Hi, you recently took part in discussion for the deletion of Pholde. I have closed the AfD as Keep. Your suggestion of merger seemed most reasonable and there had been no recent discussion. Would you like to do the merger? :-) Fr33kman^{talk APW} 02:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask about the rationale behind this edit? JSR (talk) 07:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You do not seem to have consensus for a large removal and so should discuss the matter on the article's talk page rather than repeating your edit. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The removal was mostly unsourced stuff and replacing of sourced material with some of the best citations available. I worked hard on the draft; Read it when you find time and compare it with this version. Please let me know what you think on your talk page afterward. Good day JSR (talk) 07:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I looked at the ledes when comparing both versions and your version seemed too sparse for such a major topic. In any case, you need to prepare the ground for such a major update by discussion on the talk page. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely said, Will try and improve later. Also will try and reach consensus. Thanks. JSR (talk) 08:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I misunderstood you - and obviously didn't read the banners carefully. My apologies and thanks for explaining it, Slrubenstein | Talk 12:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You're welcome. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment on my talk page, and your assessment of the close. I don't mind having the discussion of it--seeing how others think I went wrong helps me to better avoid that (by explaining myself better) in the future. Cheers.... justinfr (talk/contribs) 13:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for your comment. I think I did more than most people participating in this discussion to improve the actual article. Some sources were mentioned at the deletion page discussion, please try to include them at abstract nonsense when you get a chance. Katzmik (talk) 16:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I missed the AFD discussion but have added a generalised source search to the article's talk page. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel,

May I ask for a favor to certify at [1] that you tried to resolve dispute with DavidRuben? Please sign at Users certifying the basis for this dispute. Of course please feel free to comment or support. Thank you Paul Gene (talk) 03:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've confirmed as requested. I'm not sure there's more to say since the issue seems clear but I'll keep watching the related threads. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to our dicussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability#In a Nutshell:Yet more confusing wording, could you provide details of some articles that illustrate your concerns? --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you have any further comments? --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Roll the dice.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? H.G. 23:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not ok to summarily remove peoples posts from an ongoing discussion, so do not do it again. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I remove items from talk pages if they seem off-topic, as in this case. The topic of that talk page, iirc, is the AFD process. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll chime in here too. I'm not happy about that summary removal. If you feel compelled to do so again, dropping a note to the editors whose comments you redacted would be in order. Protonk (talk) 16:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do think the following stub has the potential to be a decent, non-WP:dicdef article? Pure thought. --Firefly322 (talk) 20:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• My pure thoughts or an impure kind? :) I'm not familiar with the topic but it seems to be reasonable from the dicdef aspect. The main issue would seem to be whether it is not already well-covered by our article upon Kant and his philosophy. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please either enable it or email me. DGG (talk) 22:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Please try again. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

You seem to have walked into the middle of our little edit dispute over at inflation, so I thought I should give you a heads up about what's going on.

Inflation is watched over by several Econ wikiproject members. Many of us have PhDs in economics and are in academia. We're trying to improve the econ articles so that they are at least undergrad text book quality, but you'ld be surprised how many people we have to fight over basic facts about economics.

Pennyseven showed up about a week ago, and has editing the Inflation page intensively and exclusively. He's been making some strange additions that all work back to a particular POV - that accounting values need to be corrected for inflation otherwise BAD THINGS HAPPEN. This POV has been pushed before, I could point you to some conversations on my talk page, and some earlier disputes on the Inflation page, but here's something from another econ wikiproject member on the inflation talk page that sums up our reservations.

I'll be upfront on this: I believe Pennyseven is yet another sockpuppet of Nicolaas Smith, who is indefinitely blocked and has a long record of attacks and disruptive editing. (AKA Kjkkjjk or whatever, X-1111, Pacluc, etc ad nauseum). The obsession is to push this point, and his (applied for patent) RealValueAccounting and text (i.e. conflict of interest).

Radeksz ‎has been working with the wikiproject for some time. He's extremely knowledgeable and is a good editor that does good work. He usually engages on the talk page before making changes. Its just that we're getting tired constantly fighting POV pushers, and so we get a bit brusque when another one shows up.

lk (talk) 14:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Adjusting nominal values to allow for inflation is standard practise in many fields and it seems appropriate that this article should say something about this. No doubt the devil is in the details and I shall study them more closely. More anon. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:PennySeven showed up about 10 days ago, and has been impolite to quite a few editors. We gave him leeway cause we didn't want to bite the newbie. But a pattern has emerged. Pennyseven is a WP:SPA that edits only the Inflation article, and consistently pushes only one point, that inflation degrades accounting values and must be corrected. This point has been pushed by a banned user before. The trouble with his edits is not that it's not true, it's that he doesn't source it to reliable sources that directly support his claim, and also that he wishes to put undue weight on it. There was discussion earlier among several editors, and all agreed that it Pennyseven's version placed undue weight. He reverts to it anyway. Check out the page history and talk history for yourself. You're on the wrong side here. lk (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If the material in question is similar to that found in Inflation accounting then I consider it deserves significant coverage in the main Inflation article as finance, business and accounting are not fringe matters. If we simply require better sources for this then I may be able to help.Colonel Warden (talk) 19:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To my satisfaction I found many sources on the net.

Thank you very much for your help in this matter. It was decisive.PennySeven (talk) 06:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your thoughts on current (modified) article would be appreciated. Thanks ­ Kris (talk) 23:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I took a look but I don't know enough of these languages or phonetics to be able to make much of it. The AFD won't close for 5 days or so so I'll take another look before then and withdraw if it seems appropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings!  :) Please consider joining the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia#What's an Encyclopedia?. While I expect you and I do not see eye to eye at this point in time, and we may have to "agree to disagree" at some point, I'd certainly like to have a go at achieving mutual understanding before giving up. Thanks! —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 01:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the other articles I created, Storm train, has also been nominated for deletion. Can you help with this one, just as you did for Shouting match? -- IRP ☎ 15:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It doesn't look too promising because the term doesn't seem to have much currency and I don't know enough about metereology to find the right one easily. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Although User:Bongomatic tagged the storm train article for deletion, at least nobody voted "Delete" for the article in the AfD as of 21:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC). His/her deletion requests are vague, and I agree, I think it would make sense that he/she is just trying to attack the articles, by finding every possible excuse to have an article he/she sees, deleted. It is a very great thing that user is not an administrator. If Bongomatic was, a large fraction of Wikipedia's database would have been wiped out and devastated, and he/she would lose admin privileges in a heartbeat, and would probably be banned. -- IRP ☎ 21:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note 2: Although his/her goal might have been to expunge the article from Wikipedia, it actually brought some helpful editors to the article, and it improved dramatically. You were the most helpful editor! But please see Shouting match↓↓, because there is an update there. -- IRP ☎ 21:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been reduced to a disambig page, please renew your comments BMW(drive) 19:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was listening to this year's Dwight H. Terry Lectureship from Yale University (Terry Eagleton's]) and I kept hearing this name what I thought, to me, was a new one. It turns out its a hybrid of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. A google search turns up eight (good?) hits: Ditchkins. What would be your view on an article on Ditchkins? --Firefly322 (talk) 22:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources indicate that only Eagleton uses this and so it might be worth a mention in our article about him. I doubt that there's enough material for a separate article - just a redirect would do. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right. thanks.--Firefly322 (talk) 01:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing, Yale professor (Dennis Turner did so) also uses the term. Does that make it notable enough perhaps? --Firefly322 (talk) 04:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm tolerant of any good faith article but the chances of such an article surviving AFD seem small currently. I suggest keeping your eyes open for more references and coming back when you see a good source to base the article upon. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for rewriting my article. Did you see the motivation section in an old revision? Was that suitable for the article? Was some of the information in that section suitable, or was it just information that didn't belong in place? -- IRP ☎ 17:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No doubt some teenagers or mentally-ill folk have shouting matches but you really need a source to back up comments of this sort. My approach was to search through the sources and write sections based upon the interesting items I found there. If you look at the links on the talk page, you could start with those and then add other keywords to perhaps find sources on these other points. But while the article is at AFD it's best not to have such a section without a source as this invites criticism that the article is original research. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you think you can find any resource(s) to verify my statements? -- IRP ☎ 21:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, please check the Shouting match AfD, somebody has an idea. -- IRP ☎ 21:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure which the idea is. Anyway, the AFD still hangs in the balance so I'll keep working on the topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• User: Yobmod posted: Delete. The problem isn't that it is now a dictdef, it's that editors don't see how it could ever be expanded to be anything else. Add a "shouting matches in pop culture" section? "Historical development of shouting matches"? "Socioeconomic impact"? The title describes what it is, and there is then nothing more to say, hence no sources to write an encylopedia entry on. Unless sources appear, showing that psychologists or socialogists have written about this, the arguments for keep seem moot; There is simply nothing that can be written beyond "Shouting matches are matches in which people shout. they occur in many contexts, a random list is given below (disquised as an article). -- Comment copied to this page by IRP ☎ at 20:15 (UTC) on 6 October 2008

• The article now contains sources of this kind and so Yobmod's comments are redundant. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Another suggestion: Bongomatic's suggestion (highlighted in green) -- IRP ☎ 02:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• If you disagree with Bongomatic's idea, you should tell him/her on his/her talk page as well. -- IRP ☎ 03:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• OK, whatever, now, it doesn't matter anymore, because the AfD is now closed. -- IRP ☎ 15:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen what I believe is philosophy POV pushing in the Religion and Science article and perhaps in some of the other articles in the Category:Religion and science category. Now of course, I could be POV pushing too, but I am usually quite careful to always put down references so that these can be used in discussions if and when a need arises. For example, I wrote this [2], which is simply a summary of a point from John Habgood's Science and Religion (1964), but it was replaced by this [3], which gives no reference source (it is not at all a summary of Habgood's work). So what I'm thinking is that this is a trend in the wikipedia culture being a kind of barbarism, sort of what famed literary critic Terry Eagleton has recently pointed out about society at large. According Eagleton, analytical philosophy is embarrassed by the very nature of theological questions

"and one of those places, surprisingly in many ways, is theology, I mean it is in some sectors of theology, that nowadays one can find the most informed and animated discussions of Delores [spelling is probably incorrect]] and bandeau [sipi] orFoucault and feminism, Marx, Hedgier, and so on. Not entirely surprising perhaps, because theology is one of the most startling ambitious theoretical arenas left to us in an increasingly specialist and fragmented world. One whose subject is nothing less than the nature and destiny of humanity itself in relation to what it takes to be its transcendent source. I mean you try raising that kind of question in analytical philosophy or political science, even in some theology departments, some theological departments might find themselves quite embarrassed by that. So we find ourselves in a very curious and incongruous situation. In a world in which theology is indubitably a massive part of the problem and has become so in new and unpredictable ways. As Ditchkins so rightly points out." Culture and Barbarism (timestamp ~ 50 minutes, April 10th, 2008)

Do you see these concerns of mine as reasonably valid and objective? If so, what sort of place on wikipedia should I raise these issues? (policy/guideline talk pages, etc.). --Firefly322 (talk) 16:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no clear opinion upon the content of this article which is too wooly for my taste. Dispute resolution might be attempted by reference to the 3rd Opinion or Reliable Sources noticeboards, I suppose. Sorry not to be more helpful but if more ideas occur to me, I'll let you know. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too wooly an article...I've been trying to clean it up. Darn. At any rate, that's alright, I've never pursued a reliable source board b4. Good idea. Thanks. If any other ideas do pop up, I would love to hear them. Thank you again. --Firefly322 (talk) 19:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you rewrite this article before it gets proposed for deletion? -- IRP ☎ 01:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Colonel Warden. I noticed your comment on the Wikiquette alerts page. I have no problem with the general discussions around the tag, but I would dispute your comment that the tag is what caused this - Firefly322s response has caused all the aggravation. However, separate to that discussion I agree that making the tag less obtrusive (only bold left justified text with a bullet point, for eg) and placing a similar tag to the present one on the talk page instead might be a possible improvement. I'll have a look at the discussion, which I was unaware of, when I have time. Thanks for drawing my attention to it. Verbal chat 16:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to draw your attention to this AfD discussion I have just started. I am leaving this message here as you were involved in the previous discussion about this page which ended just over a week ago. I realise that this renomination is not within the normal acceptable time frame and I have outlined my reasoning for the exception on the discussion page. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hell. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Toddst1 (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Interposting) I've reviewed the Hell edit history. 2 reverts per WP:3RR is not an edit war. --Firefly322 (talk) 02:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When using the undo function it is both courteous and desirable to leave enhanced edit summaries as to why you are undoing a particluar edit, unless it is simple vandalism. I'd urge you to do this in the future rather than blindly revert, as the above warning is indicative of what may occur without such information. Pedro :  Chat  21:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Interposting) There was no edit war. Going along with this so called "warning", which is actually either a mistake or a dishonest comment, does no favor for the wikipedia project. I would advise Pedro to disengage from such moral hazards in the future. --Firefly322 (talk) 02:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Edit summaries are not to be used to engage in discussion per Help:Edit summary#Use of edit summaries in disputes as this is the function of talk pages. Please see Talk:Hell#Order_of_religions for the corresponding discussion which I started upon the editing matter there. As for the redundant warning above, this appears to be a reaction to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Happy Computers which would be a breach of WP:POINT, WP:STALK and WP:HARASS. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, edit summaries are not for discussion. They are to summarise the edit. When reverting in a content dispute simply using undo with no explanation at all other than the default can be counter productive. The point that Firefly appears to be missing is that I agree the above warning was incorrect, however if you had used a more detailed description in your reverts then it is more likely that it would not have been put here in the first place. Pedro :  Chat  08:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro, there may be many points that I am missing here. All the same, per Wikipedia:Civility#Apologizing you should be offering Colonel Warden an apology instead you continue to engaged in a dialogue that Colonel Warden has identified as WP:HARASSment. --Firefly322 (talk) 11:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find, Firefly, that Colonel Warden made the harrasment reference to Toddst1. I'm so pleased you acknowledge there are points you are missing. You are correct in this. I have done nothing but point out why the template may have been added, and that I believe it was added in error. Pedro :  Chat  12:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can all agree that the original warning is very suspicious indeed and not justified, that it's best to use explanatory edit summaries at all times, that editors are free to decide it's too much hassle, and that it's not very polite to get into a fight over a misunderstanding on another editor's talk page. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, and apologies to Colonel Warden for carrying this out on his talk. Pedro :  Chat  13:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs to be rewritten. -- IRP ☎ 22:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]