User talk:Student7

…

Email me.

Melbourne, FL

I put the section back in, mainly because although a bit gaudy it was all true, and all seemed to be valid articles.

Perhaps get rid of the arrows, move to the back?

The Georgia Page

Actually, now that I think about it, I went to the Georgia page and went through the links of the major cities. When I went to each cities page I checked out there metro status and Macon came in third behind Atlanta and Augusta.

Dated cleanup tags

Hi, thanks for your message, SmackBot does not generally add tags, but merely dates those that are already there. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 12:11 7 August 2007 (GMT).

Catholic Churches

You offered some comments last week about a proposed deletion of Incarnation Catholic Church and School (Glendale, California). You correctly noted that the article was rough, as it had just been started. I have been preparing articles on some of the significant parishes in Los Angeles and wondered if you'd have a few minutes to take a look and make suggestions on format, content, info boxes, etc. One of your notes indicated that the number of members was key data, and I agree, but do you know of any verifiable source to determine membership for Catholic parishes? Examples of the parishes I have so far created articles for are: St. Andrew's Catholic Church, Pasadena, St. Robert Bellarmine Catholic Church, St. Charles Borromeo Church (North Hollywood), and St. Finbar Catholic Church and School (Burbank, California).

Brandywine

Brandywine is a general disambiguation page (which Brandywine Creek and Brandywine River) point to.

I went through all the Brandywine references and updated them to point to the appropriate articles. There were and are many pages referring to either "Brandywine Creek" or "Brandywine River" and not necessarily pointing to the correct one.

"Brandywine River" can refer to: "Brandywine Creek (Christina River)" or "Brandywine Creek (Cuyahoga River)". or the fictional (Hobbit/Rings Trilogy) Middle Earth river.

"Brandywine Creek" refers to at least 25 different ones in the U.S.

(5) Brandywine in British Columbia, (2) Brandywine in Nova Scotia, and more outside of North America ...

Rivers are officially disambiguated by their downstream_parent, for instance Brandywine (Christina River), only when that fails, then a reasonable civil sub-division. See WikiProject Rivers for more details.

If you undo my updates, you are on your own...

Charles Adams

I am not particularly familiar with Vermont but I try to edit pages with correct links, sources, etc. Adams' page says the town so it has been fixed to that. Any correction to my corrections can be made. Thanks for the thanks!

Florida template

Hello, Student7. You have new messages at Cuchullain's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Causes of the us housing bubble

Thank you for your recommendation. I will work on it this weekend.

Causes of the us housing bubble

Thank you for your recommendation. I will work on it this weekend. Sguffanti

Talkback

Hello, Student7. You have new messages at Dkriegls's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Student7. You have new messages at SunCreator's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

power centre

power center (retail) consider proposing a merge it into retail park, see gasoline and tram for examples. -- PBS (talk) 04:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Southern States University

The main deal with the "wikify" tag on the article Southern States University is that it lacks wikilinks. It has 12 paragraphs and only 6 wikilinks. Back in September 2009, when the article had only two stubby sentences, it contained 4 wikilinks. I would expect users to be able to find (and follow) links to articles about topics like the cities where the school has campuses, the subjects in which it offers courses, the state organization that is said to have approved it to operate, etc.

Additionally, many Wikipedians would want articles like this one to include an infobox, not to mention the navbox template that the article contained before Lanakon showed up and replaced the former stub article with an unwikified advertisement. --Orlady (talk) 14:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Power center

It's not about which name is more "smug," but rather which one is more common. The concept is more common in the US, where it's called a "power center." This is a widely used term in the retail industry, not some PR thing. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:WikiProject Saint Thomas Christians

Template:WikiProject Saint Thomas Christians has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Student7 (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Seven Churches

I have responded to your comment on the discussion page of the Seven Churches of Asia, and would like to discuss the possibility of including a mutually agreed paragraph in the article. Rev107 (talk) 06:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject Saint Thomas Christians

Wikipedia:WikiProject Saint Thomas Christians, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Saint Thomas Christians and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject Saint Thomas Christians during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. RL0919 (talk) 01:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Robert F. Kennedy Community Schools

• It was not a deletion, but combine with existing item on that school project. Ucla90024 (talk) 18:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Religion: reword active per Strunk and White.

If you're going to cite that horrid little book you might at least take care to note that the grammatical term "active voice" does in fact have a well-defined meaning (E.B. White's well-documented confusion notwithstanding). In your edit, you changed one passive-voice clause to another passive-voice clause (not that there's anything wrong with the passive voice, E.B. White's well-documented confusion notwithstanding). 121a0012 (talk) 02:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I (sort of) answered your question

At Talk:Florida Circuit Courts Bradford44 (talk) 17:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Norbert Basil MacLean III article

Some time ago (2008) you did some edits on Norbert Basil MacLean III. For the past 50 days, I've been editing and tagging away at the article. Very recently I came across some info on MacLean related to his civil litigation on behalf of prisoners in the California prison system. (MacLean was an inmate when he instituted the litigation, which included class action matters.) When I proposed including some of this info in the article (see talk page), Mr. MacLean himself got wind of the article. He has written Wikipedia and asked that the article on him be deleted out of both privacy and notability concerns. I, critical of the whole article, am happy to comply with his request so I've started a AfD nomination based on its lack of notability. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 September 9. Your comments (and guidance) is most welcome. --S. Rich (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. What a strange case! So well-documented, hard to say "delete" IMO. If it goes away, I will not cry much!  :) I only wish I could get rid of less notable people I have stumbled over, as easily. Lots of people running for office who have never won but want their bio and get it for no good reason. Rats! Student7 (talk) 00:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

School

Hi. Thank you very much for the message. The article about which I was worrying is Langley School, Loddon: you might also want to have a look at its Talk page, where another editor and I have attempted to start a discussion. I think I probably make my concerns fairly clear there.

Guessing wildly, I wondered if you might be in the United States, in which case I further wondered if this article would present particular problems to you because of localized BrE meanings which might not translate well into AmE and back? It is, however, a desperately bad article in its present form anyway (with one or two honourable exceptions, I can find, in most sections, at least one sentence which is so awful it just makes me want to weep) and I think it could do with a good look-at regardless of where you are sitting right now. If my guess is right, and it were to be a problem for you, I might be able to rope in a BrE-speaking editor with some schools-editing experience to help out a bit too ... what do you think? Cheers, DBaK (talk) 23:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, you were right about the BrE terms, which were really non-standard. "Termly"? Ahem. I read books by English authors all the time and have never encountered that one! I replaced or erased most of the stuff I didn't understand and asked for clarification on the others. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 02:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I've vanished a bit, more or less mid-sentence - no discourtesy intended. I will comment properly as soon as I get a moment. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 22:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with the article. I think you have done great work removing some of the ad copy. I can't agree with your comments on the BrE terms, which I feel a largely mainstream and must be left alone, but I have no stomach for a fight on this. Best wishes, DBaK (talk) 21:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Changes to Brevard County, Florida

I have made a major change to an article that you may or may not like and you may be an interested party, I thought I'd give you a "heads up" so hat you may comment and/or make or suggest improvements. VictorianMutant (talk) 02:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Your sandbox

Sorry to edit your sandbox, but one of the images in there has been discovered to be a copyvio, so I've deleted it. Nyttend (talk) 10:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry, I cannot join the discussion since I cannot understand your point. Why are you keeping this sentence "During the Turkish War of Independence Kuşadası was occupied from 1919-1922 first by Italian (till 1921), then by Greek troops" in the article? Probably you have not seen it, or you are not against it. Which one? If you tell me which one is correct, I would reply to you. Kavas (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC) Using "occupied" word for the situations that cannot be described as "occupation" is not WP:NPOV. Kavas (talk) 22:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Kuşadası

One of the main WP policies is to comment on the contribution not on the contributor. So, you're Greek or not does not interest me.

Calling Greece as the occupier of Kuşadası in 1922 is an undisputed truth. You agree on it.

But calling Turkey as occupier is POV. You have called Turkey as occupier of Kuşadası. If Turkey occupied Kuşadası it was when Mehmed I conquered the town in 1413. (http://www.kusadasi.biz/info/guide/history) It has remained under Turkish sovereignty since 1413. If there was a one day in history where Greece had sovereignty, Turkey could occupy the city, but there is not such a day. You need a ratified treaty in which Turkey renounced in favour of Greece its rights over Kuşadası, there's not. Let's be clear here. You cannot occupy your own legal territory. Now, you can call Turkey occupied Cyprus as it is not part of it, but you cannot call Sri Lanka occupied Tamil because Tamil is part of Sri Lanka legally. So, the important point is the legal status of a city. If the sovereignty of some country over some city is recognized under international law, you cannot call that country occupied that city, if it expels hostile armies from it. Can you please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War? Malvinas Islands were under Argentinian occupation, and when it was retaken by British forces, it was not occupied although 61.3% of the islands are not British. So, calling Turkey as the "occupier of Turkey" is POV, as most parts of Turkey were inhabited by Greeks or Armenians prior to war. For example, you cannot say Iğdır is under Turkish occupation, it would be a marginal POV which is even rejected by Armenian government in Zürich this year.

What you have wrote as the history of Turkey is your originial research and not close to reality. The Turkish people were not nomads, it was Turkomens who were nomads, but when they have come to the lands now called Turkey they stopped nomadic lifestyle quickly. There were remaining nomads in 1920's, but they were a small part of Turkish population. Today only one aşiret remains in Turkey which follow nomadic lifestyle, and Turkish people are moving to cities from villages.

This is POV: The census at the exact moment of the Turkish takeover of Kusadaşı is not known, and, most likely, not knowable." According to census conducted by the Ottomans (note that the data of census is very accurate), Greek Orthodox were 44% of total population of Kuşadası, 54.65% of the population were Muslim. The article I have used uses the data borrowed from Kemal Harpat's book. (http://www.edebiyatdergisi.hacettepe.edu.tr/1998152MSacitPekak.pdf) The only place which can be called as a Greek town was Çirkince near to Ephesus in the region.

Greeks had a long presence not only at coastal parts of Anatolia, but also anywhere in Anatolia. In 1920's, in coastal parts of Aegean Sea, Eastern Thrace and the Pontus region. It was 1,500,000 Greeks actually moved to Greece from Turkey. The population of Turkey was 13 million, therefore Greeks were a minority in Anatolia, you cannot say Kemal conquered the Anatolian peninsula. The Ankara government only recovered Western parts of Anatolia. If you use the same formula, you can say Turkey is the occupying force in Anatolia, in the same situation as Israel which is the occupying force in Gaza. This would certainly be POV.

"He probably would have liked to take the surrounding islands, too, but the Greek navy predominated at sea, as did Ataturk's army on land." This is absolutely wrong. The Greeks have taken the islands in the Balkan Wars, in which Turkish navy has not shown any resistence except piracy. The islands were legally Greek islands, it wouldn't be a good idea to invade the islands even if you had the sea power. Some of the islands were under Italian occupation (why can I use occupation here?), so it was quite crazy to take the islands on the cost of starting a war with Italy. But, the Turkish Army had enough power to take Thessaloniki back, but it would be an occupation (why?), Atatürk opposed this idea. What Atatürk was trying to establish was a smaller nation state.

As the Greeks formed 44% of the city, I see your concern when opposing to the use of liberation term. However, it is not a word to watch in WP. See Liberation of Paris, Battle of Kiev (1943), and many others. The situation near to this is Alsace Lorraine in which Germans were living. Let's see. "Though the main towns of Alsace-Lorraine were liberated during the autumn of 1944, by troops of Generals Koenig and Leclerc, fighting raged on in the Colmar Pocket until 2 February 1945. The region was formally returned to France in 1947." in Territorial formation of France#Alsace-Lorraine : contention between France and Germany .281871-1945.29. Your objection to liberated word does not give you the right to use occupied for recovering of the city. Can you see the peace treaty finishing the war, http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Treaty_of_Lausanne? The Greek, British and Italian Armies were the occupiers according to the treaty, not the Turkish Army. (why?) On the other hand, "won permanent control" is worse, it is as if Turkey had no sovereignty over Kuşadası before 1922, or Turkey has still no sovereignty over Kuşadası today. Kuşadası is a town of Turkey since 1413, it did not win permanent control over it in 1922, because it remained under Turkish sovereignty throughout last 600 years. By the way, Turkey is not founded by Ataturk. He formed "Republic of Turkey". Turkey is an older country. It is as early as 12th century when Italians called these lands Turchia. So, I will revert your edit as I cannot see a more neutral source than the Treaty of Lausanne. Kavas (talk) 01:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you are confusing Ottoman sovereignty with Turkish sovereignty. The modern state of Turkey had much different aims and a quite different army and organization and political goals than the previous Ottomans did.

The Greeks were happy with the Ottomans and vice versa. The new state of Turkey had no use for Greeks. This is fine, but let's be clear. The two "Turkish" groups do not overlap only when it is historically convenient.

That is like saying that the "Americans" won the French and Indian War. They did not. Their ancestors helped the British win. Two different administrations. Quite different political goals and governments. Similar people though. Sometimes the same people. However, there are clear lines for each. Student7 (talk) 01:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

While I am not familiar with the specifics of the situation, it seems unlikely to me that the Italians (or any allied power) would have tried to land while opposed by the new Turkish army. They had learned better during the Gallipoli Campaign, where they were opposed by the old regime, but by the same Turkish leader, now a general! They would not have landed there if they did not expect a decent reception, I suspect. Student7 (talk) 01:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

If you are unfamiliar with the specifics of the situation, you can start reading Turkish history before editing. At least you can read Treaty of Lausanne. Your thesis is in error.

• I think you are confusing Ottoman sovereignty with Turkish sovereignty: Turkish sovereignty is Ottoman sovereignty and vice versa. If you can please read the Treaty of Lausanne, you can understand this. Please to refer to for example, Article 22 of the text. "Without prejudice to the general stipulations of Article 27, Turkey hereby recognises the definite abolition of all rights and privileges whatsoever which she enjoyed in Libya under the Treaty of Lausanne of the 18th October, 1912, and the instruments connected therewith." If Turkey had to renounce its rights on Libya, then Turkish sovereignty is Ottoman sovereignty because otherwise, Article 22 will be unnecassary. OK? Can you please read Imia/Kardak article? Turkey has territorial claims over these islands. Why? Because in the Treaty of Lausanne, there's not an article which clearly states that Turkey renounced its rights over Imia/Kardak. Can you see Turkish sovereignty is Ottoman sovereignty now? Turkey claims that the islands remain under her sovereignty, if Ottoman sovereignty was different from Turkish sovereignty it would be impossible to argue this. For example there is a town in Romania called Ada Kaleh, Turkey renounced its rights over it in the Treaty of Lausanne. If it was necassary to even renounce rights over a Romanian town, it is because Romania was part of the Empire, and former treaties had not an article on the status of Ada Kaleh. If the rights over a city under Ottoman sovereignty is not renounced, the city remains under Turkish sovereignty.

• The modern state of Turkey had much different aims and a quite different army and organization and political goals than the previous Ottomans did: Not quite different, all generals were Ottoman generals, many MP's of the parliament opened in Ankara came to Ankara from the parliament in Istanbul after Istanbul was occupied. The Misak-i Milli was accepted in the parliament in Istanbul. The aim was the same, to keep Turkish independence and caliphate. Yes, the formal aim of Atatürk was to keep the caliphate in the Independence War. But, he was a Republican and after the war, he ended the Ottoman sultanate and finally he abolished the caliph position in 1924, because this position is not needed if you have a parliament according to him.

• The Greeks were happy with the Ottomans and vice versa. The new state of Turkey had no use for Greeks. : No, they were not happy, they were a second class people as they did not believe in the 'final prophet'. They were not allowed to wear first class clothes. But, it was better for Greeks to be under Turkish control rather than Italian control. (See the war in the beginning of the 1700's.) But, after the French revolution, they became nationalist, and they started a campaign to establish a homeland. After the modern Greece was founded, their aim was Megali Idea, i.e. to join all places where Greeks live to Greece. The Ottoman government was not happy with this, Enver made life unhappy for the Greeks. Kemal was trying to get rid of Greeks in Anatolia because he did not want to govern an Empire, what he wanted was a small nation state. So, he did not try to take Thessaloniki back. But note that it was Greeks who offered to 1923 population exchange between Greece and Turkey.

• This is fine, but let's be clear. The two "Turkish" groups do not overlap only when it is historically convenient. That is like saying that the "Americans" won the French and Indian War. They did not. Their ancestors helped the British win. Two different administrations. Quite different political goals and governments. Similar people though. Sometimes the same people. However, there are clear lines for each: No, they overlap. Ottoman was the name of the dynasty, it's a Turkish rule that people living under some dynasty takes the name of this dynasty. So, that's why Turks were called Ottomans in Turkey. However, in West, the Ottoman Empire was known as Turkish Empire or Empire of Turkey, while the Turkish name was دَوْلَتِ عَلِيّهٔ عُثمَانِیّه. You cannot compare French and Indian War to World War I, maybe you can compare it to Battle of Manzikert. You cannot say "Turkish people have won this war", because it was Turkomens who won this war, but after this war the migration of Turkomens to the lands now called Turkey has been increased, so Turkomens who migrated to Turkey were designated Turks. (But many books call who have won Battle of Manzikert as Turks, without taking the difference between Turkomen and Turk into account.) As you know or not, German Empire was transformed to Weimar Republic after the WWI. It was later transformed to Nazi Germany. The difference between German Empire and Weimar Republic is similar to the difference between Ottoman (Turkish) Empire and the Republic of Turkey. Or, consider Russian Empire and Soviet Union. Or, consider Shah's Iran and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

• While I am not familiar with the specifics of the situation, it seems unlikely to me that the Italians (or any allied power) would have tried to land while opposed by the new Turkish army. They had learned better during the Gallipoli Campaign, where they were opposed by the old regime, but by the same Turkish leader, now a general! They would not have landed there if they did not expect a decent reception, I suspect. Wikipedia Talk Pages is not a place for suspection. After all, you have to verify what you write, OR is not allowed. But, if the British Army had been the given the order, they would have defeated the Turkish Army. But, they were not given the order, as the British people was tired of the war. After WW I, the British Navy passed though the Dardanelles without any resistence. They occupied the capital city, Istanbul. How did Turks liberate Istanbul? The British forces went home as they were tired of war, so the British occupation authority in Istanbul was ended and Turkish troops entered Istanbul without a war. Indeed, Mussoloni had the idea to occupy Western parts of Turkey before WWII, but he could not accomplish this.

In summary, you started reverting the word liberated for describing the event on September 7, 1922. The word is POV according to you. Although I do not use it anymore, you insist on adding "occupied" word as a term to describe that event. As I have explained it to you, you cannot say, for example British occupied Falklands Islands since it's under her sovereignty, or French occupied Paris, or Turks occuopied Anatolia. Before posting a reply, reading at least the Treaty of Lausanne can help you. Kavas (talk) 13:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

St Peter's

Re the business about indulgences:

Someone (not me) included the paragraph on the funding by indulgences and the fact that it became an issue in the Reformation. These are the historic facts.

However, there are editors who object to any mention of any subject that might not reflect in an entirely "good" way upon the Catholic Church, and want to sweep anything like this under the carpet. Whether or not the Pope was within his rights to do it is of no consequence. My use of the adjective "dark" might be unfortunate in implying something "sinister". That is not what I intended. I merely intended to signify that the story of the building of St Peter's is not necessarily an entirely "positive" one. Tread gently. If a balance has been reached in which people are not having major disptes, then it's best to leave well alone. Amandajm (talk) 10:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Over categorization

Hi! Please check User:Takeaway's revert on your edit commenting "locations of James Bond films are routinely categorised under the film cat".

I kindly ask you to add in the future a wikilink to the article you are talking about so everybody knows. Thanks.CeeGee (talk) 17:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

St Gregory

I ran across a "no references" (only since August 2010) section in the St. Gregory article: St._Gregory_the_Great#Servus_servorum_Dei which gives additional summaries of Gregory's service as Pope. It may be good content - sounds thoughtful and good anyway. I've no background on the subject, but knowing your interest in such topics I thought I'd bring it to your attention in case you know someone who can improve it or come up with references, without having to delete. :-P Tkech (talk) 07:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiNews

I agree with what you said. I only read your comments after I had made mine. However, I still feel that you had been given the soft soap for something which is essentially of no real benefit to WP readers. The recurrent defence is that it is supported by sister projects... So frigging what??? Cheers, --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Ping

Hi, I emailed you. Cheers. Tony (talk) 09:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

message

Hello, Student7. You have new messages at VictorianMutant's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Space Coast Wiki

Space Coast Wiki

Greetings,

I recently started the Space Coast Wiki. It is a wiki for everything in Brevard County, Florida, including many articles which may not be notable enough for Wikipedia. It's brand new, so we really need some help recruiting editors and building content. Any help is greatly appreciated.

Greg Bard (talk) 04:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: K1 Speed

Hello Student7, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of K1 Speed, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing

I just wanted to point out that while inviting one other editor to give a particular opinion isn't strictly against WP:CANVASS, it could be problematic. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

(Blueboar had told me to submit Afds on Notability page, but hadn't yet voted). Student7 (talk) 18:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

talk page comments

Hello Student7, I reverted this edit, [1], as I intended for my comments to be right where they were. Please do not move them again, especially as you had not asked me about them beforehand. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

(An article discussion was started on the Project page, finally discontinued when an editor complained. I moved the entire discussion to the article, to the annoyance of one editor who clearly didn't care that his comments were misplaced). Student7 (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Cobb County template

Mmann1988 is back at it on this template; s/he's now hit 4RR. Nyttend (talk) 04:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:PR

This point has been raised several times but you appear to have not addressed it at all. WP:PR (also known as Wikipedia:Peer Review) is not a policy related to deletion of articles at all. You cannot nominate articles for deletion under the claim of "WP:PR" because no such policy exists to back such deletions. Please either find the correct policy to back your claim, or do not nominate articles for deletion under this incorrect claim. The³5₉ (Talk) 02:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that if you nominate an article for deletion you should pay attention to the AFD discussions, especially as many people may have questions regarding your nomination and your responses are usually required. The³5₉ (Talk) 18:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

US Foster Care

There was a section on "constitutional" issues, where some gadfly lawyer sued the state and won $3 million, which is penny ante for the state, big time for the lawyer, who had nothing better to do, apparently. He first deducted his fees, which were undoubtedly a good portion of the $3 million, then removed 40% of what was left over for "himself." The editor thought that this was charitable of him. Actually, this is pretty much how US lawyers earn their money most of the time and why the US wastes a good deal of its time and money in court as opposed to all other Western nations. "Contingency" is typical in cases where the lawyer figures he can win. In cases when he can't win or there is nothing to win, he charges for his time. You sue your neighbor, no-good brother-in-law, etc. Then he wants to see his money up front, because there won't be any later. American lawyers do not run charities. Student7 (talk) 01:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer, I am a software programmer from Europe, but I have lived in Oregon for over 10 years and have seen on the TV about this case. When police crashed into the foster home there was video of the dried excrement in the children beds and dirty cribs covered with chicken wire. Boy had a shunt put into his head at birth to drain fluid, but the foster parents did not care to clean it, so kid was had almost died. "The Oregonian" is a main local newspaper in Oregon, so as you can see from the article "Gresham foster kids abused despite DHS checks", it took over 2 years to finish the case, and all these years lawyer worked for free, because contingency basis mean "no win no fee" i.e. if lawyer lose, then he gets no pay for his time at all (read first the definition of "contingent fee" or talk to any lawyer). Normally lawyers are hard to agree to take such a risk and often demand 50% when working on contingent fee, but in this case he took 33% (not 40%) after the case was settled which is actually includes all his fees for the over 2 years. Also the case was settled for $2 millions, not $3 millions, so about $1.32 millions went to the twins (which I think they totaly deserve). In Europe it would of been much more scandal to such an outrages case, but here in US some social workers prefer to hide the facts and blame a lawyer, instead of working on the source of the problem. I also heared stories from people in our immigrant community about kids taken away from mothers just for couple bruises on their legs, but then these kids was abused 100 times more when they got into the foster homes. You have deleted foster kids comments from this discussion page about their first-hand experience with abuse in foster homes because you do not belive them. But this is Wiki vandalizm to remove dozen of other people work, also this inhumane to remove child comments when they tell about abuse and rape in foster home. I have put their comments in archive, and I will stand for that, because I also have kids. Nobody belived children who was telling about the priests abuse, until the abusers got cut on video, the ignorance of adults is what led to the problem. P.S. English is not my first language, so forgive me if it sounds like I was trying to promote the lawyer. I have removed phrase about him working on contingency basis, so it will not confuse readers who do not know what "contingent fee" means. A contingency fee arrangement provides access to the courts for those who have no money at all (like kids) or cannot afford to pay the attorneys fees and costs of civil litigation. Also there is a Federal Rule that parents or friends cannot represent minor children in court, only lawyers can do that (see Pro Se in Fed Court). Innab (talk) 16:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Tim Wakefield

If you want to go visit him go into lansing island, what evidence do you want, a picture? Not a big deal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.31.33 (talk) 23:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

He's right! Wrong city though.Student7 (talk) 00:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Ocean Beach, San Diego, California

Thanks for your work on the "Economy" section of Ocean Beach, which was a mess. I have taken the revisions further than you did, deleting the references to non-notable hotels and tidying up the narrative. I kept in the stuff about opposition to chain stores, since that really is almost a defining feature of O.B. You can still see bumper stickers saying "Starbuck's out of OB" even though Starbuck's has now been there for nearly 10 years, and the town is really unusual for its almost complete absence of chain businesses. --MelanieN (talk) 07:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I see that back in 2008 - before I had learned to be bold - I left a note on the OB discussion page, questioning the plugs for the hotels. I should have taken them out right then! but I was timid in those days. --MelanieN (talk) 07:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Kalampaka/Kalabaka

When I started the article it was basically a stub, most of the current text is not mine. I don't really care whether it's written in American or British English, let's pick British. Markussep ^Talk 07:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

18:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned

On areopagus and araomai

"good faith edit which is, however, speculation & therefore WP:OR"

Yeah, right ...

Also see the paragraph's preceding "could have come", "The origin of its name is not clear. In Greek pagos means big piece of rock. Areios could have come from Ares or from the Erinyes, as on its foot was erected a temple dedicated to the Erinyes where murderers used to find shelter so as not to face the consequences of their actions," and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arete (referenced in the offending edit by link), "According to Bernard Knox's notes found in the Robert Fagles translation of The Odyssey, 'arete' is also associated with the Greek word for pray, 'araomai'" (which has reference "Homer. The Odyssey . trans. by Robert Fagles. Introduction and notes by Bernard Knox. Penguin Classics Deluxe Ed, London. 1996") The paragraph is largely, and even necessarily, speculative, in whatever faith, which I in no wise impugn.

I at least provided a reference for the edit (to Wikipedia arete) in support of the surmise whatever its steadiness; Areios as "from Ares or from the Eriyes" does not have reference to indicate any sources of the speculations.

"Araomai" is as plausible and supportable as origin for "areopagus" as Knox's for "arete" if not more so for retention of the "o" in the single word contraction form and for sanction as sanctuary (yes, I am being deliberately lexically heavy-handed here, whatever the holiness we may associate with prayer) of refuge for murderers.

See also the Israelite designation of cities of refuge at about the same time as the founding of Athens.

A bigger problem as I see it is credibility of Knox's "araomai" as Gk for "pray," which I although no Gk scholar, have not been able to corroborate, among such as "proseuchomai," "iketeuo," "parakalo," and "euchomai," in other sources. If "araomai" is however in fact solid (and if so it would have to be early Gk, Homeric (for the context of the Knox note) or earlier, I would think), so Prayer Rock for Areopagus as much as quite possibly prior to and less speculatively contrived than "from Ares or from the Erinyes."

Given the subsequent operative significance of the Areopagus the Ares speculative association (largely by Roman attribution, transmogrifying into Mars) is of course patently spurious however historical, and Erinyes more likely to share origin with rather than to be origin for Areopagus. It is interesting that the Vulgate retains the underlying Gk text, "stans autem Paulus in medio Ariopagi ait viri athenienses per omnia quasi superstitiosiores vos video," rather than transforming it into the Roman Hill of Mars, an accretion more Latin classical than (Christian) ecclesiastical (a meniori Hellenic).

Areopagus really has two meanings, one (the original) a place and the other (derivation from the place) a council. (A modern analog is Vatican, which has come designate more the Roman Papacy than association with the Mons Vaticanus, whatever the vatic vision vanished.) A careful reading of the Acts passage indicates that Paul's speech was in the council rather than on the landmark. The Wikipedia article would read better, more supportable from the text at a couple of levels, "it was to this civic body," than the present "it was from this location," whatever the council's venue. (The Pauline "Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you. The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands" does however align well with ancient precedent of the place as a prayer rock.)

The Wikipedia article would do well distinguish the two meanings more clearly.

If Knox is credible, the "araomai" etymology is sufficiently plausible to stand in the context of the paragraph, although the article should read "associated with a [emph. added not for retention] Greek word for pray," there being more than one. If Knox is not credible, even published, the statement "According to Bernard Knox's notes found in the Robert Fagles translation of The Odyssey, 'arete' is also associated with the Greek word for pray, 'araomai'," should be likewise deleted for spurious however scholarly eminent assertion.

Huguenot (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

LGBT parenting

Student7, there was a discussion on the article's talk page about whether to include Schumm, with the clear consensus being opposed. Unfortunately, as your edit violated consensus, not to mention a number of rules about reliable sources vs. undue and fringe views, I was forced to revert it. Please join the discussion if you believe I was mistaken. I caution you not to edit war. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Mesa College

See my response here. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Virgin Mary

You do know that under Wikipedia WP:Article Titles policy, alleged issues of POv are irrelevant? The important things for a choosing a TITLE are commoness of the name and ease of use for users. Both would indicate that we use "Virgin Mary". Now, however, we are stuck with the artificial and annoying "Mary (mother of Jesus)" horror. Xandar 22:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)