...and because life is uncertain, eat dessert first!
Movie suggestion for the month: If you haven't seen The Night Listener with Robin Williams, you should - definitely fascinating at several levels. Toni Collette is superb in her role as a emotionally disturbed and extremely manipulative woman who utilizes at least two other identities and personalities at once without anyone ever actually laying eyes on the other personalities or the real 'her' (even though they have come to believe the other personalities actually exist as real people). Based on a true story, the film is a real mind bender that leaves you wondering, "who is she, really?"
The hows-and-whys of this talk page
Because this is my own user talk page, I have certain rules and standards as to how I like to maintain it.
(1) Comments made by me are non-italicized
(2) Comments made by others are italicized
(3) If there is a Wikipedia issue I am currently involved in, I prefer to keep tabs on the situation by including information surrounding the issue as content on this page for future and present reference (as necessary). This may mean the inclusion of Wikipedia exchanges between others involved in the issue at hand. After the issue is resolved, I will archive the information.
(4) IT IS NOT THE RIGHT OF ANOTHER WIKIPEDIAN TO TAKE IT UPON THEMSELVES TO REMOVE CONTENT FROM, OR CHANGE CONTENT ON, MY TALK PAGE (not to mention it's against Wikipedia policy). If you have a problem with something I have placed on my talk page regarding the issue I (or we) may be involved in, please assume good faith first and then discuss the matter with me before jumping to conclusions and making erroneous and/or bad faith assumptions.
(5) I reserve the right to refactor any comments left here and/or change headers at will.
(6) While I may remove content placed on this page that originates from exchanges elsewhere, I will never edit what someone what written in order to change the tone of what was written or to make someone look bad. Again, if you have an issue with what I have included here (or have not included), please assume good faith first and then discuss the matter with me before jumping to conclusions and making erroneous and/or bad faith assumptions.
(7) It is my intent to keep my talk page organized, orderly and in compliance with Wikipedia standards regarding user talk pages. This means that I reserve the right to include what I choose - so long as it complies with Wikipedia standards - and will, in the same vein, remove what I choose.
(8) Anything added to this talk page by another editor that is not in regard to an article being edited or is outside the guildelines for user talk pages will be seen as disruptive editing and the appropriate steps will be taken within Wikipedia guidelines - including issuing warnings as appropriate and in line with Wikipedia standards.
(9) Last, and definitely not least, don't even think of vandalizing this page. Any vandalism will be reverted immediately and get you reported to the Vandalism Crew. Additionally, doing so will jeopardize your Wikipedia account and may get you banned from posting - so don't even try, okay?
Thanks for your understanding - may your Wikipedia edits be correct, well-referenced and relevant and may you have a great Wikipedia day!
Thanks.. I checked out the page after seeing the film of the Tobias Wolff book This Boy's Life. I guess I drove right by there too, since I went from Seattle through the N Cascades last year (via Marblemount). I'm glad to see you like the style of my userpage too :) Anyway, great photos! --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 12:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userboxes
As a double finally, in answer to your question on my talk page, I didn't create the user boxes in my sandbox, rather, I put those there as reference in case I later decided to use them, and so I could reference their text should I decide to make a new user box.
The best way to make your own user box is to find one you like and edit it. This is what I did to make the KGO and Mac boxes on my page.
Regarding images, they're uploaded to Wikipedia and referenced via the Image tag. If you go to the Mac box, for example, and edit the page, you'll see how the image is included within the user box. There's also a helpful article on how to make user boxes at WP:UB.-FeralDruid (talk) 05:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, JustMeHereNow for The Press Barnstar. Personally, I've found editing the GB article somewhat amusing in light of all the discussion - as well as frustrating in light of some of the arguing (and comments by a couple of the editors ;-) You, however, I have found to be a calm in the storm; a lonely beacon of restraint in a squall of self-appointed wordsmiths! You, sir, are a gentleman and stellar Wikipedian! I am honored, and frankly, you made my day! SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 15:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your post. I wholeheartedly agree that Washington is one of the most beautiful places on earth. There are some pretty nice parts of the East, like the White Mountains in New Hampshire, but they don't compare. I've been to Israel, too, and that's another one of my favorites :). When I was in Washington I took a whale watching trip that specifically went to the places the Orcas like to go. They are amazing animals. I take it that you also like watching birds. I wish I knew more about birds than I do, given that Central Park and other parks in New York are major stops along the bird migration routes and we get some very interesting ones. And BTW, I think you were right about "incensed" and "posited." Take care, AFriedman (talk)22:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:USRD/STDS; a substantial route description is expected in a road article. See California State Route 78 for an example. I do agree that some of the details were unnecessary, and the formatting was a bit off, but it should have been revised, not blindly reverted. --Rschen7754 (TC) 06:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merry Christmas!
AFriedman (talk) is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Thanks for your note and holiday greetings. And BTW, I don't know if you saw the earlier message I posted on my Talk page, but I apologize for offending you. Here is a little "present" for you. --AFriedman (talk)19:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The link is to A Christmas Carol. In my opinion, Dickens' argument is even potent enough to soften the hardened heart of a Jew like myself. You may want to look at the link about pikuach nefesh, which is an essential principle of Judaism and very similar to the point Dickens was trying to make about Christmas. I've commented on that article on its Talk page as well, because I think there are other views (including mine) which are not represented in the article. --AFriedman (talk)19:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have just granted you rollback rights because I believe you to be trustworthy, and because you have a history of reverting vandalism and have given in the past or are trusted in the future to give appropriate warnings. Please have a read over WP:ROLLBACK and remember that rollback is only for use against obvious vandalism. Please use it that way (it can be taken away by any admin at a moment's notice). You may want to consider adding {{Rollback}} and {{User rollback}} to your userpage. Any questions, please drop me a line. Best of luck and thanks for volunteering! ❄ upstateNYer ❄ 07:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have reverted several of my changes, saying that parenthetical statements are discouraged. Please provide a citation from the MoS. All I see is this, so [citation needed]. Speaking of which, if you see something that needs a citation, put in a [citation needed] tag, don't remove the info. Behan's grave is in fact lost, according to Boyer. Find-a-grave says this also (there is a memorial placque, but not at the gravesite). [2]. The article now states he contracted syphilis while in Tombstone, but that is an inference from the "30 years" date on the death certificate, and should be stated as such. These things are rarely accurate, and info here was provided by his son Albert, who would not expected to know exactly when and where his father contracted syphilis. Albert is also off by a year on his father's entrance into Arizona, by comparison with records. Furthermore, Albert possibly got his father's year of birth wrong and his age wrong (they also are off by a year from other records). Lastly, although I cannot give you reference now, the term "arterial sclerosis" did not mean in 1912 what it does today. What it probably meant in 1912 was the Behan was demented, a condition then thought due to "hardening of the arteries." SBHarris02:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please find my point-by-point replies below:
You have reverted several of my changes, saying that parenthetical statements are discouraged. Please provide a citation from the MoS. All I see is this, so [citation needed].
I don't have a citation, just what I have learned through my years here at WP. As a general rule, parentheses *are* discouraged - but I don't think it's a "rule" per se. There are certainly other ways of writing what needs to be included without using parentheses - and I still believe they are to be avoided in WP. Of course, if you really don't agree that parentheses should be avoided, you could always ask a seasoned editor or administrator and get their opinion.
Speaking of which, if you see something that needs a citation, put in a [citation needed] tag, don't remove the info.
Well...I think it's really personal preference. Some editors are real strict about unreferenced statements being left in an article. I personally prefer putting a [citation needed] in place and will usually do so in order for time to be allowed to get a ref in place. In all honesty, I was probably having a bad day and rather than do what I should have (placing a cite needed tag), I just removed the statement.
Behan's grave is in fact lost, according to Boyer.
(a) Boyer has a questionable reputation as a historian who isn't exactly known as a reliable source regarding Arizona and Earp history (I know that from having lived in Arizona for quite a while and having spoken with a number of state history experts), and (b) where's this reference from Boyer? Have you included it in the article previously? Or is this all original research?
Find-a-grave says this also (there is a memorial placque, but not at the gravesite). [3].
Find-a-grave isn't considered a reliable source for WP articles.
The article now states he contracted syphilis while in Tombstone, but that is an inference from the "30 years" date on the death certificate
Yes, it is. Since the only reference found for Behan's syphillis is his online death certificate, that's all we have to go on and refer to. Anything else would be original research.
and should be stated as such.
I guess.
These things are rarely accurate,
According to whom? A death certificate is an official record.
and info here was provided by his son Albert, who would not expected to know exactly when and where his father contracted syphilis. Albert is also off by a year on his father's entrance into Arizona, by comparison with records. Furthermore, Albert possibly got his father's year of birth wrong and his age wrong (they also are off by a year from other records).
And without another reliable reference available, it's all speculation that means nothing in the scheme of editing the article.
Lastly, although I cannot give you reference now, the term "arterial sclerosis" did not mean in 1912 what it does today. What it probably meant in 1912 was the Behan was demented, a condition then thought due to "hardening of the arteries."
More speculation (and seemingly, original research) that, without another reliable reference, means nothing in the scheme of editing the article. Of course, if you are able to come up with reliable references that meet WPs referencing guidelines, you're welcome to include any (or all) of it. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Black Dahlia image
Hey. Yeah, "PD-self" is meant for pictures the uploader has taken himself, basically. You have to own the copyright initially in order to release it into the public domain. If you simply crop a public domain photo, then the crop would still be public domain but it shouldn't be tagged "PD-self" since the cropper didn't really create the image. This is all academic in this case, however, since the initial photo was not public domain in the first place.—Chowbok☠06:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would actually argue that it should stay. Fair-use images are acceptable as long as there's little or no possibility of a free image of the same subject, and since she died before becoming famous, it's extremely doubtful that a free image exists of her. But fair-use images need to be tagged as such, and a justification for their use need to be added. One can't just crop an image and arbitrarily claim it as PD-self.—Chowbok☠06:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2010 Olympics and Gretzky
I was watching the 2010 Olypmic opening ceremonies live on tv, and trust me, there was very few people already gathered at Canada Place prior to the conclusion of the opening ceremony. Many people streamed out of restaurants and homes. Gretzky was standing at the back of the pick-up, it was almost as if it was a victory parade, and the video clearly shows more and more people running after the police escort as it made its way to Canada Place. --Phileo (talk) 11:49, 13 February 2010 (PST)
Hi, I got your email on the subject, and started a new section on the talk page to see if we can resolve this. If this doesn't work, the next step will be to request an administrative review. I do encourage everyone involved to take a deep breath, as the issues are fairly minor in the Scheme of Things. Take care --SeaphotoTalk17:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I put a note for you about Albert Lewis on my talk page, but I am not 100% sure that is the right way to communicate with you. If it is, please look at it, and feel free to delete this note. If this is the better way to communicate, I'll do that in the future. Thanks again for your guidance and help!Resnicoff (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Feast of Tabernacles (Christian holiday). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feast of Tabernacles (Christian holiday). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note:This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity, SRQ, what will your vote be in that discussion once your block expires? Equazcion(talk) 02:03, 17 Feb 2010 (UTC)
I'd love to see the article stay in order to get another life (so to speak) and get expanded. Unfortunately, it's an article that has invited the members of one particular church (actually considered a cult amongst those in mainstream Christianity), The Worldwide Church of God (also known as "Armstrongism") to edit with a definite POV because they are one of the largest non-Jewish groups to celebrate TFOT. Because there are other Christian groups not associated with TWCOG who do celebrate it, it would be good to expand the article to include information on those groups and their take on the Christian view of TFOT. That way, the article would be more in-depth and more balanced. So, after all of that, my vote would be to see the article stay, as the celebration is notable within contemporary Christianity (and was certainly notable within Biblical Christianity, since the majority of the Apostles - as well as Christ - were all observant Jews). --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's a 7-day discussion, so you should be back in plenty of time to opine. If there's anything you'd like to say sooner than that, I'd be happy to copy it over for you -- I had absolutely no intention of trying to cut you out of the discussion. I was sort-of-aware of this holiday from my previous work on Herbert W. Armstrong-related articles: I didn't realize we had a separate article for it, though. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bit old, but I just noticed it; the "another editor" referred to here was actually her sock. What fun. I wonder what other socks she's got around...—Chowbok☠19:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! Yeah, that *is* fun. You want to know what else is "fun"? That she's still denying the "[other] editor" was one of her socks. And here's something else that's the same kind of fun: she employed the use of yet one more sock while she was blocked from socking, was caught doing it, and still only had to serve a one week block in total. Okay, that's two more things - so, twice the fun, eh? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your sockmaster villain seems to consistently do nothing in the way of impeding you, and merely shows up once in a while to leave rude comments; relatively innocuous behavior, when it comes to sock vandals who don't need to worry about consequences. That being the case, they seem to only have succeeded in garnering you sympathy. Not that the "obvious" couldn't possibly be true, but still, it might be wise not to assume, or even "suspect", too quickly. Equazcion(talk) 22:56, 17 Feb 2010 (UTC)
If you think someone directing anti-gay and homophobic hate speech and name-calling toward me is "nothing" and does not "impede", you obviously have never had hate speech directed at you over and over and over again for something that's as natural and non-changeable as blue eyes and lefthandedness. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I meant impeding in the technical sense. I don't claim what they did is nothing, nor am I belittling hate speech. But it is innocuous, relative to what sock vandals can do when their interests actually lie in hurting or taunting a person. Per WP:BEANS I won't get into specifics. That and the infrequency of the occurrences makes them less obvious. There are clever individuals who act for one side in order to promote another, and I've seen it before -- see strawman sockpuppet. Such an individual might not know or even care that they might be actually hurting you personally, if it helps your side "win". Equazcion(talk) 23:43, 17 Feb 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I see what you're saying, but from where I sit, as one who has been on the receiving end of this hate-speech, even explaining it as "innocuous "relative" to..." seems to be a bit of a dismissal. Oh, well - I'm just going to trust you didn't mean it that way. As far as WP:BEANS...that's what children do, and aren't we all supposed to be adults here? ;-) When I read strawman sockpuppet I first thought, "who thinks like that?" Then, I was struck by the fact that if those who spend their time thinking up such elaborate plans to win at any cost in WP would take that energy and put it toward something positive and ethical (like just editing articles), how much better a place WP would be. <shrug> --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Karel Bouley
Thanks for your note. First off, I am of the opinion that we should treat BLPs similarly to how we treat other Wikipedians. The same ideas about civility ought to apply to BLPs that apply to Users. Not everything in a BLP is going to be flattering. No evidence that Bouley is a threat to society and that a flattering article about Bouley will hide the danger he poses. So perhaps it's better to err on the side of generosity when writing about him--so long as all the important content remains in the article. For example, this wouldn't mean deleting content about major aspects of his life, such as his firing, but perhaps we could write about this subject more carefully and be especially careful to represent his POV.
>Bouley does not put on another persona when he is on the radio.
Well, let's look at the articles about some other people whose real names are different from their stage names:
Mark Twain--always called "Twain" in the article, even when referring to his personal life
Sean Combs (Puff Daddy/P Diddy/Diddy)--he had multiple stage names, like Bouley seems to. (Unless Bouley legally changed his name to add "Karel" as a middle name?) Combs is always called by his surname in the article.
Prince (musician)--always goes by "Prince" in the article, in similar fashion to Mark Twain in the article about him. Changed his stage name at one time to a name that did not catch on, which is barely mentioned in the article.
Sacha Baron Cohen--Called by his surname, except in a few places when the article refers to the characters he plays.
The question becomes fairly complicated for Karel/Bouley. Karel/Bouley does not claim to put on another persona when he is on the radio. However, the part of his life in which he is "Karel" is major and significant, and is clearly delineated from the rest of his life. For example, when people are hiring him for a radio show, they seem to be hiring "Karel." If he introduces himself as "Karel" on-air, people may well be thinking of him as "Karel." However, he's known as "Bouley" in other places. This seems to be someone who is perhaps often referred to as "Karel" in his notable activities, but not always. A more notable person such as Mark Twain is always called "Twain" in the article about him, even though his real name was "Samuel Clemens." Also, if he calls himself "Charles Karel Bouley", this is not the same as being "Charles Raymond Bouley", so some aspects of his stage name have crept into how he is called in other venues. There is perhaps a middle ground in WP:Surname between always calling someone by their surname and always calling someone by their stage name, and this person may be there. (I think I may disagree with you that there's no gray area in WP:Surname, particularly when people are known for multiple notable activities in which they may use different names. This may be the case for Karel/Bouley.) Maybe the article should be redirected to "Charles Bouley" (is "Karel" anywhere in his legal name?) as per "Sean Combs", and warrants a couple of references to him as "Karel" and the rest as "Bouley" as per "Sacha Baron Cohen".
"Struggling" is a statement that takes one position about his life without giving the readers the facts to evaluate this position--even if a reliable source describes him this way. It may be more neutral to describe what specific jobs he had as a stand-up comic. For example, if he did not have a full-time job for a specified period of time, it is more informative to say it that way. Or, if he performed in small venues that were not very lucrative, perhaps it's most informative to mention the venues and either link to them, or describe their size. If his comedy routines were not well attended at first, perhaps it's better to give figures about their attendance.
On that note, I've recently encountered a not-too-different situation in the biography article for Avraham Qanai, that I'm not completely sure how to handle. An IP address from Albany, New York (where Qanai lives) recently removed some unflattering information about this person. I reverted the IP once, but don't want to do that again because I think the text that was deleted should be thought about more carefully. I don't blame this User even if he did have what Wikipedians would call a conflict of interest--there seem to have been POVs about the text that was deleted that were conspicuously absent from the article. It might have been better if the IP address from Albany had added text that clarified things, but not everyone has the writing skills to do this. As seasoned users, we also forget that it takes a while for many new users to learn the culture of Wikipedia, and that not everyone is prepared to become the regular contributors we are. (User talk:CordeliaNaismith has a number of recent posts from new users with questions about Wikipedia's culture, if you want to remind yourself of this. But I digress, and Joy is a seasoned user anyway.) Anyway, I'm curious what you think re: what's happening in the Qanai article.
If you note in the first line of the article, I inserted the statement, "Charles Karel Bouley", known on the air as "Karel". Personally, I think that takes care of the fact that he uses "Karel" while on the air, and nothing else needs to be said about it in the article. I still believe that by following the guidlines found in the article on using surnames, using "Bouley" throughout the article is correct and appropriate. Actually, this subject was already broached a few months ago, and the consensus was to use the last name. So...I'm not sure why we are even visitng this again, it's now a non-issue. As far as his attempt at being a stand-up comic before he was in radio, I really doubt there is anything out there that can verify what his audience numbers were. The article used as a source stated he was "Struggling", because that's what the writer who interviewed Bouley and his partner likely told him. Kava's Examiner articles are used as references more than once in the Bouley article, but now, suddenly, *this* article is not a good enough source? Give me a break. Anyway - thanks for getting back to me on this here. I appreciate you taking the time. And thanks for the input on the Feast of Tabernacles article. If you'd like, please put in your two-cents on it as far as the proposed deletion of it. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 06:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On "Feast of Tabernacles", I've already voted "Keep." It seems like the sort of holiday that would have reliable sources about it, and can you find any as per Equazcion (at least that's what she said last time I checked)? Even I know of Christians who celebrate it. Re: "Struggling", I'd like to clarify what I think. Basically, IMO it's better than no information at all about this stage of Bouley's life, but I still think it's a suboptimal way to describe it given its POVness. The issue is not with the reliability of the source that says he was "struggling", but the fact that it tends to be preferable to provide specific information. I'm not convinced that there are no sources about that part of his career, and the ball seems to be in Joy's court to come up with these sources (unless you or someone else wants to). I've posted this stuff on the Talk page of the article, which I probably should have done earlier. --AFriedman (talk)03:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I got to the Bouley article via recent edits while on vandal patrol. The rest of what you say doesn't deserve a response since it's been answered to before. --CrohnieGalTalk14:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may fool others Crohnie, but you don't fool me. You are stalking my edits and were looking into my edit history (or someone you know was and you went there on behalf of them) - that's how you got to the Bouley page. There was no vandalism there, and your edits on that page had nothing to do with combating vandalism. You edited there because you knew I had heavily edited that article prior to it being locked. As soon as the block was up, you went there to edit in an attempt to bait me and get a negative reaction out of me - I knew it then, and I know it now. It's the same reason why you heavily edited the Jeffrey MacDonald article - you saw that I recently edited there, and you are trying to goad me into a fight. As far as why you aren't responding to what I said on your talk page, I know why you *really* aren't responding, and it has nothing to do with your "poor-me" claim that I was mean to you (which I wasn't - and you really should learn a new song, BTW). You're not responding because (1) I spoke the truth and you are in denial about that truth, (2) you simply don't like me because I have been openly vocal about the bad Wiki-behavior of an editor you see as your Wikipedia protector. Even in the midst of your cries of "why are you picking on me?" and "let's everybody just get along because I hate it when people don't get along!", you like to stir things up and keep things dysfunctional because that's what's become comfortable for you. It's not really peaceful editing you're interested in, it's status-quo you want - even if status-quo means breaking WP policy and treating those not in your comfort-zone-clique like crap. You're really not that hard to figure out, you know (and it seems as if RobinHood70 and Tekaphor now have your number as well). --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File permission problem with File:Main_Street_at_Dusk.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Main_Street_at_Dusk.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 14:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File permission problem with File:ConcreteTheatre_2010.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:ConcreteTheatre_2010.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 14:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My original intention (link) was to simply add a sentence or two about Bouley's show on KNGY, which was not addressed elsewhere in the article. However, I felt that if I added only that information, it would break the continuity of the paragraph (i.e., the last sentence was about him being hired by KGO; I had to make it clear that he was fired before being hired by KNGY). I couldn't think of any other way to include the information. I know it is slightly redundant, but if you can think of any other way, please fix it. By the way, I only reverted once; I do not know how or why Montystone undid your first removal so quickly. ctzmsc3|talk23:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you and Wildhartlivie both agreed in principle to an interaction ban, I have gone ahead and logged it at WP:RESTRICT.
Wildhartlivie and SkagitRiverQueen are interaction banned on each other. Broadly construed, neither may revert each others' edits, follow up a talk page comment by the other, comment on the others' talk page, or report the other to noticeboards. They may, however, participate in RFC/U or arbitration discussions involving the other, including as the filing party.
Just so you'll know, your sandbox was mentioned on the WP:AN thread [4]. That's probably how Equazcion's attention was drawn to it. There's no call to accuse an admin of harassment because he's following up on an issue where admin attention has been requested. Dayewalker (talk) 03:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(1) He's not an admin. (2) He's been dogging me for months now. (3) I said it's all starting to feel like harassment - I didn't accuse him of harassing me. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 03:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, strike that, then. I thought he was an admin. I would still take his comments at face value though, as it was referenced in the AN thread. I see you've struck your comments on the page, that's a good step. Hopefully this interaction ban will work out for both of you. Good luck! Dayewalker (talk) 03:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you
I just want to thank you for resizing the images in Ted Bundy. I really appreciate it because I couldn't remember how to. I reverted your last resizing due to there being a consensus at the image location when there was discussion about deleting it and then another about the size. Thank you again, --CrohnieGalTalk14:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Todd Bentley / Criticism
What seems to be the problem with adding a 'criticism' section to the Todd Bentley article? Other articles in the Wikipedia have a 'criticism' header with contrasting views. It can help balance an article for NPOV.
The paragraph on Todd and the Lakeland revival is a condensed view that can even represent a shared voice by many sources within Christianity, but the source True & False Revival is used and is deemed reliable as per Wikipedia guidelines. Author Andrew Strom was in the same movement as Todd Bentley. The book appears to be an honest evaluation of the ministry of Todd and the prophetic movement that Todd can be said to be associated with.
(the preceding comment was left unsigned by TheBlessing at 08:41, 19 March 2010)
Scripture speaks that in the end times there will be seducing spirits, doctrines of demons, and lying signs and wonders. Many extra-Biblical experiences and bizarre manifestations have been observed in the ministry of Todd Bentley that do not line up with scripture. At the Lakeland Revival there was an emphasis on an anointing. A few of the resulting manifestations included; uncontrollable jerking, drunken stupor, teeth turning to a metallic finish, a feeling of being split in two, uncontrollable laughter during prayer, and falling down without being able to move.[1] (The above unsigned post was left by TheBlessing at 08:41 on 19 March 2010)
All true, however, Wikipedia is not a Bible Study, it's an encyclopedia where a neutral point of view is imperative. I never said I didn't agree with what you wrote, I stated in the edit summary that what you included was biased. Biased, one-sided material that promotes a particular point of view is not acceptible content in Wikipedia and is to be removed. Find a way to present the above with a neutral POV, and it can be included in the article. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - thanks for the link. Yes, it's a vanity press (there are quite a few "authors" listing their own tomes for sale on Amazon these days), erg, not a reliable source. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be great - but don't forget that anything you state (even if NPOV) should be referenced. References are really important, especially with a WP:BLP article. Could you also start signing your posts on talk pages with four tildes ("~" - it's that character to the immediate left of the #1 on your keyboard; just use the shift key when you do it)? Thanks. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Impartation post on Lakeland Revival
Every bit of the following information is clearly in the book. I own the book! Please undo your erroneous action!
At the Lakeland Revival services, Todd emphasized the impartation of an anointing. The intent was to spread the revival worldwide by this method. It is reported that various recipients of the impartation manifest; uncontrollable jerking, drunken stupor, teeth turning to a metallic finish, a feeling of being split in two, uncontrollable laughter, falling down and not being able to move, and writhing like a snake in naming a few.[2]—Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBlessing (talk • contribs) 19:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you are saying, Ed, but once the article is unlocked, the whole thing is going to start again with DocOfSoc. It happens each and every time. As I stated in my initial post on this at AN/I, DOS needs a mentor so she gets a better idea of how editing in WP (among other things WP) works. Once that article is opened again, and if there *is* an interaction ban in place - she will head right back there and do exactly what she's already been doing. With the ban in place, she will be free to do what she wants to the article so that it reflects her POV and COI and I will be helpless to fix it. I have worked hard (long before DOS came along) to make that article what it is today and to keep it as POV-free as possible. Why should I be forced to just turn my head and allow it to be sabotaged? No one else really edits that article - and no one other than me works to keep it POV-free. If another, trusted, experienced and unbiased editor would commit to keeping the article POV and COI free when she *does* start editing it again, I would be okay with the ban. But until that happens, I can't just say yes to the ban because it would be giving her carte blanche to destroy it. Do you see where I'm coming from? (and I'm open to more suggestions, BTW) --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3RR Warning
I know you've left a message on the other party's talk page about edit warring, but I do want to warn you in all good faith that you're also at 3RR on Margaret Clark. While I agree with your changes, I don't think the other editor's changes are vandalism, as you speculated here [5], so 3RR would still apply. Dayewalker (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up, but I disagree and fully believe that editor is not only intentionally edit-warring, but intentionally vandalizing the article. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 18:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can disagree, but as per WP:VANDAL, this user doesn't appear to be clearly vandalizing. As you've informed him that his next edit will put him at 3RR, you're also already there and a report filed at the notice board wouldn't reflect well on you. Just trying to warn you. Dayewalker (talk) 18:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is pointing out to a user who was decidedly and unnecessarily snarky, rude, uncivil, and lacking in good faith while accusing me of same that they were not practicing what they were preaching a blockable offense, Sarek? I think this latest from you proves you've got it in for me. Enough is enough. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 19:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the first time you have blocked me as a punitive, rather than preventative, measure. It's also not the first time you've blocked me for doing nothing more than another editor involved in the same discussion WITHOUT also blocking the other editor. I opened myself up to you on a personal level about how I have Asperger Syndrome and that some things - like inferences and certain other responses and behaviors are part of why I edit and communicate the way I do. I asked you to look into Asperger Syndrome so you could better understand what I was talking about. I'm assuming from this latest over-the-top block that you didn't bother to read it. You regularly turn a blind eye to what other editors around me are doing that relates to how I am communicating with them and they get off with not even a slap on the wrist. You have been targeting me for weeks now and this is just another example of your bias against me. You are a bad administrator, Sarek and you have misused your authority more than once where I am concerned. It is procedure to place a block notice on my talk page, and for the third time, you have not placed one. Doing so allows me to request a block review so that other admins are alerted to the review request. Not doing so keeps this out of the eyes of other admins for review. It is wrong for you to not include the block notice and one needs to be placed here - ESPECIALLY because of the length of the block - immediately. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 19:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a medical condition that prevents you from communicating collegially, I'm not sure that Wikipedia is the best place for you, as currently we don't generally make special allowances for that sort of thing, as far as I'm aware. Equazcion(talk) 19:37, 21 Mar 2010 (UTC)
Other editors are given leeway because of conditions they have that affect how they edit. Just because I haven't broadcasted my condition with a special notice on my talk page and user page doesn't mean that I can't or shouldn't be afforded the same courtesies and level of understanding. Discrimination is discrimination whether in Wikipedia or anywhere else. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 19:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again: We don't make allowances for medical conditions that affect any editor's ability to communicate collegially, whether they post a notice or not. Some editors might have trouble communicating, and we do try to make allowances for that; if that trouble involves an inability to be collegial with other editors, we don't really make allowances for that, notice or no notice. Equazcion(talk) 19:56, 21 Mar 2010 (UTC)
Really? Well, first of all - who's "we"? You aren't an administrator. And secondly, those allowances and courtesies are extended all the time to other editors - I've seen it happen time and again. Your explanation here doesn't wash, and frankly, means nothing to me. When and administrator says the same thing based on stated policy, *then* I will believe it. And then, of course, there would be the discrimination factor that goes along with such a "policy"... --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"We" are the community. Administrators aren't necessarily any more of an authority on the subject. I've been here longer than many admins, and have been offered the position repeatedly, but turned it down. If the only people you trust to inform you of policy are admins, so be it, you can see what they say. Nevertheless, a policy of making those kinds of allowances for medical conditions would require some sort of verification to prevent abuse, which I think makes it rather impractical for Wikipedia. Equazcion(talk) 20:04, 21 Mar 2010 (UTC)
SRQ, try to avoid acting in a way that past experience tells you won't get the desired results. To get those results, you need to act differently. If you want to be unblocked, take a few days to a week off from Wikipedia and think about what other people have said to you here and then, after a short break where you can gather your thoughts and get some needed distance from the issues, you can revisit this issue in a calm manner with clear thoughts. Right now, attacking your blocking administrator and portraying yourself as a victim of discrimination isn't working. You may be too angry and upset to see the situation as it really appears. Take a break and come back when you're feeling better. Nobody is perfect, but you need to recognize that the problem isn't Sarek or anyone else here. You can't control the behavior of other people, only those of yourself. The more you keep placing blame on others, the longer you are going to remain blocked. Please understand and think about this. Be well. Viriditas (talk) 20:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was a completely different situation based on a misunderstanding. A year is not only over-the-top, it's vindictive. ESEPCIALLY since Sarek was already aware of my condition when he did it. He's never asked for explanations, he's never offered to help me, he's basically said, "I couldn't care less" by saying nothing at all. That is wrong for anyone, let alone an admin. I didn't have to let him know what is up with me, but I took a chance. A chance, I obviously wasted my time and energy and trust on. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how many thousands of people have been blocked in the past, but attacking the blocking admin has probably never worked as an unblock strategy. Surely, you must realize this? Please take some time off and come back with fresh eyes. You're not doing yourself any favors continuing to talk about this. Viriditas (talk) 20:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not using a "strategy", I'm stating my case in complete honesty and from my persepctive. Strategies are for those who need to win - I don't need to win, just to be heard and understood. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re "saying nothing at all" -- I've generally found that to be a good preventative measure against foot-in-mouth disease, which I tend to suffer from when I type without thinking things through sufficiently first. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
This isn't the first time I have been blocked by Sarek as a punitive, rather than preventative, measure. It's also not the first time he's blocked me for doing nothing more than another editor involved in the same discussion WITHOUT also blocking the other editor. I opened myself up to him on a personal level through a private email on March 14 about how I have Asperger Syndrome and that some things - like inferences and certain other responses and behaviors - are part of why I edit and communicate the way I do. I asked him to look into Asperger Syndrome so you could better understand what I was talking about. I'm assuming from this latest over-the-top block that he didn't bother to read it. He regularly turns a blind eye to what other editors around me are doing that relates to how I am communicating with them and they get off with not even a slap on the wrist. Sarek has been targeting me for weeks now and this is just another example of his bias against me. I believe Sarek is a bad administrator and has once again misused his authority where I am concerned. Further, I believe that blocking me for a year while already knowing I have a condition that hinders my communication abilities with others (among other things that would relate to how I edit) is discrimination based on a handicap. A block for this incident [6] is not worthy of a year-long block, nor is it worthy of a block at all, IMO. I have asked Sarek for help and to explain a few things to me here and there and now and again and he has balked at doing so. This is a clear case of targeting, discrimination and abuse of administrative authority. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Note to all reviewing admins: Be aware this issue is under discussion at WP:ANI, and as of this writing there is unanimous support for this block. Block probably should not be reversed unless there is a dramatic reversal in the conversation there. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stuff...
Today I made a decision and took a chance by revealing that I have Asperger Syndrome. On March 14th, I took that same chance with an administrator in order for that admin to possibly gain some understanding about why I do some of the things I do and communicate the way I do in Wikipedia. Now, another editor has taken my admission and broadcast it on AN/I with the following: "SRQ is now claiming, on her talk page, to have a medical condition -- aspergers syndrome -- which she says (or implies) prevents her from communicating collegially. Regardless of whatever truth there may be to that, it seems impractical to me to make special accommodations for those kinds of claims on Wikipedia. It may be the case, however unfortunate, that people making such a claim will need to find other outlets. One of the follow-up comments from another editor was to direct the reader to WP:NOTTHERAPY.
First of all, I have never implied, nor have I directly stated, that I see WP as "therapy". I've never asked for sympathy or pathos or any kind of accommodation. Even in revealing my condition, I did it so others might understand, nothing more. For those of you who are making comments at AN/I about me that lack compassion or understanding and are doubting my truthfulness in this matter or are now suggesting I am asking for special accommodations, shame on you. All of you.
Since Rschen thought it was important we all read WP:NOTTHERAPY, then I would like to direct those reading this post to the following statement from that article:
"Except in extreme cases, editors are not blocked before problems have been patiently discussed, but, if disruptive behavior is not controlled, ultimately the community will protect the encyclopedia by restricting the user's participation in the project. It is never appropriate to use the phrase "Wikipedia is not therapy" to imply that editors with mental disorders should be banned from Wikipedia because of their disabilities."
I would like to point out that after I revealed my condition to Sarek - the admin who has been dogging me all over Wikipedia and blocking me over and over again even since receiving that email - on not one occasion has he tried to "patiently discuss" anything with me. Not once. I've even asked him to explain something to me that I didn't understand - his answer was, "I can't help you". All I asked for was a little help in understanding an inferrence (part of having AS or any autism-spectrum disorder is the inability to understand nuance and inferrence) - and he didn't want to take the time. Ironically, he has time to watch my every move and block me over and over, but no time to help me out when specifically asked. I would also like to point out to Rschen and Equazcion that their suggestion I should be banned and/or go away from Wikipedia *because* of my disorder is also addressed in the above quote. From what I read above, their suggestion is against WP policy. As it should be.
Obviously my disability is inconvenient for all of my detractors and those who unanimously agreed that a year-long ban is appropriate. I've even specifically asked more than one administrator (and editor) when commenting to me about my editing and communication if they could tell me specifically where I could improve. I have never, not once, received an answer. Not one time. But when it's time to skewer me, everyone rushes to do so with seeming relish - when I ask for help to understnad how to do things better in Wikipedia, no one has the time or the interest. That's wrong. Obviously, none of you have time for such an inconvenience or to try and understand anything about my disability - you'd rather just keep pushing people like me away and out of your sight rather than take a little time. This is currently the way of the world - no matter how much others pretend to make accommodations for those with conditions or disabilities or handicaps (or whatever you want to call them), the attitude of "I don't have time for that" is the reality whether out loud or in silence. God forbid you or someone in your immediate world should ever end up with something that affects you the way disabilities affect those of us who have them - because what goes around most certainly always comes around, and when it comes around to you, you are likely to wish you had been a little more compassionate, a little more patient, a little less self-involved.
That was never the intention of my pointing to WP:NOTTHERAPY. Thank your for twisting my statement. What I mean is this: We don't treat editors specially because they have mental conditions. We hold everyone to the same behavioral standard, medical condition or not. Your behavior does not meet that standard. --Rschen775404:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't twisting anything - I took what you said as you said it. If that wasn't what you meant, maybe you should have made that clarification up front. And FYI - Asperger's is NOT a "mental condition" - it is a neurological disorder. Please don't make that mistake again. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 04:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...or maybe you should've read the page and responded to its content, rather than merely responding to the words "not therapy". The second sentence on the page explains what is meant by that, and is pretty much what Rschen says above. Equazcion(talk) 04:21, 22 Mar 2010 (UTC)
I don't personally believe that all people with aspergers should be banned -- on the contrary, I get the feeling rather often that Wikipedia attracts aspergers sufferers, and that they make up a good percentage of our users (this has been suggested playfully often in the past but I really think there might be some truth to it). No one suggested that you be banned because of your disorder. They suggested you be banned because you claim to be incapable of collegial communication. Whatever the cause of this, collegial communication is a prerequisite here. That you claim the cause of this is beyond your control (a medical disorder) is unfortunate, but also tells us that even you don't believe it'll stop -- and that's the primary concern. People can believe you and have compassion for you, but that's still neither here nor there, and pretty separate from how we need to deal with people who lack the ability to communicate without fighting. Equazcion(talk) 01:15, 22 Mar 2010 (UTC)
What??? When did I *ever* "claim to be incapable of collegial communication"? When? Not in my memory - not even doing a quick perusal of what's on this talk page. I also never once said anything I do here is beyond my control. I understand that collegial editing is the primary concern - and it really should be in such a community. As far as anyone suggesting I "be banned because of [my] disorder" - excuse me, but you definitely suggested it. You suggested it when you said that Wikipedia isn't for me because of the Asperger's. But back to your original statement above: I have never said I am incapable of collegial editing nor have I ever implied it. For you to suggest so either means you are being completely dishonest or you have completely misunderstood what I have been saying all along. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 01:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I said that you should be banned because of the particular claim you made (among other things, the latest of which would be this edit summary), not because you "have aspergers". Those are two very different things. If you claim that a permanent medical condition is the cause of your problematic behavior, then yes, Wikipedia probably isn't the place for you. That's different from saying "you must be banned since you have aspergers". It's your particular claim of its effect on your communication abilities that is the problem. Equazcion(talk) 02:42, 22 Mar 2010 (UTC)
SRQ, let's keep our eye on the prize. Do you want to edit and contribute to Wikipedia? Would you like an administrator to eventually unblock you? Assuming the answer to both of those questions is yes, then please read and understand these instructions. So far, you have not followed these steps; Rather, you have made replies indicating you are not interested in an unblock. If this is the case, say so. On the other hand, if you want to return to editing Wikipedia in less than a year, follow the steps I linked to above. Further discussion on this page should be focused towards this end, otherwise you could lose your discussion privileges. Viriditas (talk) 02:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) It's not semantics. Think of it this way: I'd tell someone the same thing if they claimed the cause was a bad marriage or their squallorly living conditions. If you claim permanent circumstances beyond your control are the root of the problem, then fine, maybe they are; but then you still probably shouldn't be here. On the other hand I'm sure there are people with lots of different medical and other conditions, including aspergers, who claim no such effect, and we're all generally fine with them being here. The particular claimed cause is irrelevant. The claimed effect is the problem. Equazcion(talk) 02:50, 22 Mar 2010 (UTC)
Please get this through your head: I have never - ever - said or implied that I do things which are out of my control. Those with Asperger Syndrome do things not because they can't help themselves, they do and say things because they don't realize they are wrong or different or out of the norm or... There's a *huge* difference and one that you should understand - especially if you are going to continue to deal with me. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 03:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now that's a semantic argument. It's still pretty much out of your control, if you do it because you don't realize it's wrong. Either way, you're claiming some sort of diminished capacity. You claim to have a medical condition that results in you doing things that hurt the collaborative environment. The specifics of how you get there are really not important. Equazcion(talk) 03:46, 22 Mar 2010 (UTC)
Equazcion, I agree with you. Everyone has problems of one kind or another, but we make do. Some people succeed in spite of their problems, and we must look to them for inspiration. "What does not kill me, makes me stronger." SRQ, in case you aren't already aware, there is a consensus forming that if you admit your faults and agree to editing restrictions and acquire the guidance of a mentor, an unblock will be considered and possibly accepted. The future is within your grasp. The question is, will you make the right choice? Viriditas (talk) 02:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that would happen until after some significant time has passed, as has been mentioned at ANI even by those willing to consider a conditional unblock. Equazcion(talk) 03:09, 22 Mar 2010 (UTC)
Let's focus on what is important: What matters is that the golden road to an unblock is on the horizon with the sun shining above, and SRQ can choose to take that lovely path or continue along the dark path she's currently on. It's her choice, and that's what matters. I've taken a month off Wikipedia before, and it wasn't so bad. I'm sure she can do the same. Viriditas (talk) 03:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First off, in wikipedia, I'm not on a "dark path", I'm on a path. It's not dark, it's not light, it's just a path. Secondly, I have no problem taking the path you are suggesting. I just don't have time right now to devote expressing that here or anywhere else. I'm currently trying to finish up some stray assignments that my instructors kindly gave me extra time to finish before tomorrow afternoon because of the two weeks I missed of my life dealing with my father's two major surgeries in the span of 10 days. So, just know - not doing anything about it for a day or so (maybe less) isn't an indication of not caring or not wanting to comply, it's about real life (and maintaining my Honors Program A average) outside of WP. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 03:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
^Strom, Andrew (2008). True & False Revival. Lightning Source, Inc. ISBN 978-0-9799073-1-9
^Strom, Andrew (2008). True & False Revival. Lightning Source, Inc. ISBN 978-0-9799073-1-9
