Have returned it back to ibuprofen. The evidence as discussed under treatment found the effects of acetaminophen to be inconclusive. Other NSAIDS may be effective but have not come across good evidence for them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Meetup/Cambridge 6 - much as before. We'd be glad to see you. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cyclopia/Archive 4'! You participated earlier in the sticky prod workshop. The sticky prods are now in use, but there are still a few points of contention.
There are now a few proposals on the table to conclude the process. I encourage your input, whatever it might be. Thanks. --Maurreen (talk) 07:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to clutter up the Talk:Eric Ely page with a philosophical discussion, but I did want to follow up on a few things you said, in part to work out more clearly for myself through discussion what my own position is on some matters of importance.

You wrote: "Yes, it is a very minor event, but it is sourced and there is no objective reason to delete the content." I don't agree with this, at least not as you stated it, and I think it important to explain why.

First, there is a clear objective reason to delete some content: it is harmful to the subject of the biography for us to have a biography which makes it appear as if the most important fact about his life is that he was implicated in a scandal. Doing so is not neutral.

A quality biography should present a well-rounded picture of the subject, with various life events put into a reasonable overall context. It is very often going to be the case that a mere counting of references (particularly to local matters) is going to give us a completely wrong and biased view of someone's life. NPOV does not mean that Wikipedia must slavishly follow the bias of the media - it means that on any controversial matter, Wikipedia itself should not take a stand. NPOV does not require us to drop editorial judgment. To the contrary, NPOV will often require us to reflect thoughtfully on matters and come to a reasonable editorial judgment.

Coren put forward an argument that he called "admittedly hyperbole" - but he does raise an issue that we must wrestle with thoughtfully. A great many things are citable in presumably accurate and reliable local sources, including all manner of criminal behavior.

I like to use examples to really put some meat into an otherwise potentially abstract discussion. In Florida, where I live, there is a remarkable website run by the government which covers sexual offenders in some detail. I searched near my home and found within a mile several registered offenders. (This is not unusual - the scope of the website is quite broad and in any urban area, it is easy to find people.) I pick one that sounds google-able.

I google him and find out a few things. First, that's he's listed on a number of websites as a sexual offender. I can find a couple of news stories about his crime: when he was arrested the morning after the incident and when he was convicted. Nothing remarkable, just standard local crime. He was in a band, mentioned tangentially in some local reviews. I could start writing a biography of him. It wouldn't be very long, and it'd be challenged immediately as a WP:BLP violation, I think. So maybe I could write about the event, not the person. I could puff up his "notability" by writing more about the band he was in. Everything I write would be citable.

But does it belong in Wikipedia? Our consensus, for many years, has been a very firm "no" - and I think this shows why mere citability/verifiability is not the end of the story for notability. Verifiability very often does the heavy lifting for us - but in some cases, and as the Internet gets more and more detailed with random databases of crimes and newspaper archives of various kinds - it may not.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your kind reply. What you discuss are basically WP:BLP1E violations. However here I disagree: articles about the events would be perfectly fine under our current rules -and rightly so. If you say that "our consensus for many years has been a very firm no", I would like to be pointed at the policy summarizing such consensus. The truth is that WP is full of articles that detail this kind of events, and they often survive AfD (I helped some of them surviving myself), because they're entirely within policy and within encyclopedic reason. In my opinion, while one-event bios are a bad thing in almost all cases, having articles about events is a good thing. You were able to rapidly find news stories about the event: this means that our impact in covering the event would be not really big; if anything, we strive to provide an unbiased collection of informations about it, so we could, if anything, help. In short: I wouldn't like "do no harm" to become a jolly card to censor verifiable and sourced information. This is already a real risk, and it would help to understand the consequences of such an approach on the WP. --Cyclopia^talk 09:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you really disagree with me, or if you do I'm surprised. Do you really think it would be sensible to have articles based on very narrow local reporting of routine crime, as long as we technically are covering the crime rather than the person? "On January 6, 2004, the Podunk Herald Tribune reported a break-in at the liquor store. On January 8th, it subsequently emerged that John Smith was arrested for the burglary, with police finding in his possession the still-unopened cash register (damaged by a screwdriver in what they characterized as an attempt to open it), as well as several cases of vodka for which he did not have a receipt. On January 14th, Smith pled guilty to 3rd degree burglary and was sentenced to 18 months in prison." I would argue that even if every single fact and sub-fact of that is well-referenced to both the local newspaper and court documents, it simply and plainly does not belong in Wikipedia at all.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question is: why? What are the objective reasons not to include such stuff? I mean, I don't find it especially interesting myself, and I perfectly see why you don't think it belongs in WP: but that's a personal judgement. A judgement that is, in my opinion, biased by our prejudices on what an encyclopedia should be: but we are accustomed to old-world, paper encyclopedias, while we're building here something very different and whose scope is not subject to such limitations. It's too easy to fall into the traps of the kind of "this wouldn't be included in Britannica" (something that many editors still say). My opinion is that instead, once we have complied with BLP policies, verifiabilty and multiple sources requirements, we shouldn't base what we include or not on personal opinions (call it "editorial judgement" if you like: it's still personal POV) on what is "interesting" or not.

Tangentially, I also tend to have a long-term view of this kind: WP is one of the largest databases, if not the largest, of structured information on the whole of human knowledge. A collection of what are small world incidents today could be incredibly useful for historians and researchers of our time in the future (imagine having the equivalent of that for the Roman Empire, and how it would help historians!). This not a compelling argument probably to you, but it is interesting to think in those terms too, IMHO. --Cyclopia^talk 17:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The talk pages should prove interesting to historians then :-) Stephen B Streater (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a professional soccer referee, I've often come across this argument, that everything should be black and white, and that we should just apply the Laws of the Game without judgment. But our judgment is crucial. We are human beings, with experiences. There is simply no way to make certain decisions without drawing on our soccer experience to make certain judgments.

I don't see why Wikipedia should be any different. We do have to make personal judgments about what is notable, and what is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Otherwise, it's not an encyclopedia at all, but rather a data dump for everything.

Fortunately, due to collaborative editing, we can use consensus so that decisions are not made by one person, using one judgment, and one point of view, and the experiences of only one person to draw from. We have all of our editorial judgments, experiences to draw from, points of view -- and we can discuss things.

The system breaks down, when people don't exercise editorial judgment. We don't live in a black-and-white world. Everything that can be cited doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, and we have to use discretion to distinguish what belongs, and what doesn't. To deny this, is to deny the power of our own humanity. We are more than machines.

Wikipedia depends on our collective wisdom and human, subjective judgment.

The system breaks down when people insist on things because they just want Web pages about things -- or they want to create an attack page, and not enough people care enough about the subject to stop it.

Or they like to collect things -- like Star Trek episodes, state Miss USA beauty pageant winners, or non-notable songs.

So yes, Jimbo has made a personal judgment -- and so have the rest of us. But WP:HARM is a limitation, and so is notability, and it is within our rights -- indeed, our duty, if we are aiming to produce the best encyclopedia we can -- to use our discretion. -- Rico 04:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. That "everything that can be cited doesn't belong in an encyclopedia" is a completely arbitrary assumption. I think exactly the opposite: an encyclopedia that doesn't contain everything that can be cited is, theoretically, an incomplete encyclopedia. Of course it is an asymptotic objective, but it is one that we should strive for. We already have criteria for inclusion: we require information to be verifiable in multiple indipendent third-party sources. This is fine with me. But why going further, it escapes me. What do we gain by removing, say, Star Trek episodes? (And yes, we're "more than machines" -we are technically biological machines, but let's not dive into philosophy) but in theory I would love a completely automatic encyclopedia: we do this job only because our machines can't currently do it better. But if we had some kind of AI able to write articles automatically, I'd be all for it. Well, there were actually a couple of bots on the early WP already doing that!) --Cyclopia^talk 09:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the England, truth is not a sufficient defence against libel. The publishing of information must also be in the public interest. So, a biased biography could be libellous even if it was all true and cited. But then our only freedom of information legislation was for many years the Official Secrets Act, which said that anything which might be useful to an enemy was an official secret. My personal guideline about articles looks for maintainability, which is a different issue with the minor character bios. And that there are numerous important people who don't have bios yet that people could be working on. Stephen B Streater (talk) 10:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think bringing in issues of libel is really necessary, though. By the time something has gone far enough to trigger even UK's relatively liberal libel laws, we're so far off track in terms of what we're trying to accomplish that there's just no justification for it. For me, what is more difficult and interesting is not "how to avoid libel" - which is an imperative - but "how to get to highest quality".--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I widely agree with Cyclopia's efforts to keep material in Wikipedia. I do recognize that Jimbo Wales has a point that some topics are too non-notable to include, and I'm glad that the discussion has worked its way toward a somewhat surprising conclusion: that it's purely an issue of quality, though you'd never know it from many discussion pages. If an article can't collect more than a handful of scattered minor citations about a few low points, then it will be random - and thus, never truly unbiased. Nonetheless, I respectfully disagree with Wales on the level of quality needed.

The way I see it - the way I most commonly use it - Wikipedia is like a smarter version of Google. It is a way to get from a general search phrase to the tasty meat of the reference you want. The way I see it, that's what any encyclopedia is or should be. That's not to say that I don't sometimes read part or all of an article because I'm that far out to sea about the topic, or out of curiosity - but the problem is, if Wikipedia doesn't dare to cover a major news story, then to me that starts looking like a censored search engine. It's like if Google avoided all mention of some topics in searches from China.

So the level of quality I want for an article is just that it should have enough verifiable information put together to be better for the reader than typing the term into a search engine. With a low minimum standard of quality, any editor can start an article, and the amount of work thrown away by AfDs is small. It is true that such articles can bring out negative allegations, but it's not right to say that this is a terrible breach of ethics by Wikipedia when using our rival - Google - would turn up the very same allegations without us being involved. This is especially the case if we properly strive to present all sides of the story with a neutral point of view.

Now high quality may sound like a good thing, but the problem is, we should expect to go there through the contributions of many authors. Ad astra per aspera, you might say. I don't think that authors should need to keep new articles hidden away in their userpages and try to solicit fellow contributors before they go live. If we resort to that then we can all just keep personal web pages and put up a new system of online indexes to make an encyclopedia all over the Net - if things keep going toward deletions and bureaucracy here, maybe that is necessary, but the longer it can be delayed the greater the hope for such a retreat will be when it is needed.

Now Jimbo's example of the list of registered sex offenders sounds poignant - yet we have to remember that we didn't put those people online. It was the vote of a democratic government to put those people up there, after what one hopes is careful verification, with the deliberate intent of shaming and humiliating them, often for offenses that are nothing like rape or molestation as we commonly define them. I know that as with many things governmental in the U.S. there are weird hypocrisies and it isn't necessarily safe to side with the government - after all, an underlying motive is to encourage neighbors to commit the acts of violence that the government denies itself; and just because the government put up the information doesn't mean we couldn't have trouble if we put it up - but I still don't see this example as justification for a large number of deletions in other cases. Wnt (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful comment, Wnt. It is refreshing to know there is still someone giving some importance to preserving content here.--Cyclopia^talk 21:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the last two entries below yours before you reverted the last time? Scott P. (talk) 22:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Which entries below what, where? --Cyclopia^talk 23:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Cyclopia. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (2nd nomination), you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination). Cunard (talk) 02:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An AFD you participated in 6 months ago, is being done again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Boba_Phat_(2nd_nomination) Dream Focus 08:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your revert of me, and opened a discussion on the talk page. I hope you'll discuss the issue with me before you revert me again.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After digging through the nonsense on two articles I had pulled up while randomly cleaning up things it turned out that Wikipedia Review had actually whipped up hysteria and on at least one of them simply tried to portray the ARS as some sort of hive. That didn't seem to align with reality. In a quick look at ARS hysteria at ANI, Wikipedia Review editors have been the source of the accusations repeatedly. I'm opposed to all forms of canvassing but the Wikipedia Reviewers only approve their modes of it. Your mileage may vary. 71.139.31.13 (talk) 21:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're getting a lot of name misspellings. Considering that we're working on an encyclopedia, I'm not surprised that people glancing quickly at your name see "Cyclopedia" instead of "Cyclopia;" they've got 'pedia on the brain! It won't stop many misspellings, but you might considering registering User:Cyclopedia as an alternate account and redirect it here so at least the misspellers will be more likely to find you. That's a legitimate reason to have an alt.--~TPW 13:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good suggestion; last time I checked it was a real user however (even if not a really active one). --Cyclopia^talk 13:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I only glanced to see if there was a user page, which is sloppy way to check for a user.--~TPW 01:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources don't do much good on the talk page. If you're going to contest the prod because "sources are available," put them in the main article. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope to do it soon, but this doesn't make the PROD less nonsensical. Thanks anyway! --Cyclopia^talk 16:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The PROD was by no means "nonsensical." The article had only the subject's own website as a reference. You've been around here long enough to know that's not enough. Add the references to the article where appropriate right away, or I will put the article up for AfD very soon. I'm still not convinced of notability. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The PROD was nonsensical because a minimum of WP:BEFORE would have found proof of significant coverage, like I did. I will gladly add the sources (why don't you do that too, in the meantime?), but the point is that, for meeting WP:GNG, all that is requested is that significant coverage by third-party sources exists, not that they are actually in the article. You don't have to rely just on what's in the current version of the article, you have to rely on the actual state of things about the subject. --Cyclopia^talk 01:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're making the case for notability, not me. It's up to you to properly place the references with the parts of the article to which they pertain (if any). Don't try to slough it off on me, because I might not make the right matches. I'm also not totally convinced that these sources are "significant" in regards to MFTF, though they're close. It's a borderline call right now. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We should make the case for notability. We should help the encyclopedia by sourcing and maintaining verifiable information. Not me, not you: us. This is a collaborative project, and it doesn't work if we only care about slashing stuff.--Cyclopia^talk 02:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You supplied the sources; you should place them. Don't be lazy. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being told of being "lazy" by someone who didn't a bit of research before clicking on Twinkle is quite amusing. I have some real work now to do (you know, the one you are paid for), but I'll go adding sources ASAP. --Cyclopia^talk 18:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Put the three links in article space. Will properly use them to source information, format and add others later. --Cyclopia^talk 19:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough. I think my notability questions are pretty well settled, too. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You couldn't have missed the point more if you'd tried.Niteshift36 (talk) 16:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How so? You make bad comparisons, don't complain if your point is not communicated effectively. Comparing inserting random gibberish with attempting (no matter how goofily) to make a visual argument is apples to oranges. --Cyclopia^talk 17:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Giving an example of disruptive editing (ie gibberish)and your predicatable response to it, then contrasting it with your reaction to another form of disruptive editing (the picture) is reasonable and not "apples and oranges". It's not my failure to communicate effectively, it's your failure to think outside of your narrow POV. You say I'm trying to compare random gibberish with a "visual argument". No, I used an example of one form of disruption to illustrate a point about another form of disruptive editing. But I'm done with this. You obviously have no interest in anything beyond your own assumption. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not reasonable because the first is disrupting for disruption's sake; the second isn't. It's not matter of POV -I mean, it seems just common sense to me. It's not like I am endorsing what the guy did (which was silly to say the least), it's just that they are two completely different things. If you can't understand that, I don't know what to tell you. --Cyclopia^talk 12:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your change to WP:CORP was reverted by an impartial deletionist (talk about conflict of interest, right?). How do you go about getting a consensus, or since it's in contradiction with WP:GNG, can you just undo her ridiculous revert? PÆon (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undo her revert would be edit warring. Not a good thing in any case, even worse on policies/guidelines. I'll bring the matter to the talk page ASAP. --Cyclopia^talk 00:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclopia - Your comments (and others as well) at an ongoing DRV inspired me to finally bring this essay Archimedes was deleted to light. Your thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks.--Mike Cline (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I was thinking of writing something on these lines. It's nice but a bit confused. I'll come to it later. --Cyclopia^talk 14:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to inform you that the article you contested a PROD on has been nominated for deletion on the grounds of the same reasons provided in the PROD. You may wish to participate in the discussion. ...' Kalakitty _talk 12:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was fast! Thank you. --Cyclopia^talk 12:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing, for a period of 24 hours, for making personal attacks in this discussion following a warning. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Shimeru (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

.

{{unblock|1=It seems I have been blocked for the following edits: [1] and [2]. While perhaps over the top -and apologies for that- I stated clearly that no personal attack was meant. No personal insult was meant, I was only arguing that the sarcasm by Treasury Tag was quite inappropriate, being disrespectful of keep !votes, and that in general implies an attitude towards notability which in my personal opinion is dangerous for the encyclopedia. Again, if this had been misunderstood, apologies. Second, I received no warning I am aware of from the blocking admin or anyone else -I see no warning here on my talk page, nor I've seen warning on the AfD page. If I missed it, I would be glad to know where the warning was. Third, it seems to me a kind of "cool-down block" which AFAIK is not endorsed by WP:COOLDOWN, since it was a single episode: I don't think to have engaged in persistent attacks or disruptive behaviour of any sort. I'll let the reviewing admins to judge this matter; if in his/her opinion there is evidence of any activity that they thought warranted the block, I'd be happy to discuss it, because I really don't want to be harassing and/or disruptive in any way, and I am sorry of this incident. Thanks.}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): If you've apologized for it, then there's no reason for the block to remain. Unblocked. Request handled by: —Jeremy (v^_^v Dittobori) Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

For what is worth I find that Cyclopia already apologised for the incident(s). I also think that such a long-time contributor with a hitherto unblemished block log, should have at least deserved a warning prior to this block, something that I think did not happen, (at least I could not find any evidence of it). Therefore, given Cyclopia's assurances, apologies and the lack of proper warning, an unblock is warranted. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 02:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good call Jeremy. Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 03:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. --Cyclopia^talk 06:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Null perspiration, chummers. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 06:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: I sent you an email about it. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cyclopia. You have new messages at JRPG's talk page.
Message added 19:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

You reverted my edit at -zilla (suffix), the article is mostly about software and mostly about web browsers, so I would really add these template/wikiproject. What is you're opinion? mabdul 23:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That a suffix is not a browser nor it is a software -it is a piece of language. The fact that a lot of software uses the suffix is no good reason to include (for example) the web browser template. I understand your rationale but it's a bit misguided. --Cyclopia^talk 23:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi friend, I request you have your valuable comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of hotels in Mumbai, also there are more than 50% of names in the list having there own articles with proper reference and all hotels are five star and some are international brands also. Thanks KuwarOnline ^Talk 18:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Please read WP:CANVASS. --Cyclopia^talk 18:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I thought I was doing Wikipedia:CANVASS#Friendly_notices as per policy, this what I already explain on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of hotels in Mumbai, I know that Wikipedia:CANVASS#Votestacking should NOT be done, like only sending message to people who are in favor, but I also send messages to people who are not in favor for similar kind of article see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Software Companies in India I sent both kind of user to comment so that AfD get done faster, I didnt meant anything more than that, still let me know what you think after my comments, so in future I will be more careful, thanks :) KuwarOnline ^Talk 05:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(moved to Talk:GNU#Incomplete) --Cyclopia^talk 20:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my Edit. Thanks for your answer. Still, it's not clear to me what you object to. Can you please be more specific? What do you require in order to reach consensus? Zutam (talk)

Discuss on the article talk page. --Cyclopia^talk 10:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, can you point me in a more specific direction for WP:GNG sources on this article? I checked Gnews when prodding it but all the hits are Romanian news stories about dogs (Catel translates to puppy in Romainian) and some reports relating to CaTel which is an Argentinian Telecoms company (i.e. the other side of the world to this one :)). I'm guessing I missed the source (I tried to check/translate all on the first two pages but I could have missed one). Cheers in advance. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 14:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would start from here. --Cyclopia^talk 14:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

doh, cheers :) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 14:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Cyclopia^talk 14:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Mike Cline (talk) 14:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove prods on disambiguation pages (as with Helix magazine (disambiguation)) until you understand what a disambiguation page is supposed to do. It is not a list of topics, sourced or otherwise (and a disambiguation page should never be sourced, because it is not an article). A disambiguation page is created when Wikipedia has information on more than one topic that can be referred to by the same name; it is designed to guide users to the article with information on the topic they're looking for. If Wikipedia has information on only one topic by that name, then a disambiguation page is not disambiguating anything by listing other topics that are not discussed in any Wikipedia article. Both basic and detailed information on the purpose of a disambiguation page can be found at WP:DISAMBIGUATION. Propaniac (talk) 20:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid using a patronizing tone with other editors, which borders on incivility. I know what a dab is, thank you. I disagree with you because all three are reasonable informative outcomes for one looking for the term, and as such it helps readers, even if there are not articles on the other two meanings. It doesn't stick 100% to the WP:DAB guideline? Maybe. But better having an informative page that helps readers than blindly following guidelines for guidelines' sake. --Cyclopia^talk 21:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

see this ANI thread here reguards Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree on your assessment of vandalism on my part, JonoJoe clearly said his comments had nothing to do with the article, and tame compound matters, his comments were highly offensive so I deleted them. I realize some of my commentary was over the top and the unkind things I implied about you were wrong. I removed them. My apologies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.36.221 (talk) 03:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to object to your reverting my edits of July 14. This article should make clear that the term “hate speech” is a political construct of the left and that the term holds very little currency with moderates or people on the right. Wikipedia should not be used as a platform for ideologues to promote their agendas by presenting their own concepts and terms as having acceptance and legitimate meaning outside of the narrow political sphere in which they are generated and used.

That you would call my edits “blatant POV” goes far in demonstrating your tunnel vision on this subject. You need to wake up, crawl out of your thought cave, and smell the irony. --Antigrandiose (talk) 00:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You were reverted.[3] However, and in addressing concerns about the several mis-linked individuals, I went through the list one-by-one (as anyone could have) and weeded out 5 mis-links.[4] That's all... 5. Wasn't very difficult. However, rather than simply returning the list and have it become HW's 5th reversion following on these: July 12 July 14 July 15 (1) July 15 (2) I paid close attention to instructions at WP:MOSFILM#Cast and rewrote the list, turning it into informative prose. Please take a look at the paragraph[5] and advise. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed that Smelly socks be merged to Foot odor. Since you contributed to the recent AfD on Smelly socks, you might be interested in participating in the discussion to merge at Talk:Foot odor#Merger proposal. SnottyWong ^spout 05:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]