User talk:THF

Business process reengineering

Thanks for reverting the vandal's edit. Kai A. Simon 22:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of atheism‎ reversion

Thanks, Ted, for your vigilant reversion of two edits by 68.6.209.141 - you marked your own edit as minor, but had the previous edits stayed, they would have effected a major loss. -- Jmc 06:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Nelson Frank

Is your grandfather the reporter Nelson Frank? Just curious and you don't have to tell me if he was. Vassyana 02:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Why? --THF 11:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Spurred by the AFD discussion, I looked out of curiousity. It seems he actually is notable. ;o) He was quite an active figure during the Red Scare, often cited by commentators and government officials of the time. It was actually interesting reading. Also, I found that I admire his rhetorical talent. As a writer, I really enjoyed reading his skillful use of language. You've got some excellant literary genes in you. o:-) Be well!! Vassyana 12:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to get back to library to find some of the references, but I'll gladly send you what I could find. Give me a day or two to compile some notes. If I neglect this (that is you don't receive a mail from me by Thursday), please drop me a reminder on my talk page. Sorry for the delay, I just researched it out of my own curiousity, not intending to keep notes. Cheers! Vassyana 17:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

ANI

Thanks for fixing the noticeboard. I was about to start doing the same thing, after seeing the edit that annihilated 8 days of threads: these kinds of repairs are difficult and fraught with edit conflicts because the place is so active. There is a bug that sometimes causes previous threads to disappear (it's happened to me on ANI) but I'm not sure that's what happened here. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Liebeck

Thanks for pointing that out; it was a wretched way to say "tort reform". For whatever it's worth, I think you've done an excellent job editing. Few editors announce their potential biases so clearly as you do on the talk page, and I find that admirable.

Incidentally, I happen to be a student at the University of Chicago Law School. Cool Hand Luke 06:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Just make any edits you see fit; you seem to have a good grasp of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. I'll keep an eye on tort reform though. I just spent over an hour reading it and checking citations, and you're right that it's POV. It's not even formatted very well. I support any improvements you can make. Cool Hand Luke 21:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the article requires a complete teardown. I'll finish a rewrite in my sandbox (where I'm working off an older version of the article that also has problems, but not as many), and run it by you and the talk page before I do the change. -- THF 21:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

apology for my behavior towards you

I deeply apologize for my April 3 personal attack on you on the talk page of the Israel Shahak article. I particularly regret having written: "If you feel you can't be objective about this article, move somewhere else. There's plenty of work to be done in Wikipedia." You were right to refer to this outburst as an act of bullying, seeking to chase you from the page. You have written: "I hope admins don't reward that sort of bullying". You will not be petty to seek administrative sanctions on me for this statement.

Again, i'm very sorry for my part of that altercation. It's no secret, that my opinions about the way the Shahak article should appear is vastly different from yours. I also disagree with you on a number of other substantial issues. But that's no excuse for me to treat you aggressively, as i did. I believe our joint collaboration on this article, along with the many other fine editors, may actually benefit the article, by promoting, in the course of time, the article's balance, as per Wikipedia's NPOV ideal. Itayb 16:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Thank you. I am all for a balanced article. For example, I recognize that there are reliably sourced defenders of Shahak that Wikipedia requires be cited, even though I find their views abhorrent and bigoted. I hope that we can reach a consensus on an NPOV article, and I appreciate the apology. I have no intention of seeking administrative sanctions. -- THF 22:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your selfless and gentlemanly reply. :) Itayb 22:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my page :)

I didn't even notice this [1] until I looked at that users history. I give you a big smile :-). ~AFA ^{Imagine I swore.} 22:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Concerned person (talk · contribs)

and all socks have been blocked indefinitely. If this user posts further rants on your talk page or elsewhere, you can post a notice to WP:AIV for immediate blocking. Thanks for your patience, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Andijan massacre

Hi, When you get a chance, please take a look at the last few edits I made to Andijan massacre. The only controversial thing I did was merging the press section into the May 13 section. I felt it was not important/long enough to merit a separate section. Is that alright? KazakhPol 20:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look this weekend. //THF 12:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

John summers (basketball player)

Thank for your input on this article's entry at WP:COIN. I don't know enough about the college game to know who or what is notable. Can you place a delete tag on the article? Bearian 02:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Much thanks...

Just wanted to stop by to thank you for your help in undoing many of those vandalism edits! That was about a days-worth of my WikiLife.... Thank you, thank you, thank you.... —  MusicMaker 18:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Unbalanced tag

I'm leaving you a note out of good will and in good faith, in the hope that we can work together to resolve the unbalanced tag dispute. —Viriditas | Talk 21:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I've mostly worked on expanding and cleaning up the synopsis section. At this time, it is 839 words in length, which is acceptable according to WP:FILMS guidelines. If there are any outstanding issues with the synopsis, or areas you would like to see developed/expanded/corrected, please do not hesitate to contact me on my talk page. —Viriditas | Talk 05:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The guidelines actually say between 400 and 700 words, and my version was at the high end of that, but in the interests of compromise, I'm not going to make a fuss over an extra 100 words. I'm stepping away from WP for a few days, and I hope the broad strokes of that consensus are retained by other editors in my absence. Thanks for your patience, good-faith efforts, and willingness to compromise. THF 06:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. The guidelines are speaking of an average plot length, and plot lengths for films just under 900 words are very common and rarely controversial. Take a look at Category:FA-Class film articles. A random sample of five out of 51 featured film articles gives the following plot lengths:Casablanca, 697; Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, 761; V for Vendetta, 812; Borat, 838; and Jaws, 886. As of this post, Sicko has 834 words in the plot section. If you have any interest in getting further clarification on this matter on the film project discussion page, I'll join you. —Viriditas | Talk 11:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI...There's a discussion in progress at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films#Plot_synopses_too_long.3F. —Viriditas | Talk 11:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Multiple chemical sensitivity

Thanks for helping keep the NPOV. I know we can't wander over to pure SPOV, but science certainly isn't supportive of this diagnosis. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply WP:CIVIL

I wasn't stirring the pot or making personal attacks. His inability to take responsibility for his own actions is childish, and should be brought to his attention for the good of the community. I'm not going to add my comment on his page back, as long as he's read it that's all I can do and it's up to him to grow.►Chris Nelson 22:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Jeff Winter

Hi. Thank you for your edits to the above page. You may be aware that the freemason reference was the subject of dispute (albeit not directly through the article talk page). Your edit seems to have assuaged the disputor, as it has not been further reverted. I am also happy with the edit, as the other party in the dispute, so I thank you for your input on this. Best wishes. Ref ^(chew)(do) 09:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

A star for you

I'm sorry to read about that posting of you name and number by a bad apple. :( I wish I could help you, but all I can do is give you this star. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  18:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You don't know me; at least I don't think you do. I have been watching Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents‎ and noticed the comments about you and Michael Moore. I made a comment there and I hope I didn't make a fool out of myself there. But I am strongly against outing of editors like Moore has done with you. If you have any problems with what I have said then please by all mean tell me on my talk page and I will make corrections or delete it. I am not sensitive to criticism at all and I am just trying to help stop this kind of stuff. Oh by the way, I like the movies that he makes thought I haven't seen Sicko yet but I do look foreward to seeing it. :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Sicko pages

I've been looking over your attempts to get to NPOV on the page -- nice job. But I disagree with (a) cutting down the "plot summary" section, and (b) cutting down the criticism from an article to a mere section of the movie. The movie got millions of people to think about health-care, which many have said is the No. 1 domestic issue in the presidential campaign so far (I'm not sure about that but it's certainly one of the top issues). The movie also generated quite a debate over the points that it made. There's an interesting consensus on some points: Critics of Moore agreeing that the U.S. healthcare system is a mess; people on the left criticizing Moore's lack of balance.

To adequately describe the controversy, a separate article is needed. Thanks for being polite, but if you disagree that the controversy article is not worthwhile, I'd rather hear your reasons for that instead of a suggestion to just summarize it. Don't patronize.

Also, the critical response section (film reviewers) in the article as it stands now simply gives one-liner, drive-by blurbs when critical analysis is more useful to the reader. We don't need 19 critics saying the same thing, each in one line (I'm exaggerating, but not much); we need to show consensus opinion among critics, particularly major critics, and that gives the reader some insight, even in a relatively short space. Since the critical response blends in with the political response, it is best presented in the "Controversy about" article. The details in the "plot summary" section, which I had added and which have since been deleted, were useful for anyone actually interested in understanding (or perhaps trying to remember) the many, many, many details that Moore piled on in the movie. How anyone (you?) thinks a shorter summary is more valuable is something I don't understand. I can see a three-paragraph summary version with subsections, but not the vague summary that exists now.

You talk about smb's "invitation" to add to the article. I've dealt with smb. He's proven himself or herself to be a total partisan. I have not seen one edit by him or comment by him that didn't attempt to show Moore in the best light. For all I know, he is Michael Moore. He's shown himself to be a propagandist. I'm an editor who's added positive and negative information because I want to get at the truth. What are you?

Sorry if I sound angry. I am. I'm not walking it off. Noroton 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not a quote farm" Now you're talking. I guess I could exaggerate in the same way you just have ... but it's not worth it. When quotes work, they're worth using. If you have a more exact criticism, that might be useful. My mind is open. Noroton 03:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your quote farm comment or what you think I exaggerated.

As for your desire for what the article should include, I agree that the drive-by criticism in the article is inadequate. That's why I keep suggesting you merge the articles. Not summarize. Merge, so no content is lost: after all, there was a consensus to merge the pages, and Smb keeps telling you that's what he wants. If stuff gets deleted from the merged Sicko page that you think should stay, then people can discuss that.

But maybe what you're looking for is a Debate over United States healthcare policy in the 2008 election article? Or a Sicko and the United States healthcare policy debate article? I can't promise you if you create either of those they won't be deleted. For all I know, an article with a similar but different name on the same subject already exists.

I've found smb to be partisan, also. But he eventually accedes to consensus when WP:DR disagrees with him. There is a consensus that the plot summary should be under 900 words, and a consensus that there shouldn't be a separate article. (Though, given the history of the Fahrenheit 9/11, I suspect if you add enough reliably sourced material about the movie, Moore partisans will be asking to move it back to the separate article.) The problem with the latter consensus, is that the agreement was to merge the articles, and then the articles didn't get merged. You should be bold and do that.

Please don't ask accusatory questions like "I'm an editor who's added positive and negative information because I want to get at the truth. What are you?" It's not civil and implies that you are not assuming good faith. I'm trying to help you. We both want an NPOV article, right?

If you're angry, WP:COOL. It's Wikipedia and not worth getting angry over. Moreover, getting angry is always always always counterproductive to whatever it is you are trying to accomplish. Here, you're about to alienate an editor who could be on your side.

If you think Smb is acting in bad faith, don't make personal attacks; make edits that conform to consensus and to policy. Then, if Smb reverts, he will demonstrate bad faith. If Smb is actually POV-pushing, and you have the diffs to prove it, then WP:RFC will solve the problem. But right now, if a third party were to look at what is happening, they would see Smb protecting the talk-page consensus, and you edit-warring and being uncivil about it. And if Smb is the one that's actually in the wrong, then your edit-warring only makes it easier for Smb to be wrong. Adhere to WP:BRD and no one can legitimately question you. THF 03:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

If you didn't like the YouTube links, you could have put the CNN links... BTW, why is a $400/hr attorney editing Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GaryLambda (talk • contribs) 19:43, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

award

		The Resilient Barnstar
		Okay, you melted my heart. Let's bury it (the hatchet, not my heart). David Shankbone 03:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Cool Hand Luke 03:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You think that's a wow, check out WP:AN/I. THF 03:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Of all the alleged corporate evil, including "censorship" on Wikipedia, you're apparently the most pressing threat to the working men served by Michael Moore's homepage. Congratulations. Cool Hand Luke 03:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

What amazes me are the number of hate emails I get calling me fat. (That's what I get for skipping the opportunity for a photo reshoot after I lost forty pounds.) If fat is a relevant issue for them, why are they reading Michael Moore? Seriously: not a single cogent or coherent email. And it amazes me that the only consequence from all of this is that User:Noroton ended up with a 24-hour block from making the mistake of believing that Wikipedia rules meant what they said. THF 03:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Noroton has been unblocked. - Crockspot 04:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe the BS with MM.com, i've just spent days clearing up after Amnesty and the CIA and now MM brings his sicko project to battle on wikipedia. Wikipedia does need to start to defend itself in the real world from the threats it faces now and those in the future. The funniest thing is being threatened with a short bit on the Colbert Report OOOOHHHHH!!! ^{(Hypnosadist)} 04:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[[

AFD followup

It seems to me that AfD is probably not the way to go. I've posted on the Sicko talk page, going through the motions which I doubt will get any kind of a fair hearing at all. Would you recommend an RFC or any particular way of going about an RFC? Noroton 19:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

As I've said several times, why not try to merge the pages? I think the act of merger would demonstrate your point of the need of a legitimate content fork than skipping that intermediate step would. Don't forget to add John Stossel's criticism.[2], [3] If you run into trouble with the merger, and Swatjester can't help you, then you can go to the RFC process. Because Wikipedia policies against harassment and canvassing aren't being enforced, I'm going to focus on other pages. THF 19:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't a merge lose a lot of content? Or are you suggesting I retain all or the vast majority of the content? If I'm going to lose three fourths of it, I'd rather not succeed in a merger. Noroton 20:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Retain the vast majority of the substantive notable sourced content, to the extent doing so is defensible. THF 20:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

A no-answer answer. Noroton 14:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Not in the slightest. I am merely telling you that you need to comply with WP:N, WP:V, and WP:WEIGHT. THF 14:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Why I am not going to get a new account

THF: If I were in your position, I might consider officially abandoning this account and starting a new anonymous user. Your openness about your POV and associations is admirable, but unfortunately, such openness only subjects you to ad-hominem attacks. One of the great things about Wikipedia is that anonymity eliminates ad-hominems and allows for a purely intellectual exchange without all the background noise of false COI allegations.

You could retire this account and disclose that you'll be back eventually with a new anonymous account. I don't see any problem with doing this if you disclose that fact beforehand and never edit as THF again. You might also want to avoid articles you've edited previously as THF, but there's plenty to do here so I'm sure you could find articles to work on. :-)

(You might want to run it by an admin to be sure it's OK first, if you decide to do it. I have some experience here, but others know more and could better advise you should you go that route)

Just my $0.02.

ATren 17:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice, which has been offered by a number of others. But I disagree that this is the best course of action:

1. I haven't done anything wrong, administrators agree that I haven't done anything wrong, and going away now in response to these attacks would be viewed as a concession that there was something shameful about my behavior.
2. Going away and ceasing editing any of the thousands of different articles I've edited is encouragement to use the same intimidation tactics against other editors, including the hypothetical future anonymous THF account.
3. I simply don't believe that Wikipedia will (or can) protect my anonymity in a new anonymous account. People with far less distinctive styles and public prominence than me have been outed. Too many people with axes to grind and nothing to do will sit down and compare thousands of edits to find the stylistic tics that will naturally be revealed--and then I'll be accused of bad-faith COI and sock-puppetry because I didn't disclose my identity. My legitimate edits are being spun dishonestly by left-wing blogs now--I mean, look at the conspiracy theories that are going on now, such as the theory that Merck hired my law firm in 2004 because they hoped I would quit that job and edit a Wikipedia article about a movie about healthcare in 2007. If I take your tactic, it will be falsely portrayed that I was forced from Wikipedia for bad conduct and tried to sneak back on.
4. If I leave, any new editor who is conservative (including the hypothetical future anonymous THF account) will be accused of being me in disguise, even if they are not. So I get the worst of both worlds: I'll be driven from Wikipedia, but blamed for edits that I am not making.

If Wikipedia would just enforce its policies and guidelines evenly, there would be no problem. Thank you for your suggestion, and for your defense of Wikipedia ideals. THF 18:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

You make several very good points here - leaving and coming back may indeed create more problems than it solves. It seems you may have thought this out more thoroughly than I did. :-) In any case, you seem to be able to maintain NPOV despite your admitted political leanings, so as long as you keep doing that, this false controversy should subside. Good luck. ATren 18:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)wi

Yeah, I agree. I don't think that leaving and starting a new account would be helpful in dealing with your recent problems. But anyway, I was wondering if you would you like me to delete the history of your userpage? Sarah 20:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It's done. And don't worry, it's in no way a cover-up. Lots of people make the mistake of adding too much information when they're new and then later end up asking to have it deleted. It's also nice to have a clean slate from the vandalism. :) If you want it deleted again when you take down that mm message or have changed any other information, just leave a message on my talk page and I'll do it straight away. Sarah 20:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hm

Mr Tetrahydrofuran, although you do not "work for" a pharmaceutical company, is it fair to say that you have, on at least one occasion, acted as a paid advocate for a pharmaceutical company in court?

I'm simply trying to get things straightened out. DS 23:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

In 2005, when I worked for a different employer, I performed legal work for a pharmaceutical manufacturer who had been falsely accused of violating the law in products-liability litigation. My work mostly involved issues of federal jurisdiction, the scope of protective orders in document discovery, procedural aspects of multi-district litigation, conflicts of laws issues, and class action certification. You are surely not suggesting that I have a conflict of interest with all of the clients and business partners of all of my former employers, because that would suggest that only teenagers and the habitually unemployed can edit Wikipedia articles. Please discuss at WP:COI/N#Sicko if this does not assuage your concerns. Thanks for asking, and have a nice day! THF 23:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not making any suggestions about whether you do or do not have a conflict of interest, as I frankly don't know enough about the situation. However, I would point out that the perception of conflict of interest can be significant, since a lawyer is typically paid to champion a particular point of view, rather than neutrality. As such, it is typically wisest for individuals who wish to edit Wikipedia in such circumstances to make full disclosure about their potential conflict.

I would also point out that your statement about "teenagers and the habitually unemployed" strikes me as disingenuous. We have many contributors who are themselves lawyers; at least one such is also an administrator. On more than one occasion, he has (informally) recused himself from editing an article because he felt that there might be a conflict of interest. DS 02:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

But, he has fully disclosed, and all he's gotten for it is grief! Meanwhile, thousands of other anonymous users hide their POV (because they can) and nobody questions them one bit. Is it just me that is bothered by the fact that we come down hardest on those who happen to be the most forthcoming? Is it any wonder that this editor is attempting to dissociate from his true identity, after all the unfounded accusations he's been subject to solely because of who he is? I've still not seen a single troublesome diff from him.

All I can say is, I'm glad I registered anonymously after seeing the way Wikipedia treats people who are forthcoming about their own identity and beliefs. ATren 02:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

ATren, while your concern about anonymity and how editors are treated is noted, I have found that Wikipedia is generally quite civil as a whole to those who disclose their identity and beliefs. I have edited with those from all belief systems and philosophies, and almost always with no issues. The problem is when those beliefs or associations affect how one edits, which is why Pastordavid is an administrator and Jason Gastrich is banned. It is why Agapetos angel is banned - and please note Agapetos angel did not reveal her identity, but was nevertheless banned for editing contrary to COI - although I believe this was before COI was written, and the specifics were for edit warring, POV, etc. Agapetos angel was one of those "thousands who hide their POV" and yet was banned. In short, I think that although the concerns you raise are valid, they are misapplied in this case. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what you are saying, and that's why I am still waiting to see one diff that shows problematic editing on the part of THF. I'm not saying there are none - I haven't interacted with THF much so I honestly don't know - but if there are, then the people making the COI accusations should provide those diffs for us to examine. If they don't, then it's hard for me not to assume that this is more about who he is than what he's done. ATren 03:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

All the crap you're getting recently.

Just wanted to let you know that you have my sympathy and moral support, even if I've not found the right way to give active support in discussions yet. Even though our politics couldn't be much further apart, I think that the attacks on you are, in many cases, rather hypocritical. Despite being a dirty lefty, I think it's inexcusable that left-wing COI and POV-pushing are tolerated to a much greater extent than right-wing ones. SamBC(talk) 15:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Waving the white Flag

Sorry to hear that you giving up but you have real life worth much more than your ctitics so you still win in the end. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 20:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Sicko merger

I had some concerns about the merger myself, but admittedly I haven't kept up with it as I was distracted by other issues. If you tell me what the problem is, then perhaps I can help out. Mind you, I don't think every notable person who has a point of view on the subject needs inclusion, but every notable point of view does. --David Shankbone 19:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree on that. It's points of view that are relevant, not individuals.

• Turtlescrubber sanitized the page.
• Ripe restored some of it, but you can see that much content has been lost, relegated to footnotes that Ripe indicates on the talk page that he intends to delete later. Some of the footnotes have nothing to do with the criticisms, and are there for POINTy reasons to encourage others to delete the whole thing.

I'm not endorsing the Noroton version, which I never had a chance to look at. THF 19:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Which points of view are not included? You don't have to give long explanations or descriptions, something like, "Nothing about Cuba being crap" kinds of statements will do. --David Shankbone 19:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Notable points of view omitted, off the top of my head:

1. The WHO rankings measure whether a country's medical system is socialized, not whether it is good. (Stossel)
2. Inaccurate portrayal of Canada. (Gratzer, Howell, Pipes, others)
3. Inaccurate portrayal of Great Britain. (Reinhoudt, others)
4. Inaccurate portrayal of Cuba. (Lowry, Smith, others)
5. Inaccurate portrayal of France. (Elder, Loder, Reinhoudt, others)
6. Failure to acknowledge any tradeoffs. (Mitchell, others)
7. Stale anecdotes of marginal relevance. (Freudenheim, others)
8. 45 million number misleading. (Elder, Tanner, many many others)
9. Inaccurate portrayal of socialized US services (Stossel)
10. Failure to account for benefits of competition (Tanner)
11. Kaiser inaccurately portrayed. (Kaiser)

THF 19:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, just reviewing this casually, #1 appears to be more a criticism of the WHO rankings than Moore. 2, 3, 4, and 5 should be in, but they an be lumped together. I need to consider the others. --David Shankbone 19:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for contributions to Oscar Grant article

Hello! I feel you very substantially improved Oscar Grant article. And some very recent edits of another editor were not right. You know whom I talk about. Thank you very much for taking care of this. Best! BaldPark (talk) 23:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You've done good work. The page is looking better every day. Apologies again for my screw ups in the last 24 hours and thanks for putting up with it.Cptnono (talk) 23:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Also wanted to mention that it has been a pleasure seeing your input. Unfortunately, when we disagree with what certain editors on the other side of the political spectrum force, our persistence can change the tone of an article. This does not always change it for the better.Cptnono (talk) 06:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

BaldPark, and Cptnono, unless one of you is willing to open an RFC on Chris, I'm leaving the article. I refuse to keep cleaning up after him. THF (talk) 10:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I commented on his page per the RFC guidelines. I think my thoughts are laid out to both of you pretty well there so take a look if you get the chance. There are no worries if you don't feel like dealing with the frustration anymore. Your input was invaluable up to this point while interest from other editor's should be slowing down about now. Thanks for rescuing this article from a biased POV.Cptnono (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Edward Weidenfeld, notable or not?

I am interested in getting some feedback on the notablity of a certain article. Could you take a look at Edward Weidenfeld and see what you think? The article reads like a personal advert for this practicing attorney. Many of the sources that were added either did not mention him, mentioned him only in passing, or were from his personal bussiness website. Most of the achievments mentioned in the article don't have any sources to back them up(sources that mention him doing what article says). It seems as if he has not done anything to stand out from his peers. I am thinking about setting the article up for an afd debate, but wanted to get some input first. Thank you!!WackoJacko (talk) 01:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, well on one hand other stuff exists. On the other hand, that's not supposed to be a valid reason. Cool Hand Luke 01:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware that there are other articles about non-notable people. Hopefully, the existence of other non-notable articles won't set a precedent.WackoJacko (talk) 01:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I just found this one interesting under the circumstances. Cool Hand Luke 02:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

True. What do you think about the notability of this particular article?WackoJacko (talk) 03:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems to suffer from Wikipuffery; without looking at the edit history, I would guess some autobiography going on. If I were drawing notability lines from scratch, he wouldn't make the cut. But I'm relatively deletionist compared to the median Wikipedian, if you were asking me as a descriptive matter whether he's notable by current AFD interpretations of WP:N, I'd say yes because of the Washingtonian profile, which is more than a number of bios that have passed AFD muster have. I'd vote weak delete and eventually lose. But the Wikipedia roster of lawyer biographies is remarkably hit or miss; it's rather silly that some lawyers have lengthy meandering entries while Ted Ullyot and Ted Boutros are red-links (as was Laurie Levenson until last week when I created the article). Somebody really ought to be beefing up the lawyer bios on the site. THF (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

So, do you think it is futile to start an AFD? Also, the person who does most of the editing sometimes goes under IP. The IP geolocates to almost the exact location as Weidenfeld's law office. There was also one instance where Weidenfeld go into trouble with HUD, and when I add it in he keeps whitewashing it. Either way, thank you very much for your input!WackoJacko (talk) 05:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

If there's an autobiography issue, address the autobiography issue. If there's uncited stuff, tag the uncited stuff. If there's POV-pushing over well-cited material, address the POV-pushing through an RFC tag on the talk page. I wouldn't bet even money on an AFD, given persistent misunderstanding of WP:N, and the fact that I can't even get a deletion of a one-line stub of a fourth-tier Tamil terrorist without so much as a first name or known birthdate, but I cynically note that the COI may draw angry editors out of the woodwork to call for deletion, especially since it's a Republican at issue, which all good-hearted Wikipedians know is far worse than a terrorist. THF (talk) 05:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh. There are systemic AFD biases about COI. "Autobiographical" corporation articles get deleted all the time, even (sometimes) when the company is quite large. On the other hand, high schools and old college clubs usually don't—even when they're clearly terrible stubs written by students. It seems to depend largely on whether the average Wikipedian likes the imagined motives of the creator; like THF, I think this one might be deleted, but it's not a safe bet. Cool Hand Luke 05:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I want to thank you both for your guidance in this matter. I appreciate all of the feedback I have received from you.WackoJacko (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Now that I see the wails of outrage over self-promotion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael McDonnell, who has dozens more Google News hits than Weidenfeld (or Beauty Turner for that matter), perhaps I underestimate the odds of a successful AFD nomination. I forget that Wikipedia hates the appearance of conflict of interest more than it likes enforcing its rules even-handedly. THF (talk) 00:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Just watching the deletion process is fascinating. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conservation Fallout: Nuclear Protest at Diablo Canyon is going to fail because one editor thinks it's notable because it's "in the Princeton library" (which has literally a million different volumes); another thinks the existence of three book reviews means this remaindered book is notable. Meanwhile, at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_18#Category:Tamil_terrorists, a series of POV pushers glorifying the Tamil Tigers is going to delete a legitimate category because they constitute a voting bloc to prevent identification of Tamil Tigers as terrorists. And again, the reasoning is completely lawless: despite the existence of Category:Palestinian terrorists and Category:Basque paramilitaries and Category:Kurdish terrorists, the claim is that "Tamil" is not a nationality (even as they have a nationalist terrorist movement) so the category is "racist." THF (talk) 08:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Zaid v. Bush into Waleed Said Bin Said Zaid

I would suggest merger as noted above instead of deletion of the material. Bearian (talk) 16:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea where you should put this disucssion, but WP:AFD is always good, or Talk:Zaid v. Bush or Talk:Waleed Said Bin Said Zaid. You may cut and paste my comments. BTW, I've merged the articles per WP:BOLD. Bearian (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you nominate 5-10 at a time. Or go to WP:AN/I for another suggestion. Bearian (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Filing spam. They look like little more than docket reports with form introductions. I can't believe you're the first to notice this. Cool Hand Luke 17:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Invisible Barnstar
		Thank you for your work on those articles that have been languishing in the backlogs. As someone once told me "Your good work goes unseen unless someone disagrees ;)" --BirgitteSB 01:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW I stumbled on this comment. I don't know that it makes any real difference but I feel the need to correct a misconception. I don't work on the terrorism articles, but simply muck around the backlogs to a negligible effect. I saw the AN thread and was just frustrated to see an unecessary conflict brewing over those articles when there are so many articles with the same problem minus the conflict. Maybe I also was a little quicker to speak because I once misread a backlog and read some of those editors the riot act over a WP:TERRORISM problem and felt I owed them one.--BirgitteSB 01:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, and apologies for the misunderstanding. THF (talk) 02:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I am sorry I didn't predict how my comments could seem like such a pile on to you and lead to unnecessary frustration. And frankly I could have done a better job of assuming good faith that your inquiry was as simple as it seemed.--BirgitteSB 02:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

UET

I noticed you tagged Unitary executive theory. If you get a chance, could you please elaborate at the talk page? I don't disagree with the tagging --- just think your explanation would help. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Excellent comment. Thanks THF, and please watchlist this article so you can chime in as we try to fix it up. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

With some reluctance, I've blocked you for 3RR on BART Police shooting of Oscar Grant. I'll be amenable to unblocking, if you can find me a good reason William M. Connolley (talk) 21:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

My reversions were good-faith working to reach a consensus, and I miscounted the number of times I reverted. When I realized I reverted three times and that consensus wasn't going to be reached, I stopped editing the article and took discussion to the talk page; each of my reverts was discussed on the talk page contemporaneously. It appears that one can construct an argument that I reverted more than three times. My last revert to the article was over eighteen hours ago, and, while I've been participating in discussion in the talk page, I've made no attempt at any controversial edits to the mainspace (even though the current version of the page contradicts the third opinion requested by an RFC), so a block at this point would be punitive, rather than preventative. ("Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users.") My good faith can be shown by the fact that I admitted the possible violation when I made the report to AN3. Thank you. THF (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, if you'll agree to not edit that article for 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 22:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. THF (talk) 22:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You're unblocked. Happy editing, be just a teensy bit more cautious in future. Regards, William M. Connolley (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Ben Edmestone Barnes prod

I removed the prod. Please try to stick with reasons that are actually in the guidelines for policies you quote. I searched the page on notability and could find nothing about original research (which should just be removed from articles, not allowed to stand for months and days and prods) or about the timeline for "material improvements." --KP Botany (talk) 11:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought my PROD was a reasonable explanation of reasons for deletion (an unreferenced orphan article with a two-year-old notability tag is unlikely to demonstrate notability any time soon), but we'll see what the AFD process says. THF (talk) 11:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I'm tired of all of the missing scientist articles on Wikipedia and the rampant deletionism that never seems to touch minor fake fiction works mentioned once in a Simpson episode but goes for the jugular when academics are concerned. And, god forbid, that someone at a university in a non-English speaking country might be notable. I won't be there for the AfD which is generally used in instances like this to force another editor to do the research and reference the article on the deletionist's time schedule. I'll edit on my own time schedule. --KP Botany (talk) 11:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I did the research before putting the tag on. You're not missing anything. I'm happy to man the battlefronts with you when you ask for a re-evaluation of the WP:N guidelines to deal with the fancruft and fifth-rate garage bands. The article had a notability tag since 2007 -- this isn't quite a rush to judgment. THF (talk) 11:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Puff

I appreciate your efforts to clean up the Scott Horton (lawyer) article, but it seems a little disingenuous to throw around WP:PUFF like it's a Wikipedia-endorsed policy. I think it's neat that you coined a word (though the word itself makes me cringe), but I think it would be easy to be careless and apply it too liberally.Athene cunicularia (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't pretend it's an endorsed policy; I use it as a shortcut. "X spoke on the radio and wrote blog posts about a notable case" (where the blog posts are misdescribed as the considerably more prestigious articles in the paper magazine) seems pretty much in the wheelhouse. For anyone really notable in the 21st century, that they once spoke on the radio isn't such a big deal. It's almost a negative pregnant to identify a specific radio interview. THF (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, I'm talking more about how WP:PUFF looks like a policy when you use it to justify your revisions. Also, Horton does regularly write for the magazine.Athene cunicularia (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

That's no different than WP:COATRACK or WP:HORSE or WP:STICK in that regard. THF (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Those three actually help to show the difference—they all have far more than five edits by a single author.Athene cunicularia (talk) 01:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

COATRACK went three months before it picked up a second author; this has been around less than three weeks. They all start somewhere. I think it's a useful concept that isn't covered in any other essay, and reflects a real subculture of Wikipedia behavior, but I've released it to the Wiki-world, so anyone can edit it now. THF (talk) 01:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. We don't need to come to a consensus on it. I think WP:PUFF makes a valid point. Hopefully some people will contribute to the essay, and maybe it will help to improve the RfD process—which in many ways encourages people to puff up an article if they want to keep it. However, I think you should be aware that until then, it may look like you're trying to make your opinion seem more official than it is.Athene cunicularia (talk) 01:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Walker

FYI, I'm pretty sure the "appalling Wikipedia omission" is due to the previous version being oversighted. Might want to make backup copies of your work! I had webcitation make one. --Elvey (talk) 20:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Please see this. -- Vision Thing -- 18:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Re edit summaries: No, I tend to copy and paste what I write on talk pages to make the history easier to read. Cool Hand Luke 20:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I used to do the same thing, but then had people take issue with that when there was an acrimonious discussion. So I started just doing the "re" thing and nobody has said anything since. --David Shankbone 17:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

AfC Submission

Your nomination at Articles for Creation was a success, and Johanna Hurwitz was created. Please continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. Thank you for helping Wikipedia! TNXMan 15:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

I have been following this discussion, as it relates to a disagreement I've had with another editor at the Middle East Media Research Institute article. My reading of the current state of that discussion is that there is clear consensus among the non-involved editors who have opined on this matter (Protonk, Jayjg, NoCal100 and yourself) that the blog source is to be used sparingly, if at all, and that since the points made in the blog are made more succinctly in reliable sources, there is no need to quote a blog. Accordingly, I have followed you own recommendation and rewritten the section, paraphrasing the arguments made rather than just quoting 4 sources. This was reverted by the same editor who wants to use the blog source. I would like some advice on how to proceed. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I've tried a compromise edit. If that gets reverted, we'll use the {RFCpol} template. There isn't quite the consensus for the heavy axe you used, but if you reasonably summarize the quotefarm such that no substance can be claimed to have been lost, editors will see any POV-pushing from reverters for what it is. THF (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - you current compromise edit to the article is fine with me. Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Editors will also be less likely to object to an edit if you're simultaneously trimming the pro-MEMRI stuff at the same time as the anti-MEMRI stuff (you only tackled one of them). Both sections are too long. THF (talk) 19:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, there is clearly much to be done on that page. Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

DC Meetup Events: You're invited!

Wikipedia Loves Art! (February 27) The Smithsonian American Art Museum will be holding a Wikipedia Loves Art! meetup on Friday, February 27 from 5-7 pm in the Kogod Courtyard. This is a photography event involving Wikipedians, along with Flickr users and others, to generate content for Wikipedia. Come share your experiences, meet the other teams, and take some photos! While RSVPing isn't necessary drop Jeff Gates an email if you're planning on attending so he can get a head count: gatesj (at) si.edu. There also is a signup list here, along with detailed information. The museum is conveniently located across from the Gallery Place-Chinatown metro station. DC 6th Meetup (March 7) The DC 6th meetup will take place on March 7th at Pizzeria Uno's at Union Station, one level up from the main floor. The meetup will start at 5pm, and people usually stick around there for several hours. You can RSVP at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 6.

This has been an automated because you your name was on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 16:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The Burke Group legal issuse and R. Meyers abuse

I was blocked as TBG by R. Meyers yet the same day he challenged me to respond to his questions and accusations knowing I'd be forced to find a new "login". The motives are quite clear now and abusive. He knew his comments would remain in the talk page uncontested if I didn't respond. He wanted to make his accusations visible for all and he is using the article for sinister purposes. He (or someone) has already removed my answer but the "sockpuppetry nastiness remains. I created the name "Oscarnight" to provide the timeline since tonight is Oscar night. By his challenge he forced me to obtain a new "login" giving himself the opportunity to claim sockpuppettry one more time so he could put more abusive ridicule into the articles talk page. I specifically said in my answer I would NOT edit unless I continued to see abuse and lies but he wrote in his answer to you on the talk page that I threatened to continue editing without filling you in of the truth. He is, in my opinion, dagerous, abusive, undisciplined, and in gross violation of Wiki policy. My organization has every right to participate in this article and would gladly leave it alone if it wasn't continually dishonet. There must be some sort of Admin procedure to address this, He exercises "sockpuppetry" far too liberally because of similar IP address......even though .no abuse or disruption took place......only attempts to remove libelous entries. As I said to him I am loath to police my organization asking who may be editing Wikipedia. ARe we to drag these people before the Wiki tribunal for caning? And does anyone really believe there aren't dozens of people to edit? And since when is it OK for disassociated people to annotate legal opinion into an article to tangentially point to the a POV?

The current libelous CDN entry has been intentionally contructed to post with google searches for my company using search terms "union recognition and the burke group" which are the most common search terms used by potential clients seeking my company. After several attempts to discuss to talk pages, provide truth, proper citations and now being blocked I am forced to perform edits but the libelous edits have been repeatedly restored. This has elevated to criminal proportions as reverts have been done intentionally and repeatedly after several warnings and attempts to correct. The current libelous CDN entries require that I make a formal complaint to Wikipedia legal dept. May I nominate you to conduct a formal inquiry or convene a legal tribunal within Wikipedia? I will have to engage my own legal counsel because the CDN post needs to be removed from the internet immediately before it causes damage. I can provide you and/or Wikipedia the law firm which litigated the case and provide an affidavit we are not named nor parties. If I said "John Logan has been on the faculty at LSE in the Dept of Economics from 2001 to 2007. In 2007 three women filed sexual harrassment charges and were paid $2.5 mil.. In 2008 John Logan left LSE and joined the research team at Berkeley. All three sentences are accurate taken separately. But strung together they form a vicious calculated lie.

I want to thank you for the objectivity and professionalism and I noted that Meyers tried to claim you were a sockpuppet also. I have no idea how many others they've done this to. But Meyers and his colleagues (sockpuppets) needs to be stopped. I know you probably would prefer to distance yourself but I would appreciate guidance on how I must direct myself in this situtation to the proper Wikipedia authroities. Kind regards--Oscarnight (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

"Oscar", I see no position on the abusive sockpuppet issue, which is a serious violation of Wikipedia rules. You need to give either a firm accounting of your previous activities and promise to edit from one account, and hope that admins relent, or give a better case of why you are not a sock-puppet of Oppo212 than you have given. THF (talk) 03:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This is good advice. I have tried to offer similar advice on a couple of occasions, unfortunately without positive results.

I note there have been accusations made against me, above. I hope that i may take the liberty to respond within the same space:

I have never blocked anyone, i am not an admin and therefore have no power to do so.

I have never filed for a block, therefore i have never exercised any control whatsoever over the timing of a block.

I have never sought to prevent a response; rather, i've frequently and persistently invited responses from Jbowersox/Tbg2 et al, even to the extent of using a subheading, Jbowersox, please respond. My considerable patience over several recent months is well documented.

I have, on the other hand, several times suggested that an investigation of continuing sock puppetry issues should be conducted, and others have agreed.

I am also responsible for listing issues and evidence which relate to specific and ongoing violations of Wikipedia policies. I don't apologize for that. Rather, the accusations which appear here attest to the fact that the issue is not closed.

As a result of my concerns, and the concerns of others, investigations have been conducted, and blocks have been exercised. At least four different admins have come to the same conclusion that blocks have been warranted.

I have never suggested in any way that THF is a sock puppet. Indeed, i know very well who THF is. THF has an established editing history that can be examined, as well as a known public identity. Oppo212/Rgcroc/Jbowersox/Tbg2 has a very different sort of edit history, one that by itself invites investigation. Oppo212/Rgcroc/Jbowersox/Tbg2 has used obfuscatory and contradictory claims on various talk pages in apparent attempts to obscure identity.

Finally, Oppo212/Rgcroc/Jbowersox/Tbg2/Oscarnight has a particular writing style which, after scores of talk page entries, has become very recognizable to me throughout all the different manifestations of sock puppetry. The repeated attempts to shift blame -- to students in a classroom, to employees of the Burke Group, and now to other individuals with a "similar IP address" -- just digs the dishonesty hole ever deeper.

I've defended against specious accusations made against me, i think successfully; i won't belabor the point any further on this page.

best wishes, Richard Myers (talk) 08:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

thanks!

Thanks for reading on Business Plot -- note also the "campaign" running against me which might be coordinated complete with socks on Fascism, Prescott Bush, Union Banking Corporation etc. <g>. All for the sake of POV pushing, I fear. Collect (talk) 11:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Richard Shelby

Thanks! I suppose you're right that this was synthesis. Instead, I've changed the link around President of the United States to able to be President of the United States, a link to an NPOV extensively cited article, Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories that is a relevant link for the section.

Derek Cashman interactions

Please try and disengage with Derek. You two are just egging each other on right now.

I've warned him for the NPA violation with the comments on your ego etc.

Please don't delete his posts to other talk pages, even if you think it's a personal attack. Leave that up to administrators or others not involved in the dispute. We prefer to leave them even if they are a violation, and note a warning or violation next to them.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks. THF (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Returning Klingon

The plot thickens. After seeing a few articles on my edit-watchlist get revised by Threeafterthree (talk · contribs), (AKA "Tom") who I thought lost interest in my articles, it looks like he's back. And he also edited Jeff Ballabon, which, as you noticed yesterday, was also edited by now blocked User:TWilliams9 and then his possible replacement, Jabam (talk · contribs). Posted an addendum on this to the ANI discussion. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE

Then, the similar content should be deleted from Chris Lake about his guest dj spot, no? Understand, I'm not trying to fight you here, I am trying to understand what is the difference... Thanks...

Perhaps, we don't need to list it in its own category, rather simplt the content of it in the bio section similar to Lake? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canuckdj (talk • contribs) 01:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The difference is a verifiable secondary reliable source in the Chris Lake article. Marc Mysterio has zero news coverage, so the only reason he has a Wikipedia article that hasn't been deleted is that WP:MUSIC permits articles for artists who chart. THF (talk) 01:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear Sir,

You statement is inaccurate... Marc Mysterio was featured in the DMC Update Magazine, the most respected journal for upfront music based out of UK.

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:z9JPg-nfTp0J:www.dmcupdate.com/soundjudgement/index.asp%3FIssueID%3D303%26GenreID%3D1+dmc+update+marc+mysterio&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=ca&client=firefox-a

The article is written by Lewis Dene of DMC Update, DJ Mag, and M8

Here is the text of that article:

Album of the Week

Marc Mysterio 'Roll Wit It'

(World Class)

Marc Mysterio We like Marc Mysterio, the man behind the summer hit 'Let Loose', is back with the even more enjoyable 'Roll Wit It'. This rhythm-smart dancer has more then enough commercial appeal to win support at radio, while international tastemakers including Roger Sanchez, StoneBridge, DLG, Axwell and Dave Whelan, have all championed the track which boosts a palatable remix package from Bjorn Wolf Vs Johnstar and Karl G. Incidentally 2009 looks like it could be an even better year for the talented Canadian with an album due featuring vocal contributions from Max'C, Romanthony, Gary Pine (of 'Love Generation' fame) and Laura V (the voice of Chris Lake's 'Changes').

5 out of 5 Lewis Dene

www.dmcupdate.com

I can provide you with more, however, most is not in English.

Please re-consider. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canuckdj (talk • contribs) 02:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

russian article http://translate.google.ca/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&u=http://www.houzer.ru/article694.html&ei=GaykSd3ZCeHAtger5NXXBA&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=9&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Droll%2Bwit%2Bit%2Bmarc%2Bmysterio%26start%3D110%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26hs%3DQk9%26sa%3DN%26pwst%3D1

DJ MAG INSIDE TRACK FEB 2009:

"From Montreal Marc Mysterio is being tipped as one of the brightest new kids on the block following on from last year’s ‘Roll Wit It’ single.

Now signed to Spinnin’ Records, the single is set for a European assault having already heavily featured in sets by Judge Jules on BBC Radio 1, Roger Sanchez on 'Release Yourself', Axwell, StoneBridge and the Freemasons.

‘Redemption’, Mysterio’s artist album is nearing completion and crammed full of potential singles which will raise the bar insurmountably high for the three amigos of France featuring Gary Pine (of ‘Love Generation’ fame), Lisa Law, Tiff Lacey (ATB/Oakenfold), Laura V (singer of Chris Lake’s ‘Changes’), Max’C (of Axwell’s ‘I Found U’), Pop Girls Lillix (from Freakie Friday's 'What I Like About You', 'Sweet Temptation' and 'Tomorrow' fame along with gold record and a million sold on Maverick) a handful of celebrated others.

Next up from Marc, and his aptly named World Class label, is a respectful update of Daft Punk’s ‘One More Time’ with fellow Canadian Yardi Don (aka Craig Smart) handling vocal chores." - Lewis Dene, DJ MAG INSIDE TRACK, DMC UPDATE, M8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canuckdj (talk • contribs) 02:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Go to Talk:Marc Mysterio and use the {{request edit}} template. THF (talk) 02:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how to do that... Perhaps, you can just undue the edit now on the Judge Jules comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canuckdj (talk • contribs) 02:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

copy and paste "{{request edit}}" from my talk page, and say what edit you want. In the alternative, use the {{helpme}} template on your talk page. Everything you're linking to is behind a subscription wall, and you're not being coherent enough for me to figure out what part of what you're asking for is Wikipedia material, so I'm asking you to get another editor involved. THF (talk) 02:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I have pasted the above notations of publicity since you alleged that there was 'zero' coverage, which was inaccurate.

Please add this to main bio section:

Marc Mysterio has been a guest DJ on many radio shows such as Judge Jules on BBC Radio 1;. In introducing Marc's guest dj set, Judge Jules hailed Mysterio's ability "to effortlessly blend influences of metal, soul, r&b, and even folk music" in to his own songs and, moreover, as a result thereof "Marc is set enter the top level of artist/producer/dj in the world". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canuckdj (talk • contribs) 03:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

did i do it correctl? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canuckdj (talk • contribs) 03:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

deletion of tara mcdonald

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tara_McDonald

deserves deletion...

see my notes in the history section where i nominated it for deletion... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.82.159.151 (talk) 05:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing

Thanks for the info. I was not aware of Yahoo link expiration. I searched for one of McCain's quotes from the article online and found a few different sources. Hopefully CNN's will last longer. If you don't think it will, let me know and I'll put in a different one.Athene cunicularia (talk) 22:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Save the Netbooks

Thanks for being level headed with your vote in the Save the Netbooks deletion debate - it's about time someone was. I've given a full week to this cause which gives me ZERO benefit and don't appreciate being attacked by other editors, particularly on the grounds of COI when none of them can point to a single instance of NPOV. -- samj _in^out 23:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:COI is the most misunderstood policy on Wikipedia. Very unfortunate. THF (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Save the Netbooks

Thanks for the supporting edit. The legal council part bothered me for the longest time, but it is hard to link to the section in the guys blog where he actually links to the SaveTheNetbooks.com article that mentions him "supporting them" and actually says "well no, I don't". If I had removed it, it would have got nasty again.

The other edit - yeah, I can see that was a sage one too. I know I have been told that "netbook" is now a "generic" term, but it's still pretty hard to find non blog, not anecdotal evidence. Things began to escalate today, so someone with a level head is much appreciated :-)

You seem like a nice fair guy. I'm glad you're involved. Please feel free to tell me if you believe I have stepped out of line, and please don't let SamJ use the strong arm tactics he seems to resort to when he can't win in a proper discussion.

Hopefully he has finally decided I'm no a sock puppet!

Thanks again Memsom (talk) 02:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Business plot

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Business Plot. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. You've made three reversions in thirty minutes. Stop edit-warring, please. Ikip (talk) 14:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your tag. I have made one single revert to restore content I added to the page that you deleted without explanation. You appear to have simply cut and paste my legitimate warning to you. Please identify the other reverts I have made. THF (talk) 14:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Do not split off articles after the MfD is created

Do not split off articles after the MfD is created, this is seen as a way to avoid the MfD/ AfD. Stop adding back the seperate section for this article, because it is the same article up for deletion. Ikip (talk) 17:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)