Welcome!

Hello Rrburke/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Jkelly 18:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed your removed a lot of material regarding Eliot and Jews with the note: Prejudice? I presume you meant the people making the comments you removed were prejudiced. However, this is not a reason for removing the comments, though it might be a reason for pointing out why they were making them. The fact that they made them is a reality and should be recorded from a NPOV. I'm not going to put them back, but maybe you should have another look. Tyrenius 21:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry, I don't know what happened there. It was actually User:Krestinky02.

Tyrenius 17:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya mate it's the grave nearest in the shot and closest to the tree, very noce it is too, there is standard description on the front and the quote from his song on the rear. Cheers Robdav69 21:50, 6 August 2006

Your opinion please. Thanks RaveenS

Why this page is for speeky deletion? There is no reason! Sucrine ( ><> talk) 21:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

is it better like this? He has made a important contribution in the vineyard music, I think he deserve an article... Sucrine ( ><> talk) 22:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for tagging so many not clearly notable bands as candidates for speedy deletion! We can use all the help we need with the deletion of bandcruft (although I disagree with you about Glass casket). Just one small thing: could you use an edit summary like "suggest deletion" or "db-band" when you tag? It makes it easier for people watching the entry to see that something important might happen to their article. Thank you, and happy editing! Kusma (討論) 12:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see [2]. Wavelength 18:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind confirming it on Wikipedia under my preferences?  ;-) This is in regards to the message you left me yesterday. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The account has been indefinitely blocked for obvious trolling, and I'll leave it at that due to the sensitive nature of this issue. Your email authentication may have failed if you clicked twice to send a confirmation email; give it a second try and let me know what happens! Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't really see the "assertion of notability" there. We have an upcoming album with no label mentioned, and a planned tour that hasn't happened yet. They've been around since 1999. Myspace downloads don't count under the standards (and are unverifiable), and all bands claim an unspecified large fanbase. Nothing that seems to assert any qualification under WP:MUSIC. Fan-1967 01:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Please could you create a new article for the BCW backyard wrestling federation. Thanks.

Martin Bean British Championship Wrestling (BCW) webmaster

Dion's Le Ballet is a single from her D'eux album that is the best-selling French album of all time. Dion in this album and song incorporate influences ranging from Continental pop and folk music jazz and '70s soul. I think it's a important song in her discography. It's considered a hit from her french career.

Tronix 19:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. The answer is yes of course you can. In fact, always bear in mind that we're all here on a wiki. This means with a "few" well marked exceptions, you are free to edit anything you like. Nonadmins even quite often close things as wild as AFD debates (of course they cant do the deletion but that's what we're here for :) ). So, no doubt the post has gone now but absolutely, please edit whatever you can if it's going to improve or assist others. Keep up the great work! Glen 04:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being an IP, it is quite possibly shared. The returning vandalism was yesterday, and therefore not an immediate problem that needs dealing with now. As the article being vandalised was different it was not obvious that it was the same vandal (though looking more closely at the contribs I know see that it is possible). If it is clearly the same person returning and the IP doesn't appear to be shared, then yes I would block without further warnings, but if there is a reasonable chance this isn't the case a warning is more appropriate before a block. Petros471 15:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The name is correctly spelled "Johnathon", with an "o". This is the name given in every one of the recent media reports listed in the article, as well as the name used in the URL for the memorial website created by Johnathon's mother, who would presumably know best.

The "a" spelling is definitely what was used during the trial under the publication ban, but is not the correct spelling of his first name.

See for example this CBC story and note the various spellings [3]:

Johnathon Madden, had previously been known in the public eye only as "Johnathan."

So, I propose the reverse: we incorporate the content from Johnathan Madden into Johnathon Madden. We should maybe also mention the spelling issue somewhere, because I honestly didn't notice the difference when writing the article. --Saforrest 23:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: turning the stub into a redirect -- sounds good. As for the spelling discrepancy, I don't know. A couple of wild ideas occurred to me, but the most likely is simple error on the part of a court stenographer, or some media person. What's odd is that they did get the eccentric extra 'h' part right (i.e. not "Jonathan"). --Saforrest 23:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is odd that the media were so remarkably consistent in their spelling choice: any utility the misspelling might have had for hiding his identity would be vastly exceeded by simply calling him "John Doe".

On the other stuff, hmm, I'm from Dundas originally (though I only moved back to the Hamilton area recently). On coincidences, actually I live near James and Aberdeen, and bought my copy of today's Globe from a newsstand at St. Joe's. Certainly nothing to compare to your "small world" story, though! --Saforrest 02:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said: "You previously blocked this user on Sept 27th for 48 hours. Since he has returned on Sept 29th he has made several nonsense edits and some blankings I am in the course of reverting. Perhaps you would consider re-blocking him for a longer period."

Done. --Yamla 23:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I figured it out. The images are just like some of the other library of congress images, the image links are non-permenent. I added a link that I can be quite confident will lead you almost directly to the image until they change their system. --Kevin_b_er 03:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to your concern about using "killed" in the main article -- I was actually aiming to flush out the removal tags, not specifically to revert changing the work "murder" back. Reviewing now, since there wasn't really any edit summary or discussion on the talk page about that change, I think it wasn't harmful. I agree your new wording is more appropriate for the context. Cantankrus 04:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments in the Einsatzgruppe article. I'm not sure if you saw, but our friend Nazrac decided to pay a not so assuming good faith visit to my talk page. Funny that my sole edit to the article is policing -- I must have forgetten that I was inducted into some conspiracy. :) Cantankrus 04:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per your request, just letting you know. Cantankrus 03:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Our friend Nazrac is back, this time commenting to me about an edit you made on the Einsatzgruppe article, I believe. I'm not sure if he is simply confused or thinks we are sock puppets, but I haven't edited that article in quite some time, not even on the talk page. It's quite amusing, with the same silly conspiracy sprinkled throughout. I'm not sure if his personal attack is centered on you or me, or if he's just confused as to which one is which. I thought I'd let you know. :) Cantankrus 20:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TJ wrote "anti-Israeli anti-Semites (= me)" where me equals him, thus according to his own words he was accused of being anti-Semite. Also, from NYS article: "Judt have claimed that debate on the U.S.-Israel relationship is squelched by false accusations of anti-Semitism". Btw, I wonder if you could look at Talk:Tadeusz Hołówko where we were recently discussing the claims backed by sources citing sources citing sources being translated in each step :> -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it would be a nice ref to include in the article, but you are right the wording was not correct. Feel free to readd it with better wording. Regarding TH, it's a case where one A quotes B quoting (or describing) C, where all other sources we have disagree with A.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tnx for the update!-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! I found this article to assert just about enough notability that it toes the line of a non-speedy (since they've work with some notable people, and in a movie, and they have a large number of *shudder* google hits). However, I'm sure you can {{prod}} it, or maybe an AFD. Cheers! --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 13:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Rrburke! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page and please note this is VP 1.3 not 1.2.2 see this for the approved list. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 15:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC) PS sorry I had approved you awhile a go but while sending out approvals the system crashed and I was unsure of who had recieved the proper welcome.[reply]

What version of VP do you have? Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 14:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well there you go that is the problem you are using VP 1.2.2 and I have approved you for 1.3. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 14:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your not going wrong, vp 1.3 is not "Officail" released but we are registering and moving people over from 1.2.2 if you look in my vp welcome that will have a link to the downloads. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 14:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! VandalProof has long since stopped being able to work for me, but I'm eagerly awaiting the final release of 1.3 so I can try again! Cheers hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 21:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection isn't about admin involvement in a content dispute but rather to deal with repetitive edits by individual who refuse to discuss changes on the talk page. The editor isn't adding any information, merely POV'ing existing information and removing others. Your response on the talk page is exemplary since is shows clearly the edits are strange and contentious. If he does it again without engaging in discussion then submit a request for semi-protection. You can do so here: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. BTW your not [4] are you? I know that guy. --Deodar 00:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problemo. Sometimes I follow behind AntiVandalBot [5] to try to clean up after those who are doing damage somewhat under the radar. Feel free to join in...until Tawker figure out how to bot the warnings as well. Thanks for the good work you have been doing.

Oh...while I am here, I use the following as my personal warning system, although I am sure you have your own:

==Editing Concerns==

#{{subst:test1}} ~~~~

#{{subst:test2}} ~~~~

#{{subst:test3}} ~~~~

#{{subst:test4}} ~~~~

I like the way it makes it easier to tell that all 4 warnings have been given prior to a first block. Kukini 02:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When a user has been indef blocked for vandalism it is often best to just leave the user's page alone. If the user writes junk or what not on it the user is at least not making a new account to vandalize. That said, there is no need to re-add personal attacks if another user has seen fit to remove them. JoshuaZ 21:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, RR. There's no serious doubt that the Palestinians were terrorised from their homes (when they weren't beaten from them, or, in a few cases, massacred in them). The evidence for it is ample, everyone seriously interested knows that it's true, the only problem is keeping it on view.

And I don't think there's any real argument for keeping some reference to this out of the article on Israel. Israel is practically defined by the problems it has with its neighbours, one cannot gloss over the events which started it.

Having said which, I'm not sure how to usefully contribute on that talk-page for the moment!

PalestineRemembered 22:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to add - other than to suggest the problem is even more acute than what you've described. Because if I was attempting to put "Palestinian POV" into this article I'd be saying "It makes no difference why they left their homes, they have an absolute legal and moral right to return to them". All I was actually doing with Morris and Khalidi was attempting to confront unsourced material that looks very much like propaganda.

There is one thing that fair-minded observers could do, which is to clarify whether Shmuel Katz is truly WP:RS. He appears to have been a militant (member of Lehi) and a professional propagandist. I think he's still alive, but he doesn't appear to have any qualifications, quotes from fairly well discredited others (particularily Joan Peters) and doesn't appear to have added anything to our knowledge of what happened. For instance, I see this block quote from him being repeatedly inserted at Palestinian refugee:

"The result has been the creation of a large, amorphous mass of names, some of them relating to real people, some of them purely fictitious or relating to persons, long since dead, a minority relating to people without a home as a result of their or their parents' leaving Palestine in 1948, the majority relating to people who, whatever their origins, are now living and working as ordinary citizens but continuing to draw rations and obtaining medical attention at the expense of the world's taxpayers -- all of them comfortably lumped together in official United Nations lists as Arab refugees and vehemently described as "victims of Jewish aggression."

There is so much else that's severely POV in that last article I don't know where to start! I'd really appreciate your advice on improving this article. Life is too short for edit-wars, yet that seems to be what I'm faced with if any of my (usually careful) work is to be included.

PalestineRemembered 20:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for applying to use VandalSniper! You have been approved. If have not already done so, you may find instructions to install VS on the project page.

As some of the libraries VandalSniper runs on are currently in transition, there have been a few issues reported with setup. At the moment, Linux is the most compatible platform for VS. If you have questions or problems, you may find help on the project page or its talk page. Please also feel free to contact me for help and I will do my best to assist you.

Thanks for becoming a part of one of Wikipedia's best new software tools! -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 03:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I noticed your edit comment at "Lack of outside support" and took the liberty to revert. While generally you're right and the edit summary of the user you reverted suggested it's sort of a folk tale (my daddy told me once...), in this very case the info he added is neither controversial nor obscure. In fact it's easily verifiable. Just let me know should you want me to add some references. //Halibutt 12:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the article in question is a splinter from the main Warsaw Uprising, which is not sufficiently sourced either, but will be in the future (there are more such tasks pending). //Halibutt 17:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You bet :) But seriously, in the past we (I mean a group of Poland-related editors) have promoted several articles to FA status, some of them in the times when nobody added references to articles on WP. Now the standards have changed (improved) and it is quite a task to back-source, so yo say, all of our FAs. Among those on the top of the list are Virtuti Militari and Polish-Soviet War. I guess Warsaw Uprising goes next, though when I think of it now, we shouldn't have been dividing it in the first place. //Halibutt 17:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi... I note that the version of Palestinian refugee you protected includes the long block quote which is the subject of the edit war. Might it have been better to effect this pause at a point when this disputed addition was not included, pending a consensus on whether it merits inclusion? --Rrburke 12:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's true but protection is not an endorsement of the current page version. Concensus would solve the issue through discussion at the talk page. If there would be no discussion w/in 48 hours i'll unprotect it. -- Szvest 15:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up ®}[reply]

Just leave the user alone. As long as its vandalizing its own talk page it isn't vandalizing Wikipedia. JoshuaZ 21:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words. I'd love to help. I've also sent you an e-mail outlining my ideas about who might be useful in solving the issues, and mentioned a couple of other names I think you should consider. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain on the article's talk page why you added the Expert tag. What are you looking for? Royalbroil ^{Talk  Contrib} 16:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell he is a disruptive Holocaust denier. Any warning will do; you could point him to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, and suggest he needs to start following them, as his Talk: page use is disruptive, and Wikipedia is not a debating board. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments. Thank you.

Sorry for that; it was an unintended revert. I must have missed the overwrite warning. 159 is a great tool, as he has so much nonsense and is so easy to refute. I'll read the using talk pages link -- I do try not to keep trolls going, but 159 is more a hit and run poster then a true troll. Cantankrus 02:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Rrburke! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just made a quick edit to Jaca and got a message saying that it had been reverted (apparently by STBot using VP). I believe this edit should not have been reverted, and am therefore contacting you. :-) The edit was legit, and there was no need to revert it. I re-reverted, and things are apparently okay now. Have a good one. -- 201.50.246.69 20:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please consult Wikipedia:Disambiguation on proper procedure for resolving ambiguity. --Rrburke 20:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you do not want me communicating on your user page, please respond on mine or on the Fraulein discussion page. I apologize if I offended you, but I am not going to allow you to accuse me of vandalism because of a content dispute.

Hello there. I considered that, although she had indeed blanked user and user talk pages several times, justifying that as an accident, the fact that she had stopped blanking pages by the time she got the final warning, and that she started discussing in talk pages instead of editing by the time I checked (the edits to Fräulein were already done), it was better to leave unblocked to continue with the ongoing discussion, as it is quite possible that, with a 3 hours block, she would come back editing the articles after the block was lifted. Feel free to relist the report for another admin to review, I won't be offended. Blocks are preventive, not punitive, and since she was discussing and not disrupting, blocking for something she had already done is not just in my point of view. As I had said, though, feel free to relist her if you think she deserves a block. Cheers! -- ReyBrujo 05:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That information was not in the AIV report. I notice the latest edit in the Talk:Fräulein article is from over a month ago, though. Although it is possible to think her user page blanking as vandalism due a previous content dispute, all I can offer is to ask another admin to review the case, and/or relist her at AIV to see if another admin decides to block her (although it has passed some time by now and it is not likely she will blocked). -- ReyBrujo 05:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to consider protecting that article against re-creation: the one you deleted was attempt number 3. --Rrburke^(talk) 06:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's been warned. The next recreation should result in a block IMHO. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You tagged this article as unreferenced back in November, and I subsequently added some reference links, including the one fact you questioned, and removed a statement I can't verify. You can see the differences here. Would you mind taking a look and seeing if there's anything else you feel needs a reference? scot 15:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Middle name is not necessary in the case of Saul D. Betesh. Please stop adding it in, it is getting a bit annoying to read it. David Betesh

How dare you accuse me of sock-puppeting! I would never do such a thing. I always make my changes under this name. How do you know other people aren't doing it on my behalf. Don't ever accuse me again of sockpuppeting.David Betesh

....So you are saying that the IP address, Special:Contributions/216.46.79.2 is like what, an imaginary friend ? They have identical taste in articles in that case. This is truly a fantastic coincidence. Ttiotsw 04:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To both Rrburke and Ttiotsw. I will vow to stop messing with the emanuel jacques page if you can take me off both of your talk pages. As you can see by my work, I am a serious editor, just a bit paranoid about having a killers name show up whenever people are inquiring about me. Please take this into consideration and delete my name, references and comments off these talk pages.David Betesh

Hi, it's best not to "subst" these tags, or most cleanup tags. See WP:SUBST for more details. Rgds, Rich Farmbrough, 19:34 25 February 2007 (GMT).

Hi Rrburke: You nominated Progressive Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Progressive Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism.) However, it would have been nice if you would have informed the original creator of this article that you were doing so (I have just done so [6]). Kindly note that on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list pages for deletion it advises that: "...'It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion. Do not notify bot accounts or people who have made only insignificant 'minor' edits. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the article and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter. For your convenience, you may use {{subst:AFDWarningNew|Article title}} (for creators who are totally new users), {{subst:AFDWarning|Article title}} (for creators), or {{subst:Adw|Article title}} (for contributors or established users)." Thank you for noting this for future purposes. IZAK 12:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, unless a source can be found to confirm it, we have to leave it removed, since it concerns the biography of a living person. I'll see if I can find any sourcing for the claim. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 02:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and no trouble with the vandalism bit, I've had a few vandal reverts cross over like that too. Sometimes, seems the server doesn't correctly flag an edit conflict. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 02:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the source for Seagal's work as a sheriff [7] Bencey 17:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a slightly different read of WP:VANDALISM. It clearly says "Removing all or significant parts of pages or replacing entire established pages with one's own version without first gaining consensus both constitute vandalism. " clearly, there is no consensus for removing the Katz quote, and this says, removing parts of a page w/o consensus is vandalism. Additionaly, as you note "good-faith removals of disputed material are never considered vandalism" - but when an editor lies about the reason for removal (e.g.: falsely alleging the material is self published) , and does so repeatedly, even after being shown that it is a false claim, I don't think we can pretend good faith exits. I also believ you are misreading or misconstruing WP:ATT with regards to the equivalnce between inclusion and exclusion. All it says in this regard is that all material must be attributable - i.e, if an unsourced claim is made, it can be removed unless a source is provided. Nowhere does it say that if editors disagree about the reliability of a source that it stays out. And that is for a reason - if that were the case, all contentious material would be deleted from WP, as those who find it objectioanble would simply disagree with the source's worthiness. Isarig 23:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've raised several issues, and I'll try to address them, though I believe future discussion on this topic belongs on the article's Talk page.

• Was it vandalism? You implicitly concede that it is possible that in the particular instance I was responding to, the reason was frivolous (a claim that it was self-published, when it is clearly not). I do not want to belabor this point - I think a warning was in order, the editor stopped using that false claim after I warned him and I did not report him, so I think my action was appropriate and achieved its goal, so there' no point in wikilawyering over this.
• Are inclusions are exclusions equal? As I wrote there is good reason why WP:ATT only requires attribution, but does not say what you claim it does. If we were to accept your reading of it, no disputed content would ever remain on WP, because all the editors who object to it would have to do is refuse to accept the legitimacy of any source. of course, material that is not sourced to a WP:RS can always be removed, but at that point, exclusion and inclusion rest on the same footing - there must be consensus for either one, and there is no particular onus on the inclusionist to prove the reliability to the exclusionists content - it is just a content dispute at that point.
• The meat of the matter is does Ktaz's book meet the criteria set forth in WP:ATT for a reliable source. First I must say that I find your claim that no attempt had been made to establish Katz's reliability to be completely incorrect. In fact, you have participated in discussions on the Talk that have done this, and the arguments brought forth include his being published by a mainstream press, his status as a historian (something which at least one of the editors who objects to the quote seems to accept). You may not have been swayed by these arguments, but let' snot pretend they were not made. The objection you raised on my talk page have been dealt with on the Talk page, but I'll repeat the answers: far from being obsolete, the editor who originally inserted the quote has shown you that a 1990 edition of the book repeats the same claims. No one can seriously claim that a 1990 book is 'out-of-date, or has been officially withdrawn or deprecated by its author(s) or publisher." Raising this objection now, after this has been pointed out to you is borderline frivolous in itself. The other objection is that it is a 'questionable source". The examples WP:ATT list as questionable are "websites and publications that express political, religious, anti-religious, or racist views that are widely acknowledged as extremist. It also includes gossip columns, tabloids, and sources that are entirely promotional in nature. Questionable sources should usually not be used as sources except in articles about themselves; see the self-publication provision of the policy." - books published by mainstream presses are notably absent from the list. If we were to rely only on academic presses, I hazard a guess that less than 5% of WP content would remain. Just look at the very article in dispute- which sources claims to sources such as the "democractnow.org" website, to frontpage magazine, and to "standforjsutice" - surely if the issue was reliable sources, there are more obvious cases to start with. Isarig 04:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

Changed sexualy to sexually.

07:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI: I just had an anon, 71.243.84.163, edit my Talk page history to change death-camps.org to deathcamps.org deathcamps.org. I guess the "ethnic cleansing" is still ongoing. Askari Mark (Talk) 16:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Both death-camps.org and deathcamps.org links are being blacklisted and deleted due to copyright concerns and complaints to the Foundation.[8] I'm one of several people going around disabling these links on a rush basis. --A. B. ^(talk) 21:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of them are particularly helpful. Regarding the Amir ones, the fact that they're both in Hebrew makes them not very useful on English Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, but Toaff has apparently rescinded his claims. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, he's just "re-editing", whatever that means. Regardless, the work is currently withdrawn, which make any claims based on it highly dubious. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping there might be an easier way to do it! I was going to submit a bunch more for AfD, but I didn't want to repeat the same process over and over. Thank you! − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, good advice. But in this case, it's all early 1900s hockey players, and the articles were virtually all created by the same editor. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Rrburke. As you are already on the userlist for VandalProof 1.3, there is no need to readd yourself.

Simply download VandalProof from http://amidaniel.com and login using your current account. Ale_Jrb^talk 21:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I've updated your entry on our userlist, so try again. If it still won't let you in, ensure you have cleared your cache etc. on Internet Explorer and so on. Ale_Jrb^talk 21:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, please report this at our bug tracker. Thanks. Ale_Jrb^talk 22:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just waited. It took a few minutes, but, when I tried again, it worked. Wait 5 minutes? - hmwithtalk 22:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason it worked for hmwith is because I corrected their entry on our userlist. Unfortunately, you are currently correctly listed on the list so there's not much I can do. Ale_Jrb^talk 15:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is your VandalProof working yet? (out of curiosity) - hmwithtalk 19:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rrburke: Please see my concerns at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#User:Wasserman. Thank you, IZAK 13:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(You wrote): Hi, DES. Thanks for your input. If you wanted to email me, I could reply with a few links you could have a look at so you could judge for yourself whether the particulars in this case are consistent with the relevant policies. --Rrburke(talk) 16:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Frankly i'm not really interseted in any such links unless you are askling for my help as an admin in dealign with the matter. Mon concern in our exchange was with teh general principle, not the specific instance. And I almost always prefer to discuss wikipedia matters on-wiki, not by email. DES ^(talk) 21:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(You wrote) Hi, again. I made this suggestion merely because you had written, "Yes i understood that from all the facts you cite, this particualr case does look like soapboxing, and measures hould be taken." And yes, I was asking for your help as an admin, but also for your advice as a more experienced user. This is also why I suggested email: I was trying to be circumspect and not have an allegation of improper behaviour appear together with the editor's username on any Wikipedia page until a more experienced user had judged whether the behaviour actually was improper. I wasn't trying to do an end-run around Wikipedia; I was just trying to avoid making an inaccurate accusation. It's the same reason I didn't name the editor in any of my posts to the thread. --Rrburke^(talk) 02:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong in writing, on wiki, something like: "Editor X made edits Y and Z (diffs) and I think that they might be improper under policy Q, but I'm not sure. Would more experienced editors look into the situation. I think these edits might be improper for Reasons R, S, and T. Off wiki links L, M, and N are relevant." Stuff like this (and stuff far less polite than this) is posted all the time at WP:AN/I, and WP:AN and WP:AN/3 and other such places. As Long as you are politely pointing out a possible problem, not raucously accusing another editor of vandalism or other nasty acts, doing this public is IMO a far better course than doing it privately. Some would suggest first raising the matter directly with the other editor, on his or her individual talk page, politely pointing out why you think there might be a problem. That couldn't hurt, but might not help. If you care to post details to my talk page, I will gladly look into the matter. If the off-wiki links can be found by a google search, feel free to post only links to the on-wiki pages where the problem is or was, although diffs of particular edits would help. DES ^(talk) 16:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That whole list is dubious; many of the people on it are there erroneously. I don't actually know anything about Rosenberg. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You had me worried there for a second! Ayudante 03:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually going to put a AfD tag on the page, but you beat me to it. Technically the author DID remove a Prod, so the next step is an AfD, but yeah it needs to be speedied. Wildthing61476 19:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to mark your edits as minor when (and only when) they genuinely are minor edits (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one (and vice versa) is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'. Thanks!

PS: You may have "mark all edits as minor" turned on in your preferences. PRODding an article is never minor. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prod doesn't apply to this -- it is in WP space. Probably WP:MFD is the place DGG 20:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC) Even if it was moved there, MFD might now be the way to get rid of it, rather than move it back, usually quick and easy.DGG 21:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly we don't agree, & that's why we have AfD. Spam is for articles that can not be improved. NN is for articles that look unsourceable, with speedy for that only if its incontestible. I think that not only can it be improved, but that it is now improved enough, & that refs can & will be found. You don't, and we clearly differ about where to draw the line for this sort of article, & I see nothing wrong about that. I regret that you didn't think its better enough, so its perfectly reasonable that you'll send it to AfD and we can see what others think. and so we can discuss it there. If the rest agree with you, it will get deleted. It's not personal either way. When people continue to disagree, an open discussion is better than private arguement.

I'm not trying to keep everything. I removed 2 speedy tags today, sending the other one to PROD; While doing that, I deleted 20 or so articles from CSD. I probably agree with 90% of what you tag.

I'm going to make a point to !vote delete for that low-grade joke you found, tho I sometimes ignore MfD. Since WP space isn't a priority, there's undoubtedly lots of junk there. DGG 23:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just put in 6 refs, and a few of their publications. Wouldn't have done it if you hadn't replied, and so I thank you--the threat of deletion frequently does get articles improved. (smile)DGG 23:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

replied on my page to maintain continuity. DGG 23:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

we seem to be getting in each others way, so Im going to bed. There are real GS hits in a very respectable range;it is probably worth bring up at Deletion Review,so I userified it in my user space to work on getting the citations. DGG 04:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC) This one was my fault, for I had carelessly started work on it before I looked at the edit history--but this is the hardest type to judge: a really messed up article filled with classroom idiocy, but about a potentially good person; there's another trap that I have not yet fallen into--deleting an article as empty when someone maliciously blanked it. DGG 15:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC) You've never done it that I know of, but I almost have.DGG 15:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not remove any prod or other from any article I created. Someone else must have done that. Please do not be so quick to accuse. Anyway, check R. S. Wenocur on Google Scholar; Wenocur's work has helped me considerably in my own consulting, and works with many prominent people. I had planned to work on the article, just as other did for Alice Isen, who happens to be Wenocur's first cousin and confidante. Alfred Legrand 05:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greendayrocker82You sent me a message saying I should review the self promotion page for posting about the band guard rails. I am not in this band however. I was trying to post this topic about a band that I have witnessed doing charitable events in the area, so I do not really understand how this is self-promoting.

I'm going to try the WSJ and see; our link to DowJones (Factica) isn't working well > Will give results or lack of them on the AfD page. I'm not going to worry about them too much. 20:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Actually, I pay pretty close attention to current slang and usage, and believe me, "pimpin'" has little or anything to do with pimping, that is, acting as a pimp or procurer for a sex worker, any more than "Author _____ is on tour, flogging his new book" has anything to do with administering a beating as punishment or as a BDSM practice. Really. As one of the entries in Urban Dictionary notes, "Rather than having references to an actual pimp, it's used to describe something that's cool, in style, or amazes the speaker so much they can't think of anything else to say." [9] (While Urban Dictionary is not exactly a reliable source for articles, it's a pretty good yardstick for current slang usage. And yes, some entries there do make reference to its meaning in sex work.) Also, for reference, note the additional entries:

1. pimpin chicken
2. pimpin city
3. Pimpin fo shimpin
4. Pimpin hoes
5. pimpin in da suburbs
6. pimpin in the woods
7. pimpin it good
8. Pimpin Jesus
9. pimpin out
10. Pimpin Pen
11. pimpin pens
12. pimpin shnits
13. Pimpin Simpson
14. pimpin suit
15. pimpin sweet
16. pimpin the nation
17. pimpin the world
18. pimpin'
19. Pimpin' ain't easy
20. pimpin' fresh

That said, I'm perfectly willing to defer to anyone who is actually offended, or has reason to believe that it is meant in the sense of a pimp or procurer. --MCB 20:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted an edit on my userpage but you didn't have to. It's a section I have where people can put vandalism if they want. Thanks for your consideration, though. JetLover 02:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I may follow your advice and ask for comment on this. I think the rules are silly, to be honest. I see user names with poop get blocked, by mofo is okay? And remember, Everyone Poops.—Gaff ^ταλκ 19:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names#Mojothemofo—Gaff ^ταλκ 19:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the report to the top. Hopefully that was correct. I did notice on the instructions they suggest talking to the user before posting the report. There is a template to do this. I didn't know it until after I posted the report. —Gaff ^ταλκ 20:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current item in the infobox is obviously heterosexist and US-centric. People who wish to diminish the value and legitimacy of LGBT relationships, or promote a DOMA-type definition of "marriage" in general, will make the argument we saw on the Reilly talk page. I would propose a second line be added right under "spouse =" that says something general enough to cover all serious committed relationships. Reilly and Hughes were together for 27 years. Some heterosexual couples are together for long periods without marrying. Perhaps "companion =" or "life partner =" or "partner ="? I'd prefer something like that over a more sexualized term like "lover =" or something less serious like "boyfriend =" etc. Perhaps once we think on this a bit, we can raise the issue on the template talk page and get the LGBT editor project to help? Jokestress 16:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I also used that particular vandal to test my newly acquired "block user" button. Seems to be working! Pascal.Tesson 20:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DAVE LEE TRAVIS - Wikipedia says people opinions should be respected. It is the opinion of many that DLT was arogant to resign on air and that his show was outdated for the era. I have re entered this opinion, I have not called DLT arogant and respected that the last comments may have appeared so. I am stating a fact about his resignation which I think adds to the article. Who are you to assume his actions that day were correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wowweb (talk • contribs) 05:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that arogant comment is fair enough BUT surely part of the history of Dave Lee Travis is the fact he resigned on air because he knew he was to be fired! He admits this himself. Including a piece on his resignation and failing to mention this is NOT completing the story. You may as well delete everything to do with is on air rant if you are not going to allow it to be reported correctly. Matthew Bannister was going to sack him so he got in first. This is FACT, so why not let it be included. I have worked in the industry for years and probably know more about Radio one from 1988 - 1996 than you do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wowweb (talk • contribs) 08:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My comments about Bob Mills writing the drama Bob Martin were fact and wrongly removed by you (why are you following me around?). I have re added them with a link to the IMDB as a source.

I may have "messed about" at first but I have lots of knowledge of both TV and radio, having been in the industry and am keen to share it here, and I do apologise for messing about at the start, but ive worked with DLT, i know what hes like! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wowweb (talk • contribs) 08:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although IMDB clearly shows the work Bob Mills has done, I will also not publish by first hand knowledge here, although may I ask why cites from peoples autobiographies are used here as fact. The Ed Stewart page contained a flasehood that he had to "go along" with Jim Moir's story. This was the opinion of Mr Stewart in his book and not a fact Wowweb 12:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Thank you for clearing that up for me regarding autobiography quotes and opinions! Wowweb 09:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How dare you insult my intelligence by reprimanding me over issues that I am an expert on! I am in fact, a resident of Langford and have been my whole life. I am well versed in all aspects of Langford as well as general redneck culture. I have spent all 7 years of my life studying the natural habitat and cultural interactions between the Langfordicus Aferensis species.

In the future, please do not censor my updates, as I wish to merely enlighten the Wikipedia community with my scientifically proven discoveries.

Sincerely,

Ryan ALdred

why did you remove my add ons to nkec?

why did you remove my add ons to nkec?

Hi, I'm confused, how did I vandalize? I just put my comments down like everyone else! --GoGoPedia 01:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted. Bolivian Unicyclist 15:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]