This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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

Stubs List of Maine State Routes - List. Declined. Maine State House - Repeat suggestion. Decline again. Fort Knox, Maine Done. List of ship launches in 1901 - List. Declined. John Baldacci Current ME governor, in good shape but can't fully destub until he leaves politics, if then. Declined. Enford James B. Longley, Jr. Allegheny Front Oak Hill High School (Maine) - Repeat suggestion. Decline again. List of ship commissionings in 1902 - List. Declined. Loretta Swit Interstate 195 (Maine) Maine Maritime Academy Islesford, Maine Took a swing at it, but this needs library research. Territory of Sagadahock Repeat suggestion. Great idea, but I don't have any sources. Declined. Lake Lanier Finnegan the Poet In decent shape, and not to my tastes to edit. Declined. Saco Bay Done and DYK nominated. Trinity College (Vermont)

Cleanup Fauna of Maine Dartmouth College v. Woodward Already done by others. Cleanup tag removed 12 June. Book of Isaiah Merge Elk River (East Tennessee) Done. Volunteerism Kentucky River Done. Add Sources Sophie Koelemeij Already done by others. Unreferenced tag removed 14 June. Ecclesiastes Eleutheran Adventurers Wikify Hans Henning Atrott Pazardzhik Already done by others. Wikify tag removed 25 June. Great Commission Latin America I prod'ed for lack of a WP:RS. Deproder wikified. Expand Dofus Done. Shrunk article - Wikipedia is not a game guide. Richard Li Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge

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

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

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 21:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great work in de-stubbing the article, I just wanted to point you to template:cite encyclopedia for that Harper reference. I couldn't look up a copy of it on the web, so I can't readily fill it in the proper way. You might also want to take notice of the slight alterations I made to the other refs (adapting first/last/coauthors formats and applying publisher instead of work, mostly.) and the fact the cite_foo templates all have lowercase parameters. Hoping to see more good work from you. Circeus 04:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about rabbit agility or rabbit hopping so afraid I can only come to the same conclusion as anyone else from looking at the pages and following the links: that yes, there are people out there doing this. Must leave it up to you whether it should be in Wikipedia. AgilityAddict 15:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been hearing about rabbit agility almost since I started doing dog agility 11 years ago and people have been emailing me about it since I started our club's dog agility web site 8 or 9 years ago. I'm sure that it's not as widespread as dog agility, and I've never seen it in person (but then, I've never had the urge to go looking for it), but it seems to be a persistent although minor sport and is worth an article in wikipedia. What's more, there's very legitimate cat agility that doesn't yet have an article and probably should--they have tournaments and specialized equipment and everything. Our club once did an agility demo for an alpaca-owners club who wanted to start teaching their alpacas to do alpaca agility. They probably dispensed with the tunnels :-) but I don't know how far that ever went--you can do a search on the web and see that there are people out there even now doing alpaca agility demos, but I don't know whether it has made it to being an actual sanctioned sport with competitions or is just a novelty act. Elf | Talk 14:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Not sure what category to put them in, so I didn't--although you'll see that the agility dab page has had links for these for a while. Now I'm off--again-- Elf | Talk 15:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You voted to replace with a stub - you can do it even as the AfD is ongoing - and I think you should. - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the article Erasmus Mobilty Program, which you tagged for speedy deletion with the reason "This article was created in the last 48 hours and all of its revisions are blatant copyright infringements, taken from the website of a commercial content provider (http://www.erasmus.metu.edu.tr/erasmus.htm), with no assertion of permission", I wanted you to know that I have removed the speedy deletion tag. This article does not qualify for speedy deletion because a .edu site is not a commercial content provider. If you still want the article to be deleted, please use the WP:CP process. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 14:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted your deletion tag as I was finishing writing the article and only saved it the first time because I had to step away from the computer. I have added the author's works as well as his books that have been adapted to film.-Bri 14:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added some categories and an external link. Now it should be firmly a decent article.-Bri 15:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thoughtful comment on the Wayne DuBose AfD. I'm always afraid when I'm out of my field that although the article doesn't establish notability, the subject might really be notable and I've just missed the external resources that make that clear. It's always great when somebody who really knows a domain can come by with both an intuitive judgement about the notability of some article and the ability to explain that judgement clearly. William Pietri 18:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno about getting out of the way. Im just doing some quick work in organising a template, and in that context it seems necessary to have some focus on the religion dimension, as there are valid subarticles which need reference. Im about done for today myself.-Ste|vertigo 22:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me. I'd just like to have a smooth transition process to userspace. I'm going to volunteer User:Rfrisbie/Userboxes as a place for any orphaned directories and/or archives. Rfrisbie^talk 02:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I posted my offer at GUS and the Beliefs page. I think the structure is in place to make a relatively smooth transition to User:Rfrisbie/Userboxes/Beliefs. Any boxes that need/want moving can go to User:Rfrisbie/Userbox. What else can I do to help?

Rfrisbie^talk 03:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know that your proposed deletion notice was removed by 84.45.170.27 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • block user • block log) without comment. Feel free to start an AfD article if you'd like, or you can tell me what you'd like to use as a deletion reason and I can list it for you. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 07:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, nevermind, it's been deleted now. Happy editing -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 09:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! The following are alleged to be your comments from the Cartooning Team X page: "Intramural hockey teams are not notable, no matter how badly they lost every game. This should not be included because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." refactored to include the concern in a prod I made without prod'ing this page GRBerry

Thank you for your interest in this article and particularly for your input. I have dismantled the previous article, thanks to your critique.

I am particularly driven to comment on your idea that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Question: If there were an actual place called Brainless Inlet, NWT, Canada, without a soul having set foot on it, or even caring it ever existed, does that make it an indiscriminate collection of information, or a factual, valid part of world geography? In other words, doesn't everything that has ever existed in the physical world have the right to be so documented? Toonguy85 00:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the prod of the article, because it appears from the article that he has won at least one sports competition and has been interviewed as a top young entrepreneur by a reputable magazine. You may AfD the article if you wish. Regards, Kimchi.sg 07:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		In view of your having stated better than any other AfD participant the reasons for which the wishes of an individual apropos of the deletion of an article of which he/she is the subject, and, more specifically, any objective presentation essayed to demonstrate the deleterious effects suffered by a subject that he/she can reasonably attribute directly to the existence of a Wikipedia article, are wholly irrelevant to our encyclopedic purpose and ought to be discounted in our evaluating articles per, inter al., WP:NOT, especially in such circumstances as the community is linked inextricably to the subject, lest the sympathy of individual editors for the subject should cause editors to treat an article exceptionally, and in view of the self-evident import of our editing disinterestedly and dispassionately vis-à-vis our subjects to the continued propitious growth of the encyclopedia, I recognize your dedication to our first principles. Joe 06:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you will appreciate, this is rather a diffuse note by which to convey my appreciation for your having cogently and rationally noted that which many were ostensibly afraid to observe, and you surely oughtn't to feel that you must preserve it on your userpage as a traditional barnstar; take it, instead, as an acknowledgement (as if from on high!) of your appreciation for the nature of the project. Joe 06:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, GRBerry. Thanks for your input at Talk:Mami Wata. User:Mwhs seem to have completely shut me out now and has apparently lost all faith in my good intentions. In addition to keeping the argument from the source that they have agreed not to use (the book by their organization's founder, Hunter-Hindrew), they are now citing their organization's leader, alias Mama Zogbé, directly in the article. In the meantime, I am reading the scholarly literature on the subject (had a very fruitful trip to the library yesterday) and will be preparing a reliable version of the article in my user space. However, I am beginning to fear that a Request for Comment on Mwhs's behavior is becoming more and more necessary. I might try to convince Mwhs to try WP:Mediation first, but I'd like to have my version of the article ready to go before I do. At any rate, RfC about user behavior requires that at least two users have contacted the problem user and tried to resolve the dispute. If it comes to it, would you sign on as having done this? I'm still not giving up all hope, but now the article is citing a UFO researcher as proving that Mami Wata comes from the Sirius star system. It's looking pretty bleak. — BrianSmithson 15:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't know much about mythology. We were just debating whether the information about Evan was real or not. I, myself, mostly edit Russia-related articles. --GoOdCoNtEnT 18:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the statement. Regarding the Criticism of Islam RFC diffs, here are the two original diffs; you may want to substitute these for the one diff you presented as I think these show more clearly exactly how it evolved. [1] [2] - Merzbow 05:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi—Boston Latin School and Boston Latin Academy are in fact two separate schools, essentially unrelated. Please weigh in on the Talk page if anything other than the similarity of names prompted your suggested merge. If we don't hear from you, I'll remove the merge box. Thanks. —johndburger 03:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if I talked to you on wikipedia or not. You may want to add yourself to APhiO Wikipedias (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:APhiO_Wikipedians). I'm not sure of your reasons for not wanting to edit the Alpha Phi Omega page, you are certainly experienced enough to edit rings around me. BTW, Girl Scouts is GSUSA, not GSA (Girl Scouts of the United States of America). YiLFS Naraht 16:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The opening sentence is now hyperlinked to main page

Understood. Although all of the user I was requesting support from are members of the same project, and the Barnstar is for contributors to the project. I serioulsy doubt that if anyone who was interested in such a task as maintenance/backlog didnt in some way feel they needed a Barnstar then they would express it my not giving support. Although you have made me see the POV in it, I'm not entirely sure I cant ask for the support. Now if it was an AfD, RfD, TfD, etc etc, or any survey then I know it wouldnt be acceptable :) But I will in fact change my wording nonetheless, because I do not wish there to be any confusion. Thanks. SynergeticMaggot 17:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to ask who "convinced" you that there is no Original Research in the Hermeticism and other thought systems article? I have provided numerous if not bulky examples on the articles talk page. You can respond on my talk page if you prefer. Thanks. SynergeticMaggot 03:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying on the AfD. I just wasnt sure what you meant by it, as you are the only other user who wants the article kept (besides the author, authors normally would). Yet just to let you know, thats a bad reason in my opinion (just my opinion). Content forking only works when it provides justification. SynergeticMaggot 03:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note, separate response to the question asked here, which is different, at User talk:SynergeticMaggot. GRBerry 03:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are more than just two primary rules: WP:NOR#What_is_excluded.3F

• Buddhism section: no citations. Which NOR it is: It introduces original ideas.
• Christianity section: 2 citations. First for Giordano Bruno and second, early christians condeming Hermes (WP:WEASEL). Not enough to substantiate a connection to a major religion such as Christianity. Which NOR it is: It introduces a theory or method of solution.
• Christianity affecting Hermeticism section: No citations. Which NOR it is: It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position.
• Hinduism section: No citations. Which NOR it is: It introduces original ideas.
• Islam section: Same as Christianity. Shows some interaction but no simularity between the two thought systems. Which NOR it is: It introduces original ideas. and It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position.
• Judaism section: Same as Christianity. Shows some archeological simularities, but not enough to substantiate a connection. Which NOR is it: Same as Islam's.
• Taoism section: Connects Taoism through Theurgy to Hermeticism with nothing more. Which NOR it is: Same as Islams.
• Trancendentalism section: Same as Taoism minus a citation.
• Zoroastrianism section: This is subject to debate over the scholarship of the authors being used to document these claims. This more than likely falls under: It introduces original ideas.

• • Merge worthy material (note these are small section that can remain on Hermeticism
• Gnosticism section
• The Occult section - upong recieving citations as there are none as of yet.
• Wicca and Paganism section - does show some sign of connection.

By the way...The point of the article is trying to make it appear that Hermeticism is related to all of those religions via the name "thought systems". SynergeticMaggot 04:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOR#What_is_excluded.3F is an elaboration of what I read as the second primary rule. The basic response to the specific points above WP:AGF plus references means that we should assume the material is in the references until proven otherwise. The discussion hasn't been going on long enough to believe that otherwise is proven. See the discussion at Talk:Criticism of Islam in June by primarily Merzbow and Aminz for a good example of how to work through such a discussion. The page was archived in mid June, here a couple long period before/after diffs: 2 June to linking new blank archive (1 edit before old material removed) and post-archive to 30 June.

I don't see that point in the article. I read the article and concluded that there are minimal or insignificant relationships between Hermeticism and any of the classical religiouns. Since the article led me to the opposite conclusion, I don't see that as the point the article is trying to make. Consider two other hypotherical comparison articles, one on the similarities and interactions between Judaism and Christianity and one on the similarities between Judaism and Wicca. This article falls on every single religion included way short of the hypothetical one on Judaism-Christianity and is instead at roughly the same level as the hypotherical Judaism-Wicca comparison. Someone who looked could find and publish at least a couple points of similarity in these religions (especially between Wicca and the Kabbalah form of Jewish mysticism), but these would be so few and far between as to amount to no significant relationship. That is what I see in this article, and thus why I think it does not attempt to make the point that you do. GRBerry 05:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you for at least taking the time to make a reply. First, no one assumed bad faith, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing up AGF. There is a consensus amoung editors now, and there was a conesnsus amoung editors before AfD, that the article is heavily OR. Even you admit you do not see the point it makes and you find them insignificant. Second, if we are to compare Hermeticism to a list of World Religions, we needs more than minor connections periodically placed throughout the article. As another person on AfD pointed out, if there is a relationship between all of these religions and Hermeticism, then why isnt it on those other religions main articles? Its not, because in religious articles, we tend to look for the best sources available. And none of the sources being used in the article are historians, or scholars, or qualified to make such claims. So let me get off your talk page. Its just confusing to hear you say that there is no justification to keep the article, yet you reached a conclusion to keep it anyway. Thanks for your time. Have a nice day :) SynergeticMaggot 05:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say I saw no reason to keep the article. The hypothetical comparisons were to explain why I don't believe the article makes the point that you think it makes. I said I saw no reason to consider it original research. I also haven't found any other good reasons to delete. I haven't tested non-notability yet, but assuming all those references have material germane to the topic I think it is notable. An unworkable basis for an a article might be another reason for removing. GRBerry 06:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, WP:NN doesnt apply to Hermeticism. But the topic is in the lead/intro of the article and clearly concludes there to be a relationship to all of the thought systems below in the article. And since the majority of it is not cited, its called OR by everyone. When I said you seen no justification, I actually thought you said I don't see a point in the article. but you said I don't see that point in the article.. Sorry, its getting late, or early, which ever :) The important issue here though is the issue of wheter or not there is a strong connection to conclude what the intro of the article is saying. And thats no for the rest of us. SynergeticMaggot 06:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I forgot one more thing. When claims like those in the article borderline on controversial and there are no citations to conclude it, it falls under WP:POV as well. Large chunks of the article have no citations, and are put in by the editors to make the citations look like its citing fact. SynergeticMaggot 06:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The usual responses to POV issues is to 1) flag them and then 2) fix them. Articles that are irredeemably POV are deleted (best X in Y, worst Z ever). I'd never be willing to delete a personal biography as POV. I don't think these topics (it really is trying to cover two topics, each poorly thus far) are irredeemably POV. If reliable sources are available, each can be covered in a non-POV way. If there aren't reliable sources available, then it can't be covered. But until there has been a (possibly tedious) conversation point by point, I can't evaluate that on any other basis than the assumption that there are good sources available. Also, since you have made the OR making a point argument more clearly here than on the AFD discussion, you probably ought to go increase the quality of that argument on the AFD page. I'd be surprised if the closing admin happened to glance here first. The closing admin should see the argument in its best form in order to weigh the strength of the arguments. GRBerry 06:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er. That article isnt a personal biography. A biography is for people. Put it to you this way. I know the author of the article in question (hes in my user box section on my user page). He doesnt have any other reliable sources to prove the article, and since the other users are not the contributers, the burden of proof does not lie with them, but with the contributor. Plus, if deleted, he can take it to deletion review and have it undeleted if he buys a few more books to use as sources. I'm not really worried too much about the closing admin's decision, since there are mroe votes to delete than keep (plus an admin (JKelly) already voted to delete after closing a request made by KV on WP:AN in two places, and there was no justification for KV filing it in the first place. also, he tried to have the AfD blocked and was rejected). If at any time there comes a question of why, then I may show a diff of this page. But if you want, you can list it, or you can blank it all if you want, its pretty long! SynergeticMaggot 06:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your help is appreciated. Unfortunately, this has convinced me to focus on writing a book and leaving Wikipedia to be destroyed by the deletionists until it has a single article.KV(Talk) 11:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Mount Abuna Yosef, which I created Friday. -- llywrch 15:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and put {{db-owner}} on "User:GRBerry/The German Solution" to get it deleted. Rfrisbie^talk 22:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really done! Rfrisbie^talk 22:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete In addition to the usual lack of an assertion of notability; we also get the special bonus of contradicting the one fact about it in the school district article, so there is a WP:V failure to boot. The school district article says that this school hasn't even opened yet, thus bringing in Wikipedia is not a crystal ball concerns to go with the usual Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. GRBerry 02:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the school is going to open in 2006 - It's not like this is just a plan in the CFISD school office - the school will open in 2006. I'm going to try to save the article by adding more information - As much as I can find :) WhisperToMe 05:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn, please email me... thanks. - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on RL vacation, and am on here more than I check my email (less than once a day, so please converse here or on some suitable talk page. GRBerry 17:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No rush. Email me when you return. See ya. - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this heads up! And the last one too. -- Geo Swan 23:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I may very well have been misunderstanding the purpose of this wikiproject, as you suggested. I was frustrated that it didn't say anywhere what its purpose was.

So, is there a place where deletion and sorting wikiprojects are explained?

Thanks again for the heads-up on the attempts to do a class deletion on the Guantanamo articles.

Crzrussian and I had a couple of exchanges today. He didn't apologize, but he did acknowledge it was a mistake to fail to withdraw the nomination once he recognized that his original justification was no longer valid. He blamed ADD and putting his kids to bed. And he said he looked forward to cooperating with me in future. And I told him that I too would look forward to cooperating with him in future.

So, I have to try to let go of whatever lingering bad feelings the experience left me with.

FWIW I am skeptical about crzrussian's view about sending out a limited number of headsup. It is widely practiced. I have never seen any guidelines or policies recommending against it. And I hope you will continue to feel comfortable to send me headsups about things you think I would be interested in as you like.

Now, about the idea of starting a wikiproject to layout the work remaining on the Guantanamo detainees... do you have any advice?

• What kind of mandates are wikiprojects supposed to have? crzrussian seemed to have started that one without reference to anyone else. Is that normal? Or was he only able to do so because his project was so similar to a number of existing "deletion sorting" wikiprojects?
• Following the {afd} discussion I went through all the entries in my copy of the May 15th list of 759 detainees and I culled all those that had been modified, leaving Guantanamo stubs, not expanded. This list currently contains 145 detainees. The modified ones still need a lot of work. In some cases the CSRT section has been expanded, but not the ARB section. Or the allegations have been transcribed, but their testimony has not been summarized.
• I figure consistency is important -- even to arbitrary design decisions. I made a bunch. And I figure if other people are going to do a serious amount of work on these articles I should lay out the standards I have been following so far. Other contributors can disagree with me, and set me straight, if they think those decisions are incorrect. But consistency is important.
  1. When I quote the allegations from the Combatant Status review Tribunals, or the factors from the Administrative Review Board hearings, or the "factors" memos, I don't use quote marks, I indent, using a combination of ":*#". And I put it in italics.
  2. They are often in intalics in the original. Some readers don't recognize that this is quoted material. I found some of the contributors who do automated changes assisted by a robot were correcting spelling and grammar errors in the quoted material. They told they don't read the context, they just make the correction, and if I wanted to preserve the original incorrect spelling or grammar I should used the {{sic}} tag after each questionable instance. So, I have tried to start doing that.
  3. The different Recorders were inconsistent. The word "detainee" is capitalized about half the time. The capitalization can vary within transcripts. I arbitrarily decided to always spell it with a small "d".

Anyhow, there are these and other conventions I used, and, if I am going to encourage other people to contribute to these articles in a consistent way, I should lay them out somewhere, and I guess a wikiproject is the place to do it. I am open to advice.

And again, thanks for the earlier heads-ups.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 18:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is one deletion sorting wikiproject. The page you are referring to is subpage of the already existing project, Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting. As a subpage, the purpose is on the project page, rather than the subpage (and the link thereto is at the top of the subpage.) One of the points of the project is to avoid the need for head's up messages and avoid any risk of making a recommendation about which way to opine in the discusison.

The official discussion of sending out head's up is at WP:SPAM#Canvassing. In essence, it says that a small amount is ok, a large amount is not, that you should not do it selectively to those of the same opinion as you, and it is best if they have made an unsolicited request of you to be kept informed. The page doesn't say it at the moment, but what I've seen as ettiquette is that it is better to say that there is a discussion underway on topic X than to request a particular opinion be voiced in the discussion of topic X. So I, who told only you about it and indicated that I expected you to have a different opinion than me am clearly ok: 1 notice, and not to someone of the same opinion was clearly in the clear, while you who contacted more than one person and were at least seen as requesting a particular opinion set off someone's radar screen.

I've never started a WikiProject, but I did find for you Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide. It says to look at related WikiProjects to see if you can fit in within one of them before starting one. I'm not sure what you might view as related, but a couple I've interacted with once or twice that might be related are Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism and counter-terrorism (which you'd fit better with but I haven't interacted with much) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism (which I've interacted with enough to respect, though mostly one specific user). GRBerry 01:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding solicitation -- I believe I sent out five, and, after following your link, I believe they fall under WP:SPAM#Friendly notice.

Thanks for explaining wikiproject deletion sorting. -- Geo Swan 08:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for the offer - I am going to not watch the page for a few days to see what shakes out without me there - as to the source issue - I removed it for now - it is fairly complicated because of some past "misdeeds" of the promoters of omninerd - so I want to understand that issue better before I jump into a hornets nest :) --Trödel 21:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for correcting my follow-up in the Scientology Public Relations AfD. I was not sure if votes were restarted once the article had been relisted; I know better now. Kind regards Orsini 03:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An article which you have been involved in editing, Nate Chapnick, has been proposed for deletion. If you disagree, you can remove the prod message with an appropriate explanation. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 01:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the extensive Talk:Kyra Phillips commentary before walking in with your nukestick. All statements are verifiably sourced, thus your removals are NOT covered by WP:BLP. FCYTravis 20:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith and actually read WP:BLP and my extensive comment on Talk:Kyra Phillips explaining every detail of the edit. GRBerry 20:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this part of WP:BLP - "In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take information from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." The Southern Voice and Columbia Journalism Review are reliable published sources. Period. End of sentence. FCYTravis 20:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the previous criticsm at Talk:Kyra Phillips of these sources explaining why they are in fact not in the citations offered. Until you address this criticism there and get consensus from other editors, I will continue enforcing WP:BLP The Columbia Journalism Review as a magazine I assume to be a reliable published source, but as you well know, the magazine is not the source at hand, instead the source at hand is a blog that their staff also publishes. GRBerry 20:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have demonstrated that your assertion that the Southern Voice cannot be contacted and doesn't check facts is itself factually incorrect. It took me 30 seconds to find their masthead, which contains an address, telephone number, fax line and the names and titles of their staff - including an editorial staff whose duties presumably are to manage the newspaper and edit stories submitted by the staff, including fact-checking. Thus, I have replaced the link and I expect you to come up with some new arguments if you wish to remove it. Your earlier ones have been thoroughly discredited. FCYTravis 21:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this one seems far too complex for me to enter into (At least without having a full look). Indeed, the whole point of a protecting admin is that he/she doesnt need to know or care about the issue - just see that there are far too many reverts and editing going on, which takes up space on Wikipedia servers, damages the project's image and fills the recent changes.

As a result I won't comment on the issue, or who is right or wrong. What I will say is that such edit wars should always be avoided, no matter how right you feel you are. Remember that Wikipedia is a long term project and that if you feel the discussion page is not producing the correct results, then RfC etc. are there to help you.

I suspect -though I havn't checked fully - that both you and FCYTravis have broken or have come close to breaking the three revert rule. This should tell you that either: a. You are together making insufficient use of teh talk page OR b. You need to take a furhter step down the dispute resolution path.

Whilst the article is protected, try dicussing your differences, or make propsoed edits on a subpage... Robdurbar 22:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we could both use A nice cup of tea, and your protection of the page certainly gives us plenty of time for that. For my own records about this dispute, one of the worst I've been involved in, I'll note the following:

1. I showed up in response to a RFC request by another user, originally [3] but later edited to be more neutral as [4]. As part of having that Tea, I will hope another RFC responder shows up.
2. I believed I was properly enforcing WP:BLP, which if true is an exception to three revert rule. However, I probably should have moved more slowly on my reversions.
3. FCYTravis believed I was misinterpreting WP:BLP.
4. Birdmessenger gave the first (and not necessarily correct) third party view of my actions here [5]. I should have asked him to engage on the article talk page as well. I believe his comments to date have been helpful. GRBerry 23:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies of Living Persons WP:BLP requires a higher wikipedia standard since the Siegenthaler Controversy in December 2005. Articles like these involve WP:LIBEL and WP:NPOV It has been 6 months, and wikipedia still has hundreds of potentially libelious articles.

Many editors and even administrators are generally unaware of potential defamation either direct or via WP:NPOV. To help protect wikipedia, I feel a large working group of historians, lawyers, journalists, administrators and everyday editors is needed to rapidly enforce policies.

I would like to invite you to join and particpate in a new working group, tenatively named Wikipedia:Libel-Protection Unit, a group devoted to WP:BLP, WP:LIBEL and WP:NPOV and active enforcement. From your experience and/or writings on talk pages, I look forward to seeing you there. Electrawn 17:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I jusat spotted the 2 replies (one from you and one from Nicahalp) and finally got round to replying to them :D. (now I am pruning my watchlist from 600 to 300 so I dont miss stuff again!!!). Anyway what I wanted to say is that I also got round to rewording my nom to strike the mis-information i gave about your deprod. Sorry it took so long (and sorry I made the mistake in the first place). Catch you around --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 15:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You closed this AFD as "Merged in to Niagara Falls, Ontario." Oakes Park is now a redlink. Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages says "Merging should always leave a redirect or, in some cases, a disambiguation page in place. This is often needed to allow proper attribution through the edit history for the page the merged text came from. Even if it seems rather pointless or obscure, leave it in place." If you actually did merge, can you undelete Oakes Park and create the redirect as per the guideline on merging? If you didn't merge, can you adjust your closing comment at the AFD? Thanks in advance. GRBerry 02:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving a page to another title creates an automatic redirect, say from Oakes Park to Oakes Park, Ontario. I performed a cut-and-paste on the article before deleting the original. A redirect is now in place. (aeropagitica) 07:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond to this: Ref. Thanks. SSS108 ^talk-email 13:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might not have known, but if an article is less than 48 hours old, it can be speedily deleted using the tag {{Db-copyvio|url=http:whereItWasCopiedFrom.tld}}, where the "url" parameter is the URL the text or image was copied from. This gets rid of the copyvio much faster than at WP:CP. If it is older than 48 hours, then list it at WP:CP. It must sit there a while so that Wikipedia forks can copy the copyright notice over the old version of the article. Some forks will keep an old version of an article if the article is missing. Jesse Viviano 20:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could have gotten my talk page mistakenly speedied. If you must include a template in a message, surround it with <nowiki></nowiki> tags, like this:<nowiki>{{Template}}</nowiki>. Jesse Viviano 21:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did User:Halbared hit you up for suspected sockpuppetry? He is accusing me and User:DXRAW of sockpuppetry and vandalism (the two of us participated in the Dave Batista RFC and i am wondering if he accused you of anything, also.) It seems that anyone who opposes what this stupid Halbared guy says gets falsely accused of sockpuppetry. Do YOU think I am a sockpuppet or a vandal? If you check my contribs. i am not a vandal, and the sockpuppet thing-DXraw and i dont have the same IP!!! How the heck can we be sockpuppets or vandals? Anyway, i hope he isnt doing this junk to you. <=-( --Cookie 21:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GRBerry, the court records are published by the County Court Of Orange and are available to the general public for a fee. Since these records come directly from a court of law, that would make them reliable. Just because the case has not been made available on court-record sites does not negate the information or integrity of these court records. I have provided full scans to them, along with information to verify them. The case is not some major suit that is going to be listed on court-record sites. Therefore, the citations to these records are from high-quality sources. They come from an actual court of law. SSS108 ^talk-email 02:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to ask you if your POV Risk And Affiliations is affecting your views regarding this matter since the topic in question is about a Indian Guru? SSS108 ^talk-email 03:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe so. I can't have helped but notice that the subject of the article wears traditional Indian attire, but I'm not sure if the negative material about a living person is about him or a critic - and I don't need to know that, I need to know how it is sourced (the citations showed this) and that it is negative material about a living person (which the RfC and prior discussion adequately showed). I'm enforcing WP:BLP consistently with how I have done so at Seth Finkelstein when BLP was guideline instead of policy (where if you can see in the article history that User:Jimbo Wales agreed the material I had removed should be and stay removed) and at Kyra Phillips (not yet resolved). If there is a shadow of doubt, the material should stay out until there is consensus on the talk page that it is adequately sourced, where consensus certainly means more editors than just the one arguing for inclusion. GRBerry 03:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GRBerry, thank you for your comments. However, there happens to be a very active Christian & Christian Counter-Cult Anti-Sai-Baba movement and it just does not feel right for you, a member of a "non-notable, non-denominational, evangelical, semi-charismatic, and semi-fundamentalist church that was a church plant of a Southern Baptist church" to be making the call on a controversial Indian Guru. Having said this, I think your assessment sounds fair and seems to be based on Wikipedia policy. However, can you kindly tell me where this RFC was filed and how I can request other editors to weigh in? I do not believe the RFC was made known on the Sathya Sai Baba talk page. Thank you. SSS108 ^talk-email 21:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GRBerry, thank you for your comments. However, the instructions for a RFC are clear (yes I know what the acronym stands for).

• Instructions

1. Create a section for the RfC on the article Talk page with a brief, neutral statement of the issue. Example
2. In the relevant topic area, listed below, link to that section on the Talk page.
3. Sign entries with the date only. Use five tildes: ~~~~~.
4. After all parties agree the issue has been resolved, strike it from the listing.

Andries stated he was filing a RFC but never posted the direct link for this RFC on the Sathya Sai Baba Talk Page. The RFC instructions were not followed, I was not directly informed about it (although I was a party to the discussion) and I never agreed to the issue being resolved before you proceeded with your edit. That is why I asked. It appears whomever filed this request did not follow procedure. Am I mistaken about this? SSS108 ^talk-email 02:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you posted a note to me on my talk page. Thanks for the kind welcome!

I am pretty new at Wiki processes. Is that the closest that Wiki gets to a Private Message? (I am a programmer and I have some fairly extensive experience in maintaining and debugging discussion forum software.) Is this < right here ... on your talk page> how I am supposed to reply to your message? I am curious. The thought that I can only wipe my talk page to clear off your message from public, thus having no convenient record of the message, seems a little odd.

Re: Signing my name with the four tildas

I am aware of that bit of know-how, and if I failed to sign my name somewhere, it would only be because the system's time-out feature logged me out before I posted, and I didn't realize it, or... I may have just forgotten. If you saw evidence of that, would you mind letting me know where, so I can fix it? Thanks. DougJoseph 02:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I really appreciate the helpful info. DougJoseph 05:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help!  :-)

On this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oneness_of_God

I posted the following:

\{\{help\}\} (without the slashes)

Request that this redirect page instead be a disambiguation page.

There is "Christian Oneness of God" and there is "Muslim Oneness of God" (and perhaps others).

Searches for the ambiguous term "Oneness of God" are now automatically leading (via redirect) to a (presumably) Muslim page (Tawhid).

What is needed is for searches for the term "Oneness of God" to go to a disambiguation page, and there have links to both the Christian Oneness of God article(s) (or an index of Christian Monotheism articles) and also to the Muslim Oneness of God/Monotheism page(s) (presumably the Tawhid page?)

I would simply do it right now, but I don't yet know how. I need to learn how to do it, and will, given a little time. But in the meantime, if someone can give us a little guidance or help it would be appreciated.

The Help Tag made some text appear, that offered a link where I post a question, but the link was no good. Any advice or guidance would be appreciated.

DougJoseph 19:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying the situation for me, confirming the policy. —Xyrael / 16:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: disambiguation page help -- Thanks again. DougJoseph 02:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed when you closed the above AfD, you did not remove the category template, "REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD". By deleting this when closing it pulls the discussion out of the category. I have deleted it from this discussion, but if you could review any other closures you have done recently and remove the tag from them it would be greatly appreicated. Thanks. --Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.