User talk:Smee/Archive/Archive-Feb2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Purple Barnheart 2 Graphic Designer's Barnstar 3 Welcome! 4 Kind comments 5 A shame... 6 Welcome back! 7 hi smeelgova... 8 Question 9 Nice to have you there 10 We have two options 11 Instead of simply deleting, achive 12 Wikiinfo 13 Happy New Year from Jossi 14 Happy New Year from Tanaats 15 Happy New Year From AJackl 16 An slightly belated happy new year! 17 Point Well Taken 18 Thanks for the Welcome! 19 thanks 20 Thanks, will try harder 21 List of psychiatrists 22 Some refs are driving me nuts 23 Thanks re Mankind Project Discussion 24 Acknowledgment of civility 25 Mispelling redirects 26 Leo Ryan 27 book cover pics 28 Thank you 29 Seeking a template 30 Thanks for the tip 31 Orphaned fair use image (Image:Leo Ryan.jpg) 32 X Japan article for semi-protection 33 Reply 34 Incivility 35 3RR 36 3RR again 37 Infobox Pokémon City 38 Leo Ryan 39 X Japan revisted 40 Talk Page 41 Message, sorry for not being able to help more right now 42 I'm keeping a log of your stalking and reverting 43 Rick Ross (consultant) 44 DYK 45 BD 46 Thank you 47 User talk:Lucky 6.9 48 Community ban 49 Cult apologist 50 contributions 51 Blocked 52 Cast recording 53 GCM article help 54 Thanks for improving Robert Priddy 55 Alex Tourk 56 Bennis/Erhard 57 Barnstar 58 Clouds Blur the Rainbow on DYK for 25 Feb 2007 59 Thank you 60 Lifespring

[edit] Purple Barnheart

		The Purple Heart
		I, Kat'n'Yarn, award this barnstar to Smeelgova for getting a bad rap for being a good editor. Thank you. Kat'n'Yarn 03:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Graphic Designer's Barnstar

		The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
		Smee, It is an honor to present this Barnstar award to you. Thank you so much for creating all the wonderful templates and for the graphics to boot. You work tirelessly, working for hours editing away and helping fix others edits too. You are an example to aspire to.:-) PEACE TalkAbout 23:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, Smee/Archive/Archive-Feb2007, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kind comments

• Some users have seen fit to leave kind comments/encouragement here for me. That is acceptable and appreciated. - Smeelgova.
  
  

Just come back after a break. Andries 21:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you and sorry to see you go.

[edit] A shame...

Hi Smeelgova,

It's sad to see any editor go, and I do hope you return. While I, too, have often felt disillusioned by the Wikipedia process, I realised that I still use it as a reference source for just about everything, and thus it probably isn't a bad idea to spend time trying to make it better. A suggestion: in my experience, it's much more fun to edit uncontroversial articles! (Though you have to be careful; strange things can be controversial.) I hope you haven't taken other users' poor manners personally, and I want to let you know that I appreciate the work you've done here. Ckerr 09:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Ckerr. Take a break and when you're ready come back and create some articles on topics you're unusually familiar with, like your hometown, alma mater, favorite animal, or historical figure (come to think of it, history can be pretty controversial too). Some folks find satisfaction by accomplishing cleanup projects. In any case, thanks for your contributions past and (hopefully) future. Cheers, -Will Beback 10:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Smeelgova,

Well, I know how you feel[1] and have been winding down a bit my self. I have gone and done some other things of interest to get away from the feeling of persecution. One thing which has helped me is others like you that are willing to make the effort. But alas, if you need a break all the best and hopefully you will return soon and do check your page during the holidays. PEACE and LOVE TalkAbout19:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome back!

Hi Smeelgova,

May you enjoy many years of happy editing to come. Ckerr 00:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm cautiously optimistic, though pretty cynical from previous experience. Yours, Smeelgova 05:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC).

Hi Smeelgova,

Kudos, Welcome back!......That is the spirit! PEACETalkAbout 05:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. We shall see how it goes. Thanks for the support, that meant a great deal. Smeelgova 06:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC).

Hi Smeelgova,

How are things going? Hopefully well! Say, how does one determine how many edits one has done?:-)PEACETalkAbout 23:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Things are going okay for the time being, though the civility among editors has not improved that much. I am not sure, there used to be easy ways to check this, but they seem to have disappeared at the moment. Smeelgova 05:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC).

• Hi, glad you're back:)Merkinsmum 03:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Smeelgova,

This is a shot that I consider to be my best work of 2006, taken during the immigrant marches in April. These two were in the back of the VIP stage and with the flag there I quickly tugged at the Rabbi’s pants while the Muslim cleric told him I wanted to take a photo of them. All this via gestures, due to the noise and they agreed. Cooperation is possible when we all smile at each other with good will. Thanks for hanging in there as your work and kindness serves as an example to us all. PEACE TalkAbout 01:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. It is a very nice gesture and is most appreciated. Smeelgova 07:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] hi smeelgova...

Thank you for the welcome and the support. This 'hood ain't for the faint of heart. I'm gonna keep on keepin' on where it counts. But, I truly need all the help I can get. I will also try to learn more about the inclusion movement here and begin to make contributions so I can be an worthy ally. Thanks again so much for the housewarming.

Heat miser 04:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Hi Smeelgova, I don't know if I should have place the cult template in this article [2], if I made a mistake please let me know. ThanksTalkAbout 00:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you figured it out. When in doubt, you can always be bold WP:BOLD, and see what happens. Good luck! Smeelgova 05:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Nice to have you there

Hi Smeelgova. Just want to let you know it is very nice you have you around on the "cult" pages. Tanaats 20:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I do my best to try to only add material that is adequately sourced and factually accurate. Smeelgova 20:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

I think you're just incredible! I can hardly keep up with your most excellent edits on Margaret Singer. Tanaats 21:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Smeelgova 21:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] We have two options

Given that it is very likely we will continue editing articles both of us have interest in, we have two options: continue as currently and have a disgraceful time editing articles, or find some ground rules that we could agree upon to avoid that.

I propose the following:

• If any of us make an edit that the other disagree with, we commit to not revert the edit without discussion;
• If we need to revert, we agree to use the WP:1RR rule (we revert only once);
• Any edits with which any one of us disagree, will be followed by a request for clarification for the edit in question, before taking any action;
• If there are disagreements that cannot be resolved by discussions, we pursue dispute resolution by placing an RFC in the appropriate category;

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for this peace offer, it's a cute image and a kind gesture. I must admit and apologize that at the moment I am still too hurt by the manner in which you have dealt with me on talk pages to consider it. I will be the first one to offer you an apology if you were offended by my reverts - but I find your lack of patience and style in which you try to correct me just very very hurtful - whether you believe that or not. I will take some time to consider what you said above. You have said yourself in the past that these relationships are 50/50. I have already reflected heavily on my 50 - perhaps it is time for you to reflect on the hurtful impact that your words and style of commenting on talk pages sometimes has on others, and to make amends for that as well. Once again, if you felt offended or upset by my reverts, I am sorry. Smeelgova 03:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

Yes, it is always 50%/50%. So this may mean that it only needs one of us to give up less than 1% to change the tide. My apologies to you as well. I will be back on that article on Sunday. Let's reflect on our behavior and maybe start afresh with the agreement above in place. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you acknowledge that sometimes your style of suggestion or correcting editors who are not administrators on talk pages can sometimes have hurtful, if unintended results, and you will try to be more polite in the future? I know I will try to. Smeelgova 03:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

Well, it certainly affected you, so I will make extra effort. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

(I guess that's a no, Smeels. Very sad. Wbroun 19:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC))

Thank you. Thank you for acknowledging that. Smeelgova 03:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

Smeels, why even bother? Why thank someone for a non-apologizing apology? Wbroun 19:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Wbroun, I have said before that it might be slightly beneficial for you to shape up your politeness on Wikipedia a bit as well. And to be quite honest, that is probably the best apology that I am going to get at this point, so we shall see if User:Jossi behaves in a more polite fashion to me and other editors on talk pages in the future, and regardless I will strive to be more tactful with my editing patterns. Smeelgova 01:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Instead of simply deleting, achive

Actually, I don't delete outright anything from my talk page. I learned a while back that many editors consider that bad etiquitte. So I picked up George Money's Archive Manager and started archiving my pages. There are instructions present at User:GeorgeMoney/UserScripts. You can use my installation as an example. However, you should get the code from the page listed above. (Manually purge the page to get the section link to work.) Will (Talk - contribs) 04:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I will have to figure that out when I next get a chance. Thanks for the friendly advice - which is rare around here these days :) . Smeelgova 04:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Wikiinfo

Smeelgova, are you aware of the existence of Wikiinfo? In that project, there is no need to be tied up by the burden of NPOV, as the wiki is based on the principle of sympathetic point of view. I am saying this without sarcasm, or ill intentions: Would that project be better suited to your style than Wikipedia? I have seen people having much more fun editing there than in here, becase in Wikinfo they can write from a sympathetic point of view about th subject they care. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, I will check it out when I get a chance. Smeelgova 00:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Happy New Year from Jossi

May the new year bring you peace, happiness, love, and hope for all things you wish for. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the well wishes! A happy and a healthy new year to you as well! Smeelgova 01:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Happy New Year from Tanaats

Have a Happy New Year, Smeelgova!! Tanaats 18:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy new year! Smeelgova 00:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Happy New Year From AJackl

Happy New Year to you, Smeelgova!! Although we have had differences of opinion(particularly around the Landmark article) I do wish you a very fabulous and- dare I say it- possibility-filled 2007!!! Alex Jackl 18:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy new year to you as well! Yes, I am looking forward to some very exciting possibilities that I am generating for 2007! Happy and healthy to you! Smeelgova 00:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] An slightly belated happy new year!

Here's wishing you a more relaxing year this year!:)Merkinsmum 15:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Point Well Taken

Hi Smeelgova and thanks for your message to me on my recent edit. I'm afraid I did the edit in the wrong sequence, editing and then "talking" vs. vice versa. At any rate you can see my talk, and I'm adding a new one as well.Grrrilla 07:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, looks like there is already attempts by other editors from both sides to engage in polite dialogue on the talk page, which is nice to see. Smeelgova 08:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Thanks for the Welcome!

Thanks for welcoming me to Wikipedia, Smeelgova Uklady2007 23:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You are most welcome. Good luck. Try to remember to use sourced citations, and always strive to be polite and obey the golden rule - even if others don't. Smeelgova 04:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] thanks

tnank you very much for welcoming me. I'm already a veteran in the hebrew wikipedia, it's exciting this new environment and challenge. yours sincerely Tzahy 11:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• You are most welcome for the welcome. Good luck in your efforts. Be well! Smeelgova 08:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Thanks, will try harder

Hello Smeelgova, as you've probably gathered I am not someone who logs on every day. I think I can contribute, but generally just try to fix little things. Stumbling into this one, where you are obviously having a Sysiphean struggle with "ahem" people at least some of whom have hidden beliefs was a surprise. I did spend a couple of hours looking for a clear citable on-line source that made the direct connection, I found a few that will probably be usable and will get onto that again, but was too tired at the time to record the URLs (even though it is such a small point in a way, the familial resemblance is crucial--I don't have to experience either directly to know that Synanon's "The Game" is identical to est et al.'s core "technologies"). Print sources are much better here (I've read them but don't have them at hand), and I currently have no access to good libraries or archives.

What I don't understand is how they claim that the Synanon *link* has to be expurged etc. despite sites that cite both in the same context, yet constantly get away with cutting or reversing the meaning of the stuff you put up, all from relatively to very respectable sources, then reclaim the spurious Heidegger connection on the basis of a cultist's "paper". Double standard? I know of another similar group which isn't listed on WP, and thought of starting an article before New Year's, but thought better of it, given the inevitable result. Anyway, regards ER^Talk 13:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Very true indeed. Perhaps you could try debating this on the article's talk page, and/or improving the article Synanon? And it is interesting to watch certain types of individuals try to apply double-standards to certain issues. Yet another reason to try to find good sourced/citations. Good luck. Smeelgova 08:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] List of psychiatrists

Thanks for creating List of psychiatrists... this is a really useful list, and I just thought you might want to know that others appreciate your work on it. -- The Anome 11:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Smeegova

My congratulations on creating the list;it is very useful.But I have just been through th e famous figures and checked -it seems that the ones on teh first list are indeed qualified psychiatrists-the supplementary list has people like Piaget who are not psychiatrists but have made notable contributions..I have corrected it.My compliments once again(Vr 11:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC))

OK, great. Yes, like the specifications I had laid out, I think it is best for everyone on the list to be medical doctors, with psychiatry specialty, not just people who have contributed to the field. Smeelgova 14:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

Kuddos on the work! A short hello, still not fully recovered, can't see well, but I get my stiches out today:-). Did you do the template(List of psychiatrists)?TalkAbout 16:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC) I looked and saw the other one too, very nice. Vision is still off? PEACETalkAbout 22:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did do the template. Thank you for your compliments! Hope you are doing well. Smee 22:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

Wow! The moving brain is awsom and the colors are great..by far my favorite!I:-)PEACETalkAbout 22:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

If you like the moving brain embedded in the template, then please comment at Template talk:Psychiatry. As you will see, other editors there have varying opinions... Smee 22:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Some refs are driving me nuts

Hi Smeelgova,

In Steven Hassan#Backround I have two refs that are giving me trouble:

<ref name="ccmcCh2'>''Combatting Cult Mind Control'', Steven Hassan, 1998, Ch. 2, ISBN 0-8928124-3-5</ref>

<ref name="ccmcCh2"/>

The problem is that they aren't merging to create a single reference. The first cite creates valid reference, but the second appears not only separately but is completely empty.

I've been over and over this, but I can't figure out what, if anything, I've done wrong. Does anything occur to you offhand?

Thanks! Tanaats 18:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Do as follows (note the space before the backslash)

<ref name="ccmcCh2" /> ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Jossi, I was coming to you next! :) But it didn't work! :( Maybe it's some sort of wiki bug? Tanaats 20:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!!! You won't believe how many times I looked at that without catching it. Tanaats 21:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha ha, glad that my talk page could be of service to you - albeit vicariously.. Smeelgova 23:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

 :) Tanaats 00:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks re Mankind Project Discussion

Just a quick note to say thank you for the cool new info box and advert tag over at Mankind Project. This article started out sounding like a press release, then got better for a while and now seems headed back toward that. I wish you luck in getting things shaped up and think the info box is a terrific addition. Thank you! Rorybowman 06:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Acknowledgment of civility

Smeelgova, in the face of irritation, models civilility to other users. You are a credit to the ranks of experienced editors. Long may you contribute on Wikipedia. Serious. SmithBlue 04:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, okay. Thank you! Smeelgova 05:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Mispelling redirects

Please read Category:Redirects from misspellings. Usually, we only create (and add {{R from misspelling}} on the same line after the redirect), for common misspellings of terms or words. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I will try to do that from now on. Smee 05:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Leo Ryan

Having sections in a biography article for a subject's education and awards is sensible. However, in the Leo Ryan article, those sections seemed to be just repeating information included elsewhere. If Ryan's education is covered as part of a general section on his early life, then I think a separate "Education" section risks slowing down or confusing the reader.

On citation templates, see Wikipedia:Citation templates. There's nothing actually wrong with the current Leo Ryan references, as far as I can see, but they don't always include elements in the same order. Compare, for example, the newspaper citations in note 1 and note 14. The templates are optional and can be slightly tedious, but they do provide one way of formatting references consistently.

In general, though, I think the article's very good, and I'd encourage a Good Article nomination after a little tidying. EALacey 20:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Why thank you! I will strive to implement your recommendations as soon as I get a chance. Smee 21:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] book cover pics

Hi I've seen you do this for some articles and was wondering if you could advise. I was wondering if the cover of a book is ok to use as a pic? such as you have on some of Singer's books. Are they automatically ok under the copyright rules? I'd like to put one up for Orlando_(The_Marmalade_Cat)  :)Merkinsmum 03:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

This is just to thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia. I will not be able to do much editing due to lack of time but I want to contribute as much as I can on subjects I know because I believe Wikipedia is a worthy endeavor. hillwalker 11:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You are most welcome! Smee 14:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Seeking a template

Hi Smee. I've seen a template for tagging sentences that is basically a demand for a quote from the source. The goal is to be able to verify that the source actually does support the sentence that cites is. Do you know which template that is? I have a use for it on Mind control. Thanks. Tanaats 05:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

And... isn't there a guideline against using non-English sources for the English Wikipedia? If so, do you happen to know which one it is? Thanks again. Tanaats 05:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to your second question, but the code for the first one is {{fact}}. Hope that helps... Smee 03:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Thanks for the tip

Hello Smeelgova, Thanks for your editing tip to me of 3 Jan. Just noticed it and appreciate the advice.Grrrilla 02:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Smee 04:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Leo Ryan.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Leo Ryan.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 23:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] X Japan article for semi-protection

Hi, just wanted to ask whether it would be ok with you if I requested the X Japan article to be put under semi-protection. The citation-related discussion has pretty much died down and I think we all agreed that the All Music Guide source was acceptable and that information should probably go into the article now. I'm refraining from considering a full unprotection, since in the meantime, there have been a few incidents on related articles, involving one of the other editors (who sometimes uses IPs). This eventually prompted ShadowHalo and me to file a request for comment for that user. You are welcome to comment there as well. Regards - Cyrus XIII 11:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for asking for my input. I provided my opinion on the article talk page, will take a more detailed look into this when I next get a chance. Smee 11:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Reply

I replied on my talk page, in case you didn't know :) - that helps keep the discussion together. Cheers! Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 07:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. You know, I've removed the link from about 50+ other articles (*looks very embarrased*). I thought the "Join California" bit was spam. I'll go back and repair my damage tomorrow (it's 9pm in New Zealand, and I have to go do some studying). Thanks anyway, Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 07:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem, simple mistake. Like I had said, when I perused the link initially it looks like legitimate electoral result information, unadulterated. An easy fix. Smee 07:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for the reassurance :). Anyway, goodnight from NZ, Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 07:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Good night, again, a pleasure interacting with someone so polite - rare for me on Wiki these days, and hope you are doing well! Smee 07:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Incivility

Smee, don't know what is going on with you but please stop the incivility of characterizing my edits as "vandalism". Really. Stop now. If you will just look at my edit you will see that it is a good edit based on RS. You don't get to revert that kind of edit, man. So don't. --Justanother 04:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Please keep comments based on content, not the contributor, as per Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks. And to further civility, please keep related comments on the related articles' talk pages instead of on my talk page. Thank you. Smee 04:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

But I am addressing this to you. Personally. Please stop the incivility of characterizing my edits as "vandalism". --Justanother 04:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, in order to maintain civility, please do not comment again on my talk page. Smee 04:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

But I am talking to you. And I am being civil. And I made my request nicely instead of sticking some ugly template on your page. Why not just respond to my request? --Justanother 04:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not think it is wise for us to continue in discussion other than regarding content, on the relevant article talk pages. Please respect this and do not push the issue. All relationships are 50/50. Perhaps the perceived "incivility" goes both ways... Smee 04:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Perhaps I judged too quickly between one editor's attempts at good faith, and another's obvious vandalism. If so, I apologize. In any event, it is usually best to stick to content-based discussions on article talk pages, and not accusations/personal attacks on editor's talk pages. Hopefully you and I can move on from this, you do for the most part to be relativly amenable... Smee 04:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Apology accepted. --Justanother 04:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Smee 04:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] 3RR

Smee, please undo your last edit or I will have to report you for WP:3RR violation. Thanks --Justanother 05:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I will undo the edit out of good faith, but please show me the individual diffs where I violated 3RR? I am confused. It also seems like we may have both violated 3RR. But in any event I will self-revert... Smee 05:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Cool. Just look at the history and count. --Justanother 05:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

That last comment sounds sarcastic and patronizing, but I will take it for what it is and assume good faith, and assume that you simply do not want to show me the diffs for whatever reason. Oh well, hopefully other editors will get involved in the actual article's editing... Smee 05:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Not sarcastic. Just that asking me to go to the trouble of showing you diffs when they are your edits seemed a bit much. Please take a look at the material I removed, it was bad news; POV, unsourced, OR. And the material I added was RS, NPOV. I improved the article, that is all. --Justanother 05:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR again

Smee, I had to report you this time. Five reverts of another editor's good faith edits in 24 hours. That is disruptive to the process here. --Justanother 20:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR --Justanother 20:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

These were not good faith edits. --Tilman 21:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

That is not the point, I still think it is a good idea for me to SELF REVERT, no matter the circumstances of other editors' edits. So I have done so, and will continue to do so if other editors also assume good faith, warn me and give me a chance to Self Revert. Smee 21:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

I did warn you. Once. The point is that the system you are using is disruptive. I would describe that system as "blindly reverting without evaluating". The fact that you had to back-pedal after repeatedly reverting my valid edits on Henson shows me that there is an issue that you should address. Reporting it is my way of showing you that it is not my POV talking here. --Justanother 21:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is inappropriate for my talk page and is better suited for Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Regardless of my behaviour, and my attempts at assuming good faith and VOLUNTARILY SELF REVERTING, it is clear that other editors have differing opinions than yourself on this issue. Smee 21:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

OK, I will discuss there. --Justanother 21:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Good. Thank you for respecting my wishes in this matter. Smee 21:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

No prob, Smee. --Justanother 21:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Result is no violation. Glen 10:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me. Smee 10:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Infobox Pokémon City

Smee, I'm not involved in the provision of a WP:3O in this case, I just wanted to alert you to other posts about it in the Infobox subsection on my talk page in case that is useful for your own work with those two editors. — Athænara ✉ 09:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I will take a look... Smee 09:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

Looks like you did a good job of getting my points across anywayz. I'll wait to see if one of them initiates discussion on the talk page. If not - there is not that much that I can really do to intervene within the scope of WP:THIRD... Smee 09:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

Yup, WP:3O really requires wholehearted participation of all concerned—a nice small number, usually :-D — Æ. ✉ 09:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

We shall see... In any event - thank you for your help. Smee 09:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Leo Ryan

No problem, as for Leo, sadly I won't be much help. I'm averse to politics in a fairly universal way and despite the interesting color of the Jonestown massacre I don't think I could bring myself to do more than skim the article. Vicarious 01:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] X Japan revisted

Hello Smee, sorry to bother you again, but the list of people familiar with this whole affair is rather short. I think it has not been three full days since the X Japan article's protection was downgraded and Darkcat21 is already engaging in another edit war, adding content based on sources disputed by multiple editors. Since several means of resolution have already been exhausted (such as pointing out policies, requesting third opinions and temporary page protection), I'd like to request your input at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Darkcat21, as this could finally provide a more permanent solution. Regards - Cyrus XIII 02:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk Page

Thank you for pointing out the talk page information. I should have read it before jumping in on a contested article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spruceforest (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Message, sorry for not being able to help more right now

Hello Smeelgova, sorry I haven't been much help since around the New Year. Looking at the talk page for 'landmark', what a flood! One thing came to mind, though, when I saw the comparison with Apple Computer fandom. If we consider Wozniak's hippy/hacker interests and Jobs' 'new age of consciousness' fascination, it is hardly strange that Apple's corporate culture should spawn something superficially (and non-superficially, at times) similar. The workplace itself, in the run-up to Jobs' deposition, appears to have resembled a Rosenberg-driven entity. Looking at what's known of the history, I'd be very surprised if Jobs (and a LOT of Apple workers) hadn't taken a 'course' from one or more such 'education programs' between 1975 and 1990. I'd also be very surprised if the Rosenberg education didn't have a big influence on their corporate culture in the mid- to late 1980s (and, being in California, the epicentre, probably earlier). Anyway, that is all (well, not quite all) speculation. Seriously, you do a great job keeping some sort of balance in PoV, it seems to be a reflection on the nature of this project that opponents have the greater numbers. I am certainly not in a position to offer a few hours every day, every day of the week. Sorry.ER^Talk 16:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No prob. Hope you're doing well. Smee 18:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] I'm keeping a log of your stalking and reverting

Please stop your stalking and reverting of my edits. I have an extensive log. I really don't like to be childish and file complaints, but I will, because it's really creepy, annoying, and damaging to Wikipedia. Thanks you. BabyDweezil 05:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

We apparently have a lot of the same research interests, and these pages have been on my watchlists for some time now. Please do not read into my edits. Thanks. Smee 05:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

My log makes an excellent case that you are stalking and blindly reverting only my edits. Stop playing games, I will report it all. BabyDweezil 05:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop your Personal Attacks, and just focus on the content, not the contributor. I have kept an eye on these particular articles for some time now. Your inferences are incorrect. Smee 05:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Rick Ross (consultant)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Rick Ross (consultant). If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Sfacets 06:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This was not vandalism. But thank you for the warning, I will take a break from that article for a while and let other editors voice their opinions on the talk page. Smee 06:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] DYK

On 18 February 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Inside Scientology, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Carabinieri 00:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BD

Thank you. I have joined the WP:ANI thread.[3] Best, Johntex\^talk 07:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Smee 07:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

In answer to your question - a community ban is indefinite in length. We say "indefinite" rather than permenant because all actions can be reversed. In esence, it begins as permenant. It may get shortened or removed later, but the intention at the time is for it to be permenant. Best, Johntex\^talk 15:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thanks for the Purple heart. It means a lot to me under any circumstances, but means even more coming from an editor I respect, who has edited controversial articles with me in the past. This too shall pass, but your award makes it less annoying until it does. Jeffpw 11:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Wikipedia can be trying at times, especially when certain editors violate Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks. Hope you are doing well. Yours, Smee 11:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] User talk:Lucky 6.9

Just curious but did you look at his contributions? Lucky 6.9 is an admin who is currently absent. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't know what this is referring to... Smee 22:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

You left him a welcome message. Which I found a bit ironic under the circumstances. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh. So he is gone? Oh well. That's too bad. Thanks for pointing it out... Smee 22:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Community ban

Hi. Smee. Here is the definition of a community ban. They're rather unusual, but one has just been decided on ANI right now: see the current top thread, "POV pushing". Bishonen | talk 01:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for the edification. Smee 01:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Cult apologist

You have been reported for 3RR. Although I find no violation yet I strongly urge you to cease edit warring on it at this time. Thanks Glen 17:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I will take your advice and cease editing the article for a while. Thank you. Smee 22:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] contributions

um, I'm not sure why my contributions were deleted. The information was accurate, and it was not, that I know of, copyrighted information. It seemed quite relevant where I added it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.18.139.237 (talk • contribs).

• All I meant to say was that you stepped into a contentious article, and though while it is certainly very likely that the content of your edit was factual, it won't last long in an article like that unless backed up by citations... Smee 22:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Blocked

I have blocked you for 3 hours for violating the three revert rule on Cult apologist. Please discuss changes on the talk page once it becomes clear they are controversial. I am aware that the 3rd of your 4 reverts was unrelated to the other 3 and was very minor, which is why I have only blocked you for 3 hours, rather than the standard 24 hours. --Tango 21:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I will take the article off of my watchlist for a while. Thank you for notifying me. Smee 22:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

That sounds like a good idea. Feel free to contact me on my talk page if you need any help. --Tango 22:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am still blocked, so I cannot contact you on your talk page yet. However, I had a simple request, I was wondering if you could unblock me about 5 minutes or so before my block is technically up, and leave what you wrote above in the edit summary: I am aware that the 3rd of your 4 reverts was unrelated to the other 3 and was very minor, which is why I have only blocked you for 3 hours, rather than the standard 24 hours., for clarification purposes? Or at least something short to that affect, for the record... Thank you for your time. Smee 22:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

I try and always watch the user talk pages of people I've blocked until their blocks expire, so contacting me here isn't a problem. Unfortunately, it's too late for me to unblock you now, and posting fake blocks to add comments to block logs is frowned upon. I suggest you keep a record of the diff where I made that comment and link to it if you need to clarify what happened. The fact that is was only a 3 hour block should be enough for people to realise it wasn't a serious violation. --Tango 13:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I completely understand. In any event, I will try to adjust my editing patterns in the future anyway. Thank you for your response. Yours, Smee 13:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Cast recording

Thanks! I was very excited to see that someone had edited the Kurt Deutsch page, because it needed attention (I had done to it what I could) -- and in the process I realized that that page never made the obvious link to "cast recording."

Excellent, very thorough job on the Very Merry... page (and in one day by the look of it). I just made one other tiny change, regarding NYTW.Burnley 23:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your additions to the article and wikilinks, by the way. You seem to have a good knowledge-base of theatre... Smee 23:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] GCM article help

Thanks a bunch! I saw you stopped by Great Commission Ministries and had added an infobox on the main article and a "talk header" on the discussion page. Thanks for doing that. Nswinton 18:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. My pleasure. Smee 04:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Thanks for improving Robert Priddy

It is a lot better now. Andries 18:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Smee 04:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Alex Tourk

Smee, can you place a little info box around the photo:-). Thanks...PEACETalkAbout 22:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. However, if you can find a different infobox more specific to the subject, let me know. Smee 05:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

Thanks, it looks good, but I will keep my good eye on the look out (almost have 20/20 again).lol :-)PEACETalkAbout 08:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Smee 09:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Bennis/Erhard

Thank you for inviting my comments. I see that the Erhard section on Bennis was restored in full again. I left fairly extensive comments on why I don't think it belongs in the Bennis section, certainly not more than as a link. My view (as apparently another who left a comment in January) is that the is not really about Bennis, but about EST and Erhard, and is quite disproportionate in an entry about Bennis.

While it is true that I am new to editing Wikipedia, and you have done a huge amount, I want to improve the Bennis entry, and certainly know the topic. If you think the material is important to preserve, how about moving to the entry on Erhard ?

Please read also my discussion left in the Bennis entry.

Thank you, JNEA 00:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a better discussion for the article's talk page. Smee 04:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Barnstar

You know Smee, you gave me my first Barnstar for respecting your opinions. And I value that Barnstar. Although our relationship seems to have taken a few dings since then, in retrospect, I do not think that our disagreements were over my subsequently disrespecting your opinions; I think it was more over my disagreement with how you expressed them and your disagreement with how I react to such expression. Who knows, we may come to enjoy that mutual respect again. --Justanother 03:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I certainly hope so. Smee 04:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

Very cool :-) --Justanother 04:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, as I do not know personally very many individuals that are Scientologists - your behaviour and actions reflect strongly on my opinions and reflections of the organization. And I would imagine the same holds true for other editors and their interactions with you on Wikipedia as well. In other words - the more civil, polite and in general upstanding-citizen-like behaviour you maintain on Wikipedia - the more favorably others may judge Scientology, perhaps. Just something to keep in mind. Smee 05:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

Smee, I take a stand here and I am not in the least ashamed of my actions and I stand by them. If I make a mistake, I own up and I apologize. And if my somewhat abrasive actions have damaged my relationship with someone that might be a fair and considerate person then I try to repair it. But Smee, I have to take a stand and I have to be bold and probably a bit (or a lot) abrasive or I will be marginalized (at best) and those that are not fair and considerate will be happy to walk all over me. You saw the bit that Wikipediatrix wrote that mine is a "lost cause". Well, I do not believe that so long as there is a hope that others can see what is to be seen here. --Justanother 05:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I did not see the piece you refer to by Wikipediatrix? Perhaps you could provide a link to it? I'd like to know what you are referring to... In any event, I have no problem with what you assert above - just letting you know that your interactions and behaviour reflect back on your cause - and therefore the more upstanding and polite your behaviour - the more highly people (at least myself) may tend to think of it in general. Smee 05:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

What you say certainly has truth and please be aware that there is a LOT more to the way I act over here than you may have noticed. I fear you may have only seen me at my most "take-a-standish". Sorry. But sometimes I have to be that way. Do you have any friends or co-workers, etc that are Scientologists? Here is the link; her user page has her axioms which, while trollish, contain a lot of truth (and a few untruths). --Justanother 05:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I will have to take some time to read through that stuff. Suffice it to say that yes, I have endeavoured to encounter the organization in the "real world" as a policy of reserving opinions until doing more research and physically exploring firsthand. Wikipediatrix does have some interesting points, and I was unaware that there was a "Scienowiki". In any event, in the end, Wikipediatrix's opinions are just that - personal opinions of a single individual - nothing more, nothing less. Smee 13:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

<left> Of course, we all have opinions. But it is of use to us to place value on a person's opinion based on their actual knowledge and experience in a specific area. If that knowledge and experience is combined with intelligence and sharp perception then we can learn something from that individual without having to go through the experience ourselves. There is only so much time and we cannot experience everything and we must rely on such second-hand data. Wikipediatrix pretended to be a rabid "Scientology-fighter" for a year. She was on the back e-mail channel and knew what these guys were about here. She is intelligent and perceptive. I think we can all learn from her experience and she was kind enough to share some of it with us, although is sometimes cryptic manner. Speaking of cryptic, should I take from 'I have endeavoured to encounter the organization in the "real world"' that you do not have any friends or co-workers that are Scientologists? In other words, no-one that you see outside their persona, especially to an outsider, of "Scientologist"? --Justanother 15:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I may, I may not. I do not comment on my life outside Wikipedia, on Wikipedia. Smee 23:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

Well, hopefully, you do. Then you might see what Scientology is really about: Just people trying to do better in life; for themselves, their families, their jobs, etc. That is all that is going on. Really. The rest is all rumor and ill-will on the part of a few. And occasionally some of those few are Scientologists. But most, by faaaar the most, are not. --Justanother 23:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay then, I think that ends this thread. Thanks for gracing me with your opinions. Smee 23:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

OK, consider yourself "graced". --Justanother 00:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clouds Blur the Rainbow on DYK for 25 Feb 2007

On 25 February 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Clouds Blur the Rainbow, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thank you for your contribution! — ERcheck (talk) 05:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You are most welcome! Smee 09:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for the info, Smee!--Fahrenheit451 16:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lifespring

Hi, I'm on the OTRS team for the foundation, and we answer emails that come in about the articles. I notice that you keep reverting someone's attempts to remove unsourceable items from the article [4]. These links are to a blog and an email posting respectively and cannot be considered as sources, no matter how topical they are. Please do not reinsert them. Thank you. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 19:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if this were addressed by whomever brought it to your attention first on the talk page. But thank you for alerting me. Smee 20:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC).