User talk:Tearlach/Archive2

Archive 2, February 2006 - May 2007

PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE

If you have any majorly urgent need to contact me on any of the topics below, use the E-mail this user link on User:Tearlach page. Tearlach 16:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

How Can I Help You?

You seem to have some concerns expressed here [[1]]

First time I have heard of them. Might be worthwhile spelling out what is bothering you to see if there is anything I can help you with.

Look forward to hearing from you.

The Invisible Anon 16:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The only part pertaining to your edits is my comment on openly stated bad faith assumptions about editors who disagree.... In my view, the material at User:86.10.231.219 is well within the area of personal attack, and a breach of Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Such 'hit lists' and detailed documentation of perceived wrongs are never seen as creditable to a user. The objections are well summed up at User talk:Jfdwolff#Advice re:86.10.231.219_requested. Tearlach 18:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Does the dialogue here [[2]] today with Kd4ttc assist? The Invisible Anon 23:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

No. If you want to infer motives or collect evidence for whatever takes your fancy, there's nothing stopping you doing it privately. Doing it publicly is the breach of the personal attack policy and good faith guideline. Tearlach 01:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I have taken a further look at the personal attack policy. Whilst I am not sure I agree with your interpretation, I will modify my user page in the light of your comments. The Invisible Anon 01:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks also. You might also reconsider the bit I understand that conventional western medicine is termed "allopathy", and its practitioners are termed "allopaths". As you'll gather from the page Allopathic medicine, it is used by (and taken by) some as a derogatory term, so it could be taken as antagonistic. Tearlach 05:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

There are practical issues over this terminology ... link to diff ... I hope that explains and that there clearly is a need for a name to describe our western kind of medical practice. The Invisible Anon 16:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't - and this is another problem. I tell you that some people find a term pejorative, and you bludgeon me with a 500-word essay on the problems of finding terminology and how the whole categorisation is fuzzy anyway. It's like asking someone not to use the term "queer" because of its pejorative sense, and getting back 500 words on the problems of finding a term for homosexual people and how there's a continuous gradation between gay and straight anyway. In either case, the theoreticals are irrelevant. I told you that the specific terminology you're using, "allopath", is taken by some as derogatory. Tearlach 17:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tearlach, Kd4ttc attacted my attention to this discussion. I have also asked John Whaleto to stop the use of said terms with the intention to label or insult[3]. I've noted your response.

I believe the name-calling is souring the debate to an intolerable degree. I intend to report further attacks on WP:ANI with a request for a short-term ban for WP:NPA violations. JFW | T@lk 04:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Someone is vandalizing the Al-Ahbash page again. Please, help to make it secure. Thanks McKhan

refreshing slap in the face

I was amused by the slap in the face explanation. He does go on. Steve Kd4ttc 18:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Paul Ehrenfest

I just noticed your modification of Paul Ehrenfest. Actually, Ehrenfest had another son, Paul Jr I believe; there is a picture of him on Einstein's lap, see: http://www.museumboerhaave.nl/contact/pers2a.html and http://www.museumboerhaave.nl/contact/persfotos_einstein/Einstein2.jpg The caption says 'Einstein at the home of Leiden physics professor Paul Ehrenfest with his son on his lap'. Cute as it may be, I don't think it belongs in a biography. I actually edited the tragic story about the murder/suicide out of the main text JdH 20:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Geoffrey Martin

Hi there Tearlach - I have done an American Mathematical Society search for his research papers, and it came up with a few - You may want to reconsider your vote, although I don't know enough about the stuff to explain it. Most of the junk about his hobbies should be removed though. Blnguyen 00:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

John Tunnard

If I am reading the history correctly, you tagged this article with a copyvio and the notation "suspected offline copyvio". However, you did not either (1) add it to the daily copyvio page log Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2006_March_4 with supporting detail, nor (2) did you cite the offline work from which you believe the article was copied.

An editor at the help desk inquired about why the article was removed, and asserts that it was not a copyvio. Since you did not follow up on the copyvio tag nor cite a source, I am going to revert it to the last full version. If you have identified a source that it infringes, please feel free to re-tag it, but please complete the copyvio listing process according to the instructions in Wikipedia:Copyright_problems. Thanks, MCB 18:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Jill_McCormick.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jill_McCormick.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 11:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Remember to subst and sign!

Remember to always sign all of your posts on talk pages. Typing four tildes after your comment ( ~~~~ ) will insert a signature showing your username and a date/time stamp, which is very helpful.

Hello Tearlach. When you use template tags on talk pages, it'd be much appreciated if you could substitute according to the guidelines at Wikipedia:Template substitution. Just add subst: to the tag; for example, {{subst:bv}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. Thanks. :) // Rory096 03:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Job Collins document

Midgleyis using WP:RS to delete a link to a Collins document [4] [5]. He is just pushing his POV using WP:RS. john 12:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The sections at WP:RS on reliability, personal websites and partisan websites cover the situation, and generally advise against using personal websites as sole sources. Tearlach 13:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Midgley is pushing his POV. "Generally" isn't exactly a rule. So this would exclude Quackwatch [6]? as it is a personal and partisan website. Can you define "sole source"? john 12:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Generally is exactly a rule - as in "as a rule". If an exception is to be plead then work out the basis on which Whale is an exception to the general rule. Quackwatch, to note one of its differences from Whale, has an advisory board of people who are listed and indeed accessible. To pick another disimilarity between Quackwatch and Whale, Dr Barrett to the best of my knowledge has not either written articles in WP, nor introduced links to his own site into articles written by others. John has done both of those things. Should this not be in an RFC in general space, since otherwise it is likely to be repeated over and over by John? Midgley 13:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You are pushing your POV. The only exception here are the ones you like to make. First it was some rfc on whale at talk mmr which you took it upon yourself to judge on, now you are using WPRS. I'd love to slide this rule over all of the Wiki links, like Quackwatch which is clearly a partisan POV site. Also I take exception to you stalking me. john 07:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

John is writing about me. That catches my legitimate interest. WP:External links to normally avoid is relevant to Whale. I think this needs to be noted on John's talk page, in case anyone in the future takes an interest in the argument on linking. A summary would be best. Midgley 09:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, you beat me to commenting. As you say, Quackwatch is backed by a collective advisory board of solid mainstream credentials; www.vaccination.org.uk is just a scrapbook of anti-vaccination porn. (I use that term in a metaphoric generic sense, for something that focuses on a single idea not to inform, but to excite, gratify and reinforce the feelings of those already sold on that idea). Another reason not to link to it is the amount of copyvio there, articles lifted completely from in-copyright books and periodicals. See Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works: "linking to a site that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on us". Tearlach 17:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

More or less inevitably, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Whaleto You may care to consider commenting. Midgley 23:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Invitation

The Mediation Cabal

You are a disputant in a case listed under Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases. We invite you to be a mediator in a different case. Please read How do I get a mediator assigned to my case? for more information.
~~~~

Fasten 19:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Complaint

Your comments on Talk:rational trigonometry directed at me seem inappropriate. The information is useful but you could put it on my own talk page. As you know from the information sheet you reviewd, the recommendation to seek dispute resolution came from Pepsidrinka and met with skepticism on my part. You also are aware that I stated I saw no "problem" myself, and that I requested any response should be directed to me privately. I requested advice, on my talk page, as to how to move this discussion forward in the Wikipedia environment. You can review the talk page itself if this is unclear. Pepsidrinka appeared in response to the help tag. It's nice to know you agree with me so emphatically but it's not so nice to have that point made in such an inappropariate setting. I wonder if I should edit it out. I favor a full historical record but it is certainly misplaced. I'll be watching here, or you can come over to my place.

No, the inappropriateness is invoking dispute resolution, in particular mediation, over a matter that hasn't even reached the point of acrimonious discussion. Do you believe everything people advise you? If it met with skepticism, why did you do it? Calling for mediation is a high-level option - see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes - and likely to be perceived as bad faith when there are no grounds for it. Tearlach 01:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Rational trigonometry

If Norman Wildberger writes "The way I became interested in this topic was...", that is autobiographical. If he writes: "Wildberger was the first to understand this particular point", that is autobiographical. If he writes, "The way in which Fibonacci's identity is used in rational trigonometry is...", that is not autobiographical. He's not writing about himself or about his achievements; he's writing about mathematics. Michael Hardy 21:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the distinction is a quibble. I'd take someone writing about a topic they themselves invented, and in which they're still prime mover, as a definite breach of Wikipedia:Autobiography. Tearlach 22:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

If it's a "quibble", that's another reason why I think writing about oneself should not be forbidden outright. Perhaps a guideline should warn people to be very careful when doing so and point out some specific pitfalls involved. But I think it's really a stretch to consider such a thing autobiography. This policy (if that's what it is) would deprive Wikipedia of expertise in cases like this. Michael Hardy 22:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Watchmen

I've noticed that you made several edits in the history of this page some time ago. I have put a bit of time into the article (as both User:Allthesestars and User:Adasta in an attempt to bring this article up to scratch. I think the page would benefit greatly from a few dedicated editors, and was wondering if you would be interested in looking over this article once again?

Citing sources and adding an NPOV "Themes" section is high on the priority list of this article. Adasta 11:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll have a glance. Tearlach 11:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

RFC. Troll. Remember above.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/86.10.231.219 You are mentioned in it. Midgley 20:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

RfC to Mount Personal Attacks, Harrassment & Uncivility

An RfC "must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users." It must be about a pre-existing dispute. There must have been prior attempts to resolve it.

This RfC was commenced by User:Midgley in a fit of pique after I had properly canvassed opinions of other editors about seeking a block on him because of his continuing "obnoxious" behaviour. That arose because User:Pansophia had approached me for advice about User:Midgley Wikistalking her and editing articles he had never previously shown interest in. He started Wikistalking her after she supported me when Midgley impersonated me and his sockpuppets were blocked.

The RfC was done immediately after the failure of his "Nth" attempt (again in pique) to have my talk page deleted - see here for the outcome - [[7]].

He was in such a hurry he did not even start the RfC properly. See here where the full extent of the dispute is described as "troll" - [[8]]. An RfC is not meant to be entered into lightly.

Then, instead of dealing with it properly he visited your talk page and invited you to join in.

You have now raised further multiple "disputes" and involving multiple individuals.

There is also no single pre-existing "dispute". This is also the first time in this RfC that this comprehensive allegation of "trolling" has been raised.

The RfC also contains gratuitous abuse such as use of terms like "dick".

Overall, this is an oppressive use of the RfC and not a bona fide use of the Wikipedia dispute resolution procedures.

^Talk - The Invisible Anon 10:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC) & amended 10:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Please reply to the RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/86.10.231.219. I explained the typical process for RFC development at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/86.10.231.219. Tearlach 10:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a separate dispute not covered by the RfC. I am following the dispute resolution procedures.

^Talk - The Invisible Anon 10:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

What is the separate dispute, with whom is it, and why is it on Tearlach's user talk page? I do not think it is a separate dispute and I have copied it and will copy further reelvant material tot eh RFC talk page. It would save time and effort and clarify matters if you did th ediscussion and response there rather than on several other user's pages. If you persist, someone may assume that you are deliberately causing difficulty and confusion. Midgley 11:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Tearlach please let me know if you propose to respond to this dispute. ^Talk - The Invisible Anon 11:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Tearlach please let me know if you propose to respond to this dispute. Answering will establish the RfC you have raised is inappropriate. These are simple specific points. I look forward to hearing from you but I soon might not be able to spend much time on this and will have to pick it up later. ^Talk - The Invisible Anon 12:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/86.10.231.219 is about your conduct. Continuing that conduct in response to it comes under the existing RFC. Take your responses there. Tearlach 12:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

This is about your conduct in running an RfC in this way and not my conduct. See [[9]]:-

1. "RfCs which are brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary are highly frowned upon by the community. Repetitive, burdensome and unwarranted filing of meritless RfCs is an abuse of the Wikipedia dispute resolution process. RfC is not a venue for personal attack."
2. "Note that the RfC you file may itself turn into an RfC against you, if most of those voting and commenting are critical of you. It may also be the first step in dispute resolution leading to arbitration. Filing an RfC is therefore not a step to be taken lightly or in haste."

I have some considerable justification raising this with you on the basis of what you have been doing and your overall conduct of this matter.

^Talk - The Invisible Anon 12:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Take your responses to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/86.10.231.219. Tearlach 12:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Tearlach does that mean whether you will respond or not depends on which page in Wikipedia the complaints are placed on? Are you saying that you will respond if these complaints appear in the talk pages of the RfC but not here (even though this is a separate dispute from the RfC you started).

^Talk - The Invisible Anon 13:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not a separate dispute; it is a response to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/86.10.231.219. Take it there. Tearlach 13:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It does not seem to a reasonable position you are taking. I am raising justified concerns about your conduct (not my conduct) and you are not prepared to say whether you will answer them here or anywhere else. I should be greatly obliged if you would reconsider the position you are taking because it is indefensible. Are you prepared to say whether you will discuss the valid well-grounded concerns I have raised.

^Talk - The Invisible Anon 13:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Complaints about the basis of an RFC belong at the RFC itself. Tearlach 16:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

User:86.10.231.219 who is presenting the confusing appearance of being the User:The Invisible Anon should take his complaint, and his dispute, and his view of the workings of WP to an RFC, whether the existing one (which as he says could be turn out to be about someone other than him, on a cold day in hell I think) or to a brand new RFC he creates, otherwise by making threats on talk pages he is harrassing other users. "Answering will establish the RfC you have raised is inappropriate." would be one of the funniest things since Pooh puzzled over Wol's doorknocker, if it seemed humourous. Procedure. Midgley 13:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The Invisible Anon impersonations

personal attack removed

As Midgley says at User talk:86.10.231.219#If you have a complaint, if you have a gripe, take it to dispute resolution. Tearlach 16:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I have done - I have asked you to respond so that a resolution can be found but you refuse to discuss the matter. Most unreasonably.

It also seems you hide information embarrassing to your case by deleting relevant edits.

And that is a good reason why you should stop making the RfC a moveable feast. You also need to you stop changing the RfC (and vandalising my responses - see the current response eg. as here [[10]]).

Here is an example of one of your deletions below:-

The personal attack made was on me. User:Midgley makes a claim here [[11]] which is not true.

It was corrected here [[12]].

You deleted the fact that User:Midgley was blocked from using both of his sockpuppets.

As another example, you also deleted the response you were given to your allegations about the use of "allopath" being proper and stuck a link in instead. You did not reply to it - now you claim it was trolling but the fact is that you were given a full answer and you could not answer it yourself because you had no valid case - so now you claim there is trolling going on.

As you know very well, if you want to accuse someone of something, you do not do it for the first time in an RfC. You should have raised it with me and gone through the dispute resolution procedures. Perhaps you should start taking your own advice.

How about you start responding here to me on these issues instead of jumping in on an inappropriate RfC that User:Midgley started out of pique without following the dispute resolution procedures and without attempting to settle what are claimed to be "disputes". The RfC at the moment looks like one very large personal attack.

I invite you again to consider this. I am going to have to leave this alone for a while. Think on it. By discussing matters perhaps a consensus can be achieved on what is in dispute - if anything.

^Talk - The Invisible Anon 17:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

All this pertains to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/86.10.231.219. Take it up there. Tearlach 18:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Etiquette

This may be interesting Midgley 18:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

AfC instructions

Hi Tearlach. Would you take a look at my proposal linked from Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation#New instructions? Sorry for the solicitation, but as you know, AfC is not exactly the busiest place these days. Best regards. ×Meegs 03:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks very good; I've commented there. Tearlach 12:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Accidental revert

I accidentally reverted your edits to Articles for creation/Today, but now restored them. When you blanked the copyrighted information, I accidentally thought it was vandal blanking. Sorry. —Mets501^talk 15:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem! Tearlach 19:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Russian psychedelic trance

I have just started this article today, thought you could expand! Psychomelodic (people think User:Psychomelodic/me ^edit) 04:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit I don't know much about this topic! I added Penta (music) in response to an Articles for Creation request while working on the Penta page. Tearlach 22:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the interruption Psychomelodic (people think User:Psychomelodic/me ^edit) 15:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Translation

you asked for a translation on a article posted in French...Thanks to babelfish, here you go:

Plaisance du Touch Plaisance du Touch

Magnique ville de l'agglomération de Toulouse avec 15000 habitants appelés Plaisançois où Plaisantin pour les intimes. Une dizaine de banques longent l'allée centrale appelée avenue des pyrénées en compagnie d'une trentaine de coiffeur et autant de boulanger. Lac célèbre pour ces canards dont les habitants fournissent le pain. Collége renommé de par la présence d'un grand gymnase. Le maire y est réélu tous les 6 ans depuis quelques décennies.

[edit] Sources www.plaisancedutouch.com

No problem with the notability of this town - but this is the English Wikipedia. Anyone care to translate? Tearlach 22:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is the translation:

Magnique city of the agglomeration of Toulouse with 15000 inhabitants called Plaisançois where Joker for the close friends. Ten banks skirt the central alley called avenue of the Pyrenees in company of about thirty hairdresser and as much baker. Lake famous for these ducks whose inhabitants provide the bread. Famous Collége from the presence of a large gymnasium. The mayor has been re-elected there every 6 years for a few decades.

WP:AfC

Hi! I see you've been working on Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Today. I'm glad to see it, since that place is often neglected and I've had to neglect it myself recently. Are you aware of Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Templates? They make responding to requests easier and quicker. Anyway, thanks for your time. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 10:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right, of course. Unfortunately, so many of them seem not-quite-applicable to the templates. Tearlach 00:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Roger Ambrose

Interesting development on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Ambrose. Ambrose is continuing to add POV material to his article through an IP, even after he seemed to agree to let a "third party" [his quotations] edit it. --JChap 00:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks: noted. Tearlach 13:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment from Roger C. Ambrose

FYI: I have posted a comment: [13]
Roger ambrose 01:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the email

Cheers for responding to my RfC at Talk:University of Kent, and sorry for taking so long to say thank you...fortunately the users in question have indeed been blocked and so hopefully the dispute there is over, at least for the time being. Keep up the good work! Nuge talk 15:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Perspectives on neutrality

Thanks for expressing your concern about the possibility of encouraging new users to believe WP:NPOV is flexible and negotiable. That is certainly not the intent. As a relatively equitable means for encouraging balanced coverage, the neutrality policy is certainly one of the Wiki's strengths, and one which must always be kept in mind. With regard to addressing the perspectives of newcomers on neutrality while welcoming them, the subject certainly should be brought to their attention and highlighted early on during acculturation. Perhaps additional links to the neutrality policy discussion page or WikiProject Countering systemic bias would be a good option to address your concerns, though keeping the welcome streamlined conflicts to an extent with with the objective of adequately addressing broader questions about neutrality within the Wiki (that matter could easily fill a book, and obviously would be too much for newcomers to grok). In any case, the subject is vital to the Wiki's mission, and encouraging newcomers to reflect on article neutrality, as you obviously have, could certainly be good. Ombudsman 18:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Brockman "Genealogy" Pages

I don't agree with deleting these pages - wikipedia has articles on "Kent Brockman" the comic book character and belly button fuzz. There are plenty of pages I would like to deem irrelevant but I don't think that's how wikipedia works just yet and perhaps it shouldn't. Sandwich Eater 03:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, #6 Genealogical entries, or phonebook entries. Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. If you try an internal search on Wikipedia is not a genealogy database, you find repeated consensus to delete on such grounds. I've moved them on to AFD. Tearlach 10:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

This particular line of people maintained an interesting manor at Beachborough that draws a few tourists and played a role during WWII. It is interesting to some to note how the estate changed hands et cetera. From an objective/international point of view I am not sure how much of the titled aristocracy documented in Wikipedia has any more relevance than these particular gentry. You seem to be discriminating entirely based on the English system of aristocratic titles, or, do you advocate that all of the non-famous aristocracy holding titles be deleted from wikipedia including the Stuarts and other interesting lines? This line is interesting to some people and the pages have gotten some visits and attention. Sandwich Eater 16:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

discriminating entirely based on the English system of aristocratic titles

Not at all; just on the basis of repeated precedent for deletion of entirely genealogical entries. For instance, inclusion of Sir William Brockman is fine, because he actually did something. Tearlach 17:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

But my point is that wikipedia is absolutely full of aristocratic lines,the Stuarts, jacobites, old lines from Germany, Greece whatever. Those lines of successions and the succesion boxes are by their nature chock full of pages for people who aren't particularly noteable, just the fifteenth son of Otto et cetera. Let's face it, wikipedia should be open to what people are interested in reading about and people are interested in the descendants of the Romanovs, and perhaps even a few country squires in the UK and their house.Sandwich Eater 18:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess you're not going to answer? Please see my note on James Brockman Esq. Given time, I could do a better job showing his notable-ness. If you look up "James Brockman" a songwriter I've never heard of pops up. JB Esq was actually a pretty big deal in his time I think, hence the "Brockman Papers" in the british museum and that sort of thing. And, I still think you need to delete all of the unknown/non-notable european nobilities, particularly the deposed lines if you're going to delete gentry. Otherwise it's a bit class-ist and culturally biased, no?Sandwich Eater 21:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

HTML Export

Can you point me in the direction of a means to export the wikipedia HTML behind the article so that I can easily post these pages on friendlier sites? Thanks! Sandwich Eater 00:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not terribly interested in helping you inflict this genealogical wank on others. Still, have a look at Google: [14] Generally, most of the focus is on converting things to Wikipedia, but there are converters such as Tero-dump. I'm not sure what language/system they're for. Alternatively, check out WikiTree, which accommodates all this family arse. Tearlach 22:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! That looks straight forward. I appreciate your taking the time to post that when you're not very keen on the subject matter. Accomodating family arse seems a bit grammatically stretched. I would think family fluff, crap, shite, or drivel would be a more appropriate fit from the context.

For some reason I am interested to know why you feel genealogy has so much intrinsic wanky arseness. Is there really any difference from this and an article regarding where any group of people come from (eg. Choctaws or St. David Islanders)? And if several thousand people worldwide in Australia, Canada, and the USA are all descended from the same crop of cousins from 1 patch of land in the 1600s and have a lot of interest in that, what's wrong with that? Finally, just because a monarch or other aristocratic system hasn't entitled someone to notoriety does that really define notability? The notability criteria seem a bit vague and there seems to be a wave of anti-genealogy editing afoot. There are also a lot of one-hit wonders and 1 book authors that have made their way into the encyclopedia that will have far less notability 200 years from now than does James Drake-Brockman Sheriff of Kent.

So, I suspect that there are editors squashing anything that smells like genealogy right now because they don't like genealogy, as opposed to an objective notability criterion that is equally applied. But if it's causing offense I can certainly see the value of moving the material to a private website. Some of the actual descendants would prefer it moved to a private site anyway. Funny how tribes, descendants of notables (and arguably noteables), and so forth tend to prefer privacy while outsiders and tangentially related folks are fascinated to read about them. Sandwich Eater 19:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Academic fencing

I saw on the talk page of Academic fencing that you were interested in completing and/or improving that article. Apparently User:Kresspahl did not dare to do so. I have just started. It would be nice if someone who is interested in that exotic subject would polish up my English (it is not my native language) and check if this can be understood by someone who was not born in Central Europe. Best regards, --Rabe! 20:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Panchaloga

Hi, There seems to be an error in the spelling of the word panchaloha on the page you created. It is not panchaloga, but panchaloha. Panchaloga translates to 5 people, while panchaloha into five metals.

Malandragem

I accessed the article first time today and observed you deleted the old text and put it in the discussion. Why is that? Why better translation? Tell me, maybe I can improve this. El Chemaniaco 19:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The English translation wasn't too good - just an unformatted dump of the machine translation of the Portuguese Wikipedia entry ([15]), and not up to the standard required for an English language encyclopedia. It'd be fine if someone can do a better translation, and provide sources. Tearlach 14:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Editing

I hope I am doing this right! Sorry, if not. At 01.15 on 17th Nov you reviewed a contribution that I made as "Professor Meredith Wooldridge Thring". I found your comments helpful, and I tried to follow your guidance. I re-submitted it as "Meredith Wooldridge Thring, 1915-2006" and David Wooley has put a comment on it dated 17.44 20th Nov. Would it be in order for me to ask you to review this new version? jthring 09:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Black Ball Line & Puget Sound Navigation Company

Some time ago you had expressed owning resources and having an interest (Talk:Black_Ball_Line#Sources_for_more_info) in doing some work on the article Black Ball Line, it has been Split off into the Puget Sound Navigation Company. If your resources and desires still remain the stub could use some work. Jeepday 03:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Not me; that was User:DolphinCompSci. Tearlach 11:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops, Thanks :) Jeepday 13:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Your note

It was a clear 3RR violation if you look at all the diffs. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how you interpret it that way. Here it is again:

SlimVirgin's WP:ANI report [16] makes reference to four reverts as part of the reason for the block on Pigsonthewing. If you look at those cited as 2nd revert [17] and 4th revert [18], they appear not to be reverts at all, but minor revisions of material restored by User:Jooler. Tearlach 19:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Explain exactly how those diffs you call 2nd revert and 4th revert are reverts. They're not. Tearlach 02:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:Block of Pigsonthewing

I've replied to you on my talk page by providing my rationale and am ready to respond to comments and questions if necessary. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer 03:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

I appreciate your suggestions and will "butt out" from the COI Noticeboard section about the user in question from now on. - Watchtower Sentinel 13:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath

Hi. I wrote a new section providing information about the article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yogiraj_Gurunath_Siddhanath . I hope you can drop by and comment. -Vritti 06:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Adding material to the page Dr. Richard Aldrich

Thank you for your warning regarding possible deletion re: The Aldrich Castle. What sugguestions can you offer to make sure this page isn't deleted? Keep in mind that my work is associated with the San Dieguito Heritage Museum and I do have access to a huge archive of information. I'm just not sure what it is that you feel should be added. Let me know and I'll try to locate it and add it.Kyle Thomas 17:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. I visited the page created for The San Dieguito Heritage Museum and notes were left on the page that it needs to be worked on further. If you could offer me any suggestions I would like to contribute to the building of this page. Thanks in advance! Kyle Thomas 18:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Does The San Dieguito Heritage museum have published materials and articles?

We have a tresure trove of original documents, photos, newspaper articles and published books. We also have the living history of the people who work and voulunteer at the museum, some who's families go as far back as the era of the Original Spanish land grants...and we even have these original supporting documents. I'm real excited to help build this page and I will provide a lot of top shelf stuff. Give me a chance to scan some of the documents and upload them to Wikimedia and with continued work I believe this page will really sparkle! Kyle Thomas 18:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kyle Thomas (talk • contribs) 18:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

OK, but for the main Wikipedia entries you do need to be cautious not to get into the area of "original research" as it's classified here (see WP:NOR). For instance, your recent edit - "Changed location of Castle from 4th and Hst to Sealane and Hst after visiting and photographing the property" [19] - is the kind of thing to avoid. Essentially, editors aren't supposed to create primary sources, and ideally should use reliable secondary sources rather than doing their own synthesis of primary ones. It's a pain at times, but it's how Wikipedia is organised to function without the ability to fact-check or know who is posting. Tearlach 03:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The Aldrich Castle

Thankyou for taking the time to follow my work on this page. I take your guidence serioulsly and graciously. My motives for my contributions are not self serving. I'm not sure what nudged me into wanting to get involved, but here I am. I had a personal experience during my stay at the castle that was memorable and eventful. This was about 30 years ago. I've always had a love of history for the San Diego area and am proud of my 4th generation heritage and my family ties to the area, having lived here my whole life. In 1996,I believe it was, myself and two others taped the ribon cutting cerimonies and opening of San Diegito Heritage Museum. We produced and aired a half hour TV show with the footage, on our TV Show; "California Live". 11 years later, I'm in the process of taping new footage for the Museum that will be aired within the next six weeks. This isn't a money making venture, it's just my contribution to my community that I love. I will do my best to document and provide my future contributions with as much verifieable sources as possible. I will also do my best to learn the Wiki guidlines post haste.Kyle Thomas 07:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Sygun etc.

Thanks for catching the Miney Todd edit to the Viyella article. I've just posted this and am hoping you may know what to do next. --HJMG 16:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hamsacharya dan

Sorry to bother you, but you recently informed Hamsacharya dan on his talk page that due to WP:COI he shouldn't be editing pages associated with Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath, but he doesn't listen. Can't he be restrained somehow? I intend to remain mute and have no reason to believe I can influence him. He may be annoyed that I pointed out his role as media relations officer for YGS. He has since filed a WP:RFCU on me claiming I'm likely Watchtower Sentinel, it was declined, but this guy isn't helping anything around here IMHO. -Vritti 23:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd say leave it be. Both of the main antagonists are still picking at it: but the YGS article is well on the way to deletion via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath (2). Tearlach 23:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

No, I appreciate it. It was just frustrating going over the same ground over and over, not knowing what I should do. I was sincere in wanting advice on what to do. I now understand what I should have done, and I thank you for taking the time to explain. Short, concise and directly to the point from now on. --Dseer 02:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Shadowyze

You said >>::Untrue: I didn't. That came from Lojah's canvassing in relation to the AFD. I voted for "keep and rewrite". Tearlach 00:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not canvass anything according to Wikipedia guidelines. It's only wrong if I try to bring in external people to back me up. I simple contacted ONLY the people who had contributed to the article in the past. I see no rules against That. Lojah 00:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

As a note, I would think that the latest comment on the talk page is very much a violation of NPA, based on (again) misunderstanding of policy. Lojah clearly took the AfD personally, and is attacking me as a result, and I haven't even touched the page since, as per his request. MSJapan 15:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Michael Reid Ministries

Dear Tearlach... I just found out that Michael Reid Ministries now has their YouTube thing. I put a link in the article as it concernes their broadcasting platform. Cheers - unsigned edit by 89.242.59.199 (talk · contribs)

Fancy that. For your first ever edit to Wikipedia, you felt moved reinstate an edit made in breach of WP:COI by Michael Reid Ministries. Tearlach 22:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

COI Clarification

(Tearlach): "Is it just my perception, or are infringing editors getting wise to the idea that nothing much is going to happen if they don't actively break major policies? We seem to be getting a lot of "I hear what you say but that doesn't apply to me because ... fill in excuse"."

Considering oneself neutral and providing character witnesses are thought enough make COI a non-issue. Besides the criticism of the COI Noticeboard editors in claiming "an extreme misconception on the part of everyone here: WHY would someone being at the TM university for decades be construed as evidence of COI in regards to editing the [Maharishi Mahesh Yogi] article?", and claims Paul Mason "throughly dispises MMY", Spairig said:

"I gotta wonder at your obsession here, given that the description of COI says that one must be PAID or expect to be compensated in some way for editing the Wiki page in question in order for there to be a financial COI. The Maharishi University of Management employees are all posting anonymously because, as I understand it, the general policy of the various TM organizations is to "stay out of the mud" of arguing about TM in public unless you are a lawyer or PR person working in your capacity as such. None of the TM-related editors are being paid to edit this page as far as I know. the close relationships COI might apply, but only if you can demonstrate that the editors are not keeping a NPOV in what they post. That also doesn't seem to be the case. The fact that some "experienced Wiki editors" don't appear to understand the issue and support your claims is trumped by what the WP:COI page actually says."

I have Mason (both versions), easy to get. Mason "thoroughly despises MMY" seems both inaccurate and irrelevant. Mason states the TM organization fought publication but failed. Unjustified personal attacks on Mason from TMers are just one example on one subject of a COI undermining NPOV. One example of individual editors now feeling free to dismiss COI concerns based on personal interpretations of COI, with a sense of impunity and indignity. I see need for a global Wikipedian solution. Comments?--Dseer 02:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

MasoniCHIP

It's a good start, and it is notable - I'm sure it's in more than 13 states, but I need the latest brochure to check. However, the name differs from state to state, so I think we're going to need to move it to "Masonic Child Identification Programs (CHIP)" at some point. MSJapan 03:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:MSJapan. Tearlach 10:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Matthew Joseph Harrington

He removed your COI notation from his page, calling it unsubstantiated. It's probably not worth worrying about since the page is also up for deletion, but i thought I'd let you know. Edward321 04:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It is unsubstantiated. The article is not a sales pitch, and does not include any efforts to get people to buy the books. Links to Baen Books and Amazon would surely be improper-- which is why they are not included. Matthew Joseph Harrington 16:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's the COI2 template again:

The creator of or main contributor to this page may have a conflict of interest with the subject of this article. Due to issues of maintaining neutrality and avoiding promotional articles, Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines strongly advise that editors do not directly edit articles on topics where they have a close personal or business connection. If this is the case, you are advised to collaborate with independent editors via the article's talk page only.

It nowhere accuses you of anything. It warns there may be neutrality or promotional issues (since there frequently are, when people write about themselves), and advises you not to directly edit the article so that the possibility is seen to be avoided. Tearlach 18:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank You - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Kilaécŭs

I would like to thank you for your comments on the talk page to delete my article on my Gypsy Family. Thank you again! Princess Elisabeth Vantar 21:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to be facetious. But the difficulty is that here, facts get included only if there are reliable third-party sources (see WP:RS). Unless you can find somewhere else, like a newspaper, reporting the existence of your Family, a single free-hosting website isn't going to be enough (especially as it's quite an unusual claim). Tearlach 22:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Nowonline & AfD

You are right, there is a real challenge to clean User:Nowonline's contributions up. I've been trying (perhaps not very well) to persuade ?him to do it properly, with no impact as far as I can see, so any help in the clean up would be appreciated - thank-you very much for commenting on the AfD nomination. I think that Nowonline is in fact Richard B Autry, but not 100%. I'm treading as softly as I can, as I'm not that familiar with all the processes, I don't want to bite a newbie, and I don't want to appear to be victimising someone - that is certainly not my intention. Thanks again, WLD^talk|edits 00:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Alsbury

Alsbury was one of the five men who burned vince's bridge,thereby enduring the texan victory and changing not only the whole course not only of texas history but since the mexican war would not have occured without a successful texas revolution, the course of all american history adding states such as california, new mexico and arizona to the united states and thereby affecting the course of world history. If memory serves me right he was also the first man to volunteer for that suicide mission. Maybe you are the one who is "NOT NOTABLE" next to him you are nothing. And by the way I find your comment that only people related to mr alsbury would be interested in him offensive. I unfortunately am not related to mr. alsbury, but would be proud to be. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.3.12.130 (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

You obviously don't take a Marxist view of history (that it's not driven by individuals). That aside, I've never said anything about Alsbury's notability: I commented about the problematical sourcing in unpublished genealogical research and on the inappropriate style.

'Houston agreed. But how was this to be done? "You will have to pass within 100 yards of the Mexican cavalry and they will cut you to pieces," said General Houston. Deaf Smith told him that if he would permit him to take six men, he would burn the bridge or perish in the attempt. When Deaf Smith returned to his little company of about 35 men, he told them General Houston consented to the attempt to burn the bridge over Simm's Bayou, and that he could take six men. No sooner said than a voice cried out, "I'll go with you, Mr. Smith." The company turned about to see hardly more than a youth speaking up. Not a big broad shouldered or rough individual as one might imagine, just a young fellow or average size, but his little black eyes told the story. He was not afraid of the whole of Santa Anna's army. And that was Y. P. Alsbury, first to head the list of volunteers for the dangerous mission. It is history that Vince's Bridge was burned, and Deaf Smith did not loose a man in this adventure. Soon thereafter in the now famous Battle of San Jacinto, Texas won its independence from Mexico. The burning of the bridge had been a strategic move. Young Perry Alsbury had helped to destroy Vince's bridge on April 21, 1836, and later in that day he participated in the battle of San Jacinto.

Suitable for a late 19th century children's inspirational storybook, but not for a modern encyclopedia. Tearlach 15:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Much of this material is from the YP Alsbury Letter and Texas Historical Marker listed at the end of the atricle —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.254.146.2 (talk) 13:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

I'm talking about style, not content. Tearlach 14:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You are an editor right? Then edit it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.254.146.2 (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

It'd be more efficiently done by those with access to the sources. Tearlach 15:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.254.146.2 (talk) 16:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

PanelWhiz

I CSDed this, and as you had an RFC and some other discussion pending, I figured I would give you my rationale: notable or not for economics, PanelWhiz doesn't appear to be in use outside of Germany, half the links are to product usage documents (and the others are tangential to the article at best). The article itself is basically a specs list, and the product is a whopping seven months old according to the release date in the article. As such, I feel it is nothing but advertising for a new nn product, written by the developer. Similar articles on specialist programs (Qtiplot for example) are nowhere near as specs- and usage-oriented in content, and I think removing that stuff would make the article nothing but a one-line dicdef with still no assertion of notability. MSJapan 05:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Colebatch

As a matter of fact, I read his entry just in case, and he's done a lot more stuff than just a few stories, so he meets the guidelines. :)

I think I'm going to ask that the page be salted, though. MSJapan 01:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Colebatch is seriously notable and interesting. But still, if The Other One had been quietly included without all the palaver (e.g. via Articles for Creation) I'm sure there wouldn't have been the fuss. Tearlach 02:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

At least until somebody else found the article. MSJapan 02:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Caution: Personal attack on User talk:Matthew Joseph Harrington. TWINKLE

April 2007

With regards to your comments on User talk:Matthew Joseph Harrington: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 03:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. You seem like a good editor that just lost his cool. Happens to everyone. As for the user, I indefinitely blocked him for legal threats. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

April is just a bad month

Sorry if I was gruff or rude with you before. You see it was on this week a few years ago that my 8yr old son died in my arms from cystic fibrosis. And just one year ago my best friend of over 20yrs died during the first week of April from a heart attack. This is just a bad time for me. Do whatever you want with the articles. They don't really matter. Nowonline 18:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Blackgang Chine

"The owners were considering moving all of the attractions at Blackgang Chine to Robin Hill, as the continuing erson is not leaving much room, and the parts closest to the cliff cannot be moved further away. However it has been decided to phase out the children's attractions, and aim for a more adult-orientated heritage centre.

I don't doubt it, but do you have a published source for this? Tearlach 21:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)"

Well, not now, no. You see, I remeber reading it somewhere a few years or so ago. But as the decision has been made to "phase out the children's attractions" (this was already in the article), there is not really any published sources for this that I have, so you are welcome to revert my edit! This article is not one a regualry edit, but most of my familiy live on the Isle of Wight you see. Thank you,

-- Arriva ⁴³⁶ 20:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Saskatchewan Party warning

You are talking to the wrong party. If you check the revision history you will see that I have tried repeatedly to get the anonymous user to discuss the issue. I have not undone anyones edits, I only undid the anonymous users reverts of my edits. Feel free to initiate the dispute resolution process for the page. I do not currently have the time to learn how to do it myself. —T. Mazzei 02:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

OK. I should have explained, as you haven't been editing long. Wikipedia has a Wikipedia:Three-revert rule policy - no more than three reverts a day - to stop edit warring. If you look at the recent article history here, you can see that both you and 70.64.13.206 are well over the limit. Unfortunately the policy doesn't care who's in the right: reverting perpetuates the situation whoever is doing it, so it was fair to give it.

Sorry to be touchy, but Saskatchewan political articles have been plagued for months by anonymous nuisance-makers. I can see that you're not one of the usual suspects (they generally have zero editing interests outside their idee fixe). A good option is to report this kind of thing at WP:ANI. Tearlach 02:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Odd Nerdrum

Just to let you know that the passage you removed an article on Odd Nerdrum was actually written by myself and nor copied from my space! The author on my space copied the article from the piece I ad written, so its not as you say and I would be grateful if you at least had the courtesey to consult with me first. Copyright works both ways! As for the other articles, in my opinion they were written in my own words with reference to other sources and I did not feel that they had just been copied. Also the images such as "Birthday" were shown because it is an important work and was talked about in the article. If people such as yourself are going to delete articles that people have researched its hardly worthwhile going to the trouble and in any case what gives you the right? I would respect you more if you had consulted with me first instead of jumping to conclusions. Mablerose 01:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Understood - but we've no way of knowing which direction copying happened. As to the other articles, I stand by the deletion of material. If the source is recognisable - verbatim chunks, or with trivial paraphrasing - you haven't rewritten it sufficiently to avoid copyright issues. Example:

Frey Norris Gallery

In 1955, Tanning began to abandon this somewhat controlled, representational style in favor of a freer technique marked by raw energy, vibrant hues, and luminosity. This new period in her work was originally called her "prismatic" period, perhaps because these images appear distorted and fractured, as if looking at them through a glass prism. A few years later, Tanning herself began to refer to these works as "Insomnias," a name taken from a painting she created in 1957 while living in Sedona. She explains:

Your version:

In 1955, Tanning’s work developed in a new direction, moving away from a controlled, figurative style towards a use of a freer painterly technique demonstrated by energetic brushstrokes and luminous brilliant colours. This new period in her work was referred to as her "prismatic" period, perhaps because these images appeared to be more fractured and distorted as if one was looking at the works through a glass prism. Nor long after this Tanning herself started to refer to these paintings as "Insomnias," a name taken from a painting she created in 1957 while living in Sedona. She explains:

what gives you the right?

Every time you submit anything to Wikipedia, you buy into the agreement at the foot of the edit screen - If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. That's what gives other editors the right.

I suggest you read the Wikipedia guidelines on Fair Use, and take advice. There is no blanket ban on fair use images, but generally images with completely free use are preferred, and it's also preferred that fair use images are kept to a minimum (The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose). Tearlach 01:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a way of knowing whether something is copied. The dates on the article I wrote on Odd Nerdrum occurr before the one on my space, hence showing clearly who copied whom. I would be grateful if you would reinstate my article. It took me many hours to write this piece. As regards the images I feel that the use of the pictures helped to a greater understanding of the artists's work. Also I was not aware there was a limit on the number of images! The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose: In my opinion the use of images did exactly that. I take your point that anybody can alter or change articles, but deleting passages without first checking with the author is bound to cause friction and is approaching vandaliism. It may be the policy of Wikipedia to allow people to change for little or no reason but from what I can see it merely gets people's backs up and makes them wonder whether it it worthwhile writing articles. Mablerose 02:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

OK re the Nerdrum piece, but it was an understandable mistake given the other material. Bear in mind, though, that it needs source attribution: on what published source was it based?

Also I was not aware there was a limit on the number of images!

Yes: it is policy to use as few as possible Fair Use images. Check out Wikipedia:Non-free content#Policy. It's quite lengthy, but the simple test at the end covers it: "Can this image be replaced by a different one, while still having the same effect?". If the answer's yes, it's viewed unnecessary. I've asked for advice at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Fair use of images, and so far this view has been confirmed.

On that basis, it doesn't take seven images to convey the flavour of Nerdrum's art - gloomy paintings in a rather classical style of naked people doing weird things in an apocalyptic landscape. I'd recommend just one - Dawn - in that it's a typical work in style and content, and also has the specific informative value in relation to The Cell.

I think a good example of the expected level of image use is the H. R. Giger article. Only three images: one with a Creative Commons license as a self-taken photo, the other two Fair Use but used to illustrate distinctive and important topics. Tearlach 11:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: on further searching, I find this Gallery Channel page for an 07 Apr 01 - 27 May 01 Nerdrum exhibition. The last three paragraphs are an obvious source for the bulk of your Art section. Tearlach 20:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and I have removed one of the images on Odd Nerdrum. I had a look at other artists, for example Picasso and there was 11 on there! Is there certain rules for the fame or career of the artist? That's why I asked because it seems to be at the discretion of indiviual editors. I wrote that piece of Odd Nerdrum after reading countless books on him and most of it is my own words and considered opinion. I have two degrees in Fine Art so feel well qualified to write a piece on this artist. The article you mention I have not seen before! Perhaps they copied mine?

In my opinion you have vandalised this article and taken out the information that other readers found interesting and valuable (given that several authors have copied my stuff!). All that is left is a shell that nobody would find informative. All I was trying to do was provide a service to others who may want to use it. I see little point in writing for this site if this happens everytime I make a contribution. Mablerose 00:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It's reasonable that artists are given a depth of coverage that reflects their fame and career. I think Nerdrum is brilliant, but he hardly has the track record of Picasso, one of the most iconic artists of the 20th century, who had a long career in radically varying styles. That aside, check the image attributions: Picasso lived far enough back that many of his images are in the public domain in the USA, and so are unproblematic.

Perhaps they copied mine?

It's a dated and copyrighted blurb for a 2001 exhibition, and your version didn't appear here until 2007.

I see little point in writing for this site if this happens everytime I make a contribution.

It won't, if you take a little time to understand the conventions here, particularly in the area of copyright. Tearlach 00:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The blurb for a 2001 exhibition you mention wasn't seen by me until you pointed it out! The one on my space is attributed to my article on wkipedia! For your information I will not be writing for Wikipedia any more, just not worth the hassle dealing with people such as yourself. As for the article on Picasso, its a disgrace, with more written about his lovelife and will etc than the sections covering his art! Thats one area you should be turning your attention to. It seems to me that many articles on art in Wikipedia are substandard and need attention.

Mablerose 02:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Memoni

Memoni dialect and Memoni , both identical pages, which are entirely, as of today, contributed by me. I appreciate your interest. Firstly, the topic under discussion is not a language, it a unwritten dialect ‘Boli’ , thus “Memoni Language” in my view, is not appropriate title. Secondly, Memoni title is not appropriate because the topic deals with a dialect or language The main reason I did not touch the “Memoni Language” topics because this page was started in February 2005 and several contributors only came up with not more than 35 words for its definition. Last summer I also participate in “Memon” (Memons page was created by which was forced to merge with Memon) most of the content is contributed by I stopped contributing for various reasons. I am proposing that all three titles may be merged into Memoni dialect --Siddique Katiya 22:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks: I've replied at Talk:Memoni language. Tearlach 00:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of the FDA

The page has been temporarily restored so we can reach a consensus on the fate of the content. I've suggested we keep the vote open for five more days.-Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 00:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Holy Week Processions in Marikina City

The pictures used in this article are permitted by the following persons. I asked their permission if I can use the pictures they hold. It is just I want to acknowledge these people that is why a caption includes "Photo by:" . Hereunder are some parts of the response I got from my request to use their pictures.

Ronnie Reyes said:
Sure no problem ...pwede mo gamitin yung pic ..(you can use the pictures)

Eric de Guzman said:
oo sige gamitin mo (ok, you can use it)... walang problema yun (there is no problem)... Eric de Guzman ang full name ko (my fullname is Eric De Guzman)..

Erickson Cruz said:
oh sure friend ok sige go on lng (oh sure friend, ok yes, go ahead)... basta support kita lagi. ingat! (i will always support you. take care!)

Myron Mariano said:
Sige po.Ok lang. (go ahead. it's ok)

Ron Estanislao said:
sure. ron estanislao

I hope you don't mind if you will post your response here. Thank you Tearlach.
--Dellquez 15:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry about the misunderstanding. You need to make this permission clear in the image descriptions. Instead of {{PD-self}}, the template to use is {{PD-author|name}}. I've converted Image:Rme01.jpg to show the kind of thing. Tearlach 19:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Ali Imran ^(Article)

I think that apart from fact checking the whole thing needs a rewrite. I just went through and tagged all of John leo contributions that were nonsense. I might get around to writing something, but I have been mainly vandal fighting recently. --Martian.knight 23:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

So true, though I think the article suffers from a great lack of notability, particularly on the English wikipedia. --Martian.knight 00:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt, because it's a topic that's tempting to downrate because of Wikipedia's systemic bias (non-English, non-Western, not represented in electronic media). The few third-party English articles I can find suggests he's extremely popular among the huge population of Urdu-readers (perhaps more akin to Erle Stanley Gardner than Ian Fleming) and gets credits in high places (e.g. #6 on the author list for the Indian government's National Council for Promotion of Urdu Language). Tearlach 00:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Certainly I agree that systematic bias would affect the article's worth in the typical wikipedian's eye, however so little links to Ali Imran and I cannot see much more in the future. I suppose it can be left there though. On another note I have moved Secret Service members to Secret Service members (Imran series) and tagged the first for CSD as it was obviously misleading. --Martian.knight 02:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why most of these articles couldn't be contained under a single, or at most two articles: one named the title of the fictional work, the other a list of characters. Nonetheless, I do not have the motivation for such work. --Martian.knight 02:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Ravne-history.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ravne-history.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Copied to User talk:Ravne, the uploader. I just gamma-corrected the image. Tearlach 11:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Malcolm Arbuthnot

Please explain the difference between a reference/source and an external link. - Kittybrewster (talk) 11:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Formally: a reference was used to write the article; and an external link is 'value-added' further reference - see Wikipedia:External links. Practically, though, there's overlap, and I don't think I'm alone in avoiding external links to material whose format might suggest reference quality, but which really isn't up to that quality (in the case of the family tree, sourcing in unpublished personal communications). Tearlach 13:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It is poor grammar. Does MoS have a take on it? - Kittybrewster (talk) 10:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm a descriptivist, so any statement like that has to be filtered through the tests of:

a) Does a claimed rule reflect current mainstream usage (as documented by academic linguists, not by amateur pundits)?

b) Does it even reflect past usage (ditto)?

In this case, a) no, and b) far less than you'd think. But I'll go with MoS if it has anything to say. Tearlach 12:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Vorticella citrina

Hi, are you still intending to add detail to this redirect? It is creating a circular link on vorticella and should otherwise be speedy deleted... regards, sbandrews (t) 22:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, are you still intending to add detail to this redirect?

And have I stopped beating my wife? I've never stated any intention to add detail to this.

If I recall rightly, some article (now deleted or edited) redlinked Vorticella citrina, so I redirected that to Vorticella pending creation (by someone interested in such things) of a Vorticella citrina article. Not my fault if subsequent edits have created a circular link.

I see from the previous topic that you have issues with redlinks, and I agree with Mgiganteus1: they imply no obligation or intention to produce an article; they merely highlight the option - and perhaps opinion - that such an article might be created. Tearlach 00:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

COI Templates.

There are twenty articles listed on WP:COI/N right now. There are over 300 transclusions of the COI templates. The templates do not direct people to any discussion on WP:COI/N, nor is there any indication of when or if the template should be removed from an article. The wording of the article suggest it may never be removed from articles created by the wrong person --Barberio 09:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Then the wording should be amended by consensus. But some of these objections apply to any template. For example, templates for cleanup, NPOV or lack of references don't define any time/criteria for an article being sufficiently cleaned up, neutralised, or enough references added. Same for the "staying there forever" argument; so might any template, if the problems it highlights aren't addressed. Tearlach 11:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

However, the COI templates do not highlight any problems with the article, but a 'problem' with who created or edited it. And since you can never change who created an article... --Barberio 12:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You can change their behaviour in relation to it, as with other kinds of editor-based problems (such as sockpuppetry). I see where you're coming from, but I guess the COI guidelines are a trifle fuzzy because they represent a spectrum of beliefs - from editors who think COI is only a problem if bias is proven, and those who think it's a problem full stop. Grounds for the latter view are a) the belief that the vast majority of people, even in all good faith, are incapable of writing about themselves neutrally, and b) editing with COI always smells suspicious - even if no bias exists - and it makes for smoother collaboration if it's seen to be avoided. Needless to say, I go with that latter stance. Tearlach 13:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

If the problem is with editors and not the article, the template needs to go on talk pages, not article space. Which is what I attempted to edit to. --Barberio 15:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Articles on Ibn-e-Safi & related material

I am trying my best to keep the articles on Jasoosi Dunya as standardized as possible. However, articles on Imran Series are getting out of control since the character was butchered by many authors after the death of Ibn-e-Safi. I can see many people are making emotional, sometimes biased changes to Ibn-e-Safi articles which are really introduced by others later on. Is there a way to separate material that is non-Ibn-e-Safi from articles that are under him? I really would hate to see his hard-work and creativity credited to those who do not deserve it. --Safi-fan 23:33, 14 May 2007

Ibn-e-Safi

Thanks for your comment, and I agree, it does seem like two sets of cross-genre series. (It makes me think of Doc Savage.) The claims for the series are so outrageous (a combination of mystery, spy, detective, romance, comedy, etc.) that it would be nice to pin it down to one genre (probably spy) and bring it into shape with a comparative model like, say, James Bond. It would also be fascinating to know just what was plagiarized and from whom. The whole group of interlocking pages, all so poorly written, does invite editing, but frankly it also looks like a native Urdu speaker would just come along and angrily undo it all. And it seems as though enlisting a bilingual Urdu/English speaker who's familiar with the novels and ready to pare the articles down will be difficult; there seem to be some ownership issues happening. But it does seem like very interesting material and I bet it would interest a lot of English-speaking readers if it was cleaned up. I'm going to keep my eye on some of the pages and see if I can make a little headway by being ultra-respectful and copy-editing bit by bit. If you'd care to assist, you'd be very welcome. Accounting4Taste 03:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)