- Archives -

Please do not modify the contents of these pages
July, 2007 - January, 2008
February, 2008 - July, 2008
August, 2008 - November, 2008

Current talk page

Thanks for the message and the link to Wiki policy about social & networking forums external links. I was not previously aware of this policy and therefore acted in good faith to restore links which I hadn't considered to be otherwise inappropriate. You learn by your mistakes... Snowy 1973 17:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind comments on my talk page — I'm just trying to avoid tings blowing up out of all proportion. I think it is probably always a bad idea, in retrospect, to act like a WP:WIKILAWYER, and insist on some kind of strong consistency. I had similar problems with Chester and other Chester articles, with people arguing about adding something called The Chester Wiki all the time. May be just letting things go for a while will help quieten things down.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! I was adding the retrieval date information to the external links as they were then, and it occurred to me that this entire dispute could be reduced considerably if the entire section were removed. The way of doing that whilst preserving the mention of the extrenal links would be to acknowledge their role in providing verification for claims made in the main text, and use them as citations. Once I started to do that, it seemed a lot of in-text external links were there that should really be citations. And, lo and behold! The article begins to look well-sourced now! If we can get rid of the last external link in a similar way, we can simply remove the entire External Links section. My reading of WP:EL is that it should actually almost always be used sparingly, and so we'd be acting within the spirit of the guidelines. I think if more wikilawyering is carried out, it might be sensible to consider issuing formal warnings for disruptive behaviour.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Remember, many IP addresses are shared or dynamic, so they may be used by more than one real person. In this case, the IP address in question is registered to a college, so it's likely shared by hundreds or thousands of different people. Warnings more than a few days old on such an IP's talk page really mean nothing, the same IP in that case may well not be the same person. (This applies especially if the edits are random or appear to be tests, it's easier to conclude it is indeed the same person if they do, in fact, replace the same obscure article with the same profanity-laden nonsense.) If you run into something like that, just ignore the old warnings and warn again. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the article, it has been established in other articles that specific page references don't necessarily need to be made for quotes, etc. if the book itself is listed/source novel made clear. Citing every sentence would be cumbersome and problematic, especially when you factor in multiple editions. TAnthony 18:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, although for direct quotations this is pretty much standard citation practice around the world, so I'd recommend they were at least given that sort of information. Coldmachine^Talk 20:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi TAnthony, the edits to this article are great and certainly improve it. I wanted to say thanks for that. But, I also did want to quietly raise the perception that might come across as WP:OWN from the number of essentially aesthetic edits you are making to the article. This isn't a criticism, or a warning, just a point that it might be coming across that way. I'm assuming good faith here at the moment. Coldmachine^Talk 07:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey there, I'm not offended but I'm also not sure what you mean by my edits. Yes, I'm a perfectionist, and half of what I end up doing on WP is technical cleanup. But most of my recent edits besides adding the 2 notes were to fix links (only the first ref of a word/name should be linked unless subsequent refs are far off) and change the article to present tense (which is correct for fiction). Oh, and "also" was used in 2 phrases in a row in the DE section. I wouldn't necessarily call that aesthetic; to me, aesthetic edits are based on editor preference/opinion, which links and tense are not. I hope you didn't feel like I was trying to steamroll your edits or whatever, but the article coming up on my watchlist gave me the chance to assess it, and my intention was only to improve it (albeit minutely). TAnthony 14:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi TAnthony, oh, no I didn't think you were steamrollering my edits :) I just meant that the tweaks such as moving paragraph ordering around might just come across to other people as that. But, as I say, the article is much improved as a result IMHO. Sometimes that's the great thing about a watchlist: an article can be picked up by someone months later, with an edit or two, and it reminds folk to look over it again down the line and make further improvement. It's looking good to me! Coldmachine^Talk 14:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome for the semi-protection. Acalamari 01:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sir,

I appreciate your guidance available on Wikipedia. Regarding the subject matter, I would like to draw your attention that unfortunately many users (mostly from other religions) interpret Islam, Muslims and its belief in their own sense, that is wrong completely. You may find many articles which describe Islamic thoughts and ways in instigating manner. It really feels that Wikipedia is not a neutral encyclopedia, as it doesn't respect many countries' religion, culture and values. I know it may not be the policy of Wikipedia but giving free-hands to users to describe any article in their own sense is completely wrong. You can see by yourself that many articles just mimic Islamic thoughts that are causing millions of Muslims' religious emotions around the globe.

Please also note that at least to me, I don't believe in the quality of material supplied/published on Wikipedia as 100% true as the NEUTRALITY that Wiki is requiring only comes when some user points out that such and such article or line is against some religion or culture or just a sheer ignorance to the facts and in response the users who pointed out something are again asked to behave properly.

If this is the case, I object the way the things and phenomenon are being described.

Best regards,

Shoaib Muhammad Shoaib 09:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate it. IPSOS (talk) 19:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a serious problem with your merge suggestion. If the articles were merged, no self-published sources could be used at all. WP:V specifically allows self-published sources to be used only in an article about the entity publishing the material. So, the merge suggestion doesn't save the three articles with no third-party sources, and prevents the use of the other two Orders' websites for non-controversial information about themselves. I understand that this restriction was why the articles were separated in the first place. When they were combined, there were apparently fierce edit wars. See the edit history of the old Golden Dawn tradition article [1] and the old talk page of the same [2]. IPSOS (talk) 21:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think the fact of the matter is that only two Orders have had any kind of media coverage or mention in books. Those two are The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. and The Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn. The latter is a licensee of the former, as are two of the other articles. The odd man out is Rosicrucian Order of Aleph et Omega, which originated in a schism from HOGD, Inc. Though they pretend to be the "legitimate" continuation, the truth of the matter is the two of the three directors remained with HOGD, Inc. and one director left to form a partnership with a member she had initiated. I try not to judge the conflicting details but think that when one director leaves the other two behind with the original non-profit corportation to form a for-profit partnership, that it is the latter that is the schism. In any case, the schismed section has spent the last 15 years trying to prove itself the "real" HOGD, even after the one director they had quit in disgust. IPSOS (talk) 21:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, that makes me think. Perhaps the 3 licensees could be merged into The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc.? Since they are all related and presumably on friendly terms, I don't see that there would be a problem using the various self-published websites as sources if they were combined that way... IPSOS (talk) 22:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The Aquarium Fishes WikiProject Newsletter Issue IX - August 2007

News Please welcome our new members: Ronnieadinata (talk · contribs), Lerdsuwa (talk · contribs), Peregrinebee (talk · contribs) Articles recently created: Pseudomystus, Scleromystax, List of Corydoras species, Bedotiidae, Bedotia, Dekeyseria, Leporacanthicus, Pseudacanthicus Articles recently expanded or revised: Callichthys callichthys, Serrasalminae, Black pacu, Piranha, Callichthyidae, Corydoras, Danionin, Sailfin molly, Yucatan molly, Hoplosternum littorale, Acanthicus The Banggai cardinalfish, threatened with extinction due to the aquarium trade, recently had its proposal for protection under CITES rejected. Brochis has, since 2003, been a synonym of Corydoras. Related articles have been edited to reflect this. The article "Rotting nose disease" has been identified as a hoax and has been deleted. Read more here. Did you know... (Featured on the Main page): ...that the wimple piranha is a specialized predator whose diet consists primarily of fish scales? (July 13) ...that catfish of the genus Dekeyseria are able to rapidly change their colouration to fit their mood or their surroundings? (July 22) ...that catfish of the genus Leporacanthicus are also known as vampire plecostomus because of the presence of very long teeth on their upper jaw? (July 28) See or edit the current tasklist here

Discussions & Collaborations From the live-bearing aquarium fish article: "Why is this article only about 'aquarium' fish? Are the only fish in the world that bear live young found in aquariums?" See more here Discussions related to the Green spotted puffer. See more here

You are receiving this newsletter because you have signed up for WikiProject Aquarium Fishes. If you wish to stop receiving this newsletter, remove your name from here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot 21:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC) .

Well, the first one involved 999. He'd clearly signed a message 999, and then deleted it when he posted another message. I simply didn't notice that it had an old date and matched a message on his own talk page. Once that was pointed out, I agreed the evidence was insufficient. Can't always be right :-( By the way, it is Rondus, not Rhondus. IPSOS (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so I came across this edit of yours creating a redirect to Flavobacterium columnare. In and of itself not a big deal, except that it led to a redirect-loop like this. So, I reverted the change temporarily, noting in the edit summary that "Reverted redirect - created loop. Needs to be a move request (which I'll post)." (note: I can explain why this case couldn't just be moved via the "Move" tab if you don't already know.)

So, what was I aiming for? One of the problems with a cut-and-paste style move is that the page editing history is lost (see WP:MOVE#Moving over a redirect for why one should care): in a nutshell, moving a page to a new name is cleaner in the long run. I realize that you were making large-scale changes to the article (which, by the way, it sorely needed), and the issue is mostly academic now. In the future, I'd suggest two things: A) if an article needs to be moved, use the "Move" tab at the top of the screen rather than cutting-and-pasting; B) consider using the {{ inuse }} template (or a related template from the Wikipedia:Template_messages/Maintenance list) to let folks know that you've got big plans.

I was pretty quick on the draw here - mostly because the redirect loop made me nervous that you might be getting in over your head a little. Sorry for the confusion, and I hope the above helps explain "why". -- MarcoTolo 22:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi MarcoTolo, thanks for the explanation, that makes a lot more sense to me now! As you can tell this is the first time I've performed a major redirect myself. The last time was with a move I requested from Figure 8 puffer to the scientific name Tetraodon biocellatus and it seemed complex. I figured I'd give it a go this time, since as you say it involved a major re-write. I had no idea about the inuse template: sounds really useful! And, I didn't realise edit history would be lost in changes like this. All really useful stuff to know, I really appreciate the help. Good job someone was paying attention!!! Coldmachine^Talk 22:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Glad to help. Keep up the good work - you've made a number of great edits to some neglected articles. -- MarcoTolo 22:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You are quite right, other articles are being affected by this "noinclude". Since I created the template in the first place, I should really know how to fix it, but I don't. See if you can contact an admin for help.

Fixed! Coldmachine^Talk 19:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

So you're taking Kephera975's assertions of membership as valid without any proof? Wikipedia has a strict rule about membership issues, which is that someone can only considered to be a member of an organization or a religion if a citation can be provided to a source where they self-identify as a member. You might want to see if Kephera's claims meet this test. IPSOS (talk) 12:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Then you are applying "independent" incorrectly. Books published by reliable publishers are independent. Even Cicero's accounts are published by reliable publishers and are clearly indicated as autobiographical. This is also an acceptable application of Wikipedia principles. None of the references provided are self-published except for the reference supporting licensing and certification of other groups, which since they demonstrably own the trademark they have the sole right to determine.

Independent as used in the notability requirements simply means "not self-published". None of the sources besides Cicero and the web citation noted above fail the independence requirement. "Independence" is clearly defined in WP:NOTE - it does not mean independent from the field, only "self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases." These concerns simply do not apply to Suster, the Greers, or Wasserman. IPSOS (talk) 13:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note that whether discussion should be moved is something for the clerk to decide. I'm not going to revert it, but you might want to consider doing so yourself. IPSOS (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything anywhere which states that: if you've got a link/policy ref let me know. In the meantime to make sure I've not made an accidental mistake I've raised a query on the clerks noticeboard. Coldmachine^Talk 17:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. That seems fair. I will attempt to develop the page within the time given, if not feel free to delete it and I will work in my sandbox until complete. --Lwachowski 15:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

No worries, Mais_Oui! seems to be the problem here. I am in agreement with you too and note your own user page and the reference to the UK. Darkieboy236 09:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Cheers. It'll be interesting to see what people have to say. Whatever the outcome is, it may be worth tightening up the guidelines at the template. But, of course, there's no immediate hurry. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 08:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I recently accused a wiki community helper of censoring information he knew to be correct.

I find it difficult to understand how I would be able to cite sources when those sources that I am citing are shown as photographic references to the murals in question. Much like taking a picture of a book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nousoul (talk • contribs) 23:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, just wanted to give you the heads up that I have listed Cork Street for deletion review, based on the fact that no consensus was reached in the deletion discussion. I am writing this message to all contributors of the discussion, whether they voted keep or delete. -- Roleplayer 23:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello Coldmachine,

I was wondering if you could clarify what you mean by 'vandalism', re my edit to the University of Oxford page? I explained them (briefly) when I made my edit...

Many thanks :) User:83.85.174.194

The September 2007 issue of the WikiProject Universities newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you for your continued support of WikiProject Universities! -- Noetic Sage 19:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey Coldmachine,

Undid your edit to Bangor page. I updated the media, still missing one though - BangorMETRO magazine. It wasn't spam.

Backtalker —Preceding unsigned comment added by Backtalker (talk • contribs) 16:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Coldmachine, I just reverted your removal of The Maine Edge from the Bangor page - I think you should AGF and not call an account that's been active for 6 hours with fewer than 2 dozen edits a single-purpose account. Granted, it's probably the same as the IP that's been adding the paper, but give them some time.--SarekOfVulcan 22:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Coldmachine. That is really helpful. I do have links to the company, as well as the other publication in town, BangorMETRO, which is published by another separate company, as myself and a bunch of other businesses have been supporting these folks, most of whom were cut or reduced last year in the layoffs (which itself is notable - laid off employees coming back to haunt former employer, etc.). Being new to Wikipedia, we didn't know how to go about this, so your information about the talk page is extremely helpful. We'll do that before we start to post the page for BangorMETRO. I see others have already started to alter The Maine Edge's page, formatting it properly and finding additional sources. Wikipedia is such a powerful tool, and we quickly learned there is a "code" that must be followed. How long have you been doing this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Backtalker (talk • contribs) 01:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The October 2007 issue of the WikiProject Universities newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you for your continued support of WikiProject Universities! —Noetic Sage 19:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi -- I've put University of Oxford on hold for GA. Please see the talk page for my specific concerns. Dylan 15:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Wikipedians by alma mater and subcats. Since you participated in the deletion discussion for these categories, you might want to participate in the deletion review. - auburnpilot talk 17:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that it has no content. It clearly states what it is - a TV show on some channel. I think you're reading A7 a little too broadly. It suffers from other problems like having no references, but no, I would disagree that it's your usual CSD fodder. Sorry for not leaving a note - I usually clear through CSD's in a large batch and I'll remember to leave a more descriptive edit summary next time. enochlau (talk) 09:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, I probably should have detected him earler. I got a tipoff from someone else.....Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The November 2007 issue of the WikiProject Universities newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you for your continued support of WikiProject Universities! Noetic Sage 19:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, how is correcting the name of the JCR president to reflect the correct position as objectively verifiable at http://www.ballioljcr.org/site/thejcr/officers.asp vandalism? I had no part in the other content you removed, which if you'll check the edit history was added by a previous user! 86.132.72.218 (talk) 22:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a chain of vandalism on this article, and your revert of an edit here introduced vandalism back in to the article content. Check out this section, and the very last sentence. I fixed the article content and templated you for having reintroduced vandalism. I apologise if this was, in fact, accidental on your part: with the edit being an IP account then I did not assume good faith in this case. Feel free to remove the template from your talk page. Coldmachine^Talk 15:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I now understand - by pressing undo instead of just editing the page to make the appropriate changes per the link above, I readded the vandalism from the previous person - apologies - this was inadvertent. Thanks for the apology. I tried to remove the warning from my user page, but appeared to have it reverted back by someone else! I've now written on their wall to find out whats going on.. all a bit confusing! --86.132.72.218 (talk) 17:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

That's ok! No harm done as long as the article is vandalism-free. It can be a bit of a headache getting to grips with all the tools and so on, and all the guidelines etc too; if you need a hand with anything let me know. The other user who reverted your userpage edits is right about signing up for an account: while IP edits shouldn't really be treated with less good faith than user account edits, it's just the case that most vandalism comes from IPs so I guess users are more likely to assume bad faith. If you have an account, you'll probably get treated less like a second class citizen on here! Coldmachine^Talk 21:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a classics degree but I have the memory of a goldfish when it comes to stuff I've studied, so I would have to look it all up again to fix it. But I sense that the article aegis is full of bollox and needs to be pruned of that bollox with extreme prejudice. Particularly it doesn't mention the Iliad or Odyssey I don't think, and it dubiously links Norse and other mythical objects to the aegis etymologically through aesir or something, which I feel might not be an 100% accepted theory. It would be ace if you could take a look.:) Merkinsmum 20:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The December 2007 issue of the WikiProject Universities newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you for your continued support of WikiProject Universities! —Noetic Sage 23:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you know about Wikipedia:Meetup/Manchester_3 ? Be nice to meet and discuss the dramas on wiki lol. :) Merkinsmum 21:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I posted the following below your entry for ORT on the administrators' noticeboard, but perhaps it also makes sense to put it here, I'm not sure whether you would go back to that noticeboard page.

Just a note to say that I respectfully disagree with the notion that I have a conflict of interest in relation to the Oxford Round Table page. I have done some editing on the page, but mainly my efforts have been on the talk page, trying to convince Obscuredata to consider his/her edits in relation to relevant wikipedia policies and guidelines.

Coldmachine, perhaps I am misreading what you have posted here [there] and you don't intend to include me in that category. Would you be willing to post something on my talk page (or yours, either way) to clarify? Thanks... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the message. I sent a reply to the ANI thread just because it keeps all discussion on the issue in the one place. I don't doubt your good intentions, and I am certainly not criticising your approach to editing the encyclopaedia, but from the user logs and limited editing scope I can only assume that those working on the article at present have come over from the forums where the ORT has been debated. This may suggest a conflict of interest, but I've just asked for the administrators and community to come and take a look. I really think an outside view could benefit the article hugely at this point. Coldmachine^Talk 12:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I agree that some other perspectives are sorely needed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that outside parties view the article as well. I am not assuming ownership; I just believe you all are ganging up on me for no particular reason. Wikipedia has rules, but it seems to suggest that if one would rather post minimalistic, false information, you do have an interest. I just read the purpose of ORT and believe the Wikipedia page does not began to touch on important things regarding ORT. If I were adding to the controversy portion, I don't think this would be an issue. Obscuredata (talk) 20:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course it would: see my edit here where I made the section on intellectual controversy more impartial. I have no vested interest in the squabbles between critics and supporters of the ORT, only in seeing an article that could easily end up as an AfD nominee be made into something even remotely resembling an encyclopaedic article which, with all the edit warring between both sides, is looking an even more remote possibility than it was to begin with. You are using this article as a soapbox along with the other editors, but in contrast to them you are edit warring and refusing to acknowledge the consensus which is being or has been established. Coldmachine^Talk 22:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)