User talk:Valjean

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

Wikipedia ads	file info – #24

Message for IPs

If you are an IP and need to contact me, you can leave comments on this subpage. Thanks. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi,
Thanks for your comment on my talkpage. It's a pretty obscure topic that's besieged by sockpuppets and POV-pushers, so I can understand why many editors give it a wide berth! Anyway, thanks again. How's it going with pseudoscience? I haven't paid enough attention to that lately - need a hand with anything? bobrayner (talk) 18:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, the latest news is that a newbie pusher of fringe POV has pretty much launched a full out attack. Read my latest comment here (diff) and then follow their contribution history. They have started fires many places. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Their reaction was as childish and predictable as could be expected. Now you know why I also left a real diff above. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh wow, that looks entertaining bobrayner (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

To put it lightly! Check out my edit history too. You'll see where some of this is occurring. Check this out. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Plasma-Redshift Cosmology

I have another concern in regards this same newbee. I general noted but didn't realise that Orrerysky has just created his sandbox document into a new article Plasma-Redshift Cosmology. There should be concern the he is building a case against this Plasma cosmology page by stealth, by nailing each of these alternative theories as validation this one. Is this not just avoiding this one per day edit ban on plasma cosmology? There is significant problems, because, like plasma cosmology, the so-called Wolf effect is another unmentioned subject by supporters of plasma cosmology, which is rejected by astronomers and cosmologists. In not understanding exactly if this current move is OK, and can you suggest what I should do if it is required to voice my concerns? Cheers. Arianewiki1 (talk) 17:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

I am grateful for the people like you on Wikipedia who volunteer their time to remove vandalism. I also find that you sensibly direct users who do not understand Wikipedia policies to correct their practices. Thank you for doing what you do. You are a big support to what I do and to what so many others do. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! -- Brangifer (talk) 05:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Koch Bro. edit-skirmishing

Hello BullRangifer. FYI, that particular paragraph of Political activities of the Koch brothers has had several reverts. The version restored is the earliest (and, IMO, worst). A BRD was started and the particular source is under discussion. I request you do a self-revert. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 07:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. Has anyone warned Arzel for tendentious editing (outright aggressive whitewashing)? IIRC (I rarely edit that article), he has aggressively removed this content before without good reason, other than his own political POV, rather than following the sources, which directly relate that content to the subject of the article. In fact, why hasn't Arzel been topic banned yet? This is a pattern over several articles. Expert wikilawyering, all designed to whitewash Tea Party and Koch brothers type articles.

Why do you think it is the worst version? Could it be formatted better and kept, rather than just removed? -- Brangifer (talk) 07:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I've warned Arzel before, but to no avail. He's very aggressive and hostile. MilesMoney (talk) 07:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

When did this particular round start? The material was removed and a BRD was opened. I've given my two bits. But we do not have consensus. (Is it "aggressive whitewashing"? At present, I don't think so. The sources dance around whether the Kochs are directly supporting this-or-that. It seems to me the Kochs support different lobbying groups that in turn support different causes.) Thanks for considering my request. I look forward to seeing your input in the BRD (tomorrow). – S. Rich (talk) 07:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of any BRD. I just noticed the edit on my watchlist and reverted, with a proper, although untruthful, edit summary. (Twinkle only gives the options of "good faith" or "vandalism", and we know that Arzel's edit was neither good faith nor vandalism.) I had no intention of dropping into the middle of some edit war. I have nearly 9,000 articles, plus just as many talk pages, on my watchlist now, so I don't notice everything.

Like I said, I don't edit there very often because either Arzel owns it, or Arthur Rubin owns it, or they both own it in tandem, so it's hopeless to get even well-sourced criticism in the article, even though it is abundant. Arzel is definitely the most aggressive, while Arthur, as an admin, is more careful. This has been going on for month after month. I think this same content has been deleted by Arzel several times some time ago, so this is his version of slow edit warring. According to them the Koch brothers must be the most holy angels in Heaven, and no one has ever criticized them in any RS!

I don't really care one way or the other, because I'm quite good at WP:Writing for the opponent. What counts is what we find in RS, and we know the Koch brothers have been criticized a lot in many RS, including by Jane Mayer, an extremely experienced and highly awarded journalist and author. Arzel has also fought to keep her big report about the Koch brothers activities out of the article, even though it was from The New Yorker, a RS. If that isn't POV politically inspired whitewashing and very unwikipedian activity, I don't know what is. It certainly deserves a topic ban, because he literally owns the article to such a degree it drives other editors away. I see that Mayer's article does receive some coverage now, but it wasn't with Arzel's help.

What about when Wikipedia caught a PR agency hired by the Koch brothers to use many sock puppets to edit content here? We caught them redhanded, banned a bunch of them, and that was described in RS, but that isn't even mentioned in the article. Strange....NOT...with Arzel there. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

If you are going to bitch about me I prefer you do it to my face. If you think I am behind some pro-Koch conspirosy than I suggest you take it up in the appropriate place. It is a little tiring to see the same crowd consistently using WP to attack their percieved enemies without regard for basic WP policies. Good job! Arzel (talk) 14:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see it as a conspiracy, but as a personal failure as an editor to abide by NPOV, which requires the documentation of relevant and opposing POV. That is the most basic and important WP policy which you are violating. In this case, the views of critics are very directly relevant to the subject. By constantly fighting to keep them out of articles you are whitewashing the subject and violating NPOV. Follow the sources, not your own personal political bent. You may not like the content, but it is your duty as a wikipedian to ensure its inclusion and help to frame the content so as to reflect the true intent of the authors. Maybe you need to read WP:Writing for the opponent. Whether there were a conspiracy to do what you consistently do or not, you certainly do it as well or better than anyone paid to do it. The end effect on Wikipedia is the same, and that's not good.

Maybe you can explain why the New Media Strategies/Koch brothers sock puppet case isn't mentioned in their article or the Political activities of the Koch brothers? It certainly happened and is documented. ThinkProgress blew the story open (so self-ref doesn't apply), and Thom Hartmann has discussed it on The Big Picture with Thom Hartmann ([1][2]). Obviously Fox News wouldn't deal with this, because they do the same thing you're doing, which is burying this type of thing. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree about Arzel, but here's a data point about Rubin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Arthur_Rubin#Violation_of_ArbCom_topic_block_on_Tea_Party_movement. MilesMoney (talk) 07:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Topic banned?! Well, that makes sense, but Arzel is certainly more deserving. They both have exerted very strong control and censorship on right wing, Tea Party, and Koch associated articles. I really think that Wikipedia's no censorship policy needs to be explicitly expanded to cover whitewashing as a form of censorship exercised by editors to keep opposing POV from being documented. It happens all the time and it's very unwikipedian. Otherwise I have always had a lot of respect for Arthur as a fellow skeptic. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:02, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, Wikipedia can't afford to scare off anyone with expertise, so the goal here is to encourage him to edit where he brings value, not bias. Still, there's a strong bias on the drama pages towards supporting whitewashing and other forms of censorship, perhaps as a backlash against embarrassments of the past. If something is attributed to a reliable source, we should feel free to include it. MilesMoney (talk) 08:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Your last sentence is spot on. Our job is to fulfill Wikipedia's mission, which is to document the sum total of human knowledge, and that includes opinions and controversies. That necessarily means including POV we may find abhorrent, but some editors fail big in this regard. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Gotta agree with you there. I think some editors are working under the impression that WP:NPOV means every source is neutral. It doesn't. It just means that the article includes statements from non-neutral sources in a balanced way, so that the end result is neutral. The related error comes from thinking a neutral result is one which doesn't make the subject look good or bad. In reality, neutrality on our part is not supposed to undermine the non-neutrality of reality. Or, to Godwin myself, it's really not our fault if Hitler's biography makes him look like a bad man, and it's not our job to try to correct that by removing "biased" sourced. MilesMoney (talk) 03:21, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Like, except the "balanced ..., so that the end result is neutral." NPOV doesn't refer to that kind of balance or neutrality (and the rest of your comment makes that clear!). We just keep neutral and let the chips fall where they may, and in the case of Hitler the picture ain't pretty  !! I think the policy which applies to seeking some form of balance, of the type you mention, is WP:UNDUE. If there are opposing POV, we try to let each get the coverage they are getting in the real world, without allowing the article to become either a hit piece or a hagiographic sales brochure. The end result may still have a preponderance of one or the other type of POV. So be it. Those who are offended by that will always complain, and their complaints carry zero weight. The main point of NPOV is that editors stay neutral, and thus it has little to nothing to do with the POV of sources or the content of articles. Other policies seek to deal with that in some manner.

Censorship in the real world isn't just about images or pornography, but often about suppression of political POV (think China, North Korea, USA, and Iran), and that's the type we are seeing here. It's extremely unwikipedian and undemocratic. In this instance it is an extension of the Koch brothers' well known fetish for secrecy, in which they use shadow groups and dark money to carry out their political activities. Since Fox News is on their side, mainstream coverage is limited, because they are successful at hiding and manipulating any coverage of their activities. Therefore any reliable sources from the opposing side (usually activists) are fair game (per WP:PARITY) and should be used here. (Why PARITY? Because when mainstream sources fail to deal with a subject, we must use other sources. The same thing which applies to pseudoscience applies here.) If we don't do this, their abuses extend to Wikipedia, and their real world political activities, much of which they seek to hide, are not covered at all. Arzel and others continually harp about our need to cover their charitable activities, but we already mention that and their charity balls and support of the arts. It's minimal and mostly directed at things which benefit other wealthy. Big deal. Their political activities do exist and need coverage. They learned long ago that democracy (one vote per man) does not work in their favor, so they are all about using their money to subvert it, and some editors wittingly or unwittingly aid them. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely. MilesMoney (talk) 04:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Your comment at AN/I

I just wanted to point out the obvious fact I wasn't the one who brought this to AN/I. Someone else did.[3] I was simply responding as AN/I is on my watchlist. I'm not sure why you would want to warn uninvolved editors for participating in discussions at AN/I. Generally speaking, Wikipedia values the opinions of uninvolved editors. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

?? Did I goof up here? Let me take a look. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Crap! You're right. I was editing the section which you started and it went from there. That was actually a subsection. I'll refactor. Sorry about that.

I still think that the demand for a "topic ban from all BLP content" is too far-reaching, given that he was making a direct quote that turned out to be accurate. This matter could have been settled much more nicely, but we have a likely blocking evading sock pushing this, and you just happened to jump on that bandwagon. (You may well have other reasons for teaching MilesMoney some lessons, and I agree that there seem to be some issues. I did give him a chiding there, and he seemed to take it well.)-- Brangifer (talk) 01:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Brian Josephson editing on Water Memory. Thank you.

Notifying you just because your name was mentioned beside a diff. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

BR, you might wish to rethink this wording in the light of relevant policy. Cheers LeadSongDog come howl! 23:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

? I've said this to his face before. It's not new, or news to anyone who's been dealing with him. How do you think I should reword it? -- Brangifer (talk) 01:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I softened it a bit. Hope that helps. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I think that's the wiser choice. LeadSongDog come howl! 02:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Testing new template

What it looks like:

Edit warring at acupuncture

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

At present, you're at 3RR. --Mallexikon (talk) 09:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I have only restored to the default position when you and A1candidate have violated BRD after clear warnings to not edit war and to only discuss. I won't continue to revert, but you won't get away with trying to force such changes. You must stop edit warring and stick to discussion. -- Brangifer (talk) 09:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. --Mallexikon (talk) 10:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:Boomerang. Liars ("accusation of vandalism", when you knew better) aren't going to get kid glove treatment here, and your gaming the system is noticed. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:26, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Result: User:BullRangifer reported by User:Mallexikon (Result: no violation )

ANI is probably the best place for what you posted to ANEW, as no one is really going to pay much attention to a closed discussion, and normally only Admins read that page anyway. Dougweller (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Reddit, AM

Like you, I do not want to enlarge the "Reddit, AM" discussion[4], but may I comment here on your 08:03, 23 December 2013 comment, with which I broadly concur, especially "we resort to describing several types of definitions in the sections mentioned above (so the Reddittor is wrong), and use a defining watershed difference between AM and mainstream medicine as a suitable introduction to the subject"? You seem to regard the watershed to be what is quoted in the final sentence; "that which has not been proven to work, and that which has been proven not to work." For many that is or seems to be the crux. But to the unconverted or unconvinced it begs certain fundamental questions (about philosophic doubt, proof in general, proof in science, or in "medical science" and mainstream practise and so on). So let me mention explicitly what you may have seen in the course of earlier discussion: I believe the wording "not based on evidence gathered using the scientific method...(and) using alternative medical diagnoses" is better suited to the article because it is what AM practitioners themselves (unarguably?) profess. The next step for those who reject such AM is to point out that AM "has not been proven to work (or) proven not to work." My feeling is that to take this latter as the crux for others (and may be for oneself) is inconclusive and leaves the matter open to further argument. As it happens I had never heard of Reddit before, and see your critique as wholly justified. Qexigator (talk) 09:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The two quotes I threw in at the end of my comment are not intended for the article. They are from Tim Minchin's brilliant beat poem "Storm". Previously those quotes were in the article, but for some reason were removed, even though he is a notable skeptic whose views are widely cited. They are parallels to our introductory statement, in that they also address the question of evidence as the watershed difference between AM and mainstream medicine. Obviously even that doesn't totally cover it, as other definitions are needed to adequately describe AM. It's so diffuse that it's impossible for one definition to do the job. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and the paragraph on Dawkins comes close to the quotes. Comedians or poets may not be RS but can certainly be effective communicators. So Minchin gives Wikipedia a mention (unless I misheard that). Qexigator (talk) 17:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you heard right. He talks pretty fast, but he did mention Wikipedia in a nice sort of way, that essentially said that if someone can't even take the time to get basic information by using Wikipedia, they are pretty uninformed. That beat poem isn't just funny, but very carefully written. He's a wordsmith. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

GERAC

Hi Brangifer, happy holidays to you! Any thoughts on this comment, and preceding couple comments? It looks like Quackguru is trying to gut GERAC (with typically obtuse arguments like "too technical" and "coatrack") because he's misreading it as a pro-acu result. In fact it showed verum acu = sham. cheers, Middle 8 (talk) 03:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Gah! Don't get me involved with GERAC or QG....nuf said. Life is too short already. Good luck! -- Brangifer (talk) 04:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Isn't that the truth! thanks, Middle 8 (talk) 06:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 December 2013

• Recent research: Cross-language editors, election predictions, vandalism experiments

• Featured content: Drunken birds and treasonous kings

• Discussion report: Draft namespace, VisualEditor meetings

• WikiProject report: More Great WikiProject Logos

• News and notes: IEG round 2 funding rewards diverse ambitions

• Technology report: OAuth: future of user designed tools

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 05:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Nutation

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Nutation. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Charlotte's Web (Cannabis) article created 01-01-2014

Charlotte's Web (Cannabis) article created 01-01-2014.

I have had this on the back burner for a while, but have decided to go public now. There are many more sources below which can be used. They all mention "Charlotte's Web". To comply with WP:MEDRS, no direct medical claims are made, only documentation that such claims are made. Although the focus is on the CW strain, Charlotte Figi, the Stanley brothers, Sanjay Gupta, and CNN, are directly incidental to the story and must be mentioned. Other subjects that are relevant are how CW has spurred marijuana exiles. Other children than Charlotte Figi are potential subjects. I'm sure there are many other possibilities for article development.

Basic Citation template: {{Citation |last= |first= |year= |title= |publisher= |publication-place= |page= |url= |accessdate= }}

• CNN 'Weed' Documentary Follows Sanjay Gupta's Reversal On Marijuana, The Huffington Post

• Weed Pioneers Look To Save Epileptic Kids With New Medical Marijuana Strain, The Huffington Post

• Medical Marijuana for Kids? CBC Canada

• Parents seek hope in medical marijuana, USA Today

• Changing the 'Face of Cannabis', Colorado Springs Independent

• Demand for low-THC pot for children outstrips nonprofit growing operation's production ability, The Denver Channel

• Slow-growing plant yields marijuana designed for kids, The Salt Lake Tribune

• Colorado may fund research into medical marijuana, another first, The Daily Caller

• I am a Stanley Brother from Sanjay Guptas WEED documentary. Topiama

• The strain is sold at Indispensary: MMJ Centers Colorado Springs, where some of the Stanley brothers work.

I welcome further development of the article by other editors. Don't hesitate to nominate this article for WP:DYK . -- Brangifer (talk) 02:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 January 2014

• Traffic report: A year stuck in traffic

• Arbitration report: Examining the Committee's year

• In the media: Does Wikipedia need a medical disclaimer?

• Book review: Common Knowledge: An Ethnography of Wikipedia

• News and notes: The year in review

• Discussion report: Article incubator, dates and fractions, medical disclaimer

• WikiProject report: Where Are They Now? Fifth Edition

• Featured content: 2013—the trends

• Technology report: Looking back on 2013

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 05:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The cannabis vs. marijuana discussion

Talk:Cannabis (drug)#Requested move to "Marijuana"

You've presented helpful arguments on both sides of the issue. On the whole, your remarks seem to indicate you favor the move but you haven't actually weighed in officially with a !vote. Are you still trying to consider the evidence and come to a decision? Don't mean to pry. Just curious. Fwiw, I thought a lot of your remarks were very good. Regards, Msnicki (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm still weighing the evidence. I think you make a good case. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Since you are apparently not resigning . . .

Of course I know who Morten Frost is. Saw him play in person twice. At the the Canadian Open in the fall of 1980 when he was just coming into his own as one of the world's top few players, and at the Singapore Open in 1990 when he was a few years past his peak. At either time he could have beaten me by whatever score he chose. Great footwork. A few years ago he spent a day or two as a guest coach at the club I was long a member of in Wellesley, Massachusetts, but that was a couple of years after (in my late 50's) I had stopped playing. As for Denmark, my wife and I spent four days in Copenhagen just this past spring at the end of a cruise. We enjoyed it very much though not, perhaps, the city's idea of budget hotel accommodations. Reminded me of the nights I spent in the New Haven YMCA while playing in the Connecticut Open badminton tournament. Regards. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

That's pretty cool! For someone interested in badminton and its history, that must be a great experience. I have lived several places in Denmark, including northern Copenhagen. Unfortunately my badminton skills are strictly child's play, but it's a fun sport. The Danes tend to do lots of indoor sports, likely because of the unstable weather. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I remember hearing they were also very good at team handball which is played indoors. For a nation with a smaller population than the state of Massachusetts the Danes have really done remarkably well in badminton, producing a number of the sport's "all-time" greats. Impressive considering how popular badminton is in the Far East, particularly Indonesia, Malaysia, China, and South Korea. Unfortunately they've never quite captured the Thomas Cup, the international world team championship which is still something of the Holy Grail for countries where the sport is popular. Badmintonhist (talk) 02:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

As an American, team handball was a new sport to me. I had to get used to it, but it's a very exciting, fast paced sport, somewhat like basketball. It has that same intense, non-stop, dynamic, with lots of goals, trick, and team tactics, unlike soccer. Here are a couple videos: Anja Andersen with her tricks and from the finale of the Olympics, when Denmark met their match in a very strong South Korean team. They could just as well have lost, but they won: Denmark & Korea Battle For Olympic Handball Gold - Athens 2004 Olympics. Denmark won Europe, World, and Olympics. Can't do better than that! -- Brangifer (talk) 03:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Biased Sources

Your insistence on using biased sources only show just how biased you are. By your logic that article should be full of MMfA crap because all they do is criticize Fox News. By your logic I should go use Newsbusters (the ideological opposite) and put a bunch of crap onto articles that they criticize. I don't because I am not an ideological warrior. I believe in NPOV and use of Reliable Sources. I suggest you do the same. As a side note, there is nothing to suggest that their study is notable, it certainly didn't get any notable press, thus it is also a violation of WP:WEIGHT Arzel (talk) 05:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I opened up an ANI regarding this issue. It is not directed at you, but since you are mentioned I thought I would notify you. Arzel (talk) 05:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)