 2001 estimate and the ABS 2006 ancestry estimate, with caveats attached which explain their respective difficiencies.

Now I respectfully ask if you could pass judgement on my text for this version, with a support or oppose provided on Talk:Chilean Australian. If you have not responded by 20 May I will presume you have elected not to take part.

I myself, and I would hope and expect TeePee, will abide by your ruling.

Thank you. Kransky (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Although I do think it is in all our interest that we resolve the debate, I still think there are some issues needed to be addressed. I am equally as grateful as Kransky for all your time and effort but do not agree with his revision especially since it still contains information which has been referenced by an invalid reference which has been the major issues I have had with him throughout the whole history of this article. My version here provides references to the Embassy 2006 estimate and the ABS 2006 ancestory estimate. I respectfully ask you view my edit first as I asked first and tell me what problems you have with it before viewing Kransky's revision. (This was the terms I agreed to Kransky before promising I would not revert your revision, as you did not respect my request and want your revision to be viewed first I do not see why I should respect your request and let the article remain in it's current revision especially since you have provided that invalid reference which you have been doing for months). Thankyou TeePee-20.7 (talk) 17:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop removing my edits on eco-terrorism. My sources are credible and CLEARLY states that the Whaling Association accuses Greenpeace of eco-terrorism. Even the FBI considers Greenpeace as the "pioneer" of the acts of eco terrorism. You cannot argue against that. Plus you still havent explained how it was "misinterpreted".--SilverOrion (talk) 11:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I'm going to RfC so that this can be resolved without further pain. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the solar energy page is going to get hectic again. Such a pity as it seems to be improving. Mrshaba (talk) 15:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, there may be a disagreement about that. However, going back to a version with a one paragraph lead is a major step backwards. The lead needs to have 3-4 paragraphs. 199.125.109.134 (talk) 08:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know how I dislike discussing things in the wrong place, but just as a hint, if you like the verbage in the one paragraph version, just take out 99.9%, which has to go, replacing with "most", then split it up any way you wish into three or four paragraphs. But keep the new images, the ones of the sun are not appropriate. But include clothes drying, an often forgotten but essential element of solar energy. 199.125.109.134 (talk) 08:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears 199 has started a few sockpuppet accounts but I can't be sure. Oy vei! Oh well... The PV sections and Deployment blurbs are getting close to complete from my perspective. I've been collecting the research to finish off these sections and I might be able to get a rough draft done by the end of the week. I might (or you could) try trimming the storage section after that (or concurrently). Those are the to dos from my perspective. I guess a group copyedit could follow that. Hope you enjoyed your vacation. Cheers. Mrshaba (talk) 18:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what to do about FAC for solar energy. The anonymous editor seems intent on screwing with the page. I think any attempts to resolve the sub-articles will run into the same issues that have tied up the solar energy page. I'm leaning toward submitting the page for consideration and getting some suggestions on improvement. What do you think? Mrshaba (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Judith... I'm happy to see you remove the box diagram but I'm pretty sure it's going to make it's way back on the page. The box situation has gone to mediation so hopefully this saga in nearing an end. I know you've generally stayed out of my arguments with 199 but it would probably help if you put in your two cents on the mediation preceding. Mrshaba (talk) 20:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to say kudos for trying to bring some sense to the article, and the Opposition article, I spent a little time there and gave up in the face of the relentless efforts to add every single bad thing ever about fluoridation into both articles. If you can bring that mess into NPOV, more power to you!

I will say here that I'm not happy about either of fluoridation.com or fluoridealert.org being used for sources, and I'm not sure about scanned letters saying "we don't use fluoride" as negative proof to fill out the global picture, as opposed to just listing the countries where fluoridation is used, or has been used then rejected.

But good luck and thanks for putting in the effort. Cheers! Franamax (talk) 08:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

."..Not necessary to list other alumni. The school is linked"

I respectfully disagree with your removal of the text I inserted here:

Actually it IS necessary to list the other alum. The only reason she even came on my radar as an artist is when I heard a radio report about the wealth of talent coming out of The Brit School and the vein of their music. Also, listings of other notable co-students, co-alums are included all over Wikipedia when mentioning where a notable went to school. Further, notables in the arts have a way of flourishing in certain environments with other artists; it is crucial to know who they are; or, that they were also taught by the same teachers, etc.

Hence, it would be quite useful to have those artists listed.

Thanks for considering.

Designquest10 (talk) 13:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide links of where he is "throwing accusations" so that your complaint may be examined. In the future, please also remember to inform the editor you file a WQA on, or request another editor to inform them on your behalf. Thanks - Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may not feel you want to comment, but I've raised an ANI complaint against a problem editor (see my Talk page[3]), User:Egyptzo st [4] and he is trying to use Suzanne Olsson's complaint as proof I'm the problem, not him.--Doug Weller (talk) 14:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Madam,

I had been able to sign up and login an year before in Wikipedia using my username Lutfullah. I had made, if you can kindly remember, a few contributions to the talk page on the article on Shaikh Shafuddin Bu Ali Qalandar of Panipat, India and had answered to your queries on those contributions.

Since yesterday I am finding that every time I try to login to Wikipedia by merely pointing the cursor to the login/create account button and right-clicking it, my browser responds with an error message telling me that Internet Explorer can not access this webpage and I get automatically removed from the Wikipedia portal.

As I could not approach the Wikipedia helpdesk directly, I am requesting you very humbly to take some time out for me and find if I have been blocked out by the Webmasters or contollers for any trespasses of mine yet not known to me. Is there any remedy for this problem? It shall be highly appreciated if you send me a note in reply to my Email address <email address removed> and oblige.

Thanking you with all my heart.59.180.122.229 (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Lutfullah[reply]

Hello Lutfullah. I don't know the solution to your login problem. I'm sure your account has not been blocked. I've put a message on WP:helpdesk so look there for an answer. And if I find an answer another way, I will post it here. Hope you get back on the encyclopedia soon. It is nice to work with courteous editors. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ShinmaWa from the Help Desk. There is currently an issue with login in on the English Wikipedia. One of the developers (brion) is currently looking at the problem. More information can be found at WP:VPT#Log in aborted. If you could, please add your symptoms and browser information to that discussion, which should give brion more information to help resolve the problem. Itsmejudith, Thank you for bringing this over to the help desk. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 20:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that several people are having the same problem at the moment. I checked, and your account is definitely not blocked. I'm going to leave a message at WP:VPT#Log in aborted and you could look there for further information. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Log in via this link [5]. Prodego ^talk 20:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Madam,

I thank you again for your kindness and encouragement. May Allah shower His bliss and mercy on you.59.180.122.229 (talk) 20:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Lutfullah[reply]

Word from WP:VPT is that the problem has been resolved. Lutfullah should be able to log in normally now. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 22:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can try to continue to unilaterally delete my posts to make this article FAIR AND BALANCED, but I will also continue to stop you. You are in violation of the Wiki policy and obviously do not want the FACTS known about this so-called spiritual group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Honestyisbestpolicy (talk • contribs) 17:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC) (Moved the comment here from the top of the page, turned first words into heading. It's about the article Sukyo Mahikari. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you stated in your earlier comments on the Discussion Page of the Sukyo Mahikari article, it is fair and proper to post information from Mahikari literature. That is what I did --and sourced it--in the last round of edits, which you AGAIN UNILATERALLY DELETED!!! If they weren't formatted properly, then *reformat them*, why delete them??? Are you afraid of the truth being shown to the world? Mahikari does not allow non-members to read the Goseigen, because frankly if the rest of the world knew their true views they would lose members. I am not making up the statements that I posted--I'm just sharing what's in PRINT from the Mahikari organization about their beliefs. This is in good faith. Your efforts to silence the truth, is what troubles me. . . Honestyisbestpolicy (talk) 18:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not up to anyone else to correct a reference that just says 'insert footnote here'. And it looks as though you are telling us that your edit isn't verifiable because Wikipedia readers can't check it for themselves. You mention good faith, and one of the key guidelines of Wikipedia is that editors should extend good faith to others, something you are clearly not doing. Doug Weller (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would gladly send a link or reference to *ANYONE* who wants a copy of the Goseigen. Regretfully, only members or former members have access to the text. That is my point--the truth isn't publically known because SM encourages members to keep it secret. The Goseigen is not something you can order online like a Bible or pick up in a store--you MUST become a member to have access to the book. Do you have $300, three months, and lots of other "donations" to throw away just to get the facts? This is why, in good faith, I am sharing the facts of their writings within this article. I have given the public a link to the closest resource available online to read Mahikari statements themselves. You will see it under References. Honestyisbestpolicy (talk) 18:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This raises a number of issues about what constitutes a reliable source and how that source should be used. I will discuss these on the Sukyo Mahikari page. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Itsmejudith's change to stubify the page. My edits were from a verifiable source, the Goseigen. As I've mentioned before, it is available only to members. However, in the reference section I added the ISDN number of the book so people who were interested in finding a copy could try to find in a library (though I doubt many would carry it). It is a legitimate source--if the Bible is considered a legitimate source for Wiki then why not the Goseigen? Just because SM restricts it to Members Only does not make it less valid---it just makes it harder to find. I disagree with DougWellers assertions that I am preaching and he has chosen to only edit the material I have posted, not others whose statements that had been there much longer. Doug, I suggest you look up the Goseigen from either an online used bookstore (former members I'm sure have tried to get rid of theirs) or an academic library. You will see you are indeed wrong to remove my comments. While you accuse me of having a personal agenda, I have only tried to balance this Sukyo Mahikari article--which until I tried to post the truth about their teachings--had been a blatant propoganda piece for them. . . Why did you not stop or clean up those posts, sir? Honestyisbestpolicy (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you are asking me here, but if you had posted to the Talk page with specific concerns I probably would have helped you. As it was, you kept me busy enough on the article yourself and I wasn't going to spend more time. Plus you made various accusations against me. I've just checked several UK university libraries and they don't have the book. Being available 2nd hand I don't think counts, but do bring it up on the Reliable Sources notice board and if they agree, great. Explain the problem of availability. I suggest though that you first actually try to find it in libraries, as I've looked at a few and they didn't have it (you know you can click on the ISDN to search). Doug Weller (talk) 17:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, I don't need to find a copy -- I already have one! We are in a circular argument here. . .I am trying to share a resource that few people have. I'm sure members or former members who come to the article could comment on the accuracy of the statements if you would let them actual stand in the article without DELETING them as you have, since they should have copies of the Goseigen. When a secretive cult wants to keep their information secret, of course it's not going to be easy to find and verify. That doesn't make the information less valid. You've let brochures and other lesser published academic articles be used as sources. The Goseigen has been read by thousands of people, and if you can find a used book I'm sure you can verify the statements. And what is wrong about geting a book from a 2nd hand store? "Being available 2nd hand I don't think counts". . What???? It's the same book!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Honestyisbestpolicy (talk • Honestyisbestpolicy (talk) 18:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)contribs) 18:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've asked you to take this elsewhere to discuss it, as you haven't, I have. [6] Doug Weller (talk) 09:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that FPMT projects are sometimes not being posted on the internet. The waterbowl offerings was made in December of 2008. If you need any photos of the waterbowl offering event, I can provide them for you. I follow the Wikipedia "ignore all rules" policy for this case. (smile) Prowikipedians (talk) 08:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! More than I possibly hoped for! You're very good at this :) --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 21:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm very curious, why is a timeline inappropriate? (I added this question to the discussion)Scientryst (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Judith,

Thank you for your kind words. I am however very busy in real life and can not contribute much to wikipedia. Hope everything is going well on your side.

--Be happy!! (talk) 05:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Palestine Solidarity Campaign requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Horologium (talk) 17:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to defend your revision. Pointless. Am off, again. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sindhian and Hkelkar are not the same, unless Hkelkar has relocated to South-East Asia. There are some clear differences in style also. What i pointed out is that several sections that Sindhian has reintroduced were written by Hkelkar during the midst of an ugly edit war. --Soman (talk) 20:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't forget to sign the agree to mediate section here. Apteva (talk) 05:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Stifle

You left a welcome message and another message on the talk page of the above new user. Would you be able to advise any more about the image that he created and wants to see used on an article? The position is that he authored it and he says that it appeared in two leading scientific magazines. What else needs to be done in regard to proper attribution of the image (if it is used in the article Solar energy)? Thanks very much. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to re-read the message I left. It explains why I have not deleted the image from Wikipedia. Attribution etc. does not come into it. Stifle (talk) 10:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

answer from your comments.[7]

well, you do not understand what i said. I do not misunderstand what reliable sources are. I DO NOT SAID, THOSE SOURCES ARE NOT RELIABLE SOURCES. I JUST POINTED OUT THAT THOSE SOURCES HAVE SEROIOUS POV PROBLEM AND STILL FRINGE THEORY.(eg. USA belong to Africa?)

and I already found counterpart sources by an academic press or an article in a scientific journal.

AND I ALREADY SAID, "However, These fringe sources are ALREADY USED as source in main Article. so, This is worthless discussion." reliable or non-reliable... this is not important. those sources are ALREADY USED IN ARTICLE. so, there is no need discussion about this.

problem is.... JJL continually rv. various user's edit. and he keep claim that ONLY his sources are ABSOLUTELY JUSTICE. OTHER SOURCES ARE ABSOLUTELY INACCURATE. He keep a this stance, and he keep opposed counterpart academic sources. Manacpowers (talk) 11:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fringe. According to WP:RS says,

fringe is views held by a small minority, in direct contrast with the mainstream view in their field

yeah, his sources are fringe view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manacpowers (talk • contribs) 11:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well... His source have a serious POV problem.

1. No TKD orginization admit it. Karate POV.

for example, Authors are karate affiliated.

2. No scientific data. it is assumption and personal opinion.

3. That is not mainstream history.

4. still dispute it accurate in many way.

5. TKD OFFICIAL site do not say so.

Last, His stance problem, he keep claim that ONLY his sources are ABSOLUTELY JUSTICE. OTHER SOURCES ARE ABSOLUTELY INACCURATE. Many user already mediate this topic. Afte that, we conclude that it remain a reader's choice.

finally, We make conclusion like this,

"Some believe that these schools taught martial arts that based upon Traditional Korean martial arts Taekkyon, Subak.[6][11] Some believe that these schools taught martial arts that were almost entirely based upon Japanese karate.[12] Some believe that these schools taught martial arts that were based upon various martial arts Taekkyon, Kungfu, karate.[8][9]"

I still disagree this expression. However, this is limit of moderate edit. there is no need further change.

However, JJL try to keep a 'My source are ABSOLUTELY JUSTICE. others are NOT' stance. I still disagree his source. but no one complain that sources are violate WP:RS.

Manacpowers (talk) 11:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"User talk page exchange copied here" this is no need. because, i already posted this sentence above. so i delete it. Manacpowers (talk) 12:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]