scattering ashes

I have nominated Wp.neo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 04:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw Mac's talk page. It's a shame it had to end like that, but I'm glad no-one has to clean up after him any more. Good work. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 21:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your question here on Jpo's talk page asking how the oil pice graph was created. I'm also interested and have created this mini-chart to temporarily bring the uses of Image:Oil Prices Medium Term.png up to date. Do you have the complete data set from 1994 up to 2005 by any chance? If yes, anyone can create an up to date chart by adding the latest 2008 data - see User talk:Dikteren. 84user (talk) 18:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can I ask you to review your WP:TW reversion of this edit I made? I too am a Twinkle user and while we might disagree on parts of the edit seeing it described as vandalism is very disappointing. Thanks Nelson50^T 10:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Noted your reversal of my addition to the Unusual Deaths page, is there a suitable spot for those whose passing is ironic?

Regards, WaltTFB (talk) 10:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent edit that added organizational structure to Template:Close relationships. I wonder if you would also be willing to edit Template:Close relationships/doc, adding a sentence or two updating the description of how the template is organized (i.e. it's no longer in strictly alphabetical order, etc.)? Thanks! (sdsds - talk) 04:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. NJGW (talk) 05:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(sdsds - talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!=) P.S.: Thanks for your super-quick and high-quality work! (sdsds - talk) 05:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Lucian Sunday's pointless edits are back. As you made the first move, and seem to know your stuff, could you keep reverting and perhaps request a semi-protect? Sunday is a serial pest.-VulgarKeynesianMilitarism (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep an eye on the article, but you should be careful as some of your edits are crossing the line more than Lucian's. If you get too passionate, you're judgement may suffer. NJGW (talk) 05:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before nominating a page for speedy deletion, you really should check that it hasn't already been declined, and if somebody other than the author (or his sock) removes a speedy template, that's it. reverting the legitimate removal of a speedy template isn't the way to proceed. AfD is. Mayalld (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the guidelines at wp:speedy, it wasn't a legitimate removal. NJGW (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the help with the article. The afd discussion unfortunately brought out all the anti-Israel editors with ulterior motives, but we'll hope the closing nom will see through all this nonsense. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For tirelessly monitoring, editing, and reverting vandalism on List of unusual deaths. JeffJ (talk) 18:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A barrel of oil produces a certain amount of energy. The cost of nuclear, wind and coal energy is calculated based on the cost to produce that same amount of energy with those technologies. GreenReaper (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's all well and good, but it's impossible to tell that line of thinking from the template. It's too cluttered, doesn't provide the information you just gave me or that information's relationship to the table, is very time sensitive, and isn't representative of the topic non-conventional oil (so it doesn't really belong in the lead. It's an interesting comparison though, and the information should be included where it is relevant. NJGW (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello NJGW - Thanks for your edits/research on the LBH page. I am the editor who has been locking horns with "58" over what started as a simple point of chronology - when exactly did Custer divide the 7th Cavalry into the units that we all know fought in the battle - but has mushroomed into an argument over what constitutes WP:RS and whether that should matter, according to User:58.165.128.120. I note in one of your edit summaries you suggest that someone should be pursuing the matter of credible evidence further - that could/should well be me, since rather than revert 58's inference I placed the dubious and source tags after the statement in question. I just haven't had time to get back to it after a fairly intense several days, as ny recording of te dispute on LBH Talk demonstrates. However - User 58 seems a tad more open to discussion on his talk page User talk:58.165.128.120 with his last note as of 1/11, and I intend to respond in kind on hi page when I have the time. Thanks for taking care of that big mess of stuff that you removed from LBH - much of it was inference and was WP:OR anyway. Sensei48 (talk) 05:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thom Hatch redux - Hi again NJGW - Got your message the other day but couldn't respond due to work overload.I will certainly put the Hatch page on my watchlist and try to prevent any references to it from creeping into the LBH article, in which I know that you have a considerable interest in keeping NPOV and accurate, as I do. There's been no further movement in the edit dispute that brought Hatch in, and I just haven't had time yet to revisit the issues with User58etc., who at least has backed off making further highly idiosyncratic edits for the moment. Still have to get to that divisiion of command thing, thugh - 58's source material removes the single leg he was standing on. Regards, Sensei48 (talk) 05:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why you stalking me 01:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC) I kidding —Preceding unsigned comment added by Banana254 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you deleting sourced information from articles? NJGW (talk) 02:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for reverting that. I wonder who it could possibly be ... Cheers, Verbal chat 19:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you know you've got me curious now... I've been trying to ignore drama lately (though I did accidently catch on that Martinphi got the boot recently). NJGW (talk) 20:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know you look in on the Sustainability article now and then and in my opinion it has suffered recently because of a tiny circle of editors who seem overly enthusiastic about the U.N. among other things. I did a bunch of work on it for a while... the history section mostly and some other stuff, but have backed off because of various annoyances. skip sievert (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I kind of let is slip out of my periphery. It looks like it's getting over-tweaked, but I also don't have the time, energy, or desire to barge in on a commitee like the one that's been set up. Some of those editors seem to have a very long-term investment in that article. NJGW (talk) 20:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

whoever you are you can stop vandalizing my user talk page. I would like to be able to talk or edit it without you blocking it. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.241.100 (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have an entire "Natural gas crisis" section that is nearly undocumented (one cited source I added on gas production, and the other is an FAQ on LNG). I am puzzled as to why such lack of proper documentation does not bother you. See WP:Verifiability under "Burden of evidence." The burden of proof is yours: pick whichever citation you want, but it needs to have a good cited source if Wikipedia is going to call it a "crisis". Plazak (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(moved to Talk:Berwyn_Mountain_UFO_incident#2-year_reversion)

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		Thank you for being vigilant in helping to maintain the quality of many energy articles. Johnfos (talk) 01:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the section. I saw it on a Youtube video and looked on other sites to find more info. I'm looking for the best one though. A lot say it might have capsized but i'm trying to find the complete theory. but I removed the section.--VampireKen (talk) 04:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You may be interested in a centralised discussion on the subject of "lists of unusual things" to be found here. SP-KP (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what the cause is or whether this is an isolated incidence. If you feel like it, you could stalk Special:Contributions/RFC bot to see when it edits discussion pages. —harej // change the rules 21:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested the page be moved to a title which I think would give a more objective context to the material. Your input would be valued. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the barnstar, although I feel it is somewhat undeserved given my conduct at Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/lists of unusual things. After my first comment I kind of rushed in without taking the time to fully consider the discussion or any other possible solutions, a little more consideration on my part could have saved us both some trouble. Apologies, Guest9999 (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I knew the page created by someone was deleted before due to Blatant advertising. Basically the page is created based on the English entry Master Grade and High Grade Universal Century which I was also editing before. If spam of removal is placed on this entry, those two aforementioned entries should be also deleted as well because it also solely contain product informations according to your anti-Blatant advertising policy (they also contain prices as well), In my editing summary it is already mentioned it is referencing the Master Grade Entry. Also it looks like somebody is continuing fixing the incomplete part yet. Alanwong43 (talk) 11:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Alanwong43[reply]

Additional Reply: So as the reason of deletion, would you also delete the two entry mentioned above as it cannot be justified by google? I don't think the two article have meaning as well even it was created wrongly by myself.Alanwong43 (talk) 03:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Alanwong43[reply]

Would you consider once again moving the page to something more accurate, such as just "List of Master Grade models", since not all Master Grade models are Gundam models? Tempest115 (talk) 04:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say I necessarily like it, but seeing as how it never should've existed in the first place, oh well. Tempest115 (talk) 03:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but no thanks. I just contributed to the article to make it more accurate; the only Gundam wiki that I know of probably wouldn't benefit from it any more than wikipedia did. Tempest115 (talk) 03:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then how about you remove the "no" and replace it with a hint that there's a separate archive for the big nuclear discussion linked at the top?

As I'd already mentioned I didn't realize that till the second edit either. So the original comment imho deserves to be addressed and it is related to the question of how to improve the article (namely why nuclear power isn't listed. Unlike the original question I think it definitely shouldn't be but we're both unhappy with the way the article justifies that). 93.104.107.84 (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beg to differ with your revert. If you look at the text, you'll see that it does in fact refer to the "Great Big" siege of Bologna, not the "Great" one. I could be wrong, since I am doing this from memory, but I am pretty certain of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.65.217 (talk) 20:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, and I've self-reverted. My appologies. The article gets hit with substantial subtle vandalism from time to time, and most of the anons that use no edit summaries are not being helpful (present company excluded... but please use edit summaries so we know what you're thinking). For some reason the most popular one is to change a Major Major quote to claim it was made by Major Danby (that one gets changed all the time, but a google search--I no longer have the text--always backs up the M. Major attribution). Sorry again about the vandalism claim. Thanks for helping correct the article. NJGW (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the deletion/redirect of one college fight song article that happened to be on my watchlist, then noticed that you'd done the same thing to many others. So I followed the link you provided to the relevant discussion. As I read it, the consensus agreed that non-notable fight song articles should be removed and redirected to the school's main article and that lyrics should be removed.

The part about establishing notablility is identical to general wikipedia policy for any article. Doesn't it follow that deletion/redirects of these articles should also follow general wikipolicy, i.e., a call for discussion on notability followed by a consensus decision to keep, merge, or delete? Suddenly wiping out dozens of these innocuous entries without following standard procedures seems rash and unnecessary. Zeng8r (talk) 01:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted some others as well. The notability of specific articles has to be determined; You cannot just mass delete articles like that. The conversation that you are quoting specifically states that notability is the requirement. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 01:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I came across an article which was a one liner about a college fight song plus lyrics, which lead me to the category full of college fight songs, which lead me to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Fight songs, which you closed last February. I started merging and redirecting the existing articles per that closure, but have been mass reverted has not having discussed the changes (I linked to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Fight songs in my summaries).

A) Could you have a look at my recent contrib history to see if you would agree that my edits were proper per the centralized discussion and Wikipedia policy?

B) If this issue is to be reopened, should it continue on the above centralized discussion, or does it get a "part 2"?

Thanks, NJGW (talk) 03:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that there was no consensus that every single fight song should have an article, but neither was there any that every single one should be merged. The WP:BRD system should work well enough here, but if not, try opening a discussion on the article talk page.

If, other than infoboxes and lyrics, there is just a line or two about the song in its article, it is definitely a merge/redirect.

I would also encourage removing the lyrics from all articles, as there is a definite consensus to do that. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are now 3 editors actively disputing the Centralized discussion (if Cards4life is still disputing). Two are demanding that every redirect have a merger discussion. Note, in some cases the removal of lyrics is even being questioned. Does this call for another centralized discussion, or should I go to some noticeboard?

I guess if people threw tantrums when dates were unlinked, I should have seen this coming. NJGW (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a clear consensus for the removal of lyrics, so I would stand my ground on that one. I don't know if another centralized discussion will generate anything other than a talk shop, but if you want to start one, archive the existing one and restart it. Stifle (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrics (in the public domain) are often useful depending on the context they appear on the article and there is not wikipedia policy preventing their inclusion, only that an article cannot solely consist of them. I would extend this further to say they can not be the primary information in the article (that is you can't simply have an opening saying the name, author, publication year and then just have the lyrics). However, I do not agree with your decision on consensus that full public domain lyrics should never be included in an article. 5 of the 12 comments were supportive of lyrics in some instances and your conclusion on the consensus on that topic seems to be overstated. This should be decided on a case-by-case basis as, in my opinion, inclusion certainly greatly benefits certain articles like Ramblin' Wreck from Georgia Tech in which the lyrics are both wikilinked to provide information as to their meaning and are important for the context of the subsequent details of their historical development and alternatives. CrazyPaco (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now it seems people are being adamant about even the lyrics, and that one-line articles need a merger discussion, and even that it is required to disprove notability rather than visa-versa. One even reverted you saying "article author here...". While I feel confidant that current guidelines and policy have this covered, it seems to me that the best centralized way achieve this without rehashing the same exact conversations 100 times is to create a guideline (it might take just as long as dealing with the 'owners' of each individual article on a case-by-case basis). In your experience, do you think this is a productive route? Or is there a (better) way to create a centralized RFC to support the consensus already created by the centralized discussion? NJGW (talk) 06:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm at a loss, to be honest. The previous discussion suggested that a guideline wouldn't be necessary, but it's probably a good idea to go for one. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)/Sporting groups/Fight songs, perhaps. Stifle (talk) 09:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, before that, let's see about WP:AN. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NJGW, please share your perspective on this issue rather than re-deleting the articles. Mass merging/deletes requires solid justification, which doesn't exist in this case, imo. Zeng8r (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, this has been discussed to death for several months, and nothing was deleted. Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Fight songs is quite justifying imo.

Where? This is what I see:

The result of the discussion was:

• Fight songs do not need special guidelines.
• Some notable fight songs exist, but many of the existing articles about fight songs do not establish their notability.
• Information about fight songs can be included in the page about the institution or its team.
• Fight song lyrics do not belong in Wikipedia articles. If free, they should be in Wikisource; if copyrighted, they should not be included.

Nowhere in that discussion is there any consensus for deleting every fight song article without going through standard notability-establishing procedures. This isn't like a question of libel which demands immediate action; the consensus was to remove lyrics and decide the notability of each entry on a case-by-case basis. Zeng8r (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the discussion (whose consensus does not constitute any wikipedia guideline or policy on the existence of these articles), your mergers and redirects are controversial, which is why they are being reverted by multiple editors. I do agree that articles should not consist solely of lyrics, as that is official policy, and there are many articles that are problematic that you are going after for good reason, but I think you need to slow down to give people time to discuss and improve the individual articles. There are many editors and even administrators that have worked on the articles you are essentially removing. Tagging the song articles for merge is a better way to go about it and gives them a chance and incentive to flush out more information for the article. IMO, it is less disruptive and better etiquette and there is no need to be in such a hurry to accomplish what you are trying to do. CrazyPaco (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with CrazyPaco. Chill out for a bit to give people a chance to discuss and improve. Removing lyrics from articles is fine (unless the lyrics are allowed due to being in the public domain or other reasons); Removing articles and creating redirects in its place is not ok, though. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, the information was not deleted. It was merged. When there are 3-4 sentences saying, "The fight song of X is Y. It was written by Z in 19??," then there's not much of an article to hold on to. When the article was about a notable song, like Anchors Away, I only removed the lyrics. You and Paco should really go through the edits on a case-by-case basis... like I did. NJGW (talk) 01:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went through case by case on a lot of them and removed lyrics. If you think an article should be deleted (or redirected) then do a proposal for deletion (or a merge proposal) so the merits can be argued, just like is done with any article. I don't think anyone is arguing that these articles are immune from anything, just that they should be done on a case-by-case basis instead of mass deleted or changed to redirections. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 03:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it is not my responsibility to show that something is not notable... it is the resp. of those who claim notability to proove that claim.[1] NJGW (talk) 01:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is the responsibility of someone proposing that an article be deleted or merged to officially propose such an action. (see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion) No one is arguing one way or another on that; Its just that mass changes (especially removal of articles) on wikipedia require a different kind of mandate that has not been dictated in this case. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 03:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can't bring an article to AFD if you just want it merged or redirected. Nobody's saying the articles are being deleted or removed; please stop using those words. Stifle (talk) 09:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, AfD is the exact procedure that you use to merge or delete an article. Merging is the exact same procedure as deleting an article on wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Merge and delete. Relevant part at the top: "At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, when an editor wishes for an article to be merged to another article but does not regard the article's title as a useful redirect, the editor often suggests something like, "Merge and delete". The objection is then frequently made that such an action is not possible under the GFDL. This may not be strictly true since attribution of authorship can be maintained in other ways, but it is troublesome and so a merge and delete is not usually done unless there is a specific and pressing problem with the redirect." There is more on procedure linked from there and also at the Articles for Deletion that I already linked to earlier. Merging an article into another article does take a consensus vote unless it meets the requirements of a speedy delete. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 23:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is that not a policy or guideline, I think you're reading that entirely out of context. AFD is not the procedure for merging an article, but when an article has been nominated at AFD, if editors feel that the content should be merged into another article (and kept there), they can suggest so. The aim of WP:MAD is to point out that if an article is merged, a redirect should be maintained from the old article to the new article to comply with GFDL requirements of attributing authors. Stifle (talk) 14:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it is almost finished. I don't think I can take much more of that. Good job for the most part, except where I disagree with you of course ;-) CrazyPaco (talk) 07:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. This is going to improve things no matter what. I agree with 90% of what you think. CrazyPaco (talk) 07:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, looks like I helped make that AN thread way too long for most people to read. CrazyPaco and I worked out a table that lists both sides' main points, but no one is commenting on it, and now that we're on a similar page I think we might be on the wrong board anyway. I want to copy the table somewhere else for comment and consensus, but I'm not sure where the most appropriate place would be... what do you think? NJGW (talk) 03:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't know. In fact, I'd rather stay well clear of this debate. Sorry I can't be any more help. Stifle (talk) 14:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you are adding the sustainability categories that I have been removing. I have started a thread at Category talk:Sustainability to discuss it. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{Wrong one) I think so too, but who? Will check back after I finish my current probelm. Dlohcierekim 01:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(moved discussion to talk:Depression (economics))

hello. you shouldn't have undone it because Zarbon (Zabon) is a name pun of the Pomelo. all you have to do is type the two together on google and you will find many sources referencing this. I'll explain to you if you'd like. The Pomelo fruit is known as a Zabon in Japan. This animated character that was created in Japan was named Zarbon (or Zabon). Either way, the creator, Akira Toriyama named the character after the fruit. He also named a lot of other characters after fruits. For example, if you would like, please check out the Durian fruit here on wikipedia. He named a character Dodoria after the Durian fruit. These are all name puns and are all highly accurate. If all his name puns are listed on all other fruits, then why not list the Pomelo as well as it's a fruit he used in his naming. Also, for more, please check the "origin and nomenclature" section of the Pomelo page here on wikipedia. You'll see the "zabon" already listed as reference for you. - Zarbon (talk) 00:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you call my tags on Feminine essence theory of transsexuality pointy? I was very careful and serious about each tag. Dicklyon (talk) 01:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I would never assume that anyone is acting in bad faith. I know that everyone is acting out of the best possible intentions in order to obtain the best possible end result. If you felt that I somehow accused anyone of bad faith, please note that this was never my intention. If you feel the need to arbitrate any dispute with guidance from a neutral third-party not invested or biased in said dispute, then I am always willing to participate in such arbitration. Thanks again. --Xaliqen (talk) 05:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cross posting for continuity. Hi, I noticed you 4im'd Barnstarr (talk · contribs). If you check their contribs, they have already impersonated an admin and committed a personal attack outside of the page you deleted. I think this is a sock of a blocked user, but I'm not sure who. I put them on AIV, but they are being slow to act. NJGW (talk) 01:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Like Tiptoety said, he's now indef blocked. I'm not much on trying to figure how who's the sock of whom. And eluding a CU is easier than you might think. If they have some sort of problem that leads to objectionable behavior, it is noticed by and by and then they are blocked just following the normal process of revert, warn, block. Certainly this was an obnoxious person for whom a block was inevitable. Some sort of attention seeker, I'd say. Also, for someone like this who is not quite up to the immediate blocking offered at AIV, one can always report at WP:AN/I. Cheers Dlohcierekim 13:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dicklyon has added another seven tags to the same page, albeit in different places and 28 hours after the first tags. I've noted this at the AN/I discussion. Is this something I should report at 3RR or let go of?
— James Cantor (talk) 16:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responded at ANI. NJGW (talk) 16:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am having trouble interpreting you. To be specific, I can't tell what in "In my opinion, Jokestress' comparison of psychological theories she dislikes with demonic possession is counterproductive. I invite her to provide her criticisms with non-provocative language" is emotion or conjecture. (As you might imagine, there is a very long history here, and I have done my best to drum such vagaries out of my language.)

Jokestress has now said (among other things), "James Cantor exists on Wikipedia solely to promote the work of himself and his friends." [3] Do you believe that it would be inappropriate of me to say that that is also counterproductive (nevermind quite counter to my edit history)?

— James Cantor (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are calling her biased and she is calling you biased. These are not comments which help create a better article. Both of you should focus on the main (and valid) points of the other, and ignore comments and perceived comments which have been leading to off-topic arguments. NJGW (talk) 22:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your input, and I think your efforts to help mediate the content dispute speak very well of your WP-citizenship. (I also hope you are indeed successful at brokering a logical solution.) However, I think only that you are mistaking my role at that page. Due to a very long series of conflicts (involving Jokestress, Dicklyon, and me), I have ceased editing that page several weeks ago. I have made a rather public statement to that effect recently on my user page, and I suggested that Jokestress and Dicklyon also walk away from the problematic pages.[4] I also generally refrain from commenting on the talkpage of feminine essence, due to it now being the centre of the firestorm. I chimed in to the talkpage only to ask that, if those folk are going to participate there, that they do so without personal attacks against me. (I don't see where I called anyone biased, but I am not immune to poorly phrasing things.) If there is any other action I can take, I am sincerely open to hearing it.
— James Cantor (talk) 23:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been working on the peak water article and got to a point where I wanted to submit the article for GA review. The one reviewer that read it through failed it for a couple of what seems to me like a few very arbitrary reasons. Could you read it through and give it a good, thorough copy edit? I am submitting the article to a group GA review.Kgrr (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the caption I added is "original research"-- the image speaks for itself in terms of what it depicts. I revised slightly-- when I edited it I was trying to type one-handed with a squirmy dog on my lap. But feel free to fix it if you like. Crypticfirefly (talk)

Hi. Got your regarding [:File:Swoopo Screenshot1.png]. You say "Screen shot used to promote website. No critical commentary at the article... now orphaned..". Firstly, its just a screenshot of swooopo.com, not intended to promote the website. Secondly, absence of critical commentry int he article does not mean you should delete this image. Thirdy, the image was orphaned because you removed it from the article. If you want the pic to go away, come up with some better reasons. By the way, if you insist on removing the image, go ahead; once its gone, do upload & insert a new screenshot of the site into the aritcle. Don't just delete stuff other people worked on and then make leave the article worser than it originally was. If you have a problem, fix it, i.e. come up with a better screenshot, and insert it in the article in place of the current one. Good bye. Arjun G. Menon (talk · mail) 17:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to this diff, where you stated your concern as "Screen shot used to promote website. No critical commentary at the article... now orphaned.". And that wasn't from a template built on Wikipedia image policy. The value of the "concern" parameter in that template are your words, and that's my point of contention. Arjun G. Menon (talk · mail) 20:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the article GMail, there is a screenshot of the website. Why is it OK to have one there, but not on Swoopo? Arjun G. Menon (talk · mail) 20:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that having a screenshot in a website article is a violation of Wikipedia policy, then prove it at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions. The article Gmail does have a screenshot just like Swoopo did, so if having a screenshot of Swoopo is a violation, so is the screenshot of GMail in the Gmail article. Arjun G. Menon (talk · mail) 20:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Let the image go away. BTW FYI I was just trying to make the article look nicer. Arjun G. Menon (talk · mail) 21:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still having this problem or has it gone away? Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 20:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know... I've just been adding subsequent warnings manually to avoid it. I'll try it out and let you know if it repeats again. NJGW (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate it. If it is continuing to happen I'll definitely open a MediaWiki bug for it. I just opened another MediaWiki bug today for WP:TW/BUG#TW-B-0250, which is why Friendly's talkback function wasn't working on my talk page at the time. Cheers! Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 21:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your comment on my talk page.--Srleffler (talk) 00:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance, ColourWolf and Yasis are two totally different sock-operator. ColourWolf focuses his efforts on Singaporean TV or movie articles, and occasionally science fiction novels (but those edits are minor, but "constructive"). I will take a detailed look tomorrow, as I am going to bed as we speak.

Stay tuned for more details. Arbiteroftruth ^{Plead Your Case} 07:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re this reversion, I don't see why it's "too broad"...various kinds of longhouses are given in that book, from the one coast to the other; yes, hogans and pithouses an tipisare in there, too, but I've never seen detail of this kind and thoroughness on physical structures of the NW lonhouses; in time there will be a separate article on that region's architecture (not just longhouses, but bighouses and certain other kinds of structures also); User:OldManRivers has been meaning to get to it. But I don't see how any "further reading" could be "too broad" for an article that essentially is already very broad in scope....Skookum1 (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize that article didn't already exist... once it's up I would support keeping links more separated according to topic, but if there isn't a suitable article then it does seem to be a good rational for keeping the link there. NJGW (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem, or I didn't notice, that "further reading" was attached to any one section/ region....the book AFAIK also covers wickiups and Algonkian longhouses.....I found it while looking up "Haida Islands" (which aren't the Queen Charlotte Islands as you might expect) but happened to find it....User:OldManRivers is on intermittent Wikibreak, it's his own specialty and he's more sensitive to cultural issues/distinctions than I woudl be, or I would have started it along time ago.Skookum1 (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help, although it was very frustrating at first since I am still fairly new to this. Albertoeba (talk) 01:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help, although it was very frustrating at first since I am still fairly new to this. Albertoeba (talk) 01:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please take a look at the Discussion page of Electro Muscle Stimulation and reply, under Precautions?--Gciriani (talk) 13:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theia is a Goddess and since gave birth I assume she is a girl so that would make her a she. Like ships are referred to in the feminine I would like to think a a female named planet could also be referred to in the feminine. I'm researching and fleshing out my knowledge of Theia and the grand Impact big splat theory. I'm not trying to be a vandal. The Poetipedia was a humorous slight but I believe that the celestial motion of the planets can be described not math but poetry as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogerspeed23 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 19 February 2009

Theia (planet) is not a goddess. Your written English is not great, so please refrain from trying to improve already good writing. NJGW (talk) 05:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it seems that my edits aren't all of them just vandalism now.

Interesting, because I am told that my account is a SPA.

Besides, all my contributions to the Portuguese Name article were unsourced. They are all true, but they are not "verifiable". Other editors would have deleted them, calling them vandalism, in a quite happy way. Is there an inconsistency here? See, for instance, the discussion in the White Latin American talk page, under "New Picture for Argentine Section.

How comes I can't remove my own "vandalism" from Portuguese Name, but I am told I need a source to state something so freakingly obvious as "people don't speak Portuguese with a Spanish accent in Rio Grande do Sul"?

Thank you for your patience. Ninguém (talk) 11:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NJGW, considering how the "discussion" is going on the Talk page, I'm thinking it best to not engage, especially since all points were thoroughly discussed last year (unless something new comes up). I plan to just make edits which reflect consensus or guidelines policy. Thanks for the help and your efforts to improve the article.
Jim Dunning | talk 05:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. It looks like it will just go in circles. NJGW (talk) 05:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is it that I am involved in an "edit war" and you are not? You reversed my editing of the introductory sentence in the second paragraph for no good reason. I (yes, I'm using the first person pronoun) merely took out words of Mr. Dunning's that were superfluous. I simplified the text and made it more accurate. YOU on the other hand only justified the reversal with an opinion.

How can I reach a compromise with you and Mr. Dunning when you seem to be unwilling to give even a simple edit like the aforementioned one a chance. It appears that you in particular are engaged in undoing ANY edit of mine for ulterior motives. Making threats of blocking a user, is also grounds for sanctions. Please do not continue to do this. This is no forum for a personal vendetta. 21:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Once again, making THREATS is not helping anyone. I WILL, however remove the word "alleged" from the Misogyny article, ONLY because it has been addressed in the discussion page. I do not not feel it was adequately resolved however. The edit of the second paragraph in Themes will however remain. It was a legitimate edit that was an edit that you reverted for no good reason. Rapparee71 (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NJGW, nice job on expanding and merging that religion theme passage.
Jim Dunning | talk 05:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm sure there's much more out there on the subject which could be used to explore the theme more, but this isn't my area of expertise. NJGW (talk) 05:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your suggestions and help. Best wishes. Ikip (talk) 05:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I marked it minor as it was minor, thanks for the reminder though. El Machete Guerrero (talk) 02:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it's time for the IP to start discussing it on the talkpage as he already broke the 3RR and I could report him if I want to. His first revert was after Largo Plazo made an edit, then when Largoplazo reverted the IP's edit he again reverted Largo. Then I reverted the IPs edit and then a 3rd time he reverted mine, in the process breaking the policy then I made a second revert and then he again made a 4th revert showing know respect for policies and on top of that he warns me with the the threat of being blocked. Go and stick your nose on his page instead of mine, and if you do you will see largo has already warned him of this nonsense not long ago. El Machete Guerrero (talk) 13:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am aware of the technicality but if you are going to game the system like he has really the 24hr rule does not come in to effect. Sorry I don't mean to have a go at you, if that is what you feel I am doing, but I don't feel I am the one that should be warned, I think he should be seeing how he is well aware of the rules. Thanks for the advice though, cheers El Machete Guerrero (talk) 02:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Explain your reasoning behind reverting my edits, please.Spring12 (talk) 22:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They violate wp:UNDUE. Like I said in the edit summary. NJGW (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]