User talk:Rklawton

Ellis Paul wiki dates

I've been removing the wiki links for dates that you've been adding since the Manual of Style says to make only links relevant to the context....PLUS the Wiki editor who did the peer review told me ONLY to Wiki link FULL dates - date and year. Please don't link any more dates and years that are separate. Thanks you for your help. Kmzundel 03:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Of course I don't want to screw things up. I'm putting my heart and soul into this trying to do the best job that I can!....and trying to follow guidance as it's given. Kmzundel 03:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments

First, Rklawton looks too obstinate, but then you understand that he just wants to be as fair as possible. Overall, I would say that he is a great asset to Wikipedia, and he made me like Wikipedia even more. ~~by TheLinguist~~

ADARSH SAMAJ SAHYOG SAMITI bites the dust

You had commented on this article. We all thought it was probably pretty marginal, but the way it was deleted seems a bit gratuitous.

--A. B. 17:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

PS I see you went to Rice -- what a great school. My son just started there last fall (and before you ask: Sid Rich).

Thanks for the heads up. I left a note seconding your concerns. The admin's bio & photo cracked me up... Yeah, I like Red Beans and RICE (JGSA). Rklawton 19:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Adarsh Samaj

I've restored the page per the requests. My reason for the deletion was it does not assert any particular importance, is not wikified, and was titled in all caps (not a good sign for a "real" article). I changed the Speedy Request to a PROD and moved to a proper title. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - and remember, your user page says you like to help out new users. Showing new users how to improve their good faith efforts is a great way to help them out. Deleting their articles is not. Rklawton 19:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Which vs. that

"That" is restrictive and "which" is non-restrictive. "That" is used to present information necessary to clarify the subject: "I want the shirt that is blue." "Which" provides additional information that's not strictly necessary to get the idea across: "I want the blue shirt, which is next to the red shirt." If there are two blue shirts, I need to use "that" to specify which one I'm talking about: "I want the blue shirt that's next to the green shirt." "After Burns left Blue's Clues in 2002, he recorded a rock album, Songs for Dustmites, that was released in 2003." "That" is incorrect here. There's only one rock album; the one recorded after Burns left Blue's Clues. The fact that it was released in 2003 is interesting and pertinent, but not grammatically necessary. That makes it a "which" clause, i.e. it is providing extra information.

See: Strunk & White, The Elements of Style, 4th ed. p. 59 or the style manual of your choosing. Most/all of them will confirm this usage. I've restored the correction to the article. Dppowell 05:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I tend to follow the Microsoft Grammar Checker; that which generally suggests using "that" in most cases. Thanks for the heads-up, though. Rklawton 13:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

From WallWalker

Hey, thanks for the info. I do love my wall walking, so I decided to make that my first article. - WallWalker 00:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Teleflex.

Just wanted to let you know that I'm greatful for your help on the Teleflex, Inc. article. Keep up the great work. Ackander 20:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Message

I got a message from you assuming I did some editing on daVinci code. But I haven't yet edited that page. Then why such a message? I thing u are mistaken.. 61.1.233.245 15:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's the link to the SPAM entry.[1] You'll see that it comes from your IP address. It's entirely possible you are using a dynamic IP address, one that your Internet service provider assigns to dial-up users as needed. In such cases, someone else may have made the entry using the same IP address. You can avoid this problem by creating your own account and password here at Wikipedia. It's easy, it's free, and you won't have to worry about annoying messages left as a result of someone else's work. Rklawton 16:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Homeworld Ship Consolidation

It had been considered to put the ships into a large table, unfortunately they're not just stats. Various descriptions, limitations, uses, special abilities, and development histories are available for a large number of ships. At present, I'm going through and making the skeleton articles without this written information, which will be filled in later.

--Twile 17:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The "Human Calculator" article

Dear Rklawton, gee, thanks a lot for helping me by just now on about improving the two of the both related Wiki-articles of the Human Calculator and Scott Flansburg! Guess I might owe you one! -onWheeZierPLot Sunday, 9th July, 2006ad.

I tried to adjust the style so it reads more like an encyclopedia. All that "Press" crap makes it read like an ad. The article shouldn't focus on what he has to sell. It should focus on his talents and achievements. If the advertisement tone persists, I'm going to tag it for AfD. It won't pass, but an extra dozen editors deleting the "Press" section would do the article some good. Rklawton 19:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Hhmmm..... You might be right about those ad stuffs and you really had some points there. However, I'm still doubt or still not sure about it because I believe there are yet many other Wiki-articles with those similar ads written down as well such as Bryan Berg (take that article for example), in which that article also has a lot to do or resolve with those ads or The Press(es) coupled with a lot of Wikilinks under his article section entitled the "Cardstacker Press"! What do you think and how will you consider about that? -onWheeZierPLot Sunday, 9th July, 2006ad.

Thank you for bringing this article to my attention. Later this evening I will review the article you mentioned and edit it as needed. Rklawton 23:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

+1 to your count. ; ) Restrored your page back from a vandal.

Thanks, he's peeved 'cause his no-hit website is up for AfD. Rklawton 23:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

wtf?

how the hell is it nonsense? its a real site. (by User:Malik1)

Thats why it was in popular culture DUHHH (by User:Malik1)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the recent vandalism on my userpage :). Fabricationary 17:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Reverting "nn events"

I have reverted your edit for the article of June 25. It appears that these events that you have reverted appear to be notable enough to be listed on the page. If you need anything feel free to contact me! Yanksox 21:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm, I have read the page, but the World Cup is a bit more on the global scale and not limiting like an American Sports Championship. I'm also somewhat skepticial of reverting when Political leaders of a medium/large country are placed in office. But that's just me. Thanks! Yanksox 22:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Will do, I've added the page to my talk and will visit it once again to drop in my $0.02. Hope everything goed well with you. Yanksox 22:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, you too. Rklawton 22:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

stop stalking me

Im getting scared :x btw how do I leave a sig or something like everyone else has. Does wikipedia editing use html?

Wont link to my name

whats going on it doesnt link to my name! and how do I add a message to a topic already started? Malik1 15:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Just use the 4 tildes - everything's automatic after that. You don't have to type in your name at all. Rklawton 15:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

DUDE!

What's your deal? It's my talk page. Go back to your nerdery and take more pictures. --Slyder Pilot^E@ 20:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the deal is that you aren't very familiar with the culture here, and you keep butting heads up against it. It's not customary to delete items from you talk page (archiving is a different matter). If you wish to do well on your next RfA, you'll want to avoid (or correct) these kinds of mistakes. Rklawton 20:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Slyder Pilot

I left him a gentle warning on his talk page. We'll see if that does any good. I'm inclined to let the removals he's already made stand, but would take a further line if he does it again in the future. I don't think a formal warning message would help right now - a softer approach may get better results. We'll see. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Best, Gwernol 20:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your approach. Thanks for pitching in. Rklawton 21:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Will read up on archiving later tonight. That is all and good day. --Slyder Pilot^E@ 21:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Band

They actually got a google hit? Whoa that's impressive. --Fearisstrong 03:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Growing Jalapeños

I saw your comment on the talk page for jalapeño that there should be a growing section, but everything I could find on the internet was about growing peppers in general. Maybe there could be an article or a section of the Capsicum page about growing peppers, but I don't feel qualified to write it (and I don't have an account here, anyways). 4.245.149.173 21:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

nn events

What is an "nn event"? I'm assuming it means "not news," but I'm not sure. Could you direct me to an official page explaining wiki policy on dates? Thanks. --Nick 16:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Help dealing with an anonymous uesr?

Hey Rklawton, an anonymous user with IP 128.226.219.107 has added non-notable events (some wedding involving some celeb, and a bachelor party of some celeb, on September 26 and June 10 respectively. I've left three messages on the user's talk page (as well as edit summaries) asking for an explanation, but he/she has not responded. I have made one revert to each page, and the user has made two, almost at the 3RR. Could you tell me what you think about the sitation? Thanks. Fabricationary 22:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :). Glad your power is back - I still have relatives without power, though luckily the power never went out here. Fabricationary 01:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

not vandalism

thank you for the effort lawton, but it was unnecessary. what i did was not vandalism. the user happens to be a friend of mine and the fruit-fucker (which is what the picture is of) happens to be a sort of inside joke (if you read penny arcade, which you should, you would know what i was talking about). anyways, id appreciate it if you didnt baselessly accuse me of vandalism. thanks! Benji64 03:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

youll notice that my version has now been reverted to by the user. please dont think of me as a vandal because im not, and i dont want to be thought of as one. happy editing. Benji64 03:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

My concern that your edits constituted vandalism was far from baseless.[2] Any reasonable person reading your edits to his site would arrive at the same conclusion. It appears one other editor did. However, I am quite happy to stand corrected. Rklawton 07:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Duplicate

If the article on vic vega is redundent then the article on Vincent Vega must be redundent as well! Please, do not leave me messages charging me with vandalism. It is nothing of the sort and the fact that Wikipedia allows an article on Vincent is proof. --SacredVisions 00:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it is me who is confused. Isn't Vic vega and Vincent Vega the same person/character? If so, then the Vic vega article is redundant, any information contained therein should be moved to the Vincent Vega article. Rklawton 00:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

So it was me who was confused (and the Vincent Vega article had a double redirect). At any rate, I've redirected "Vic vega" to "Vic Vega" as per rules on title capitalization. I've removed the redirect from "Vic Vega" to "Vincent Vega" since they are not the same person. And I've moved the "Vic vega" contents to "Vic Vega" because the article already exists, and a move request would first require article deletion. It should all be sorted out now. Don'cha just love three-ways? Rklawton 00:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Vic and Vincent, the same characters! LOL!
Watch the movies Buddy! (Still laughing)

Given that Vic Vegas originally redirected to Vincent Vegas, it's a pretty understandle error. What's not so clear is why you would create an article with a proper name and not capitalize it correctly. Back to you laughing boy. Rklawton 01:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

"You need to find yourself a girl, Mate"

What would I do with another one? Oh...! Rklawton 02:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Blow-up dolls don't count!

See Also section

On Dudley please stop removing the 'See Also' section.If you have a reason for removing that section go to to the discussion page of Dudley.I will be there if you have an answer. --Peace, Cute 1 4 u 03:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm

Dude, stay the fuck off my talk page! --SacredVisions 20:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Wrong guy. User:Slyder Pilot put that message on your page. Check your page's history and then calm down. Rklawton 00:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Apologies. --SacredVisions 01:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Accepted. Rklawton 01:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome

You're welcome, Gwernol 01:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Landon Pigg, WP:CIVIL

ignorant - ADJECTIVE:

• 1. Lacking education or knowledge.
  2. Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.
  3. Unaware or uninformed.

I have not said anything that isn't factual here. You are not educated or knowledgable about the subject whose article you have put up for deletion. Having seen citations and facts, you are choosing to bury your head in the sand. Also known as willful ignorance. That's not an insult, just a description of your behavior. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 21:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You do not know me. You do not know what I know. Therefore you have no right to accuse me or the other editor of ignorance. If you'd rather we let the admins review your comments on the AfD, just let me know. Rklawton 21:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I know ONE thing you know... the media coverage that justifies Landon Pigg meeting WP:MUSIC criteria, it has been shown over and over again in the AfD, yet you keep asking people who vote Keep "How does this meet WP:MUSIC?" Your failure to acknowledge the evidence in front of you makes me suspicious of an agenda that would render the AfD nomination a "bad faith nom." I don't think I would feel that way if you weren't hounding people when they vote Keep. Let's just see how the AfD turns out. When you get a free moment, take a look at my essay, WP:OSTRICH, and you will see where I am coming from. Take care, and feel free to visit my talk page to respond sometime (it's hard for me to keep up with conversations on other people's talk pages!). PT ^(s-s-s-s) 17:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the media coverage came from "RCA's publicity machine," it's still media coverage, and Pigg wouldn't be the first musical act to garner it. Regardless of your taste in music or dissatisfaction with how stars are made in the industry, Pigg meets the criteria on media coverage alone. The major label assocation (even if only one album) helps, not to mention the radio play, song being on a TV show, etc. Citations have been added to the article, and the number of Keep votes in agreement with that make the AfD a forgone conclusion. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 17:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You make too many assumptions. For example, you know nothing about my musical tastes. Rklawton 17:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Only warning template

What do you subst to produce the "This is the only warning you receive" template you put in someone's user talk page?? Georgia guy 01:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm making new article

I'm making the new article Charles A. Lindbergh's Famous Flight. I already went to sandbox. And i'm adding to it, so (if there is any nicer way to say it) please do not change anything. Thank you. User: Himanyo

"jhhjgh" does not constitute an article. I suggest writing the article first, adding it to wikipedia and THEN adding a link within the main article. You seem to have done things backwards. Rklawton 19:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

User:'sed

Thanks for the help with this guy. Much appreciated. Gwernol 20:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

User: Himanyo

Going to add more and the references after i finish the article. fine i'll make it in the sandbox then send it. Anyways I want to make a new article.

Doog

Thanks!!--Bearly541 22:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

He's created seven of these today, and they're all copyvios. Speedy is just the thing for copyvios. I've tagged them all. Cheers! Rklawton 00:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Re:Date Article Holidays

Just to bounce ideas off of you as well before starting a discussion about this on the project's talk page - yeah, I agree about the need for specification. In my opinion, a ballpark figure for a notable world religion would be around 0.1% of the current world population is a member. This would currently be 6.5 million. It may seem low compared to the numbers you mentioned, but considering that religions like Judaism have only 15 million members (about 0.23% of the world population according to Major religious groups), this would be a large enough number to encompass all major world religions (listed in the link above) but leave out religions like Scientology (100,000-500,000 members). As far subdivisions of religion, like Catholicism as a subdivision of Christianity, do you think the same figure (if that subdivision holds a membership of around 0.1% of the world's population) would work? Fabricationary 04:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

That (3.25 mil or 0.05% of the world population instead of 6.5 mil, along with exceptions made for old religions) sounds good - perhaps you should bring this up on the project's talk page instead of me?

And congrats on your impending milestone edit! If you do have an RfA, I'd be delighted to vote in support of you. Fabricationary 18:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

That covers religions. What about observances? We've got 100+ countries out there, and they each have their own national holidays lists. On the other hand, I can't imagine how we'd narrow that down any. On the other hand two or three a month X 200 countries (over estimate) yields an average of two or three entries per date article. Maybe that's not so bad. I think we should exclude state/province/regional official days, though. Thoughts?

And thanks. I've got at least two votes then. Rklawton 18:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

National holidays haven't seemed to be that much of an issue for me. I think listing a country's national holidays, but not the holidays of its states/provinces/cities might be fair. The trickier deal is unofficial holidays, such as Pi Day. Perhaps a good general guideline for those is that if they have their own Wikiarticle that isn't being considered for afd or speedy deletion, they can stay. Fabricationary 19:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Good points and well taken. I'll see what I can draft up. Rklawton 19:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Henry Ford talk page

Do not remove other editors' comments from article talk pages, as you did here.[3]. Edits like this can be considered vandalism. See WP:VANDAL.--Mantanmoreland 21:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

University of Auckland vandal (user "Loserdick")

I see you've met the aptly named user:Loserdick. Perhaps you might have something to contribute at Wikipedia:Abuse reports#University of Auckland vandal ("Loserdick").--woggly 08:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Ripped

I know you have plenty of articles and AfDs you edit and keep track of, so I was wondering if you had another look at Ripped, which has been re-written to take out the PR hype and reflect the notability of the band in question. I hope to see you there, withdrawing your nomination so we can speedy keep. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 18:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

They might meet one criterion for WP:BAND - however, meeting a single criterion does not mean the band has to be included (as per WP:BAND). There should be discussion regarding whether or not the indie label is significant enough and whether or not (possibly) meeting one of the criteria for inclusion is sufficient. As a result, by no means does this article qualify for a speedy keep. It's quality not quantity that makes Wikipedia succeed. Rklawton 19:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Bot Message

This seems really silly, but could you give me the diff of the message in question? I just combed my bot's contribs and could not find your page. I'm sure it's there...but I can't find it. alphaChimp ^laudare 02:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

First off, all the bot is doing is subst'ing per WP:SUBST. All of the templates are added by other users... (I'm sure you've heard this all before, so I won't belabor it). That being said (that my bot isn't warning anybody and the substance or validity of the warnings don't matter to my bot), I'll express my opinion in regard to what you're saying. I could be wrong, but I'm fairly certain I'm getting this right:

It's never appropriate to remove a speedy delete tag, unless you're an admin. Simply removing it is vandalism. Truth be told, I've probably gotten at least 10-20 users blocked for this type of activity. As for the hangon procedure, the proper technique is to append the hangon (typically after the speedy, but it doesn't really matter) and then type a message on the talk page. Here comes my big point of disagreement with what you're saying: administrators visit pages nominated for speedy deletion to determine whether or not to delete them. When you append the speedy delete template ({{db-bio}} is a very popular one), it lists the article in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. Admins go through that category to review arguments and delete articles. If an article is removed from that category (by removing the tag), there is no record of a speedy deletion nom ever taking place.

Also, you might be mixing speedy with prod. Prod is a proposed deletion and you can remove that tag...then go to afd. Speedy relies on WP:CSD, which are pretty rigid. I hope that helps. alphaChimp ^laudare 02:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah! I see about the bot. Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. In further checking, I see we're both sort of right. Here's what one of the tags says: If this page obviously does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. It's the "yourself" part I'd forgotten about. At any rate, I'm wiser now, and I appreciate your assistance! Rklawton 03:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Well Fabricationary and I already cleared that up

As you can tell I am new to wiki and did not realise you were not allowed to ad "non significant" dates to the calander. That being said your comment was not need on this because it was not wanted nor needed since Fabricationary and I already worked it out and the issue did not concern you in the first place. Implying that I am a disruptive users because I am new to a site and do not know all the ends and outs of it is rude and inconsiderate. We were all newbies at one time so please think about what you type before you submit. Thank you, Planb11

Thank you for your message...

Thanks for getting back to me. I first like to apologize if I came off uncivil because that was not my intent. I would just like you to know that this uncivility goes both ways. The way you worded your message made it sound like you were implying that I am a disruptive user whitch is rude. I am not trying to be disruptive. I am new and just trying to learn so I can help constructivly. Well I hope you get the chance to read this and can get back to me. Planb11

How can you tell how many pages link to a webpage?

In regards to a comment you posted, can you tell how many pages link to a webpage? Thanks. Nickieee 19:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

bonza day

What a foolish mistake of mine. Yes, thanks.. I see someone has speedied them now, so it won't matter anymore. No need for snowballing, is there? I'm leaving the things as they are now. Thanks again for the message.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 22:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

No worries. No big deal. I wasn't sure anyone would speedy them, so I thought I'd ask. I'm glad that's all sorted out. Cheers, Rklawton 01:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Marie van Goethem article

I got permission from Musée d'Orsay to use the picture, after asking them. Can you help me saving the picture? The following is the exact replay of the Musée d'Orsay

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your message in the mailbox of the site of the Musée d'Orsay (http://www.musee-orsay.fr). I give you the right to use the picture "Danseuse_face_GI.jpg" for your article on Wikipedia (educational purpose) if you give all following legend and copyright:

"Edgar Degas                                                                                        
Petite danseuse de quatorze ans                                                                     
(détail)                                                                                            
1881                                                                                                
bronze fondu en 1930                                                                                
Paris, musée d'Orsay                                                                                
(c) Musée d'Orsay, Patrice Schmidt"                                                                 
                                                                                                    

It could be done in English if you prefer.

Yours faithfully

Françoise Le Coz Service culturel Musée d'Orsay

I took of the replay email address --Grim Reaper2 10:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes I konw, It's hard to find reliable info. Everything about her is highly commercialized. It's all about a sales point of view. I have stated the links I'm using. This about her mother prostituding her is a sugestion made by Martine Kahane, who has a comercial intrest. --Grim Reaper2 20:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

9/11 Vandal

Just to tell you, per your comment here, he has been blocked. That account will never be back. I certainly hope that his head is spinning. =). Regards, alphaChimp ^laudare 02:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Angel Miguel Villalona nonsense?!

Just curious why you tagged Angel Miguel Villalona as a CSD G1 nonsense speedy delete? It appears to be completely true (I added a weak reference so others don't get confused). Am I missing something? —Wknight94 (talk) 02:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

A quick search turned up nothing, so I tagged it. A better search found one reliable article, so I added it. Rklawton 02:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Slam NAtion

Slam Nation is a group of dunkers who go around the world dunking..The are very popular. Here is there website http://www.slamnation.net/ Kadour Ziani Is Considered to be the greatest dunker of all time..He Should be on this website for sure....he once dunked over a car from the free throw line...

Goose

Thanks for your help with goose and Canada Goose. I've actually blocked the "Canadian" fanatic for 48 hours for his repeated attacks on these articles. I noticed that you partially or fully lower cased some of the names (Greylag goose, Swan Goose linked through swan goose). I don't know whether that was intentional, but the agreed convention is that bird species' names are fully capped, and that also avoids unneeded redirects, thanks again, jimfbleak 06:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I reverted to an earlier version - probably too far. Fully capped works for me. Rklawton 14:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: The Mystery Man (talk · contribs)

Apologies; I went over the user's 30 most recent edits and found a few issues with WP:COPY (images) and WP:NPOV, and not the kind of false information your report suggested. If an editor has made numerous edits since the vandalism, please provide "diffs" (links to the specific edits) as Netsnipe suggested. Thanks :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 05:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that diff helped, thanks. At the moment, though, I cannot consider the account "vandalism only" and blocks are preventative, not punitive, so, presuming you're keeping an eye on that user, feel free to report him again if the activity starts up. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Will do. Rklawton 13:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Merryhobby

Thanks for translation. You missed this bit: ""Daraufhin wurde er von der DGHS gefeuert". Is the text directed at us, or a quote from somewhere else? Tyrenius 01:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I've mailed you. Tyrenius 01:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Replied via e-mail. CYA tomorrow. Rklawton 04:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

Dear Rklawton -

as it happens, I do not have a single sockpuppet. I do not know the identity of the editor who intervened during the weekend. I believe JoshuaZ asked for a check on this matter - please ask him whether he has been able to confirm that I am using a single user name.

Also - care to read my comment on Tyrenius's page? Bellbird 16:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Your childhood obesity picture

Hey, just a quick question about the picture - it's caused some controversy (as you may be aware!), and I'm not really that interested in hearing people bang on about the fact the subject matter is healthy, beautiful etc, the reality is that the subject is obese. However, it seems reasonable to suggest that the subject's anonymity be preserved, unless you have permission from her to use an image of her for this purpose. Could you provide a version of this image with her face pixelated? Just a thought... Budgiekiller 10:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I forgot to say, good work with all your images! Budgiekiller 10:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm very uneasy about this picture, and think it should be removed. The content of the image, the context in which it appears, and the caption all appear to be derogatory of the child. Whether that's intentional or not doesn't perhaps matter: what matters is how the message of the image will be perceived by the viewer. Now, if this were a picture of a consenting adult, I'd have no problems with it, but there's no indication that the subject, and perhaps more importantly her parents, consented either to the picture being taken or to its use in what I believe to be a derogative context. Now, there may under US, UK and other laws be no requirement for such consents to be obtained, but neverleless we ought in all decency to refrain from using identifiable pictures of minors in this way. Consider the effect on her when (and I say when, not if) her classmates see the page and she has to endure the resultant taunts. On the talk page, User:Corinthian suggests that it will be a "proud day ... for her". I venture to suggest, to the contrary, that she will be devastated, as will her parents.

--MichaelMaggs 16:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Prod - Derrick Lonsdale

I want to explain why I have removed your Prod. This article has just survived an AfD here - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derrick Lonsdale. Therefore, a Prod is not suitable. If you still think that the article should be deleted then another AfD is the appropriate action but it may be considered too soon. TerriersFan 21:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Two editors voted to keep the article. Two voted to delete it. A prod does not violate policy - and it puts editors on notice that the article is severely defective. In this case, that's fully appropriate. Rklawton 01:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

A second Prod does violate the guidelines. The template says "If this template is removed, it should not be replaced." As I have explained above, if you continue to think that the article should be deleted you should submit a further AfD. TerriersFan 21:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Derrick Lonsdale

No problem, it's not particularly straightforward as the templates don't allow for it. Yomangani^talk 01:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Please move GFDL images to WM Commons

Hi Rklawton, may I request you to please move your two Great Mormon images to Wikimedia Commons please.

• Great_Mormon_male.JPG
• Great_Mormon_female.JPG

Regards, AshLin 15:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Will do by Monday. Rklawton 18:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Indian Buddhist Movement and user Hkelkar

This person is reverting the changes without discussions. Also attacks others by branding everybody as anti-Hindu. He also blocked me by playing tricks and giving half-truth proofs. Please read Tom Harrison Talk Page. Bodhidhamma is my brother is USA but still he has branded in a case ==Sockpuppetry case== !! Can you help? Dhammafriend 21:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

University of Reading

Sorry for reverting your revert of University of Reading. I've been keeping an eye on this guy, but I guess I waited too long this time to make my move! ... discospinster _talk 15:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

No worries. Some days are like that. Rklawton 15:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

List of Ethnic Slurs

"Nig-nog" is in Merriam-Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged (2000). There is more than one dictionary with Webster's in the name. The one I'm not sure which one you looked at. The one I used is a huge book that you can just barely carry. My account is too new. Can you revert your last change?--Ngdw3 18:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, sorry 'bout that. Rklawton 22:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You're fine. Thanks.--Ngdw3 00:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous users

How can I stop anonymous users from having an edit war on Closing milestones of the Dow Jones Industrial Average Moorematthews 20:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Invitation to new WikiProject

Sorry to disturb, but am wishing to take a moment of your time for something I hope will be of interest. I'd like to invite you to join a new WikiProject I've started, WikiProject National Register of Historic Places. Should you feel so inclined, please feel free to join. And spread the word to any other interested parties.  :) -Ebyabe 17:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Article Creation and Improvement Drive

Hello, I'm -Gphoto and I noticed that you are a photographer and I was wondering if you would please vote for Photography to improved at the Article Creation and Improvement Drive. Thanks, -Gphoto 21:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:WPP

Do you think that everyone involved in WP:WPP should put their geographical location on the list? That would help for people who need a picture, but do not know where or who to ask for it. This would allow people on the project to work on pictures directly with the people creating articles. -Gphoto 15:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

We need to re-think how to make connections from the ground up. We're currently using subject matter. We really need to add geography. We should also consider adding time-frame/geography for future events to alert photographers in advance rather than just hope someone shows up. To be clear: ask, yes; require, no.

I'm thinking about re-writing the request section on a test page, would you be willing to review it when I'm done? Once we finalize a new layout, we can replace the existing request section with it or just point to the new page. Rklawton 13:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Removing speedy from Image:Camille Clifford.jpg

"In the U.S., any work published before January 1, 1923 anywhere in the world is in the public domain." Wikipedia:Public domain Direct reproduction doesn't extend that. This seems to be a direct reproduction, without major transformation. More on Image talk:Camille Clifford.jpg. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

While you may decide it's a direct reproduction, the image owner does not and has copyrighted the page. By not honoring the website publisher's view that the material is copyrighted, Wikipedia runs the risk of a lawsuit. Indeed, you could be quite wrong about "direct reproduction" in this specific case. What looks like a direct reproduction may well be a rather careful and painstaking restoration job. It's not something you can tell just by looking at the final product. What you can tell, though, is that the publisher has copyrighted the page, and that Wikipedia has chosen to ignore this. That's not a good risk. Rklawton 22:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The site owner has copyrighted the page, [4] because that page is certainly his - he wrote the html and arranged the images. He has not asserted creation of the photograph in any sense. Instead, he specifically says that he took the images from a collection of antique postcards, bought on EBay. [5] Considering he tells us that much, I somehow imagine he would have also told us about any "careful and painstaking restoration job". True, we can't tell from the final product, but we can read the site. If you disagree, you can, of course, state your reasoning on a Wikipedia:Images for deletion discussion, but it is not as clear as required for speedy deletion. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 22:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You make a good point. I missed that part of his website. Still, it seems odd to take someone else's work, declair it public domain, and post it here. Rklawton 23:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

This guy's a real photo nerd and takes deletions on Wikipedia too seriously. I say chalk him up as a douche and move on. --Slyder Pilot^E@ 22:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm a freelance photo nerd and interested in what he has to say on this matter. Thanks for the thought, though. Rklawton 23:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Restoration is not transformative, in the creative sense. Anyone can slap a (c) on anything - doesn't necessarily take effect tho. - crz crztalk 02:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

With regard to your "transformative" notion. Is this based in law (in this case, English law), or is this a matter of personal opinion? Rklawton 04:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Based on my understanding of American copyright law. English law has no relevance whatsoever in WP. We're an American entity (the whole foundation) and must only comply with U.S. copyright law. IMHO. I will be a lawyer next year, but I skipped copyrights in law school wholesale. Let's hope it's not on the bar. - crz crztalk 05:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

And you should consider archiving your talkpage. - crz crztalk 02:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I've been meaning to get to it. So many things to shoot, so little time. I shot Robert Kennedy (Jr) tonight. Photographically, of course. Rklawton 04:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Asian Wisconzine

You probably shouldn't have said this, but I have to admit that's one of the funniest AfD comments I've ever seen. Brilliant. Gwernol 05:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, Hugh Laurie. I still love "A bit of Fry and Laurie" as if they were a pair of eccentric uncles. Honestly although your comment was a little on the "naughty" side it had me in stitches and I'm damned glad you included it. Soupytwist, Gwernol 05:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Childhood obesity

I took a look at this. It seems like a content dispute between you and GMaxwell. I don't feel comfortable stepping into this as I don't have a background in this area and there is enough complexity here that I don't think there's much I can add at this point. Sorry, Gwernol 16:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: User:The Mystery Man

Okay, I've checked; of a couple dozen uploads since the block expired, two were copyvios. I'd call that a drastic improvement. As for this edit, however... no explanation yet... ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 23:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

If he replies, I'll be surprised. At any rate, folks can learn, it's true. I'll keep an eye on things. Oversights are one thing, but blatant copyvios and talk page blanking are another. Rklawton 00:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Pinots

If this guy isn't a MM sock, then he's his twin in violating policy: User talk:Pinots. Rklawton 21:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably someone else based on the articles. I'll keep an eye open. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

19 December 2006

I thought tomf688 (talk · contribs) was working on it? RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Also not vandalism

You took out a properly-reference quote about academia. Was that because you disagreed with the point view expressed by it? If so, please add a balancing quote instead of "deleting well-referenced information". --Uncle Ed 18:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

My bad. It looked like vandalism until I dug deeper. I'll fix it if you haven't already. Rklawton 19:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

No worries, you can go ahead if you have time. Thanks! ^_^ --Uncle Ed 19:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

User:D Dinneen

Re: Vandalism warning on talk page
Please refrain from repeatedly adding a vandalism warning to my talk page. I have not vandalised wikipedia, my account has been accessed by someone else, I have since secured it. Thankyou for the warning though, it is important that wikipedia is kept free from attacks by vandals, I have read the message carefully and do not need it to be there any further, thank you. D Dinneen 19:45, 20 November 2006

You might want to keep that notice up as a record in case it should happen again. Rklawton 19:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

User:SnakeChess5

Re: I apologise, I did not realize what I was doing was vandalism. I was doing some research on Canada Geese and was looking at several sources for information (including Wikipedia) and notice that they all said different things, so I decided to average them out and edit the Wikipedia article to such an extent. I will try to be more careful.

Your user page

While it might be acceptable to have a link to your place of work or something like that it is highly problematic to have a large fraction of your user page devoted to that. I am particularly concerned by your listing your prices. JoshuaZ 21:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Out of my whole user page, are you saying that a single bullet point line is a "large fraction"? I'd be very interested in seeing the policy about that! Rklawton 21:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

No. I suppose the perception of that was because you list all your photos which are on Wiki which at first glance (perhaps incorrectly) came across as almost being like a gallery of examples. Removal of the numbers should make things fine. JoshuaZ 21:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Fine for what? You still haven't show that there exists any violation of policy. Rklawton 21:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, it isn't in the current draft of WP:USERPAGE but I was under the impression that we generally discourage the use of user pages for commercial purposes. I'll go bring the issue up there on the talk page and we will hopefully get some input from others. JoshuaZ 21:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

One of the stated purposes of a user page is to let other users know who they are working with. A single line at the top of my page indicating my profession and rates does that very succinctly. Rklawton 21:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Images on the date pages

To be honest, I don't feel strongly one way or the other about having images there, and as I was reverting them, I noticed a distinct U.S. slant to the choices (several shuttle missions, for example). My concern was that the user seemed to be running through all of the date pages indiscriminately yanking all of the images. I noticed what he was doing a while ago and let the first few go, but when he hit 10, the pattern started to bother me. And the reason he added to the last one doesn't strike me as reasonable; you can't have an image for everything, so if you have an image at all, it'll favour something. And there are iconic dates for which an image is appropriate (September 11 for 9/11; November 22 for the J.F.K. assassination, probably others. And, now that I look back, 9/11 was his first deletion. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 03:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year#Images, revisited. So here's an interesting question -- do you know if anyone actually monitors that page? -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 04:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

There's three or four of us that do. Rklawton 04:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems almost dead. User:Adxm asked User:CalendarWatcher why some fictional entries that he'd added to July 19 were reverted. I suggested that he ask about the overall guidelines on that page, which he did (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year#Fictional events), but there was no response. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 05:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The page's history indicates reasonable activity. It's a pretty stable project. Rklawton 05:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Sam Houston's election

I thought we didn't typically include elections in date articles. How was this particular election especially notable?

And how many elections did the Republic of Texas have? Damned few, I reckon. --CalendarWatcher 03:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

So? How notable was the Republic of Texas in the first place? Not very, at least to anyone but a Texan. Rklawton 04:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Prod removal from Himbo

Unfortunately, any removal of a prod, for any or even no reason, prevents the article ever being prodded again. I've accordingly filed a regular AfD request on it instead. Seraphimblade 07:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look. Rklawton 13:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Rklawton.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Rklawton.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —Hbdragon88 08:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Just the messenger here, I didn't nominate it, and I've already stated that your image should be kept. The nominator didn't follow through with steps 1 and 3, so I'm just finishing up with step 3 here. Hbdragon88 08:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

When I attempted to upload a self portrait for my user page, I was denied on the grounds that users cannot upload photos of themselves on Wikipedia. --CmdrClow 23:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

So post the link to this exchange where we can see it, and we can work from there. Rklawton 02:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what happened to the link, but I did try it. It may have been on my previous account, but I was denied a self image. It's a good thing you're an anal retentive. CmdrClow 08:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Calendar

Thank you for taking my proposition under advisement. --CmdrClow 00:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Goldxxxteeth

There isn't a specific warning template. Usually I just leave a message asking them to not do it. However you should be aware that currently there isn't a specific policy that disallows the removal of warnings from a user's talk page. It used to be part of the vandalism policy, but its under dispute. Thanks for reverting his addition to Cain and Abel; it was better coming from another editor than me. Best, Gwernol 01:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll see if I can add my two bits to the dispute. I think a 30 day period is minimally warrented. When I saw the Cain & Abel edit, I knew that a 2nd opinion would help. Cheers, Rklawton 01:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

MS Access

Hi, and thanks! Using the ! operator did the trick. I'm double-checking now to ensure that it's reading the control's current value, rather than the cached "recordset value". --Uncle Ed 21:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

battle over ITWA

Just because the ITWA hasn't felt the need to purchase a domain name yet doesn't make it less legit/more bogus. Slyder Pilot^E@ 20:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This thread more appropriately belongs in ITWA mediation. Rklawton 20:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You had mentioned this outside of the mediation. Slyder Pilot^E@ 01:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey!

Wow nice to see the baby name from you, I haven't stopped by in a long time. I see you have become quite prolific. Heading back to the zoo anytime soon? :) -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 01:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Good to hear from you, too. I see you've been busy. Of all the names I saw on the list, I liked "Wiki" the best. The only problem with that name, though, is the obvious rhyme. Actually, my daughter is named "Molly" - from Molybdenum. My wife didn't want to mess with her teachers, so we didn't put the elemental name on her birth certificate. Even so, we got a note home from her kindergarden teacher. hehehe. Over 11,000 Wikipedia edits and a couple thousand in Commons + other languages. I've got one barnstar and maybe two people who think I should be an admin :-). Rklawton 01:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI I nominated two of your images over at WP:FPC hope you don't mind :) I give them a 33% chance. I really like the Mr.MCfeely pic, but portraits are almost impossible to pass. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 04:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind, and thanks for the compliment. FPC is a really tough process. Someone is going to be able to publish some pretty spiffy coffee table books with the results. Rklawton 04:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Photo Matching Service

Thought you might want to know about this, it has the same goals as Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography, but is better organized. --Gphoto^talk 18:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks good. I think I'll hit up the "needs photo" category and see if I can add the geographically-oriented requests. Rklawton 18:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Larabar page

Whoops, looks like you caught me on that one. I had no idea such criteria existed. I really have a tough time navigating those internal Wikipedia criteria/protocol/process/guideline/suggestion/etc. pages anyhow. Basically I was looking for more info about the company and, upon finding no page on wikipedia, decided to make one modeling it off the Clif bar page, in case someone else wanted to find the same stuff as I did. But, like I said, it's basically uncontestible that the page fails the criteria, so I'll step down here =) Vanillacreem 18:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

No worries. I'm still learning how everything works around here. Rklawton 18:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Philanthropist

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Philanthropist, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Philanthropist. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. — Sebastian (talk) 03:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Kallima inachus

Created a few moments ago. Shyamal 15:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Substace Co-op

Hi

I created a page for Substace Co-op, as this is the research coop I work for. I planned to put details of the publications onto wikpedia, as these are in the public domain (http://www.substance.coop/index.php/Section10.html) but it seems that the page I created has been deleted, and linked to yourself.

Is there a reason for this?

Many thanks

Steven Flower — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevieflow (talk • contribs)

Announcement

Announcement The "Help name my baby" Poll has closed :). Greta Annette was born 12/12/06. She weighs 6lbs 14oz and is 19inches long. Mother and baby are both doing fine. Thanks for all the suggestions! To keep this slightly Wikipedia related I have started Adopt a State, so adopt your state article today! -Ravedave (help name my baby) 03:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Your advice to shoot another user and comment vandalism on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tuba (mythology)

Hello. While I share your general feelings in the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tuba (mythology), your opinion to "shoot the author" is extremely out of line. Threats of physical violence against other Wikipedians are not funny, and are not acceptable under any circumstances. Please consider this an only and final warning, and note that the blocking policy states in this regard:

Users who make threats, whether legal, personal, or professional, that in any way are seen as an attempt to intimidate another user may be blocked without warning. If a warning is desirable, the {{npa6}} template can be used. Users that make severe threats can be blocked indefinitely.

As regards the same edit, please also do not modify and/or delete others' comments, as you did (without apparent reason) with the comments of User:Bwithh. This is unacceptable talk page behaviour. Thank you, Sandstein 12:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The deletion was inadvertent - probably some sort of edit conflict. The "shoot the author" comment was humor and occasionally used by Wikipedians to chastise editors who create hoax articles. Rklawton 14:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, according to this ANI post, there seems to be some database bug messing up edits today. It appears I was wrong in accusing you of comment vandalism, sorry. Sandstein 19:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

No worries. Consider also that my shot at humor may have been incorrectly interpreted as a threat. I'd like to think that with over 10,000 edits, my contributions here have been generally useful. I'd also like to think I was intelligent and good-looking, too. But I delude myself. Rklawton 20:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course I was not seriously thinking you threatened to actually shoot somebody. But as we're working in an international, text-only environment in which culture-specific and nonverbal cues for humour don't exist, I'm afraid we can't afford ourselves the luxury of that sort of humour. Sandstein 21:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Given that (appropriate) humor is welcome in an otherwise stuffy encyclopedic environment, would "flog" or "pillory" be OK instead? Those sorts of punishments seem to be less common these days and thus more likely to be considered a jest. Rklawton 21:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

One would hope so, but I guess we do have contributors from countries such as Saudi Arabia, where these punishments as well as beheadings are (ahem) at the cutting edge of penal law... Most Internet users these days would recognise the smiley symbol :-) as a cue for humour, I assume, but I'd just err on the side of caution when directly addressing other users. We have already enough clash-of-civilisations-type wikidrama as it is... Sandstein 06:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's funny when world views collide. It's a good thing I put my Lewis Carroll "Of with his head" line on hold. How about "Pie him/her"? That sort of thing used to be popular when I was in school. Rklawton 13:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh well, okay, I doubt anyone can feel seriously threatened by that, except possibly our resident coulrophobe ... Sandstein 17:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Graving

Re: Requested discussion pointer
Hi Robert. I'm getting a bit confused by various views on verifiability on the graving discussion and wondered if you could clarify a point for me? I can find no mention in the Wikipedia guidelines to indicate that reliable sources for neologisms should be dictionaries or encyclopediae, yet you say "Wikipedia needs a way to be certain a word is sufficiently popular, and dictionary inclusion is our chosen method". I don't find searching the guidelines that easy and wondered if you could point me in the right direction to find information on this. Thanks Verica Atrebatum 17:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, read WP:NEO. It's a short article. At the bottom it states we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term. Dictionaries or encyclopedias satisfy the requirement beyond dispute (hence "chosen method"). Obviously, this isn't to the exclusion of other sources, but these sources must be verifiable and they must be about the term - not simply use the term (as per above). The graving article quite clearly fails in this. The novice editors have been able to find sources indicating the term has been used, but they haven't uncovered any material about the term itself. For example, enter "What is Googling" (in quotes) into a search engine, and you will find articles that describe Googling. Enter "what is graving" (in quotes) into a search engine, and you'll find nothing. See the difference? Rklawton 17:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Yes, I'd already read that. I was hoping there some further clarification of exactly what is meant by 'books and papers'. It's a bit open to interpretation really. Thanks for the pointer. I'll probably write one more piece for the discussion and then drop it. Verica Atrebatum 18:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Yeanold Viskersenn

Re:Your death threat against me
I notice that in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tuba (mythology) your response features a proposition that I be executed at gunpoint. As well as finding your suggestion utterly irresponsible, sickening and quite frankly, frightening, I take the threat extremely seriously and am considering reporting this incident to the appropriate authorities. I need to be assured that you are not conspiring, or encouraging others, to murder me. I have been terrified beyond description for the past few days, unable to leave the house or even stand near windows, knowing that I could be shot in the head by you or your associates at any time, for being the creator of a tongue-in-cheek hoax article on a free internet encyclopedia. I also suggest that you thoroughly read and memorise WP:NPA to prevent you from unintentionally threatening to violently end the lives of any other Wikipedia editors. Thanks for your time. Yeanold Viskersenn 18:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, cut down on the C-Movie acting, will you, Yeanold Viskersenn? Although it was very ill-advised humour, Rklawton has admitted it was a bad call, and I'd expect a practical joker like yourself to have noticed as much at least after reading the above discussions. If I were you, I'd be very quiet about my large-scale hoax vandalism, and not go and pester others about it. Sandstein 19:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

As per worthy advice from Switzerland, my suggestion has been downgraded to pieing, um piing, er peyeing. Oh, you know what I mean. Rklawton 19:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions

1. I have been a Wikipedia editor for about six weeks. How long before a person is no longer considered to be "new"? 2. How do you find articles for deletion? I mean, do you go looking for stuff to nominate, or do you just make adjustments as you go along? For instance, did you just happen upon the "graving" page, or is there some kind of page where a person can go to see "new submissions" or whatever? I'm not trying to accuse you of anything, but I can tell you that my personal Wikipedia "habit" is to start out by looking up something so I can learn about it, and then one link leads to another. (If you look at my contributions, most of them are pretty minor -- adding a sentence here and there, correcting misspellings, etc.) I'm just curious. :) Countedx58 19:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

1. How long… Newness is in the eye of the beholder. That determination will be entirely in the hands of the closing admin. I needed to mention it in the article so the new editors would understand – and to bring it to the closing administrator's attention.
2. Finding articles. Sometimes I just review newly created articles regardless of topic. I learn a lot of cool new stuff that way. I'm able to help out new editors with formatting, language, etc. I often find blatant vandalism. When I do, I flag it for immediate removal. Other times, I find well intentioned editors creating articles that simply aren't suitable for inclusion. In cases that aren't obvious or in cases that bear discussion, I nominate them for deletion and explain my reasons. I (we) often use abbreviations because of the sheer repetition. Hence you'll see often references to WP:NEO, WP:NOT, WP:NOR, etc. Experienced editors know what these terms mean, and new editors can follow the links. In the case of Graving, I've contributed to several cemetery-related articles, and I keep an eye on them. When the "Graving" link showed up under their "See also" sections, I checked out the article.

When I tried fixing the article, I ran into a few problems.

• Neologism: a lot of times we can fix this simply by renaming the article. That's no big deal. But…
• No Original Research: when I considered the article's subject in order to find a better name, I realized that it comprised primarily of original research describing a group's hobby. Hobbies (or sports) aren't off limits, but…
• Sources: information about hobbies (etc) must come from verifiable sources (books, articles, movies, etc.), and I couldn't find anything significant to back up the idea of "graving" as a notable activity. If you can find a solution for that problem, the rest of this would all fall into place, to wit: renaming and rewriting. Rklawton 20:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay ... "Sometimes I just review newly created articles regardless of topic." So how do you locate new articles? Is there a "new articles" page somewhere? Thanks! Countedx58 20:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah - this is what you are looking for: Special:Newpages. Happy browsing! Rklawton 22:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Another question for you, then: What about "schnoodling"? Shouldn't this be deleted as a neologism as well? (I'd mark the page for deletion, but I don't want my name associated with it! Eww!)

You're on the right track. It's not something I want to deal with while on vacation, but I'll check back next week. Rklawton 02:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Have a good time! Countedx58 06:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice welcome

Enjoy an enlightening and fulfilling Saturnalia, New Years, or Hogmanay. Son of Berk's Dog 23:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem

All in a day's work! --Kukini 22:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Henry Ford

Ford was antisemitic. For people who don't read the whole entry, they should be able to know that Ford is antisemitic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlippman (talk • contribs)

Ronald McDonald

I actually have no objections to your edit. Like many editors, I make mistakes on RC Patrol. VP detects section blanking as vandalism. Sorry for the confusion. -- Selmo ^(talk) 04:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Lenin

Some possibilites are to use 3RR, report vandalism, or request checkuser, or try the Administrators' noticeboard if he continues. Easiest is just to simply keep reverting the deletions unti he gets tired. That may mean letting him "win" temporarily and but keep adding back the sourced material at a later time and date. I will watch the article long-term. Ultramarine 19:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

One possibility is to use checkuser to see if this is sockmaster user:Jacob Peters. Do not break any rules yourself like 3RR.Ultramarine 19:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this seems likely. Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jacob Peters show IPs similar to 68.126.253.190 which was used on the Lenin article.Ultramarine 19:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome...

...but it's not like I'm new here; we've talked before. Skydiver 20:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Spinning wheel

Ya coulda just tagged it for "facts" ya know... Rklawton 01:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Did i miss something (other than the train, the boat, the mark and the bus)? Philbertgray 01:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought the "nig" remark was a pretty good giveaway, or maybe I'm livin in the wrong part of town. Philbertgray 01:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You may be on to something - those doohickys are always causing trouble.  ;-)Philbertgray 09:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Album cover

I apologize for the mistake adding the picture of the Ellis Paul album cover on the Ellis Paul page. Believe it or not I thought I did all the necessary research/reading before uploading the pictures and adding them to the article. Sorry. Kmzundel 18:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the words of encouragement. This has been a steep learning curve, but I'm shooting for a featured article.  :-) I just added two pix again - love the B&W photo, but wanted a front-face view at top. Kmzundel 19:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

204.102.211.115

Hi Rklawton,

Since this isn't a case of simple vandalism, but still a case bad-faith editing, I suggest you post this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. The problem with Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism is that it really should be used for cases of simple vandalism that admins can look at the account's contributions and instantly tell that it is vandalism. --Deathphoenix ʕ 21:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

request for peer review

I have requested peer review for my Ellis Paul article and would appreciate feedback from you at your convenience. Thank you! Kmzundel 12:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments/help! Actually the B&W photo was uploaded by the owner/photographer herself. Is there something I can do to clarify that? For some reason, though, she seems to have scanned the photo from its use on a promotional postcard that Ellis Paul had printed. (That's a guess on my part simply from the name she gave the jpg file.) Her name is Melissa M. Bugg and her website is http://www.artistictouchphoto.com. That particular photo can be found at least 2 places on the Internet that I know of - including Ellis Paul's web site in the "Onstage" photo gallery. Kmzundel 14:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Chubby Cherub

Rklawton, this is a real video game. And, when a licensed video game is concerned on Wikipedia, it is always notable. WhisperToMe 05:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

From what I can tell on Wikipedia, all licensed video games are notable. Chubby Cherub made Seanbaby's list of worst NES games of all time, anyway. WhisperToMe 05:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

http://www.seanbaby.com/nes/w20-15.htm = Seanbaby's rant is one "outside of the company" source http://www.gamefaqs.com/console/nes/review/587187.html = Gamefaqs

And, by the way, Seanbaby has a Wikipedia article - Of course Gamefaqs does too.

Also see the various links here: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Chubby+Cherub%22&btnG=Google+Search

WhisperToMe 05:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, from those very much non-trivial sources, I found that the game was released in Japan as Obake no Q-tarō WanWan Panic, which was based on a manga by Fujiko Fujio. WhisperToMe 05:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Lawton, the way that the WP:Software defines trivial doesn't seem to agree with your definition. WhisperToMe 16:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Patient

"Moved picture as per style guide which expressly states that images should not be looking off page".

Can you please point me to where that is from, as from your edit review I do not see what you mean with it.

Also I wonder why you want to move the image to the left and the TOC to the right, when 99% of all articles have it reverse - and I feel uniformity is a good thing for these things. People expect it to be left, left is where the eye and the mouse will tend to be. We read from left to right, and all other 'control fields' of Wikipedia are to the left too. MadMaxDog 14:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Here: Wikipedia:Manual of Style - I also left this information on the article's talk page. Rklawton 14:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I got your point and composed a reply here, which got lost now, because we had an edit conflict. Okay, I understand your point now. However, I find that this breaks the whole layout (especially the toc right!) for the sake of a minor point. I also disagree with the flipping argument in this case, especially seeing that there is no writing etc in the image at all.

MadMaxDog 14:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The flipping point is a bit more obscure. In this case, the electronic leads are not symetrical so flipping the image would be misleading. It might not matter to non-medical folks, but I think a somnologist would differ. Rklawton 14:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

So you think it is better that the article look weird, than that some specialist, if he looked very closely, would find something wrong, but of no account? Excuse me, but I disagree with that weighing of importance. I am trying to find a way around the matter fulfilling the letter of the law, so to speak, but I consider this a wrong emphasis.

PS I'll also copy this discussion ove to the talk page as you originally suggested.MadMaxDog 14:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Nolanjones

Thanks for tagging the redirect for me. I knew moving the page would create a redirect, but as I have just started recent changes patrolling, I had to look up what speedy tag would be most apporiate to use for the new redirect. By the time I'd done that, you had beaten me to it! Anyway, regards. Teiresias84 12:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

And btw looking through the history of my talk page, I am a little confused as to weather it is preferable for to cut and paste or not when userpaging a namespace article? Teiresias84 12:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Your message about speedy tags

Thank you for your question - I have replied on my talk page. By the way, when I clicked on your user name to leave you this message, I noticed your photo gallery link, so I took a look. Your photos are absolutely stunning - I'm sitting here in awe looking at some of these butterflies. Great work! --BigDT 17:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms of Marxism

I saw your comments on the Mediation Cabal page regarding my problems with Ultramarine. Did you take a look at the history of the page and the discussion? Ultramarine was--by myself and by a mediator--told to cite information he/she had asserted in the article. The onus is not on me to prove an uncited assertion. It is on the editor who added it to the entry. Period. I suggest you take a closer look. -Dialecticas 01:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

RE:your refined comments on the Mediation page: Did you take a look at the "citation" that Ultramarine provided? It is from a secondary source providing commentary on the author in question. This certainly, by no standard, is *not* a valid citation. The only thing Ultramarine has provided from the author, Eric Hoffer, is a quote that says, "...nor was Marx a Marxist." This is poor encyclopedia editing, and unacceptable on Wikipedia. Your accusation of POV-pushing on my part is inaccurate and out of line. A strong Criticisms of Marxism article is what is needed, not a weak one. --Dialecticas 02:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing an allegedly weak citation does not make an article stronger. Replacing one citation with a better citation does. Rklawton 02:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln

I'm really sorry for not making a discussion before editing the article. As you know, I'm a diehard fan of Abe and I somewhat can't stand the theory that Abe is homosexual. I remove the information because I think the article on his sexuality has violated Wiki's rule original research. Moreover, I myself have made investigation into his life a number of times and I believe it's unnecessary to add such information, because the hypothesis is itself a hypothesis, not mention that it's still controversial. If someday other researchers find evidence which substantiates that the hypothesis is wrong, people who have read the article containing the false theory will have a deviant view on individual Abraham Lincoln. Thus I said that the information hasn't been confirmed, because up till now no one could bear out the veraciousness of the theory. Lastly, I don't want people to have bad impression on Abe (the homosexual thing does spoil his image) since he's my hero. _AbelinCAusesobad 14:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)