User talk:Anachronist

If I left a message on your talk page, please reply there; I have it on my watch list. If you initiate contact here, I will respond here, so make sure you put this page on your watch list. Thanks!

Helpful Information
The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Help pages Tutorial How to write a great article Manual of Style Wikipedia:Questions Edit count tool
sign talk pages w/4 tildes (~~~~)
Questions: Ask Mushroom or use {{helpme}} on this page.

Invitation to join Wikipedia Wine Project

While we share a disagreement over photos :), I nonetheless value your wine knowledge and contribution to the Zinfandel page. I would love if you consider joining the Wikipedia Wine Project to help expand Wikipedia's quality of wine articles. In particular are several discussions on the talk page (one of which you inspire :p) that you may find interesting and want to contribute to. As you can probably tell there is a lot of groundwork that needs to be laid. I hope you join! Agne 18:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Agne. I didn't know that a Wikipedia wine project existed. Amatulic 00:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

MBA Rankings

Hi,

I dont agree with your reasons for deleting this article. While much of the text comes from the MBA article, I feel that this is reasonable, as it gives the pros and cons of ranking programs. I feel that this is relevant information that people who go to the MBA article would want to read.

I chose the FT rankings for two reasons,

1. It is one of the two most respected rankings of Business Schools, but it includes global schools unlike the other big list Business Week, which only ranks American schools.

2. The rankings are published online, unlike the business week rankings which they charge for. I did not think it was right to publish the BW rankings on wpedia, as the list is their IP, and they do not wish to give it out for free online.

I will remove the tag you added for these reasons, and I feel that this article if left online should be useful, and edited by many other users. Thus if you question the NPOV of my piece, that should change. I must also add that as a graduate (PhD) from a business school, my Alma Mater is not included in those rankings, so I have no vested interest in publishing it.

Please feel free to nominate it for deletion, I hope other users will find it useful and vote to keep it.

Daviegold 17:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

See my reply on your talk page. -Amatulic 20:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Look at the history of User talk:Daviegold. Hes a sockpuppet. Expect abuse if you go near the articles of his nest. DebtStar 20:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks to me like he just blanks his talk page when a conversation becomes old, relying on the page history as his archive. How's that make him a sockpuppet? I did notice he has had other copyvio issuse prior to the MBA Rankings article, though. -Amatulic 21:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Amatulic,

Rather than getting into a revert war on the MBA rankings article, may I suggest that you nominate it for deletion again, and this time allow the nomination to run to completion. The prior run was too fast to give me a chance to respond, and did not wait until a moderator could decide on the outcome.

I do not wish to appear argumentative, but I feel that this piece is a sidebar to the central MBA page, and thus should be a separate article. I also feel that over time it allows a history of rankings to be preserved, which the sites linked to do not store.

I wrote a full piece on why I feel the article should be kept on its archived articles for deletion page, which I hope you will read and consider.

Best wishes, Daviegold 11:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with it (the article as you want it violates WP:COPYVIO and WP:NPOV) but I will investigate how one goes about restoring an AfD discussion. -Amatulic 15:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

use of "vanity"

Just a friendly note regarding your comment on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Antoine_Spiteri.

WP:COI says: "Avoid using the word "vanity" in a deletion discussion — this has created serious problems. Remember that such an accusation may be defamatory." "Conflict of Interest" is now preferred. Other possible reasons for deletion of articles include lack of an assertion of Notability. Or else there is the policy trifecta of WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV, as well as WP:NOT which can always be relied upon.

Cheers, Jpe|ob 13:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that policy. I started participating in deletion discussions a few days ago, and noticed others using it where it seemed appropriate. Thank you for pointing out WP:COI. So many policies, it's hard to learn them all! -Amatulic 17:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

No worries. Feel free to alert other users to this policy shift as well if you wish. Good to see you taking part in AFDs! Happy editing! Cheers, Jpe|ob 01:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for your 'third opinion' contribution re: Augustus John edits. It was much appreciated. JNW 20:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. -Amatulic 21:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

help regarding Matt Tilley article

The article is out of control. I don't believe that it is of any encyclopedic value at all. They are filling it with irrelevent material. He is a D-grade disc-jockey and yet they have padded out his article with information right down to children's names, his tertiary history, and the changing names of his radio show. I doubt his qualification for an article here, and I fear that it has degenerated into a fan-page.

I do not know the processes for deletion and what not. I was wondering if I could have your help. Mike --202.164.195.56 07:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The process for deletion has already been started by someone; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Tilley. I voted to delete. However, it looks like the majority wants to keep it. -Amatulic 21:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Third opinion: Wikipedia:Notability (web)

The most recent revision is at [1]. This is the one I advocate for; however, another person disagreed with my revision. He supported the old version with what I believe to be very weak support. Such statements as "we don't usually separate introduction" and "WP:WOTTA," which mind you, I fixed. [2] Do you believe the current version is accectable? I will reply here. Thank you. FactsOnly 15:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I have clarified my third opinion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (web)#Third opinion. -Amatulic 18:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I was not the one requesting clarification, but anyhow, I will take your suggestions and implement them into the list of changes. SolelyFacts 18:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I made my reply, if you care to consider. Thank you. SolelyFacts 18:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I looked, and I have nothing further to add; it looks like the article is in good hands. -Amatulic 23:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Need Help Please

I thought there would be no more problems. Could you please read this revision I made [3], which includes those on the list [4], as well as edits for conciseness and clarity, and honestly tell me if it is so "inferior" to the previous. It is very slight improvement with differences that does not merit conflict [5] and reverting the entire article [6]. One could change the differences they have issues with, but reverting the entire article is nonsensical.

This message has gone to the two admins who took part in solving the conflicts. To gain multiple views from neutral third parties, I request that you leave this note in the "Third opinion" page, wherever that is. I also wish to know where is the "dispute resolution" page. It looks like I'm going to be using it often. Any places to prevent people -- who appear to be WikiStalker, who come out of nowhere and start attacking for the edits I make -- from reverting everything I do whould be nice as well. I would appreciate the assistance (it would take a bit of time), though you could always disregard it. —SolelyFacts 19:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Isis peer review

I changed the lead of the article per your advice - see here. I just want to make sure it adheres to NPOV and that I got the right end of the stick. Seegoon 15:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

In the peer review, I only made a comment on the lead paragraph. It looks better (very well written, too). If there is anything else notable about the band it should be mentioned there. Gold or platinum albums? Opening band for a "big name" band at a concert? Grammy awards or other significant recognition for the band or its members? Hit songs? That sort of thing. Wikipedia:Notability (music) is still a draft policy but it might help as guidance. -Amatulic 18:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Tadeusz Kantor

Hi. I appreciate your third opinion contribution but, as I expected, it is being completely ignored. Here is an example of a revert in which no explanation was given for the return of "born in a Polish-Jewish family" and the removal of Kantor's otherwise relationship with Jewish theatre: [7]. I've requested a page lock, which might hopefully stir more discussion and explanation for why the website's information is being completely ignored. 141.211.216.33 04:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad al-Durrah

Hi, I noticed you often provide third opinions. There is an ongoing dispute on Muhammad al-Durrah regarding the pov of two different version of the page. I would really appreciate another opinion on this. Thanks, KazakhPol 01:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You didn't post a third opinion request, so I looked over the edit history of the article and decided that the two versions of the lead paragraph could be merged using the accepted facts. Hopefully my revision should dissatisfy both parties equally! -Amatulic 03:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Georg Cantor

Hello Mr. Matulich. I'm wondering if you can clarify your third opinion(?) on the Georg Cantor discussion page with us. Your sentence of "keep the relevant assertions in place" was interpreted by some people to mean "leave the Jewish categories despite the sources that say he was not Jewish." I interpreted it to mean "leave, in the text, both POVS that say he was Jewish and not Jewish 'but' displease both POVs by not asserting one over another." In my opinion, adding Jewish categories asserts that there's more validity in the POV of the biographers that say he was Jewish as opposed to those biographers that say he wasn't. We can't have Cantor in both a Jewish category and NOT in a Jewish category in the way we can have a person who's French or German heritage is in conflict be both in a German category and French category. However, not being in a Jewish category doesn't automatically mean the person isn't Jewish, just like Georg Cantor isn't in a Danish category, that doesn't mean he's not Danish. Putting him in a Jewish category, in my opinion, is implementing a POV over another. Can you clear up the confusion? ----Tellerman

The Wedge (TV show)

Thanks for your contributions on the Reaction and Criticism. It sounds much better now and not as bias.Shaggy9872004 05:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Help request: Linking to images on other wiki projects

I have some questions on linking to images without using external links:

• If I see an image I like on Wikimedia Commons, rather than Wikipedia, how would I link to it? Or any other Wiki project, for that matter?
• Specifically I'd like to use this public domain image on the Italian Wikipedia for an article I'm working on. How would I do this?
• Would I simply upload the image to Wikipedia? -Amatulic 21:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You can use images from Wikimedia Commons just like normal images on Wikipedia, ie: [[Image:Some Image on Commons]]

To upload an image on commons:

1. Create an account on commons. For some reason you need an account for every different MediaWiki project.
2. Go to commons:special:upload
3. Upload it (you have to save it to your hard drive first, you can't grab it streight from the website). There's good instructions on the page, but it's the same as Wikipedia's image upload stuff.

--h2g2bob 21:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I take it, then, that there's no "clean" way to reference an image directly on the Italian Wikipedia? And I notice something else: the author of that image already uploaded it to Wikimedia (see http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/it/2/2f/Steviolo3d.png) but it isn't accessible from the English Wikipedia, apparently. Odd. -Amatulic 21:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:Did you know

You're absolutely right. Sorry about that. The fine print was lost in me. People have been known to abuse DYK to promote their articles, and that's what I was looking out for. Apologies. I'll restore GDLT now. jengod 00:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

No harm done... somebody else already restored it. -Amatulic 00:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Steviol glycoside

On December 20, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Steviol glycoside, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Many thanks for creating this article Amatulic - we needed some organic chemistry coverage there. Keep up the good work, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, it is gratifying to have my article recognized. I wish an expert in organic chemistry would help expand it. I'm no expert; I just had an interest in the subject. -Amatulic 00:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

RfC? (re Talk:Herbert W. Armstrong)

Do you think this should go to RfC? I am not sure what to do next. --RelHistBuff 08:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I have left another offer. --RelHistBuff 11:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I answered on the talk page. Wait and see how jebbrady responds. Your offer to resolve your dispute seems fair enough. -Amatulic 23:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Invite to WikiProject Spam

Hey there! I saw you reverting or removing linkspam. Thanks! If you're interested, come visit us in Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam so we can work together in our efforts to clean spam from Wikipedia. Hu12 23:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I have tagged my userpage accordingly. Thanks. -Amatulic 23:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Your welcome ;)--Hu12 23:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

IIPM article

Hi Amatulic, I have great friends in Croatia (I'm referring to your personal page) :) And they've promised to take me yachting in the beautiful (I'm told) islands off the southern coast. I cant wait!

Thanks for your third opinion on the IIPM article. Honestly, you're right that both sides could do a better job of witing NPOV statements. However, I'm open to re-writing, whereas all MakrandJoshi does is revert. I'd appreciate it greatly if you could spend some time (a few days, perhaps), on the IIPM article talk page, to keep both sides honest, so to speak.

Hope to see you there. Iipmstudent9 03:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

PS - So blogs are not citeable sources, nyet? And if a magazie is published and edited by the same person, it becomes self-published and also not citeable? That was my understanding from Wikipedia:Verifiability.

You will enjoy Croatia. If you get a chance to go inland, you must also visit Plitvice. And definitely Dubrovnik is a place to stop if you're yachting. Cruise ships stop there. You can spend half the day walking Dubrovnik's city wall.

There are times when it's sensible to cite a blog, such as if the blog is run by an "official" source of information for the article. One example would be an article about a notable person who runs a blog. Another example might be a Microsoft developer working on a particular Microsoft product, who runs a blog related to that product. He would not be able to publish information about his employer's product without permission from his employer. I would say that's a citable source in an article about that product because this person involved with product development can be considered an official source of information.

As to a magazine published and edited by the same person, it may not be a problem in some situations. Many magazines and newspapers start out that way. Citing an article in such a magazine may not be a problem if the article was written by a reporter on the magazine staff, or if the magazine itself can be considered "notable" in some way. -Amatulic 17:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

...natural explanations for the development of life such as evolution

Sorry about that: That read a bit differently than I intended: My thought process was "Well, they also try and use it to deny abiogenesis, don't they? And they seem to be branching out a little in what they attack..." - in other words, I had intended it as a notable example from a list of related scientific theories. Didn't do a very good job at that, though. Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That's okay, I make those kinds of wordsmithing mistakes all the time. I figured I knew what you were trying to say, so I corrected it. I think that Intelligent Design article is the most heavily word-smithed article on Wikipedia. Seems like almost every phrase in every sentence has been discussed, dissected, cited, etc. -Amatulic 17:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

MBA specialization

In your revert of my addition to MBS specializations, you gave as a reason "We're not highlighting the offerings of specific schools in this article, and there's no reason to create an exhaustive list of specialized concentrations."

There were five. I added one. Since you claim to know what "We're" doing here, perhaps you can explain to me how six is exhaustive, but five is not.

Thank you for your information.

My intention was not to revert an additional concentration. Six is not exhaustive, but highlighting the school was inappropriate, so I reverted your edit. I have no problem with adding additional concentrations; however, there are too many specialized ones (I've seen at least 30) to list in the article. -Amatulic 17:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations

Greetings! After a long period of discussion and consensus building, the policy on usurping usernames has been approved, and a process has been set up to handle these requests. Since you listed yourself on Wikipedia:Changing username/Requests to usurp, you are being notified of the adopted process for completing your request.

If you are still interested in usurping a username, please review Wikipedia:Usurpation. If your request meets the criteria in the policy, please follow the process on Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations. Please note that strict adherence to the policy is required, so please read the instructions carefully, and ask any questions you may have on the talk page.

If you have decided you no longer wish to usurp a username, please disregard this message. Essjay (Talk) 12:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This message delivered by EssjayBot. Please direct any questions to Essjay.

Solid Angle Formula

Hi,

I'm fairly certain that there is an error in the formula you posted for the solid angle subtended by a rectangular pyramid in the solid angle article. The formula does not reduce to the correct version in the limit of small angles (where it should simply be $a\times b$; your formula reduces to $a\times b^{2}$). The error, I believe, arose in the limits that were used in integrating over the polar angle. These limits should be $\left({\pi \over 2}-{b \over 2},{\pi \over 2}+{b \over 2}\right)$, not $(0,b)$.

Also, I had simplified the formula for the special case of a square pyramid (I do not understand the source of the current formula; can you explain?) and had placed it below the more general case of the rectangular pyramid, as this seemed more sensible.

I notice that as I was writing this you removed the rectangular pyramid formula. Before I re-enter the correct version, I'll wait for your reply. I'm happy to provide a more detailed derivation if you like.

By the way, I believe your previous formula for the rectangular pyramid is actually correct for a triangular pyramid.

Bgerke 18:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I know it's an error. I inadvertantly put in a version of a formula for a triangular wedge or something similar. Also, my description is wrong: A true rectangular pyramid consists of four planes that would intersect the sphere forming great circle arcs. That's not what I was trying to define. Instead I described a latitute-longitude rectangle (lines of latitude aren't great circle arcs). The derivation can be done by double-integrating the area element given on Mathworld, or it can be derived algebraically as shown on Dr. Math's forum.

I'm not sure how to do the true rectangular pyramid yet. If you want to add it, feel free.

Also, I didn't create that square pyramid formula. It looks too messy to be real. -Amatulic 18:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

1. For what we were both trying to compute, the formula I posted was correct, I think. I derived it by integrating the solid angle element near the equator of a unit sphere.

2. You are right that this was not actually a rectangular pyramid; I had made the same mistake. That is the formula I was seeking when I first started this process, and I'm pretty sure I can derive it. I'll do so now and post it later.

3. I'm new to editing Wikipedia. Is there some provision for sidebars or footnotes where I can put up a more complete derivation of these things? It seems a useful thing to do so long as it's not cluttering up the main article. It also seems worthwhile to add a note pointing out the difference between a pyramid and a lattitude-longitude rectangle.

Bgerke 19:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

There's a way to put footnotes in an article (you enclose your footnote in <ref>...</ref> tags, and put a section called ==References== at the bottom of the article, containing one line: <div class="references-small><references/></div>). You'll see that in other articles with footnotes. However, that may not be appropriate here. It's probably enough to put your derivation in the talk page, so that anyone who questions the formula in the article can see where it came from. -Amatulic 20:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It was trickier than I expected, but I worked it out. Will post it later tonight or tomorrow. Incidentally, the regular-pyramid formula is correct but can be simplified somewhat. Bgerke 02:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Great! I look forward to seeing it. By the way, there is a prohibition on posting original research on Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:No original research) but after reading it over, I don't think it applies to posting mathematical formulas derived using common well-known mathematical procedures. It might qualify as "synthesis" but it isn't being used to advance a position, so it's probably OK. -Amatulic 18:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It's posted, and I linked to my derivation from the talk page as you suggested. Thanks for your guidance. Bgerke 20:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Linking to other accounts

I meant linking to them on your request. To do so, you can do it with an interwiki link, such as m:User:Titoxd, es:User:Titoxd, commons:User:Titoxd, mw:User:Titoxd, v:User:Titoxd, fr:User:Titoxd, ru:User:Titoxd, pt:User:Titoxd, etc.

The reason I asked was to check how many edits you had in other projects. After the single unified login transition, if there's several accounts with the same name across several projects, the account with most edits gets assigned the global account, and receives the login everywhere. If that is the case, then it may not be necessary to request for an usurpation right now, if it is going to be done automatically later on. (Although, keep in mind that SUL has been promised for a while, and only until recently work has been done on it, so no one knows how long it is going to take to finish.) Titoxd^(?!?) 18:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, my Anachronist account has more edits in Wiktionary and Commons than the same name account here on Wikipedia (which has 1 edit, in 2002). So what do I do, put redirects on all my user pages, redirecting to the Anachronist Wikipedia account, which isn't mine? That seems rather subversive. Also, all my edits as 'Amatulic' wouldn't change to the new name. I'd have to abandon this Amatulic account, no? -Amatulic 18:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Invite to participate in Wine Newsletter

Hello! I am curious if you would like to participate in our Wine Newsletter "Wiki Winos" feature which is a get to know you section of the new Wine Newsletter that we are trying to develop to foster more of a community sense within the wine project. The feature is a questionnaire that you are free to answer any or all questions on that is located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Wine/Newsletter/Wiki-Winos. Please post any response or feedback on my talk page. Thanks for your time and consideration! Agne^Cheese/^Wine 13:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello Amatulic,

Thanks for trying to keep the Talk:Robert Prechter page in good shape, you made the edit when I was also working on it. It was my first time trying to archive the text, which was a mess -- I thought archiving was a good idea following the Arb Committee decision involving the article. Rgfolsom 17:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I've never figured out how to archive anything cleanly either. I end up having to clean up after myself. -Amatulic 17:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Video journalism third opinion

Hi Amatulic! Thank you very much for posting your opinions on the Video journalism article. I wrote a reply to your message, and I hope you will have the time to take a look at it, and maybe write a reply. Thank you! Mackan 22:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion at User_talk:Awiseman#Third_opinion

Please see my reply at User_talk:Awiseman#Third_opinion. Thanks! 67.101.243.74 22:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Amtaulic. Is there anything I should do now? The user disagrees with your opinion, so I'm worried that if I restore the messages they removed it'll just start over again. --AW 13:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see my reply at User_talk:Awiseman#Third_opinion. Thanks again. 67.101.243.74 21:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Stevia

Your hard work has paid off. Congrats! - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 02:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion at Template talk:LandmarkForum

• Please see my comment / citations provided in response to the points that you brought up. And of course, thank you for your time. Yours, Smee 22:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

ID "derivativations"

Hah! ;-) Thank you so much for catching that! (;-/ And yes, "cognates" well replaces either "derivatives" or "derivations " ... Kenosis 17:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the word only because that sentence had been touched for another reason and I happened to check the diff. I went "huh?" and spent a couple minutes failing to find any definition. I got "cognates" directly from Wikisource:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/2:Context#Page 32 of 139. -Amatulic 18:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

See my comments on talk. Cognates is the wrong word, whether the judge used it or not is really irrelevant. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. -Amatulic 21:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Response from Marvin Shilmer

Conversation removed; essentially duplicated at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses#Revert Rule Violation Allegations

User_talk:Reddi

Mind if I jump in there and give a Third Opinion? You were first, I admit, but I had already read through some of the pages when your opinion appeared, and I am going to pursue a different angle. --User:Krator (t c) 20:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Go right ahead. I don't really know what's going on. -Amatulic 20:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Writing it, then. --User:Krator (t c) 21:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the first time I started and didn't finish a 3O. I am not going to do this one, it is too ambiguous. --User:Krator (t c) 21:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

That's for sure. I did the best I could with it, but until the dispute (which unquestionably exists) becomes much less ambiguous, I don't see what else I can say. -Amatulic 21:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

User_talk:Huw4beynon

You beat me to it; thanks for placing the warning there. Colonel Tom 22:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Umm ... after your "Only warning", the user has been warned again twice. Given your original warning, a block would seem to be the appropriate course of action. Cheers, Colonel Tom 12:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • After a final warning, anyone else who comes to the user's talk page to post a warning about further infractions should instead report the vandalism on WP:AIV rather than merely post further warnings. That's why warnings have dates and levels on them. I noticed the other warnings without a corresponding report on WP:AIV so I reported it, and the user was blocked for 48 hours. -Amatulic 21:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion - Elvria Arellano

Can you please take a look at my comments to your post (and rationale for my arguments above it) when you get a chance? Thanks! LordPathogen LordPathogen 00:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

300 Jews in Singapore??

Um, are you sure there are only 300 Jews in Singapore? If you actually believe this, could you please provide a citation for such?Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I provided a citation in my comment on Talk:Singapore. Because there is an ambiguity concerning whether a "Jew" is one who practices Judaism or simply belongs to the culture, it is inappropriate to lump the miniscule population of Jews in Singapore as a religious following. As to being unsourced, the Singapore census doesn't list Jews, so all we have to go on are the "censuses" of other Jews who take the trouble to count things. -Amatulic 20:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Third Opinion

template:History of Manchuria is suffering from extensive revert warring, and discussion is heading nowhere. A RfC was filed, but was only able to get one outside commentor[8]. Please provide a third opinion on whether template:History of Manchuria should be titled History of Manchuria[9] or History of Northeast China[10][11] to facilitate dispute resolution. Thank you. 08:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in the request for third opinion on The Ocean Hunter article. Please note, however, that the user who requested the thid opinion is ignoring your suggestion for an external link and is instead deleting the external links and the other material from the article. He's also refusing the other editor's suggstion for a separate article. Care to chime in again? I'm just confused that someone would ask for a third opinion and then ignore the suggestions for a compromise and delete everything. --164.107.222.23 04:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, third opinions aren't binding, but I'll try to add another comment.

King of the Hill

I was trying to verify informaiton on the culture part, where luby's was mentioned. how is the source irrelevent? Onopearls 21:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:EL external links are made available on articles so that readers can gain further information relevant to the subject of the article. While a Luby's imitation is featured in some episodes of King of the Hill, a link to the Luby's restaurant web site doesn't really offer information that illuminates the TV show. The article text already wikilinks to the Luby's article which has a link to the Luby's website. That should be sufficient. No need to add an irrelevant external link. -Amatulic 21:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. Onopearls 21:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Pugs

I appreciate that the WikiPedia is a global encyclopedia - but the one thing lacking about Pugs (and other breeds) is the fact that lots of dogs are bought on a whim and then dumped. Highlighting a Rescue might be of help to educate people. Perhaps if I write a specific article on rescues? Can I then list the various rescues in the USA and perhaps Europe?

I re-added without considering commenting first.... please remove the rescue group section and I will check here for your reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.100.35.237 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I noticed someone else reverted your re-addition of the external link.

A general article about dog rescue organizations would be useful (or animal rescue, not just dogs). Such an article already exists: Rescue group (not a descriptive title, but I found it on the animal welfare article). There it might be appropriate to highlight some organizations in external links. Even better would be an external link to a collection of links to animal rescue organizations (if such a collection exists on the web) - that way the article doesn't accumulate a big list of links, but readers can still find a resource of rescue organization links.

Articles about various types of pets (dogs, cats, ferrets, etc.) that tend to get abandoned should probably have a wikilink in the "See also" section to animal welfare and rescue group. -Amatulic 21:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

template:History of Manchuria

Wiki pokemon is now trying to replace template:History of Manchuria with template:History of Northeast China, so I have nominated template:History of Northeast China on TfD(Template for Deletion) for POV forking here. Please help reach a consensus on this issue. Cydevil38 20:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Singapore

As of my last read, the only discussion on the talk page was: "Removed biased text "Despite wealth and a high standard of living". Does it mean that wealthy countries with high standards of living cannot execute people? It is clearly biased text added in by some Human Rights person" .. now there is meaningful discussion, so I'll participate in that process without making further changes to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxsht9 (talk • contribs) 2007-07-11 (UTC)

Um... Talk:Singapore#Removal of Biased Text already had several paragraphs of discussion the day before you restored that text in the article. The issue was also brought up way back in May in Talk:Singapore#False claim about Singapore being number 1 but nobody responded to that comment.

I have also been guilty of making edits without first reading the talk page the same day. It happens to all of us now and then. -Amatulic 01:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

American Biographical Institute

I wouldn't bother continuing to respond to Dominique. It's clear she doesn't want to admit the award she got was more or less phoney and is willing to ignore the obvious to keep herself convinced. -- Mwalcoff 02:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, a third opinion was requested. An offerer of a third opinion has an obligation to monitor the article and talk page for a while. Usually I stay engaged until it looks like the disputants have come to an agreement, or until the situation looks hopeless - in which case arbitration may be necessary. -Amatulic 02:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

smoker???

guess u r a smoker...better quit before it quits you... regards to your family...MULAZIMOGLU 07:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Presumptious, aren't you? I am not a smoker. Never have been, nor are any of my relatives. On Wikipedia, the integrity of articles is more important than how I feel about the subject. -Amatulic 18:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you both would stop bickering/reverting and contribute to the article. See my edits there, please. HG | Talk 10:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? I reorganized and improved the entire religion section. Unsourced original research doesn't belong in it — especially when repeatedly added back without reason or comment, it's vandalism. Your edits, on the other hand, are a vast improvement; far more than I could have done. Thanks. -Amatulic 16:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the whole religion section is looking much better, thanks. Personally, I wouldn't worry too much about the balance of the section yet. It seems to me that both the Islamic and Christian sections deserve to be expanded. As you can see, we built up the Judaism piece and eventually spun it off. Maybe that would happen here too, provided we can invite more collaborators. Take care. HG | Talk 21:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. It looks like the Islam section got messed up again. Any idea why? Would you mind restoring it? Thanks. HG | Talk 11:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure to what you are referring. It looked OK to me. Someone converted several references to footnotes, which was an improvement. I just went in and made minor formatting corrections, and removed a repeated sentence and red wikilink. It's a pretty good section, I think. -Amatulic 17:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, luckily I managed to fix it before you saw it. But now maybe you can help integrate what I just found -- tobacco protest and tobacco fatwa, pretty well written articles already, interesting stuff, not sure how to weave all the materials together. Go for it! HG | Talk 23:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Male pregnancy

You got a response on the Talk page. I am not sure how to reason with this person. They have been heavy on the reverts, and it seems that either English is their second language or they are just not very good at typing. I find this person's grasp of the core tenets of WP:V and WP:OR and WP:CS to be weak, at best. They can barely write well enough to communicate, never mind compose an encyclopedia article. They seem to want to use the article as a vehicle to espouse fringe views. What can be done? 75.61.93.60 04:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I've half a mind to request semi-protection for the article to block all anonymous edits until the dispute is resolved on the talk page rather than by reverting. In any case, the other anonymous editor appears to have given up reverting and instead seems to be satisfied with tagging a section of the article with "original research" and "disputed" tags. That's fine by me. -Amatulic 03:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Jebbrady RFC

I've opened an RFC/U on Jebbrady here: I'm notifying you because you tried to help resolve the ongoing dispute earlier this year. --SarekOfVulcan 21:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

*headdesk* Thanks for the fix.--SarekOfVulcan 13:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Good job summarizing the issues. I'm going to wait a while to see Jebbrady's response before I endorse anything. In my third opinion I offered on Talk:Herbert W. Armstrong, I felt both sides of the dispute had some merit. -Amatulic 17:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. For example, I've come to feel strongly that the accusations from that book should not be mentioned, since it's a single source. And I know I wasn't always as temperate in my own actions as I should have been. --SarekOfVulcan 03:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Machu Picchu content move to wikitravel

I have reverted your edit on wikitravel. Unfortunately wikipedia's GFDL and wikitravel's CC-BY-SA 1.0 licences are not compatible, so we can not simply copy material from wikipedia to wikitravel --NJR ZA 20:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I didn't simply copy material. I have re-reverted your reversion, and made further improvements. My original edit summary was a bit misleading; I didn't merely move content, but extensively revise it. The "Get In" section of Machu Picchu is now much better than either version on Wikitravel or Wikipedia. -Amatulic 22:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Please don't put that citation back in

I have removed it four times now, each time someone has put it back in. As I detailed on the talk page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intelligent_design#Poll

The citation that was in place is not the correct citation, please click on the link that you added and you will see that it is the wrong poll, it is a poll of Ohio voters not the poll of scientists that is being referenced. By all means go and find the correct poll and put it in, but don't assume that I was vandalising - I was removing the link because it is the wrong link. Sad mouse 18:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The correct citation is at http://www.nmidnet.org/Press%20Release%201.doc - why didn't you use that instead of tag the article with "citation needed"? That document clearly states how the Sandia Labs scientists were polled, and what the results were. The link is found on IDnet New Mexico's page http://www.nmidnet.org/polling.html -Amatulic 18:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't blame me for you putting the incorrect citation in, I wasn't the one who didn't bother checking before reverting an edit. Sad mouse 19:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and I didn't check either; all I saw initially was your removal of a citation without explanation in the edit summary, so my reaction was automatic. Just now I was about to put the correct citation in, but I see somebody beat me to it. Anyway, the issue seems resolved now. -Amatulic 19:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It was in the edit summary the first three times I did it, and had a section on the talk page. No harm done, I guess people tend to assume vandalism on an article like ID. Sad mouse 19:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent Design

I do not think that the following comments which you removed are "unproductive/inflammatory".

"This article only scores about three points out of ten for clarity. It is not a good example of the quality of Wikipedia mikeL (hello SineBot) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.161.230 (talk) 22:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It's an excellent "example of the quality of Wikipedia". It shows Wikipedia bias, Wikipedia mediocrity, Wikipedia pettiness, and Wikipedia groupthink. All in a single article. 207.190.198.130 22:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC) "

Moreover you should not remove material that you do not like from discussion pages.... From WPrefactoring.... refactoring of talk pages must preserve the full intentions of the original authors..... Those comments were made seriously and in good faith but there seems to be little point in restoring them. I wonder if you will remove this as well.

Sincerely 77.97.161.230 10:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)mikeL

The comments were rightly removed because they were not conducive to improving the article. Rather, the comments were inflammatory and non-constructive, put there solely for someone to vent and editorialize. WP:REFACTOR permits removal in such instances. -Amatulic 17:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Amatulic

How clever of you to know what my motives are . I did not know that I intended to inflame or “vent” (whatever that means).I thought my comments might encourage others to improve the article.

To be more directly constructive:-

The content is not intrinsically difficult. It seems to have been obscured by over enthusiastic editing.

The article is so long and it contains so much detail that the reader gets lost trying to sort out the key parts. It uses obscure expressions and references (teleological argument, methodological naturalism and so on). There is a lot of repetition and there are unnecessary statements of who said what.

The whole thing reads as if the writers were exercising their interest in the subject instead of trying to explain it clearly to the rest of us.

I have read WPrefactor carefully several times. I can not find anything to justify removing the comments. There is no obligation to follow the guidelines but you are likely to be challenged if you do not. Here are some extracts for you to think about:-

“ Content to remove

Superfluous - Content that is entirely and unmistakably irrelevant.

Refactoring should only be done when there is an assumption of good faith by editors who have contributed to the talk page..... If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted. “

“Provide links to the original, uncut version, so others can check your changes, and if necessary go back to the original to clarify what an author actually said. This combination of refactoring and archiving will often prevent complaints that information was lost. Make it explicit that you have refactored something so no one is misled into thinking this was the original talk page. “

Wikipedia articles should inform readers. Not confuse them.

I have just looked at the Intelligent Design Articles in December 2001. They were very clear and no doubt. would seem simplistic and imprecise to recent contributors but they do give a clear introduction to the topic. One of those texts ( the Revision as of 02:33, 1 December 2001, for example ) could be added, almost unedited as a brief introduction to the current article. You might like to do this. It would help readers and it would also demonstrate your good faith.

Best wishes from 77.97.161.230 18:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)mikeL

If you had written constructive comments like above in the talk page, you wouldn't have been reverted. Odd how you feel it's necessary to quote WP:REFACTOR to me; what you quoted above was indeed superfluous, a complaint about the article without identifying exactly what was wrong or how it should be improved. You were more specific in your comments above; why not write them on Talk:Intelligent design instead? -Amatulic 19:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sermon

Thanks for your remarkably quick support for the NPOV check on Sermon. I was so angry when I read the article. I'd just written an article on the Welsh wikipedia on the same subject (cy:Pregeth). Just a stub at present but at least it's inclusive. When I followed the interwiki link to here I couldn't believe what I saw. I'm pretty much occupied most of the time on cy. (user name Anatiomaros) so don't do that much on en. - we're a small crew trying to cover everything on the Welsh wikipedia! - but would gladly contribute if the change goes ahead. Regards, Enaidmawr 23:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't offended by the Sermon article; it's a rather good article actually, but focuses on Christianity.

I don't understand Welsh, but a translation to English would be useful. That article could be called "Sermon" with pointers to "Sermon (Christianity)" (the current "Sermon" article on en) and any others.

I want to wait a bit for others to respond, but after a couple weeks, the procedure would be: (1) Move "Sermon" to "Sermon (Christianity)". This will convert "Sermon" to a redirect page. (2) Edit the redirect page "Sermon", replacing the redirect link with your more inclusive version.

If you want, you can create a subfolder on your userpage for draft articles. Or you can create it on mine, if you want me to post your translation. -Amatulic 23:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I suppose I should have made it clearer that I was not offended by the article as such, in fact I'd agree with you that it's quite a good article on Christian Sermons. I'm not motivated by some "anti-Christian" agenda either, in fact I've written, or contributed to, quite a few articles on Christianity, both on cy. and here. It was the context and the clear implication that a sermon was purely a Christian concept (i.e. its content, POV, the infobox and category) that annoyed me and prompted me to act. Your suggestions for the editing move are pretty much what I had in mind, using the automatic redirect to create a new, inclusive, Sermon article. I'm not promising hours of work on this - as I said, I've got more than enough to do already - but will gladly help. Let's sit back for now and see how things develop over the next few weeks. Enaidmawr 00:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

No love for the cat pee

Thanks for adding the note. Hopefully that will take care of things. :) Though as someone who owns cats, I can't imagine how that term ever gain such common currency. :p Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

And I can't figure out how anybody came up with that "official" term for a wine characteristic. I've never tasted actual cat pee myself (who has?). I can imagine it has a certain odor, but I've never smelled a urine-like odor in any Sauvignon Blanc (I've smelled it in other wines, all white, including Chardonnay). -Amatulic 19:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I think it is used more in the context of aroma rather then taste (at least I hope so!). I've smelled it a few times in some New Zealand Sauvignon blancs but they were certainly not enjoyable wines. For me, the smell seems to be a tip off that the wine is going to be a little too vegetable for my taste. I'm more incline to the more floral Savignons. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Nur Ali Elahi

Thanks for weighing in. I am not actively involved with the article (nor part of the dispute), but I have some history with one of the involved parties. Thanks again, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Bangladeshi Visa

Hello Amatulic

According to TIMATIC[12], starting November 14, 2007, "nationals of Malaysia and Singapore can no longer make use of the visa on arrival facility and are required to obtain their visa prior to their arrival". Cybercicada 01:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I figured you might have had a reason. I would have preferred you replaced what you deleted with a note to that effect rather than simply delete the entry on Bangladesh without explanation. -Amatulic 01:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Robert Fulton

Can you please stop the new user on the Robert Fulton page from writing obscene things and vandalizing the page. Thank you!--Persianhistory2008 (talk) 23:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Robert Fulton is under attack! Again and again they screw it up. Not sure what to do with it?--Persianhistory2008 (talk) 07:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm unable to stop anyone from doing anything; I'm not an administrator here, just another editor. All I (or any other editor) can do is place vandalism warnings on the user's talk page and after the final warning, report the abuse at WP:AIV. I've also been away from Wikipedia for a week or so and just checked in. The Robert Fulton article seems stable now. -Amatulic (talk) 14:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Alice in Wonderland (film)

Nothing personal. I have the original. It's weird. Just didn't think Amazon should be in there. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 00:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I revised it to say "mainstream DVD retailers" or something like that. You can't get it from Subversive Cinema or from the site to which they link. An email exchange revealed that I could buy it from Amazon.com, and sure enough, Amazon has it. So I mentioned that in the article, but you're right, it wasn't necessary to single out Amazon. -Amatulic (talk) 00:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Zinfandel

I added the comment on the older issue just to purposefully add extra emphasis.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

"MBA Ranking Resources" reason for update.

Hello Amatulic,

I removed the first MBA Ranking Resources “Compilation of business school rankings” this is not a qualified MBA ranking resource and as such is not relevant for this section: promotion of an advertising website with outdated rankings.

Updated the “Top 50 MBA programmes as determined by the United Kingdom Government” and included the date then I realised that this had been included in “Reference and Notes” and does not actually have anything to do with MBA rankings.

I hope you can see my reason for the update?

Best regards,

--Studio1st (talk) 01:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I can understand your reasoning. Allow me to explain mine.

As someone who maintains the article regularly, I may have even added those links. If I didn't, then you can bet I and others examined them closely when they appeared! The fact that they have survived the scrutiny of several regular editors over the past year or so is an indication of consensus. As to the specific links:

• The Marr and Kirkwood site (Compilation of business school rankings) is the only known resource for side-by-side comparisons from different popular sources, it has been around for many years, and is a well-established reference cited by many other sites, including university web sites. Looking at what it displays now, it appears the rankings are updated as they become available for reproduction (USNWR is the only 2007 ranking shown). In any case, the top schools don't change much from year to year, although the ordering might, so rankings from 2004 are still useful. I don't remember the site being ad supported when I first saw it 10 years ago. I do see ads there now, but the site still doesn't look overtly commercial. I recall it's maintained by a couple of business school professors, but I could be wrong.
• Official sources shouldn't be deleted. The "Top 50 MBA programmes" is one such source. While it's true it doesn't display those 50 programs in rank order (and a government shouldn't be playing favorites like that), it does list what the UK government considers the top programs ranked above all others. Therefore, it's valid to include it as a ranking resource, simply to show another source of top schools. Yes, it's also cited in the article, so you could argue that it's redundant to include it in the ranking resources list. However, it's there for completeness. Remove it, and someone else is likely to come along and notice it's cited but not listed, and restore the link.

The other reason I reverted your edit was because you unintentionally destroyed several inter-language links at the bottom of the article (specifically the ones in non-Western languages like Russian and Japanese). Before editing another page, please make sure your browser is using a character set that supports international characters. If you use Windows, Arial or Times New Roman are fairly complete fonts, and you might want to set the encoding to Unicode (UTF-8). -Amatulic (talk)

I also understand your thoughts on Marr and Kirkwood compilation of rankings, but, the majority of the site is outdated and as such does not provide a true ranking range. This year’s rankings have been very different especially with joint MBAs coming to their own; this has been especially reflected in Business Weeks and the FTs most recent rankings. I would then suggest that we create a new section called “Related Rankings Resources” and move Marr and Kirkwood, Official MBA Guide and Top 50 MBA programs to that section below MBA ranking resources.

Alphabetise the others and include “Forbes” as they are quite a major producer of rankings. What do you think? (No idea what to do with the Australian PDF though…)

Thank you for fixing my stupid delete mistake. I will keep an eye on that one.

Studio1st (talk) 02:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, too

Thanks for correcting the quotation mess I accidentally made but couldn't figure out how to fix. :-)David Justin (talk) 23:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Armstrong Sperry GA review

I had signed up to do this review not ten minutes before you commented on the talk page.[13] I see that you think the article is "excellent", but I agree entirely. I had written up an extensive review (failing the article), only to have my comments disappear from an edit conflict! :) I have them backed up, and still believe that the article does not fulfill the GA criteria, so what is there to do? María (habla conmigo) 20:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you meant you disagree entirely.

Whoops! Yes.

I haven't evaluated the article against all the GA criteria, but feel that it meets most of them. As I wrote on the talk page, I read through it once and recorded my initial impression, expecting others like yourself to expand the section. Please post your responses. My comments were not intended to mean "this article passes for GA status". If you see areas of needed improvement, the authors of that article need to know about it.

There are quite a few areas that are needed for improvement, unfortunately. How about we put the nomination on hold and see where it goes from there? I'll add all of my comments to the talk page and also remove my "reviewing" note on the GAC page. María (habla conmigo) 21:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflicts happen to me all the time. If I find I spend a lot of time writing text in an edit window, I can be assured that someone else already revised the page before I get around to submitting my edits. So what I do is first highlight all the text I wrote and copy it to my clipboard. Then when I submit my edits, and an edit conflict occurs, I can still paste all my text and save it again. -Amatulic (talk) 20:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:WINE newsletter

The Wine Project Newsletter! Issue IX - January 7th, 2008

In this edition: News & Notes - Portal:Wine up for Featured Portal status, WANTED-GA Coordinator/liaison and wine region maps, and can you guess which wine-related article was viewed over 85,000 times in December? Wiki-Winos - Amatulić and his joke that may make you think twice about accepting an unknown glass of wine from a stranger Wine articles on the Web - Did the Shiraz grape originate in Iran? Where did the Ah-so bottle opener get its name? What is up with that petroleum smell in some Riesling wines? And what the heck is Domaine de la Romanée-Conti doing planting Pinot noir fin? These are the questions that people out on the web are asking. Find out what answers they get when they turn to our Wikipedia wine articles.

This newsletter is sent to those listed under Participants on the Wine Project page. If you wish to no longer receive this newsletter please include Decline newsletter next to your name on the Participant list. If you have any Wikipedia wine related news, announcements or suggestions drop a note in the Comments/Suggestion area of Wikipedia:WikiProject Wine/Newsletter.

new

Amatulic, read the explanation I just wrote on the Nur Ali Elahi talk page.--Octavian history (talk) 09:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:WINE newsletter

The Wine Project Newsletter! Issue X - January 31st, 2008

In this edition: News & Notes - Portal:Wine is a now a Featured Portal! National WINE PRIDE will be on the line as we see which wine country articles got the most page views in the month of Jan-and you maybe surprised at which countries beat out the US & California. The Judgement of Paris it's not. Wiki-Winos - VanTucky Meet our new GA liaison and find out what in the world is he doing with those sheep? Wiki wine articles on the Web - A Graciano, Monastrell and Mourvedre grape walk into a bar and meet Carole Meredith....find out how an expert proved a Wikipedia article wrong. Also, our Sparkling wine production article braves new frontiers in the annals of rock band naming games. Plus, find out how our Friuli-Venezia Giulia wine article helped out Wine blogging Wednesday, what makes red wine red and whether riserva Brunello is better than standard Brunello.

This newsletter is sent to those listed under Participants on the Wine Project page. If you wish to no longer receive this newsletter please include Decline newsletter next to your name on the Participant list. If you have any Wikipedia wine related news, announcements or suggestions drop a note in the Comments/Suggestion area of Wikipedia:WikiProject Wine/Newsletter.

Talk:Nur Ali Elahi

I am not really sure what to advise. I think we got more than we bargained for with the RfC. I think the COI issue applies to both parties in the dispute (or "applied", where one participant is concerned). From my point of view the subject is relatively obscure, and those with some kind of involvement with, or attachment to, the subject are the ones who are going to put forth any substantial effort toward the article (perhaps that could be said of any Wikipedia article; you aren't likely to find me putting a lot of work into the beets article). I had added the article to the Kurdish and Iranian WikiProjects, hoping that some editors involved with those efforts might be able to lend some assistance. Only one person (that I know of) responded as a result. I do think your recent talk page comments were on point. Not sure any of this helps but there you have it... -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ankh, Hexagram, Chakra,

I am sorry, but addition of a material, which could be interesting and connected with article, was my desire only. If do not object, it is possible to leave only a photo. * Ankh model charkas system Shatilov Konstantin (talk) 11:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

If you own the photos, then by all means upload them and incorporate them in the article. However, I recommend you cease adding links to your own web site to articles. That is a clear violation of Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. -Amatulić (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser

Amatulic, I cannot help but comment on this malformed request. It is not a category F as Dr.Fix has never been blocked so there is no block evasion. You even note that the IP edits are so infrequent that even if all the users were one person, 3RR would not be violated. Furthermore, you note that there could be a failure to log in, which is ok. Why not just write to Dr.Fix and give suggestions about editing in WP, 3RR, etc. If this checkuser is run, then it could be used by others (not necessarily you, Amatulic, as fishing for his IP and location). Would you consider dropping your RFCU? That would be doing the kind and correct action. Archtransit (talk) 23:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)