I see you were one of the most active editors working to repair the epidemic of vandalism to this article. Could you tell me more about how this situation came to your attention and any aspects of your response not clear from the edit history? Did you enlist collaborators, and if so, how? Did you come to any general conclusions about protecting Wikipedia from anonymous POV-pushers in the future? I'm giving a short talk at Wikimania about the Congressional edits, the "Swiftboating" edit war, and similar mass-arrivals of new edits. User_Talk:Betsythedevine betsythedevine 03:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters by position on political issue: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users." Please keep this in mind while editing. Thanks. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  23:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What part of my post did you think was a personal attack? DJ Clayworth 13:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HI you deleted my article on Pure Magic Bar. I am not associated with the bar I am a magician living and working and Manchester and felt it would have been of interested to other magicians if not anyone visiting the Printworks. It was a reworded version of an article that appeared in Magicweek magazine who gave me permission to to post it as long as the wording was changed. If you feel if it was a little bias then that was purely my enhthusiasm coming across and not an alterior motive. Could you reword it so it is a little less bias and put it back up? I noticed the other venues have links as does the magic castle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magic_Castle A magic bar opening in the UK is a landmark event and made it on to the regional news. Not sure what else to say to justify the article being there but thanks for you time. Anthony.

Hi Anthony. Articles are deleted usually by consensus of Wikipedia editors. A frequent reason for deletion is that the subject it 'not notable'. There are many thousands of pubs, bars and clubs in the world, and hundreds of new ones opening every day. We are not in a position to write articles about them all. The Magic Castle is a Hollywood institution and gets and article for that reason; the Rose and Crown on the High Street doesn't, in much the same way that Microsoft gets and article while Sid's Software Sales doesn't. I deleted your article because I thought it was almost certain that the article would be deleted if it were put up for debate, since it is basicly just a club and not yet open. If you really think that the institution deserves an article you can try re-recreating it. What will probably happen is that it will be nominated for deletion, and almost certainly deleted. DJ Clayworth 14:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for your reply. I'm not sure that you understand the significance of this bar opening within magic world. If it was put up for debate I don't think others outside the magic community would either but just because it aonly significant to a relatively small group of people does that mean it shouldn't be included?

Hi. About a year ago, you made some grumpy statements (with cause) about the unsourced state of Poverty in Africa. I've been working recently on fixing that, and wondered if you might be interested in helping.--Pastafarian Nights 21:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I started a discussion on this on this attached to the article but in light of you editing my Pure Magic Bar article I thought i would enquire if you had a problem with drinking establishments in general? Also I wanted to know why as you live in Ontario you feel you know what information people from Denton or indeed Manchester would like to see? (contributed by User:Schnizzle)

Hi Schnizzle. Before I get started, could you please sign all your talk page contributions, so we know who is writing things. You can do that by adding four tildes at the end of your contributions, like this ~~~~.

Now, to the article. Wikipedia has a lot of articles that are of minority interest. What we do is try to judge ho important something really is in general. The Pure Magic Bar has an immediate issue here, because it has only just opened. How can we judge if something is important this early? If we write an article and the bar closes after a month then we look pretty silly. With a new venture we also get lots of people trying to write Wikipedia articles in the hope of generating interest - basicly using Wikipedia as advertising. I'm not saying you are doing that, but it is something we have to be careful of.

The next way of judging if something is important is looking at the amount of press and web coverage it is getting. You can help this, by providing references to any press coverage about this bar. A mainstream, national, newspaper story would go a long way towards convincing us that something was important. In the absence of this a lot of Wikipedia editors use google as a measure. Pure Magic Bar gets only thirty google hits, which is very, very low. my old local gets more hits than that. DJ Clayworth 13:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been in the boundary house. Good mixed grill. You say a national newspaper would be a convincer. Surely the Manchester Evening News is good enough? It has a readership higher than a a lot of the national ones. I'm genuinely not involved with the bar but it has come up on every magic forum around the world and been included in Magicweek, The MEN as I mentioned and on North West tonight on TV. Thats pretty important. Schnizzle 14:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, a few national newspaper stories would help. Plenty of newspaper articles are about things that are completely unimportant a week later. Plus the MEN isn't really national and one article isn't very many. You are welcome to try this if you like. If you re-create the article I will make sure it is not speedy deleted. However I virtually guarantee that it will be nominated for deletion, and I will be astonished if the consensus isn't to delete. What I recommend is waiting for a few months and seeing how the bar goes. Once the article has been voted for deletion there is a total ban on re-creating it. However if you wait until it becomes actually popular then there is more chance the article will stay. DJ Clayworth 14:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I agree it would probably get deleted if I put it up again but I still disagree with the reasoning. I doubt even after wating it won't still get deleted. This is dissapointing though as other bars in The Printworks have articles mainly because they are part of a bigger chain. Anyway I will take your advice and wait before reposting. I ahve started a discussion on a seperate issue http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Denton%2C_Greater_Manchester. was going to put a list up but checked the history first, quite some time ago you deleted a list of pubs in Denton from the article. Shall we continue that discussion on that page? Schnizzle 14:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On WP the fictional characters are treated as if they were real people and in such ways that all their bio will reflect and look like real people's bio. I do not know Palpatine but it seems to me that the way the article was written sounds like he is real person and such reflects his fictional appearance in such sections as Abilities, Portrayal and some subsections of the bio. Lincher 16:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I'm saying is wrong. The article reads like "Palpatine did this, then he did that, then the other". To give the reader a complete picture it should read something like: "In A New Hope Palpatine did this and that; in the novel Somenovel he is recorded as then going to Someplanet and doing something else." That would make Palpatine's progress as a literary character much clearer. DJ Clayworth 16:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, DJ Clayworth. I noticed that you're an administrator and a very active contributor to Wikipedia. I was curious to know, though, why you don't routinely use edit summaries. I find they're very helpful when reviewing page histories, but it seems like you routinely omit them. I know it's a common criteria used in WP:RFA discussions, so just curious to know if you felt differently. Cheers, Lbbzman 23:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a really good question. I thought I usually did, but having just looked at my recent contributions, maybe I don't. I should probably make more effort. Thanks for the mention. DJ Clayworth 13:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I was mainly curious, as I found it unusual that such an active contributor wouldn't be filling them out routinely. Thanks for the reply! Lbbzman 13:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DJ Clayworth, i understand that people writing about themselves should put that on their user page, however, tom black is not my name, and is a username to support the tom black riddle page, could you please move my page back to its original position and not as a user page? thank you very much.

Reply at User talk:Tom.Black. DJ Clayworth 15:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Troll commment removed [1])

I seem to think that you are currently blocked from editing Wikipedia, which makes this post a violation of rules. I suggest that you abide by the block and stop worrying about what other people are doing. DJ Clayworth 21:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been semi-protected to prevent edits from new and unregistered users. I'll keep it on for a few days, unless you request its removal. JDoorjam Talk 21:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let it run a little. I'll take the protection off myself when it seems safe to do so. DJ Clayworth 21:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not revert edits without stating a reason in the articles talk page, as you did with Adolf Hitler. I am reverting until a reason is stated.

See reply at User talk:Quantum73. DJ Clayworth 14:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok, I just re-reverted the page though, if you could 'unrevert' that would be great thanks. Quantum73 14:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. DJ Clayworth 14:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Say, are you a PWOT fan? I see the article got deleted, what was the story on that? Is the VfD page still up? Why was there so much vandalism on it? Quantum73 14:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know what PWOT stands for, so I guess no. VfD pages are always kept, called "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME" so you should be able to find it if you want. Incidentally, it's good policy to add comments at the bottom of the talk page, not the top. DJ Clayworth 14:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you haven't kept abrest of the situation... I'm not 'emotionally involved' with the article, I'm upset because I wrote a nonbiased truthful and informative article that conformed to all mandatory rules and it has been repeatedly deleted. I think anybody in a similar position would be [justifiably] upset too. The article was not a promotion in any way, and so far nobody has disputed any fact that was in it. As a Canadian, you are not necesarily in the best position to judge what bands are important on the New Jersey music scene. All I'm asking is that everyone stop trying to edit something that they know nothing about. Anonterm 15:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. - I consider your comments to me to be a violation of Wikipedia's NO PERSONAL ATTACKS Rule (i.e. it's mandatory... not like guidelines)

Since you added the same comment at User talk:Anonterm I will reply there. DJ Clayworth 15:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you replied to my message at User talk:Anonterm, I have replied to your reply there. Anonterm 15:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although we extend every sympathy to Mr Dietz' family, it seems that the subjects only claim to notability is that he was killed in action. In the past this has not been enough to qualify for a Wikipedia article, but I thought we'd give the community it's chance to have an opinion. DJ Clayworth 18:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You obviously have no appreciation for US Special Forces and the contributions they make for you to have the ability to type on your computer freely everyday. Other areas of importance are the one year anniversary of his death next week, Operation Red Wing being the biggest loss of Navy Seals since their incarnation by President JFK in 1954, or how this man embodies what an American hero is. All the information is facts, cited with sources. How exactly isn't that grounds to take part in an encyclopedia?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hog44 (talk • contribs) .

I have a huge apprecition for special forces from all nations who allow me the freedom to type this. Many thousands of them, and many millions of ordinary soldiers have been killed in this cause in the last hundred years. I believe that they can be honoured in better places than in Wikipedia. DJ Clayworth 19:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I just got around to reading my talk page again. I noticed that you had left me a note at the end of March about Felicia Culotta. Are you sure I deleted that article? It looks to me as if that article was created three months *after* I had returned to being a regular user (i.e. not an admin). I'm confused. SWAdair 08:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the record: you did delete this article, but you did it 02:22, 26 March 2005, almost exactly a year before I left you the message. I must have been looking at really ancient history. Anyway, don't worry about it. DJ Clayworth 13:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That explains it. Thank you. SWAdair 03:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--152.163.100.13 15:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to complain as u deleted my article on OMGTGAIWF a wreeslting federation; the facts given were totally correct and true and did not infringe on any of ur copyright laws, please may you or I re-add the article on OMGTGAIWF. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Icehulk (talk • contribs) .

Reply at User talk:Icehulk. DJ Clayworth 13:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hello thankyou for your help with my entry for bbh being new to this i must admit to getting a little lost. a couple of things if possible, the company is actually reffered to as BBH the bartle bogle hegarty part was it's old name so ideally the page should be called BBH. i had a problem finding the page in the search option it seemed to jump to another company that use BBH is it possible to change this so both BBH's appear as 100%. also now you have changed the page name do other pages in wiki that i linked to this page no longer link?

would love the opportunity to ask more advice if possible could we talk on email pete.rogers@bbh.co.uk

rgds

Hi. I prefer not to cummunicate by email regarding Wikipedia. However we can talk via talk pages - mine or yours - or on the bartle bogle hegarty talk page. DJ Clayworth 13:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok here will do i guess, i have to admit to not really knowing what i'm doing. i have thre problems i could really do with your help on ... 1. the logo has been taken off, are they not allowed? 2. the company is called BBH now but was bartle, bogle and hegarty how do i correct that and 3. it still does'nt come up in a genreal search for bbh or bartle bogle hegarty ... what am i doing wrong

The June 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject 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. Kirill Lokshin 06:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reg: Tomas Shatner. The article is not fictitious, and in saskatchewan Tomas Shatner has had a sort of resurgence recently, becoming more popular as old newspaper clippings have resurfaced. He is not perhaps as popular as i indicated in the article, but in Saskatchewan and in Swift Current at least, Shatner lore is very well known. How can I resubmit the article? thanks! (unsigned by User:Simplyjacket)

Reply at User talk:Simplyjacket. DJ Clayworth 18:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey budy, you set a copyright problem at Walkthru topic page... but I work with WalkThru in Brazil and writed this article in english... how do I do to make it right?

Thank U.

Samuel Supimpa

Reply at User talk:S3supimpa. DJ Clayworth 15:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me mr clayworth, but there are alot of aricles on qwrestliong federations on this website and further more OMGTGAIWF is well known enough locally in some parts of England therefore your argument that no one has ever heard of is no true! just becuae uve never heard of it doesnt mean its not worthy, you should get out more

(unsigned by User:Icehulk)

Reply at User talk:Icehulk. DJ Clayworth 15:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

im so sorry i dont know how to acsess someones talk page. This is ridiculous, its not fair that i can't post an article on something people will find interesting, its not fair that EVEN WIKIPEDIA HAS BECOME SO cencsored, i am also very offended by your first comment, you called me work "random useless crap". Thanks for that Mr. Clayworth, itake it your not a wrestling fan which could indicate to the fact you wanting to censor OMGTGAIWF from Wikipedia? (unsigned by User:Icehulk) moved from user page by AnnH ♫ 22:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was just about to put that User:Icehulk message on your talk page, having removed it from your user page, but you got there first. Your talk page is awfully long, by the way. Not a problem for me, as I've just got a new computer and have a very good internet connection, but I wonder is it time to archive? Also, I thought you might be interested in this. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 15:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It probably is time to archive. DJ Clayworth 16:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see the anon 195... has done a lot of image adding and editing. I don't know what is supposed to be retained, but it may be useful to compare today's version with something a few days ago to deal with all his changes. --Habap 21:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free. DJ Clayworth 21:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Typo - I've fixed it. Dlyons493 Talk 19:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. That explains it. DJ Clayworth 19:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reason for this edit[2]? "reverted" is not informative as to your reasoning. The event is already on that page, and there is no source for that being an historical date, but rather only sources for that being the traditional date of observance, which is where the event is listed. Why are you re-inserting unsourced, inaccurate information? KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The entry doesn't say it's a historical date, it says it's a traditional date. We're not saying anything inaccurate. However if the event is listed elsewhere on the page I'm happy to let it go. DJ Clayworth 18:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the "observances" section only mentions the holiday of Christmas and how the nativity of Jesus is celebrated on that day. Nowhere on the December 25 page is there a listing of Jesus' birth being traditionally observed on December 25, and we are doing nothing wrong by citing it as a traditional date, DJ. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(IN)`SANE<sup>`} 18:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the issue - all other religious observances are listed under observances but a couple of editors are insisting on double-listing it by putting it under "births" which would indicate some kind of sourcing for that. There is none, because no one actually knows the date. It is correctly listed under observances with the information that it is the traditional date to observe, or celebrate, Jesus' birth. Thanks much for the reply - and please try to use more helpful edit summaries in the future. Thanks! KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

The content of the page Classical guitar related websites was before at the end of the article Classical guitar. I think that the content of this page is very useful and that it’s better to make a new article than to write all those links at the end of the main article about classical guitar. I hope that it will not be deleted.

User talk:Grégory Leclair

I understand how you feel. However there is a specific and long-standing policy concerning pages which consist mainly of external links, and the policy is that they are forbidden. The logic is that they should not really be part of an encyclopedia. They also have a tendency to take over pages if not checked. There are plenty of webrings and web directories out there. What I would suggest is that you move the links to the pages they are most relevant to, trying to move as many of them as possible to pages other than Classical guitar. Once you've got the number down to a reasonable level move the remainder back to Classical guitar. Twenty or so links is a reasonable number to have on a 'main' page like that. DJ Clayworth 20:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cancelled some commercials links. Do you still think that we should merge this page with Classical guitar? User talk:Grégory Leclair

Yes I do. Pages that consist only of links tend to get deleted quickly. Plus they become magnets for anyone to come and add any link they think is relevant and it tends to grow uncontrollably. DJ Clayworth 14:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks for the reply DJ, not sure I understand everything about this interweb thingumy stuff whatsname, but there you go. I really don't know what I can do to convince you that Trev's real, you certainly have a bee in your proverbial. I guess there's none so blind as those who won't see. Anyway, thanks again for the info, but you are 100% wrong about La Trev. Totally.--Paul Ebbs 20:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to your beliefs. Good luck. DJ Clayworth 20:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor insists, to me, unfortunately in pencil (I suppose I could scan it) and post it, but that wouldn't really 'prove' anything that he will shortly be 're'-publishing his books [I put re in inverted commas as I can't honestly claim to have seen full texts of these somewhat psychadelic items]. What I want to ask is:- if at some future point the books were in print (however rubbish) would that justify a wikipedia slot even if Trevor himself vanity published them? Because it seems to me that that's tantamount to saying if Trevor 'buys fame' that's fime, but if a third party however, er, somewhat oddly enthusiastic puts Trevor up before Trevor's blown his savings down the printers it isn't, but the latter case is the one in which 'some one' aside from Trevor himself genuinely likes his work, and thinks it notable. Simon Bucher-Jones 23:03 UK

Frankly, no. Wikipedia only wants articles about notable authors, and that almost never means self-published authors. Even authors with one or two professionally published novels are not usually considered notable. So 'Trevor' has no chance of buying a Wikipedia entry. If we were to follow the guidelines established at Wikipedia:Music then Treveor would have to get himself on a bestseller list to qualify.

Look, please tell your friends or whoever that this joke has gone on far enough. It may be fun for you to see whether you can get an obscure (or non-existant) author onto Wikipedia, but for those of us trying to write an encyclopedia it's frankly a little tedious. DJ Clayworth 22:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave my username alone. I do not want to make satan get you. Wifeofsatan 21:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC) HAIL SATAN!!!![reply]

Threatening users, however stupidly, is only going to make your case worse. DJ Clayworth 22:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is that going to make things worse? Ouijalover 17:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. DJ Clayworth, i am hoping to write an article about my up and coming band - we are soon to beocme nationalised throughout the united kingdom - i thought it would be best to ask you whether or not i can post a factual (non advertisment) on WIKIPEDIA, as i see many other lesser known bands have done this. I would like to have confirmation that whatever effots i spew onto this article will not be deleted purly becuase the band isnt well known enough, however if you find the article to be infringing on any copyright or legal matters by all means do your duty in removing the future article - I really think having a wikipedia article will help improve our fan base and would also generate hits to the site for those who are searching my band.

Yours Sincerly

JonnyUnderdogg

Reply at User talk:Jonnyunderdogg. DJ Clayworth 16:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just wanted to say thanks - I have been editing for a while on here but did not know how to approach people who are reverting, or making bad faith edits. I know we assume good faith and send them the nice note (like you did). Thanks for stepping in there. NickBurns 22:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It can be irritating when someone behaving like a jerk, but it costs nothing to be polite the first time. It's also possible that th editor was actually associated with the subject somehow. DJ Clayworth 17:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They were unblocked today and have made several nasty comments on my Talk Page. I'm going to take a step back, because I don't want to be in a revert war......I believe you could be right, h/she was probably a fan of the actor and of his show (As The World Turns) and means well. NickBurns 02:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently working with the alumni association at STCL to add notable alumni, and the ones I've added have had their blessing. Pls let me know your definition of notable alumni? Also I follow the definition of Random House on alumni - where a student graduated from or was a student of the school, ie., Dan Rather.

I confirmed with Gail Fox, Director of Development and Alumni Relations at South Texas College of Law, that Madyln Murray O'Hair was a 1952 graduate, which is why I corrected that. (66.6.80.48)

Sorry about Madyln Murray O'Hair. Sometimes anonymous users simply change dates to see if Wikipedia is really editable. If you leave a comment on the talk page that usually removes the problem. I would strongly recommend creating an account if you intend to stay here, as that also reduces problems like this.

As for the notability criteria, I would simply say that anyone who deserves a Wikipedia article deserves to be mentioned as a notable alumnus. You can find criteria on the notability of people at Wikipedia:Biography. I have no opinion onwhether students who don't graduate count as alumni. Incidentally I didn't revert the additions of alumni as such - I reverted bacause there was a broken template in the article. DJ Clayworth 20:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I reverted it back. Out of respect to your research, I even put in 1949 for O'Hair. Even though the Alumni director told me 1952. I should correct that, but it seems when you do that, people get offended and revert changes. Your solution is a good one, I should get an account so I don't look like a vandal. I am a graduate of South Texas College of Law and know the school very well. Thanks for your watchfulness.

I've put O'Hair's graduation date to 1952. I don't know where the original date came from, but I'll assume you know what you are talking about. Incidentally, it's a good idea to sign your posts on talk pages. You can do it by putting four tildes like this ~~~~. DJ Clayworth 20:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The July 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject 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.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot.

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 11!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 18:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, you added the "blocked indefinitely" tag on his userpage but never blocked him? I assumed you just forgot, or never got round to blocking, but I'm just asking here to check :) Thanks, — FireFox ^(talk) _{17:14, 27 July '06}

Thanks. Done. DJ Clayworth 18:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what happened that time, but your block wasn't in the block log and he wasn't in the ip block list, as his one week block had expired. So just as a precaution to stop him from editing if he tries, I have blocked him indefinitely for you (and accidentally used the wrong block summary – nevermind). Thanks, — FireFox ^(talk) _{10:19, 28 July '06}

That wasn't a first offence. You didn't read his contributions, or see the images he uploaded (which I deleted). DS 22:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it wasn't a first offence, why weren't there more warnings? It is usual for an escalating series of blocks to be applied, from 24hrs up to indefinite in three or four stages. DJ Clayworth 22:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing the FLORA ACT page. I should have done so from the beginning. A. Kolsrud

No problem. DJ Clayworth 13:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask why you deleted the article as 'not notable'? There are a number of us trying to get together to create the article and if one of the Manchester United message boards can have an article, why not us?

We are one of the best known football message boards in England and whilst I appreciate that say, if you're American, you might not even have heard of Sunderland, it is a sizeable and famous football club by English standards. May I suggest you hold a vote rather than just delete the item. I can rally many together to support it's creation. For now, I have put the item back.

I agree, not-notable to you does not mean it's the same to others, there are many Wikipedia articles about people/organisations that I and probably no-one I know have either heard or care about but this does not mean they should be deleted. Saying that the article is poorly presented and would do with a cleanup. Standardelephant 23:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My article is not "nonsense". Gongo the Complaining Monkey is a series of short stories at a site called www.Creambox.net. The site is down at the moment, but the series is real. Every "episode" is a short story. Please do not delete my article again.

The article said it was a TV series, which it clearly isn't, and included a huge amount of crap such as it being directed by Steven Spielberg. Nonsense will be deleted on Wikipedia wherever it is found. DJ Clayworth 11:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So if I delete all that crap, and re-write the article. Will you still delete it ? If I wrote it was a TV-series, then I'm sorry. It's not a TV series, and the Steven Spielberg-thing was "nonsense" indeed. I will re-write the article. Gongo the Complaining Monkey is a series of short-stories in Norway. They can be found on the Creambox.net.

What you first have to do is look at the Wikipedia:Notability guidelines. If the stories are considered notable then they will stay. Frankly the chances of a set of stories whose only publication is on a website being considered notable is very small. Also please sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this by adding four tildes like this ~~~~DJ Clayworth 17:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I can just weigh in here, I've been reverting these damned "Gongo the Complaining Monkey" edits (by an anon IP and lately by User:Insiderman) from the GONGO article for several months, and as you say, it looks like blatant nonsense and vandalism - the Lost (TV series) article and episode guide with the names replaced and claims about Steven Spielberg, etc. - that Creambox site User:Insiderman claims hosts what appears now to be a "series of short stories"(!) has not been active for some time as I checked when it was first mentioned. I've left a message on User talk:Insiderman warning them against adding the material again. --Canley 06:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. User:Insiderman has basicly blown all his credibility by submitting these stupid edits. I've already done a web search and discovered that "Gongo the Complaining Monkey" has no web presence, apart from a posting on a scandanavian-language website that is probably Insiderman. I'm taking the view here that I'm teaching him what needs to be done to get an article accepted. The chances that "Gongo the Complaining Monkey" will be accepted is virtually zero, and I for one will be reverting and deleting anything not backed up with impeccable references. However let's give him a chance. Maybe he will see the error of his ways. DJ Clayworth 13:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a lot of internet research to back those claims. Obviously you have not and are simply destroying Wikipedia's quest for knowledge. I have discussed quite a bit with people in India during 1984 and they have all stated that it is highly likely that Beant Singh was a scapegoat. On the day of her assassination, Indira's daughter-in-law said that she couldn't find her mother-in-law's bullet-proof vest. Also, if someone wanted to kill her, surely they would fire at her head as it is also a fatal place to be shot. Why would someone shoot her in her chest unless they knew? Also, there were many witnesses to support Beant Singh, but the courts wouldn't allow them to speak. It is known that most cases of such high importance would take longer so that all evidence could be compiled. Surely, only 4 days is a government cover-up. I hope that before you change articles you actually check to see whether or not the "verting" is just to preserve the accepted or the uncovered truth. HockeyRocksMySocks 01:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have really done a lot of research you will have no trouble providing reliable sources to back up these claims. If you provide reliable sources then what you say can stand. DJ Clayworth 12:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You will find that he was a scapegoat of the Indian Government. As a result, there are very few "reliable" resources. I'm sure you've heard of conspiracies? HockeyRocksMySocks 05:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will select seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of eleven candidates. Please vote here by August 26!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 11:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the deletion Wikipedia is not paper. I typed in "Wikipedia is not paper" and Wikipedia is not paper was the first result.[3] I am redirecting it to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not which has Wikipedia_is_not_made_of_paper#Wikipedia_is_not_a_paper_encyclopedia which has not been deleted. Was it agreed not to have a redirect, or was it agreed not to have this article? Can you give me the AfD link? IMHO, a simple redirect is harmless. Thanks for your dilgence and hard work. Odessaukrain 21:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was agreed not to have a redirect. Here is a link to the discussion. DJ Clayworth 21:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I completly disagree, but power to you. Delete away, I won't restore it. Odessaukrain 21:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's good because it wasn't my decision. I'm just doing what the Wikipedia community wants. DJ Clayworth 22:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Clayworth! I'm in Brazil, and I'm having difficulty with the process you indicate me... I think it's gonna be easier to talk to the WalkThru USA guys to make another text, and they see what they want or not put in Wikipedia, there is already some articles talking about Walk Thru there, but not an specific one. Well... thank you anyway. If you come to Brazil we would be very glad to have you at a seminary too.

I'm sending this to you as you've edited the Iglesia ni Cristo article substantially. As coverage of INC at Wikipedia continues to grow, and the need to make sure related articles are held at a high standard of Wikipedia article quality, I've proposed a new WikiProject dedicated to INC. If you're interested, go to Wikipedia:WikiProject/List_of_proposed_projects#WikiProject_Iglesia_ni_Cristo and sign your name. A temporary example of what the project page will look like is at my userspace. --LBMixPro ^{<Speak|on|it!>} 09:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Just noticed the changes you made to the article. I think Indonesians may take exception to the statement "The declaration did not immediately result in actual independence". I guess it's a question of semantics, but everybody seems to acknowledge that the United States achieved independence in 1776, although the British did not recognise it for some years after, so why not Indonesia? I didn't make any changes, but you might get some feedback from Indonesians... Regards, Davidelit 14:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I'll make a slight change to try and convey the same thing. DJ Clayworth 14:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

following your example with No 617 I have removed the same from other squadrons. If it was required it should have been done as a nav box template.GraemeLeggett 14:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once upon a time, you expressed some concerns about copyvio problems at Walk Thru the Bible, and commented to one of the article's editors. Don't know if you still have interest in that article, but wanted to let you know that I've rewritten and expanded it with non-copyvio text (ie, my writing), with an attempt to maintain NPOV. If you have any commets/critiques/flaming objects, feel free to hurl them my way. Akradecki 23:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. DJ Clayworth 13:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Akradecki 18:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Clayworth, Regarding the article of Brig. Hari Singh; This article was created as Brig. Hari Singh played a vital role in Indo_Pakistani War of 1965. In that article, there are pictures taken by him during the war when he was in command of 18th Cavalry of Indian Army. He was there during the time of Barkee and Ichhogil Canal capture near Lahore in Pakistan. This article was created to cite from the Indo-Pak War Article. He fought all the major wars for India and was awarded A.V.S.M (ATI VISHISHT SEVA MEDAL, an honour for a distinguished service of the exceptional order in Indian Army) for his gallentry in Bangladesh operation. This article was thus very important for citation from other articles. Please look into this matter. Looking forward for your help... Thanks and Regards - Abhinay

Response at User talk:Abhinayrathore. DJ Clayworth 19:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the information in the Indo_Pakistani War of 1965 is not taken directly from the Indian Army records and therefore most of the information is missing there. He was also awarded Mention-in-Despatch for gallantry during these operations. If you see the first picture where he is standing in front of Police Station in Barkee, it is the only photographic proof even with 18th Cavalry that they captured Barkee. This picture was recently given by my mother to 18th Cavalry (now stationed in Hissar, India) where it hangs in their Quarter Guards. Except this article, no where on the internet these valuable photographic evidence are published (not even on Indian Army websites). All the information in the "Short Biography" section was hand written by Brig. Hari Singh. The A.V.S.M section is the exact note of the speech given before A.V.S.M was awarded to him by President of India. I earnestly request you to please consider this article of importance in regard to Indo_Pakistani War of 1965 article. Thanks.

--- The moment we let British-Canadians decide what is significant is the same moment Wikipedia becomes insignificant. (unsigned by User:Roncey).

DJ Clayworth,

You mentioned that the notability for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_Wolf_Real_Estate_Technologies wasn't good enough. Please review this article again as I have added more outside sources to reference the company. Also how do I add a logo and make it look like other corporate profiles?

Thanks so much for your help.

--Jsethi 13:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jsethi, notability isn't the same as verifiability. We believe that the company exists; the question is whether enough people have heard of it to make it worth an article. DJ Clayworth 13:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

Why did you delete the gang destroying army page?

Because it appeared to be about an unnotable group of people who play games. Do you have other information? DJ Clayworth 02:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have pages upon pages of work on the GDA but I can't say everything on it because it would nopt meet the GDA rules of seceretcy. Colbyson 00:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why exactly was the lyrics deleted from the article, im not sure what copyvio means...

The August 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject 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.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 12:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thank you; I didn't know lyrics were protected. Does this mean that all articles (such as Uncle Fucka and any other that mention song lyrics) should have lyrics removed? And can excerpts of songs be used (I saw little of lyrics on the page you linked me to).

Thanks for clearing that up -Alegoo92 20:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excerts are usually OK, provided they are a small fraction of the song length. Everything else - yes, they should be removed. DJ Clayworth 20:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As ar as I'm aware with Akron University, the 3rr only applies when there is no vandalism - which there was in this case, as the user has been indef blocked for vandalism. Me and User:Dreaded Walrus were reverting because of the adverts for the universities counterstrike servers he put in the article. Niether of us intend to edit the article again, but I am letting you know that we did it in good faith, believing that the 3RR didn't apply! HawkerTyphoon 16:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I saw was many edits with User:Dreaded Walrus changing between 'best known' and 'most well known'. Neither of these phrases would be considered 'vandalism'. There are better ways of sorting this out. DJ Clayworth 16:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edits like this? Check the entire edit, you can see the text we were removing! Sorry for any misunderstanding, if you're using popups they can truncate the differene for performance reasons, and miss out that bit! HawkerTyphoon 17:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I understand you are a busy man, and I feel that because of this you may have misunderstood what was happening over at that article on your brief visit. User:Theschoolbully was repeatedly adding what both myself and User:HawkerTyphoon thought to be inappropriate content. I am not as experienced with Wikipedia as HawkerTyphoon, so I merely reverted Theschoolbully's edits, as did HawkerTyphoon. Eventually, as Theschoolbully was unrelenting, despite breaking WP:3RR (which as far as I know doesn't apply to reverting genuine vandalism, which Theschoolbully's edits seemed to be), HawkerTyphoon created a section on the talk page with a condensed version of what Theschoolbully was trying to add, which I replied to. Theschoolbully instantly deleted this discussion, and pasted the full version of the disputed text in there, instead. Eventually he was blocked, as you can see on his talk page. I would just like to suggest that I feel you have misunderstood what my edits were - I have never been involved in vandalism, as you will see if you look at my edits. Thank you for your time. --Dreaded Walrus 17:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. It appears that HawkerTyphoon has put something up here regarding it, too, whilst I was typing this.--Dreaded Walrus 17:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. On closer inspection I now see that there was more to the reverts that I originally saw. I'm not going to wade into the dispute itself - suffice to say I won't be taking any action. DJ Clayworth 17:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. The "dispute" itself has been settled, as he has been blocked by an admin. Would it be too much for me to ask if you removed the warning from my page? It looks better than if I removed it myself (a passing admin might not see this page, and might think I was just removing warnings instantly). Again, thanks for the understanding. --Dreaded Walrus 17:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Though I doubt they would worry much about a 3RR warning. That happens by accident often enough. DJ Clayworth 17:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thank you very much for everything (apart from that initial misunderstanding, but it was understandable as you were just passing through ;) ). I'll try to mark my edits a little better next time. --Dreaded Walrus 17:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You removed a short text about some of Scott Peck's references relating to Evil. Why? The problematic question of Peck relying too heavily on one particular (and now somewhat discredited) source has been flagged up by his estate, so how come you know better?

I removed it because it wasn't sourced. However the statement also has problems. It's unclear what makes for the difficulty' mentioned. Martin is claimed to be controversial, but Peck is also being controversial. What's wrong with that? A quick read of Martin's Wikipedia article indicates that the controversy over Martin is to do with whether he is acting as a priest and having extramarital affairs, which reflects in no way on his views about evil. Martin is in fact only cited by Peck in one book, which could hardly be described as 'leaning heavily'. "some would say" is a classic case of weasel words, where we use phrases to attack someone without ever having to be clear about who is making the attack. If you can fix these issues I'm happy to have some reference to Martin go back. DJ Clayworth 13:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only an academic, not some Wiki-dedicated person, so a few of your comments are rather over my head. But let me try and help with some detail and then maybe you, who understand this site better than I, can perhaps help with some drafting.

First, I gave up trying to get clarity into that entry on Martin (the page keeps being incompentently tackled by people who are how can I put this politely not entirely of right mind and certainly not capable of forming complete sentences): I neither know nor care about Martin's sex life and it is a pity that the entry leads you to think this is the problem (hence it still needs fixing). The key point is that Martin stands charged, in a serious book by a serious writer (not some weirdo and there are sadly a lot of those in this black magic area), as being a lifelong fantasist and liar (have a look back in the past entries on Martin and you should find this spelled out). I suspect the sex-priest stuff, though no doubt important to some of his fans, is being pushed into the foreground as a way of diverting attention from the more damaging material. So Martin might be the first entry for you to apply some rigour to, as I don't have the patience to deal with religious-crazies.

Moving on, the specific problem with Peck we are discussing is not him being "controversial" (and I do not read him as such, btw). The problem is his relying on what until recently were believed to be Martin's non-fiction accounts of hard-to-believe-but-just-possibly-plausible events (themselves not remotely sourced, btw, just asserted). But now Peck's sources (Martin's books, Peck has nothing else on this stuff) need to be judged more carefully and seem on the face of it dubious at least. It seems likely that Martin (already a successful novelist) was peddling dodgy fantasies as non-fiction for whatever reasons of his own, and it seems necessary to refer to this in relation to Peck (for whom I have considerable admiration, btw).

You seem not that much of an expert on Peck himself: sorry, but he cites Martin in more than one book. Check "People of the Lie" as well as (throughout) his last published book. He was too sick to deal with the Martin revelations by working on any revised editions (private information) so unfortunately that aspect of his work remains problematic. Happy for you to redraft in whatever way fits the style of this site.

I haven't read Peck's latest, so I was only aware of People of the Lie. What I would suggest in this case is being specific. Vague accusations of 'difficulties'; are always problematic in an article, whereas specific sourced statements are much less so. I'm going to add a new comment to the Peck article based on what you said above; I hope you will correct it (since you do seem to be more knowledgeable here). DJ Clayworth 18:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - all seems fine now (I just cleaned up spelling etc). I've also just had another go at Malachi Martin (whose illiterate fans keep sticking in appallingly clumsy and unsourced sentences) - but it's still a mess. Any chance you could take a look at it? (unsigned)

I'll see what I can do, but I don't really know enough about him to be useful. DJ Clayworth 18:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking I could help with some simple research on Martin I have clicked around - ye gods, the first link promoted on the Wiki page leads you straight to http://www.starharbor.com/malachi/ with sleazy stuff about a fake website and a link to http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/6401/malachi3.htm which gives a further insight into the forces at work. Oh dear - maybe there is just too much controversy here to tackle and remain sane. Life may be too short to tangle with these nuts…

Some clarity, however, is available via a summary of the 2001 book by a (highly respected) UK journalist who unfortunately gets the spelling of Malachi wrong, so this doesn't easily turn up on Google searches:- http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/3-17-2002-14827.asp

Believe me that was composed by myself, and that's my blogspot. Please dont be annoy again.

Sure, i'll do that. My local time is 2.20AM now, thats why i told that. :D

I keep getting a "block" message with your name when I try to edit my user page, why? (unsgned by User:Marky Love TOS).

It would help if you let me know which username you are talking about. Obviously not the one you used to edit this page. Check the talk page and the user page of the username in question - there is usually a message explaining. DJ Clayworth 13:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I just spent hours revising the horror that was CUHK wiki page, I would had appriciated a lot if you didn't suddenly pop up, saying something like, "this page is not up to par with wiki delete standard, etc." You should had read the history of that page before making a comment like that. There were a lot of "lists" on the CUHK wiki page before, and people who cared about the page--who wrote on the discussion page--were only starting to wonder if the lists should be gone; then I came in and started doing the revision. Honestly, I thought about just getting rid of the lists and that was that, but I also thought maybe some lists were really useful, how useful? Well, I suggest that you should go to CUHK and locate different departments at their medical school, it's troublesome! However, these departments shouldn't be invisible to the wiki users, because their pages contains valuable info. And, it was exactly because of the exception of the medical school department list, that caused my hesitation in getting rid of the student club list. Now I suggest you go and find those clubs on CUHK, and see how well you do, kay? BTW, I might SOUND upset, but I ain't, I might SOUND annoyed, cuz I am a bit.

justicelilo

Hi. Sorry that I came into an ongoing operation of yours. I don't have any way of realising what is going on unless I happen to stumble on it.

The article I put the prod on was not a list of departments, it was a list of student organisations. I agree that some lists are useful, but this one doesn't look like it. The only information contained here is that CHUK 'has a Bridge club' (to choose an example). That's not really useful information. Pretty much every school and university in the world has a Bridge Club, so it's only barely more usefl than telling us that CHUK has washrooms.

Wikipedia is not intended to be either collections of links, nor a guide to student organisations. Nor is it supposed to be a guide for locationg college departments. I'm sorry you feel your work has been maligned; that wasn't my intention. However I do feel that the list I marked has no place or purpose in Wikipedia. DJ Clayworth 16:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, cool. I get what you mean by wiki not being a collection of links, but I also want to point out how wiki users use wiki has a lot to do with what wiki is. Perhaps there is a regulation somewhere on wiki, but bare with me for a moment; when surfing online, isn't it annoying not able to find something knowing that you are at the "right" website? What would you do then? Google? Or will you do what other wiki-holics do--turn to wiki? Now think this: You are a Canadian who knows not a word of Chinese, but as life would have it, you NEED to find the website of the computer club at CUHK, what would you do? Refer above, if you are a person who don't know Chinese, then I suggest that you should try finding the CS club at CUHK, and see if you can find it faster than just clicking onto wiki. Or you can cling onto your belief that wiki is NEVER, under no circumstances, contains any page with useful links, because THAT's what wiki is. BTW, there is a bridge club website at CUHK, but it is in Chinese.

Wikipedia is not intended to be a replacement for Google. Wikipedia is intended to be an encyclopedia, like Encyclopedia Britannica. You would not expect to use Britannica to find out where your local bridge club is; you would a phone directory or something else. Maybe this information would go better on CHUK's own website. If lots of people are trying to find the bridge club but don't speak Chinese, then maybe there should be an English language version. DJ Clayworth 16:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great mentality, consider this in your logic: if someone who don't know Chinese wants to find a Chinese webpage, then there should be an English version, or else, too bad; now compares that to this: if someone who don't have money and wants to eat, earn it? O wait, he is already starved to death, too bad. If encyclopedia can help when I want take-out, then ya, I would love it to be, but that's impossible, isn't it? But wiki is different, it is relatively a new thing, on a new media! Have you ever seen that old smelly huge Encyclopedia Brit. at your local library? You can't change its context like you can with wiki! So to compare a piece of new technology with something so old is just not right, because thir functionalities are very different. Sure, you can model wiki after the old smelly book, but it is just NOT the old smelly book, it is better. And by the way, that is very ethnocentric of you to say something like "If lots of people are trying to find the bridge club but don't speak Chinese, then maybe there should be an English language version." China is the most populated country in the world, you know?

The question of speaking Chinese is entirely irrelevant. I would have suggested deletion for this page even if it were about an English university with all the web pages in English. I'm also unclear about how it helps a non-Chinese speaker to have a list of websites which are entirely in Chinese. DJ Clayworth 16:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just love it when someone tells me what I say is "off the point" by citing the fallacy of irrelevance, oh, the elegance! I see that you have difficulty understanding my point; the question of speaking chinese is entirely irrelevant? Sure, you're part right, with only a problem--it's not my point, you've bent my statement. And just because you don't see its use, doesn't mean it is useless. Now, I am sure you will proceed to either, ignore what I say, or ask me what the point is and THEN ignore my statement, or twist my statement further by using either equivocation or being ambiguous in what you say; so I shall stop here, for now anyway.

Recreated a third time? Please protect? Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony 17:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AGAIN!!! Please please please protect from recreation? Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony 17:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :-) - CobaltBlueTony 17:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can Martin Snigg be recreated if it's been protected from recreation??? - CobaltBlueTony 13:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was protected against new users, and the user who recreated it has now been with us long enough to not count as a new user. I will give him a final warning and then block him if he doesn't relent. If this goes on I'll give the page full admin protection. DJ Clayworth 13:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the whole article deleted? It was a sub page relating to another article, it was a work in progress, the rules are being typed out from the school Rotulus Nglkit 17:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I've replied at User talk:Nglungkitb. DJ Clayworth 17:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you'd like to know about User:DJ Clayworth 2 which I have just indefinitely blocked as an imposter of you and a vandalism account. You might want to look out for other imposter accounts. Best, Gwernol 12:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. My first imposter. I'm flattered. DJ Clayworth 13:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your remarks about Mr Forde. The comments contained in the commentary are based on what was disclosed in the court case which convicted him, not some airey-fairy figment of the imagination.

Duf 18:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no idea what you mean by that. You wrote something that was incorrect, and potentially libellous, and I corrected it from your own sources. DJ Clayworth 18:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I am very new to this, my question at the moment is simple: How do I add this information without the "User" prefix on the pages I have chosen to be viewed on? PRIZ-ONE 03:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply at User talk:PRIZ-ONE. DJ Clayworth 03:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I have someone else write this and have it posted, as many other graffiti writers have, in the catagories they wish it to be viewed under? PRIZ-ONE 03:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's cheating, and it will probably get deleted anyway, but it would be hard to stop you. DJ Clayworth 03:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would not want to cheat in any way. As I am not PRIZ-ONE, I was just writng about a graff artist who I have come to know over the past year, who does not get the credit he deserves. I signed up under the name so that no one else would be able to use it later on, and to show him what was written about him and for him at a later date. I have read many articles on graff writers on this site and know quite a few of them personally. I only wished to include his brief story as they have in the same format.

PRIZ-ONE 03:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK then, go right ahead. DJ Clayworth 12:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DJ, you recently edited the Mormonism and Christianity page; one of the edits read that mainstream Christians reject the concept that God had rejected his church. Although this may be semantics, I believe it is a statement unrepresentative of Mormon beliefs. LDS believe that an apostasy took place where the people/churches left God, they began to teach the doctrines of men, and that they lost the priesthood or authority to act in God's name. LDS firmly believe that God does not leave any of his children, but rather we leave him. Though this may appear an insignificant point, LDS would view it as a major misrepresentation of our belief in Heavenly Father. Storm Rider ^(talk) 14:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem to me that, for whatever reason, according to LDS belief, God withdrew the authority to act in his name. The church had it, then it was taken away. If not a rejection it certainly amounts to a withdrawl of favour. However feel free to try something more appropriate. DJ Clayworth 15:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that it is your position that you want to say that Mormons believe God took away his authority. However, that is not what Mormons believe. Mormons believe that after the time of Jesus and his early apostles, mankind began to teach the doctrines of men and not of God. They entered a state of apostasy and eventually the authority to act in his name was lost.

Your new edits continue to assert positions that are not true. LDS do not believe other churches are invalid. They do not possess authority, but they teach some truth. I guess it is may just be semantics also, but we do not think in terms of "this is valid and this is not". It is different terminolgy and thus a different way of thinking. LDS would say that is true, but this has more truth. LDS do not state and do not believe that other Christian churches are untrue, rather they believe that their church has the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ. I like the fact that you are attempting to write in a blunt manner, but you need to make sure when you are stating LDS/Mormon doctrine that you do it accurately. Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to other places in the same article Smith describes other churches as 'corrupt'. Is it possible to be both 'corrupt' and valid? Or have the LDS changed their minds about the corruption of the other churches?. Incidentally I'm taking this to the relevant talk page. DJ Clayworth 17:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In order to gain a consensus concerning the content dispute at anti-Mormon, would you please comment here? --uriah923^(talk) 04:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The September 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject 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.

This is an automated delivery by Grafikbot - 19:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that in the article Every Day with Jesus you changed targetted to targeted. targetted is perfectly valid spelling, it just happens to be UK English. Wikipedia policy says that either is allowable, and in general spelling should be that most closely relating to the subject. DJ Clayworth 17:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for leaving me a message, DJ. I was sleepily using AWB over breakfast this morning, aiming to zap another fifty or so WP spelling mistakes before setting off to work. There's a clever feature whereby AWB can load in an enormous list of regex search/replace pairs from Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos and then use those to locate spelling mistakes. So targetted got changed because it's on that list.

I was simply going to use that (and my divided attention) as an excuse, but I found your UK/US comment intriguing, especially since I'm entirely British and have never been tempted to indulge in American spelling. So I reached up and pulled my good old Chambers Twentieth Century Dictonary off the shelf to see what it says - and it doesn't include any such word as "targetted"! The correct (UK) spellings are given as target, targeted and targeteer. That leaves me wondering which dictionary led you to believe that "targetted" is a perfectly valid spelling?

There are people, of course, who believe that language is a living, evolving entity, and that when enough people spell something a certain way that should be accepted as correct. However, "targetted" loses out on this score too. A Google search on targeted site:uk gave me over 9½ million pages, whereas targetted site:uk gives only 186,000; thus, fewer than 2% of uk instances use "targetted".

I'm not a pedant, and I certainly don't intend to engage in any reversion wars! I'll leave it up to you whether you want to stick with "targetted", or whether you would like to change it.

Keep up the good work :-) Cheers! - Euchiasmus 20:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I stand corrected. I've been spelling the word like that for years, but it seems I am wrong. I'll revert the change if you haven't done so. DJ Clayworth 20:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will be making the appropriate redirects, once I finish making the disambiguation pages. As to their validity, see List of United States Navy aircraft squadrons#Attack Squadrons. --NE2 17:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply at User talk:NE2. DJ Clayworth 17:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed one of your recent user warnings appeared to be hand typed. Would you be interested in integrating specific template tabs into your interface, to be at hand when on a user talk page? See here for an example. Then all you do is click, fill in article name (if applicable) and save. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I use hand-written warnings when the templates don't exactly seem to fit the bill. DJ Clayworth 17:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First I count 3 reverts, second the content was removed using a mistaken belief of what WP:RS says, if you wish to work on the article this is where you should start, the amount of work to readd the content outwieghs any non-mistaken edits that have been mades since then. PPGMD 18:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted links to the four reverts on your talk page. Let me repeat again what I said. Your revert removed data that I had validly added, and I would be vbery obliged if you did not remove it; especially with no explanation. What I suggest you do is to undo your last revert (I'll take no action if you do that) and spend the time discussing whether statements supporte only by Bushnell's website should be included. DJ Clayworth 19:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can do you work from this version, adding the content back that was removed by previous editors would be much more work then you making you additions or removals from this version. PPGMD 19:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not Scott Kolins - he is my brother. However, do a search of your own in Wikipedia for "Scott Kolins" and one in Google and you may see he deserves some mention.--Smkolins 22:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know I pulled the gun a little earlier myself, but I think my edit summary did explain the edit. My goal is to list the controversy without explaining why it is controversial nor how the LDS church explains it. But be a list - that way the details of how to fully describe the controversy and the LDS viewpoint can be more explained (where needed) on the other pages. That is the problem with so much of the page - talking about why it is good or why it is bad instead of just describing what it is. --Trödel 20:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DJ: I've added something to the bottom of the Godhead Section of the talk page for Mormonism and Christianity, that I think will answer your questions. If you have any additional followup questions, just post them here and I'll reply when I can.mpschmitt1 October 15, 2006

Since you don't seem to be following the talk page or the mediation page, I thought I might post here. We can agree that the Bushell quote must go, but we feel that we are going to hold the same standard for Pro-gun criticism as that is applied to the anti-gun criticism.

Would you agree to the pro-gun sections to be re-added if they are based on Hardy's book which is from a major publishing house (which every one that I have talked to except Schrodinger seems to think is acceptable), and Kopel's peice from National Review and but nothing that is mentioned on the website (except where visuals that are in the book that are also on the website, which we will cite as a source to view it, but as the source itself). Both the other criticism sections follow this standard currently.

All additions would confirm to the policies of WP:V, and WP:NPOV we will make it clear that both are pro-gun advocates and are members of the NRA, and what is stated is their opinion.

I am attempting to bring together a concensus to bring this to a close, I have pretty much given up on Schrodinger. PPGMD 01:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Example of what I think would be in the article:

Pro-gun critics such as David T Hardy and Dave Kopel believe that the movie "makes its points by deceiving and by misleading the viewer." In a recent book Hardy says "speeches shown on screen are heavily edited, so that sentences are assembled in the speaker's voice, but which were not sentences he uttered." As an example of this Hardy compares BFC with the transcripts of the speeches given highlighting the differences.

Work in a quote for Kopel and that would be the pro-gun section. We might add some additions to other sections but nothing major, it would help end the controversy, and I think that I can get all the editors to agree with this version except Schrodinger, but we would be able to establish a consensus of the 5-6 of us without him. But it would end the edit war and restore balance to that article.

As far as reference links in that section, we would have a link to the Heston NRA Speech/BFC side by side, but I would prefer to reference the website for the Hardy quotes as my brief browsing of Hardy's book since I purchased it yesterday shows that it pretty much has the same content as his website, but it's formatted better.PPGMD 04:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with adding pro-gun criticism as long as they are properly sourced. I removed the 'pro-gun' section because it's total contents was "some pro-gun organisations ctiticise the film", and it had been like that for a fair amount of time. The same comments would apply to Hardy and Kopel here as anywhere else. DJ Clayworth 17:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well the above is an example of what I would like it to look like. Kopel would be referenced to his National Review article, and Hardy could either be referenced to his book which most agree (except Schrodinger) follows WP:RS, but after starting to read the book, on BFC it simply provides better prose, but contains much of the same facts and figures. Which source would you prefer?

About the only other thing I would add is Kopel as the who, for the It's a Wonderful World Segment, because we need to attirbute the criticism to someone.

Now one change that I would make is the NRA Cartoon Section, I would like to rename it to Matt Stone/Trey Parker because that's who's doing the criticism.

I am simply trying to move forward and build an agreement for change with people invovled, discussing it privately is the first step. PPGMD 17:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to weigh in on the proposed split, I would welcome your view. Kaisershatner 17:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw that you put a prod tag on Range Kleen claiming the page is not speediable. Actually, I wonder if you are aware of the changes to WP:CSD, particularly the new G11 which reads "Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group or service and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic". I think the page is clearly speeediable in that respect. Cheers. Pascal.Tesson 20:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My humble apologies. I wasn't aware. Consider it Speedied. DJ Clayworth 20:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your helpful suggestion. I'll try to remember it in future. DJ Clayworth 23:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your deletion. But please help me out - as you can see, my contribution was signed. My point is that, Wikipedia gives rise to many innacuracies. Some of them are then recycled. I would like to see an article that catalogues these occurances. Do you have any ideas? At least, can we have a place to discuss the possibility of such an article? Thanks. Politis 15:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply at User talk:Politis DJ Clayworth 16:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DJC, I am reporting you for 3RR violation. While I am here, I am sorry to note that with each your attempt to push Jesus into the throat of Judaism it is getting more difficult to assume good faith. Somehow I hoped that you are better than that. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, it turns out you are right. I miscounted the number of edits. Frankly your total inability to understand the way NPOV works is becomeing very hard to understand. DJ Clayworth 20:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MORE REGARDING KATHERINE SIVA SAUBEL: Fom Encyclopedia Britannica Online

 http://www.britannica.com/search?query=katherine+siva+saubel&ct=&searchSubmit.x=11&searchSubmit.y=9

Results 1-1 of 1.

Saubel, Katherine Siva

Native American scholar and educator committed to preserving her Cahuilla culture and language and to promoting their fuller understanding by the larger public.

SURELY IF SHE IS NOTEWORTHY ENOUGH FOR THE BRITANNICA SHE IS NOTEWORTHY ENOUGH FOR WIKI. I am new to Wiki -- so I do not quite know where to lodge my protest, so I will paste once again DR. SAUBEL'S bona fide's along with my own: So much of the Cahuilla culture has passed away. Katherine Siva Saubel has dedicated her life to saving all she can. In 1964 with Jane Penn and Mariano, Katherine founded the Malki Museum at the Morongo Reservation. The Malki is the first Native American museum created and run by Native Americans. The Malki Museum is dedicated to the preservation of the heritage of the Cahuilla Indian people and other Indian groups of Southern California. A beloved Cahuilla elder, nurturer, scholar, educator, and activist, Katherine Siva Saubel is an inspiration to her people and all people who come to know her. On March 7, 2007, Katherine will turn eighty-eight.. She is still working and going strong. Katherine is writing a book about the history of Southern California, the first tome that will include the contributions of the Cahuilla Indian.

Dr. Katherine Siva Saubel is acknowledged nationally and internationally as one of California’s most respected Native American leaders. Dr. Saubel has received a Ph.D in Philosophy from Los Sierra University, Riverside, California. In 2002, she was awarded the Chancellor’s Medal, the highest honor bestowed by the University of California at the University of California, Riverside. Some of her greatest achievements as both a scholar and tribal leader can be seen in her efforts to preserve the language of the Cahuilla people. Mrs. Saubel”s research has appeared nationally and internationally in a variety of government, academic and museum publications. She was inducted into the National Women’s Hall of Fame in the 1990s. Her knowledge of the Cahuilla ethnobotany and tribal affairs has prompted State and Federal legislative committees to seek out her testimony. The depth of Mrs. Saubel’s expertise in Cahuilla culture can be demonstrated in the second major focus of her scholarship: Native ethnobotany, the study of the plant lore of a specific ethnic group. Mrs. Saubel is acknowledged as the founder of the Malki Museum and the Malki Museum Press. The museum is the first nonprofit museum on Native American Reservation. Past and current governors of California have honored Chairperson Saubel. She has been appointed to a variety of Commissions and agencies, where she has led the fight to preserve scared locations throughout California while serving on the California Native American Heritage Commission.

BOOKS and WRITING  Temalpakh: Cahuillan Indian Knowledge and Usage of Plants  Cahuilla Ethnobotanical Notes; Oak, with Lowell Bean  Cahuilla Ethnobotanical Notes: Mesquite and Screwbean with Dr. Bean  I’Isniyatam, (Designs, a children’s book)  Chem’ivillu’ (Let’s speak Cahuilla) with Pamela Munro  Editorials published in the Journal of California Anthropology and Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology.

ACHIEVEMENTS AND AWARDS

 President of the Malki Museum  Member of the Riverside County Historical Commission  Member of the Los Coyotes Tribal Council.  Member of the Governor’s California Native Heritage Commission  County Historian of the Year 1986  First Native American inducted into the National Women’s Hall of Fame.  Recipient of the Young Women’s Christian Association Achievement Award  Recipient of the Desert Protective Council Award  Recipient of the National Museum of the American Indian of the Smithsonian Institution first Art and Cultural Achievement Award

 Mounted Cahuilla Voices: We are still here. Art exhibit shown at the Grace Hudson Museum in Ukiah, California, The Reese Bullen Gallery at Humboldt State University, The Southwest Museum in Los Angeles, and Palm Springs Desert Museum, Palm Springs, California.

Leigh Podgorski has worked as an actress, writer, director, producer, and teacher in the theatre for over twenty-five years. She graduated magna cum laude from New England College, Henniker, New Hampshire and Arundel, Sussex, England with a BA in Humanities/Theatre Arts, and recently completed her Masters in Humanities/Literature from California State University, Dominguez Hills. In addition to her plays, Leigh has penned several original screenplays including My Soul to Take, Act of Grace(winner, Women in Film and Video Screenwriting Competition) Western Song (Finalist Chesterfield Competition, Christopher Columbus Screenwriting Awards), Headed North to Baghdad (Finalist Moondance Competition) and Ouray’s Peak,(Quarter Finalist Scriptapalooza, Finalist Outstanding Thesis of the Year) adapted from her trilogy. Leigh is a prime writer for the Internet Web site TheMonologueShop.com, and an adjunct instructor at Glendale Community College. Several of her monologues have been published through Meriwether Publishing, Ltd.. Subsequent performances include the Sherman Indian School in Riverside, CA, UCLA, the International NoHo Theatre and Arts Festival, the Indian Cultural Awareness Conference at Cal State San Bernardino, and the San Manuel Indian Bingo and Casino, the Native American Culture and Arts Conference at Idyllwild Arts, the California Indian Conference at Chaffey College and Palomar College, and at the University of California, Riverside, in honor of Mrs. Saubel’s Chancellor’s Award. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leighpod (talk • contribs) 23:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The October 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject 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.

I'd apprecaite an explanation of why this page was deleted. I saw you listed "blatant advertizing." Would you care to expand on what constitues this, for my benefit? The company in question is responsible for designing two very well-received websites, including the original website for the series Red Vs Blue http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_vs_blue. If what I had written constitued as merely blatant advertizing, that was not my intention.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

The first thing you have to do is to establish the notability of the company. Working on a couple of websites is not usually enough reason to give a company an article. If you really think the company deserves an article then recreate it, and specifically add a note to the talk page to say why you think it is notable. DJ Clayworth 20:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been selected as the November Mormon collaboration of the month. I look forward to working with you on it. --uriah923^(talk) 21:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Essjay is currenty take an indefinate wikibreak and will not respond to this anytime soon. Please try posting your question at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation. Cbrown1023 22:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just writing to say I find the way you handled the article quite rude. Not only did you not give me chance to put my side forward, but you claim there's "nothing useful" on the article. Digraceful, IMHO. --LibLord 18:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply at Talk:Staff at King Edward VI Five Ways. DJ Clayworth 18:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thankyou very much for explaining that to me. I know wikipedia reminds you not to take deletions of articles personally but I must confess I did earlier - you may have noticed? =P Anyway will take your advice, thanks. Also, I do sign it with four tildes.. it just doesn't link my name back to me. LibLord 21:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry in the delay it took me to get back to you. The MedCom has been heavily taxed with the loss of Essjay. He really did quite a bit behind-the-scenes work with the administration and maintenence of our pages. Plus, he had our MedBot, which I do not have, increasing the time it takes me to accomplish tasks. Be that as it may, I come to respond to your question. Yes, your case has been accepted, and it is currently pending a mediator. I do not know when exactly this will be, but I am hoping it'll be soon. Sorry for the delay.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[yell at me]} 20:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought you should know, Jayjg isn't new to the page, he's commented on it for a very long time, just more sporadically than other editors. Homestarmy 01:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I hadn't seen him before. Anyway, I'm happy leaving my statements standing. I gives us another chance to stop yelling at each other and try to go back to the core of the dispute. DJ Clayworth 01:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm proposing at Talk:E. P. Sanders to delete the claim that "Sanders also argued that Jesus was a Pharisee." Ptypes 17:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to of been cancelled by Essjay for being "stale" :( Homestarmy 20:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The November 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject 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.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

There is a Request for Arbitration for the Jews for Jesus article. Please provide your inputs.ParadoxTom 03:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just curious DJ, are you planning to make a statement? Homestarmy 19:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is just too much bad faith or maybe it's bad history, I don't know. Since editors on both sides are just digging in their heels, there is no likelihood of coming any consensus on that article. I've wasted too much time on this topic. My advice to you is to move on, also. Why bang your head against a wall repeatedly? Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about five minutes away from leaving. Being called anti-semitic is nobody's idea of fun. But here do seem to be enough people who think that NPOV should apply to this article that if we can actually all be there at the same time we could argue for NPOV forcefully enough that people would listen. DJ Clayworth 18:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And now I've been accused of 'making up stuff'. In essence the only reason to stay is this: do you want to let the people who yell the loudest have their way. If we do then Wikipedia is doomed. DJ Clayworth 21:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that there is currently some movement towards an RfC. If one is filed, I will participate in it. The reason I pulled back is that it appears that any suggestion will automatically rejected without the slightest bit of consideration. I made two suggestions and both times the merit of the suggestion was not approached by either side. Instead, I got "let Jews decide what Judaism is" which is wholly irrelevant to the article discussion, and nothing in terms of support from the other side. With that kind of environment, I don't see how I could be helpful. And if I can't help, why bother. FTR-- As to the sentence currently under dispute, I suggested changing it to "Judaism holds that belief in Jesus as Messiah is incompatible with the faith" at the end of that sentence, you can add JfJ's beliefs or let it stand on its own. As for the introduction, I believe the one I stated is NPOV, accurate, and simply better than the previous one. Please inform me once the RfC is listed. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check out User talk:Riddick07. Kids using it as a chat room. Suggestions on how to handle it? Kaisershatner 18:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll warn them ,and apply a short block if they don't take notice. DJ Clayworth 18:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coll, I just wasn't sure where it falls under prohibited usage, reading WP:NOT I couldn't find "not a chat room." Kaisershatner 18:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure either, but it's in the somewhere. In the last resort Wikipedia:Ignore all rules and use common sense. DJ Clayworth 18:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Not one of the references that was actually quoted for that specific sentence (and there were 12 of them, in reference #14) that "the majority of Jews" believe anything. References 4 and 5 were supporting different claims, and even then reference 4 doesn't say that "the majority of Jews" believe anything, but rather that there is virtual unanimity among Jewish denominations that Jews for Jesus is not Jewish. The 12 references provided in reference #14 supported a different point, specifically the exact one made, that a belief in the divinity of Jesus is incompatible with Judaism. You can't go radically changing what a well-referenced sentence states, based on what you believe some other reference supporting some different sentence elsewhere in the article says. Now, are you going to apologize immediately? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to quote. Reference 4 says this "There is virtual unanimity across all denominations [of Judaism] that Jews for Jesus are not Jewish." Note virtual unanimity. That means not all. If there is 'virtual unanimity' about something then it can be safely said that a majority believe it. If you want to change the wording to 'virtually all then I am fine with that.

Quoting again: reference 5 "For most American Jews, it is acceptable to blend some degree of foreign spiritual elements with Judaism. The one exception is Christianity, which is perceived to be incompatible with any form of Jewishness. Jews for Jesus and other Messianic Jewish groups are thus seen as antithetical to Judaism and are completely rejected by the majority of Jews". Note the words most and majority. These references are both from the Oxford University Press Encyclopedia Judaica.

Finally, if there is 'virtual unaniminity' (almost but not complete unanimity) among Jewish denominations then logically there must be almost but not complete ananimity among Jews. How else? Now, how about that apology? DJ Clayworth 19:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To begin with, I'm fully familiar with references 4 and 5, since I am the person who brought them to the article in the first place. I daresay I've brought at least 50% of the references to that article, perhaps more. Next, did you read my initial comment? Sadly, I'll have to repeat much of it. Reference 4 does not refer to what "most Jews" believe, or indeed, to what any Jews believe - rather, it talks about virtual unanimity among denominations. Denominations are not Jews, and we don't care what "Jews" believe, since they believe a million different things - rather, we are writing about the doctrines of Judaism. Next, references 4 and 5 are used to support other sentences and thoughts in the article. They were not used to support the statement that "belief in the divinity of Jesus is incompatible with Judaism". Reference #14 was used to support that point, and it used 12 reliable sources to back it up. You changed the wording to make an entirely different point about what "most Jews" believe, but still left reference 14 as the footnote - but none of the sources used in reference 14 backed up your claim about "most Jews", since none of them referred to what "most Jews" believe. Therefore, you made up things that were not supported by the references that were supposed to support your claim. Now, how about that apology? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Jayjg I don't get your point at all. Are you somehow saying that because you originally introduced references 4 & 5 to support some point you made, I am not allowed to cite them in support of what I wrote, even though they do support that?

The area round what I wrote was hacked mercilessly by other editors, so it is possible that when you looked at it references 4 & 5 were not actually quoted near the sentence; however when I wrote it, reference 5 was certainly quote immediately after.

I agree with your point that Jews believe a whole load of different things that are not in agreement with the doctrines of Judaism, but the point I am making is also at the denomination level. Exactly what is a Jewish denomination? That's as ill-defined as the rest of Judaism. There is no group charged with making definitive statements about what is Jewish doctrine - it's done by consensus.

HOWEVER: let's look at the reference again. Reference 4 says ""There is virtual unanimity across all denominations [of Judaism] that Jews for Jesus are not Jewish." This time note the word denominations. Even in your own terms, reference 4 supports what I wrote. I would happily apologise for any attack I have made on you, except that I didn't make one. DJ Clayworth 22:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, reference 4 does not back up your claim; denominations and Jews are different things. When you say "virtual unanimity among denominations" that is an entirely different claim that "most Jews". I can't think of any way of saying that more simply. And Jewish denominations are extremely well defined; they have seminaries, educational institutions, organizing bodies, affiliated synagogues, etc. Conservative Judaism is not some fuzzy concept. Next, this is the edit you made. Note, the sentence you changed is supported by reference #14. Not references 4 or 5, which support different points made 2 sections earlier. Reference 5 is nowhere near the sentence you changed. Please read the article carefully. You claimed to be making the text match the references; however, the existing text matched reference 14, and the text you changed it to did not match reference 14, which was the reference supporting that sentence. Read what the references for that sentence say; they talk about the incompatibility of a belief in Jesus with Judaism. They don't talk about what "most Jews" believe. When you changed the sentence, you misrepresented the sources backing it up. Then, to compound the problem, you insisted that the reference said exactly what you said, when reference 14 said nothing of the sort, and demanded an apology from me, and continue to make claims about your edit that simply do not square with the facts. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can I explain this? That's a different point!!! There are two points here; whether or not Jews for Jesus is "Jewish", and whether or not Jesus as deity is compatible with Judaism. Jews for Jesus is an evangelical organization, Jesus as deity is a religious doctrine. They are separate points, regarding different ideas, supported by separate sources. Both points are made in the article. Virtually all Jewish denominations consider Jews for Jesus not Jewish, and belief in Jesus as deity, Christ, etc. is not compatible with Judaism. Separate points, both true, both referenced, both mentioned in the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need to get rid of that? Is it indeed under dispute? Again, there are 12 sources that say exactly that, that belief in Jesus etc. is incompatible with Judaism; are there sources that say belief in Jesus etc. is compatible with Judaism? Which sources say it is compatible with Judaism? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

you write this so long ago (here :[4]) so I thought I'd reply here :

"I don't know the situation that well, but are we sure that the situation in Belgium warrants a serious categorisation? i.e. that the unity of the country is threatened or that terrorism or violence is involved? Belgium has been a stable country for several centuries now, and I don't see evidence of threatened separation."

As a Fleming (Dutchspeaking Belgian) I wouldn't call it serious, but I would call it serious... when using this definition in the article :

"Serious - language is a major organizing principle of the state's politics, and language disputes persistently threaten the unity of the state and/or involve violent protest or terrorist action."

Is the unity "threatened"? Yes. In the most recent federal elections (in 2003) 962.000 Flemings voted for N-VA or Vlaams Belang, parties explicitly stating that they want to make Flanders independent. Considering that there are only about 6 million Flemings that's a lot.

Is terrorism or violence involved? Well, apart from one man who was beaten up and died from a heart attack later in 1970 (still a controversial topic) there haven't been outbursts of violence.

Is language a major organizing principle? Yes, the complex double federal structure revolves around nothing else but the languages.

You don't see evidence of threatened separation? Well, as I said, the existence of Belgium is questioned on an almost daily basis in Flemish politics. But what is so "threatening" about that? There have been many peaceful splits in the past as well, like Czecho-Slovakia.

Belgium has been a stable country for centuries? That is definitely incorrect. Belgium was forcefully separated from the rest of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands in 1830, so that is less than two centuries ago. What do you call stable? Do you think a country could have been stable when the language of the majority of the population was not considered an official language? When education in the native language was not possible? When Flemings in Flanders had to get birth certificates for their children from a clerck who only spoke French? When people where executed for crimes they hadn't committed, because they were unable to defend themselves in court in their own language? When educated army officials do not learn the language of the majority, and expect uneducated (and sometimes even underaged) men to understand theirs instead (wasting the lives of many Flemings during the first World War). When the German occupier was the first to make the university of the Flemish city of Ghent Dutchspeaking, and when students who had enrolled during the occupation where banned from all universities afterwards? When many Flemings collaborated with the German occupier during both World Wars because they wanted to give Flanders more autonomy that badly? When Frenchspeaking immigrants have been settling in Flanders during the last four decades and demand the territory to be taken away from us and consider themselves a "neglected minority", even though they are in fact often treated in a better way by the Flemings than the Flemings in Brussels (which is officially bilingual)? And last but not least : when the Flemings continue to give Wallonia about 6 billion (billion in the thousand times a million sense) euros a year, and watch their money being wasted (essentially).

I consider it my duty to spread information about the Flemish cause. It's not because a certain Flemish party striving for independence is far-right, that Flemish independence in itself is a bad thing.

Very kind greetings, Evilbu 21:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to get into the rights and wrongs of this. If the situation is as you describe it, then 'serious' might be a good categorisation. It sounds similar to the situation in Canada. DJ Clayworth 21:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have mentioned that you moved the old abuse Wiki, I would like to know where you moved it to. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Matt Pizzashack (talk • contribs) 01:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Hi DJ! I noticed you were the original creator of the article Allied invasion of Italy. I have been working with the article, since it was tagged with {{Cleanup-date|June 2006}}. If you have time and interest, please let it have a look from the DJ :). For instance, I have added an infobox, but Axis casualties are missing, and I am not sure whether the Allied casualties are correct. My regards, and Merry Christmas, --Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 19:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The December 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject 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.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the past you have participated in discussion about this guideline, or voted in it's acceptence. There is currently a discussion about a partial rewrite of this guideline. The discussion could benefit from some more input. Thank you for your contributions. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 16:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The January 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject 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.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 20:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!

Delivered by grafikbot 10:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 13:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DJ Clayworth. As a prominent contributor to World War II, you may want to be aware that a request for comments has been filed about it. The RFC can be found by the article's name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found on Talk:World War II, in case you wish to participate. Thank you for your contributions. -- —Krellis (Talk) 18:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The February 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 14:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I don't want to sway you in one direction or the other on this topic, but could I get you to look at this, then give me your honest opinion?

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sue Rangell/B.R.I.T.T.A.N.I.C.A.

Sue Rangell^{[citation needed]} 18:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why'd you delete what I wrote about Clockatoes a long time ago? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.184.32.37 (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The March 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject 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.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 18:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Do these exist.?User talk:Yousaf465

"Niggeria" is both 1. the Sicilian spelling of Nigeria (per the article in Sicilian Wikipedia) and 2. a typo in English for Nigeria. So why is Niggeria a protected title rather than a redirect to Nigeria? I saw no AFDs for that article; all the deletions in the article's deletion log (one of which was performed by you) appeared to be speedy deletions without any reference to a rationale on WP:CSD. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 01:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Normandy has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. User:Krator (t c) 01:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like this settled one way or another. Click here to comment. Thanks. --Soulscanner 09:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per you edits to World War II, please consider commenting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Axis plans for invasion of the United States during WWII. -- Jreferee t/c 06:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]