User talk:Smee/Archive/Archive-Mar2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< User talk:Smee | Archive
You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 27 February 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article A Very Merry Unauthorized Children's Scientology Pageant, 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.

--Yomanganitalk 22:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sub-pages

Thank you. You'll notice that I removed your comment from my talk page; this was solely because I've had some people digging in my user sub-pages trying to get "dirt". Obviously there's nothing sinister there, but that doesn't mean someone won't try to construe it that way. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. It's useful when it gets annoying to type out citations over and over... Smee 14:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Campaignbox al-Qaeda attacks

Template:Campaignbox al-Qaeda attacks has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --— Indon (reply) — 15:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. Though not quite sure what had happened in the previous discussion... Smee 15:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Jim Warren

Smee, Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery so I tried to use the one you placed in Alex Tourk but didn't get all the information to work? HELP!TalkAbout 17:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I fixed it. Smee 18:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC).
Smee, Thank you, yes it looks much better. Is there a way to insert a title for his hobby/life's passion. He is a Provocateur for Freedom of Speech and Access to Public Records via the Public Records Act. I was trying to put that in to but couldn't manage it. I admire his wit and zeal for bringing about change for the better of society. Do you think there maybe a category that may do the trick? Thanks, it sure made the article look much better. :-)PEACETalkAbout 06:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I am not familiar with this individual and his work, yet. Will have to look into it. Smee 07:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Fair use images

Just a note: you shouldn't use fair use images on pages for which they don't have a fair use rationale, including anywhere outside the article namespace (such as project pages), as it's a copyright violation; therefore I've reverted your addition here. You're welcome to use free images, though, as long as they're appropriate for the page. --ais523 15:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Smee 15:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Justanother's edit in my userspace

I instructed Justanother to make his proposed edit on my talk page. He did otherwise.--Fahrenheit451 11:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you wish to do anything about that? Smee 11:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Usurping names

Yes you should be able to usurp that name (as it has no contributions). Go to Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations and follow the instructions (you'll see my name near the bottom too :) ) Glen 12:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately it does (see here) Sorry! Glen 12:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Yep! Glen 12:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Smee 12:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 3 March 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Leo J. Ryan Federal Building, 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.

I somehow, just missed you even though you were on the list of users to notify. Thanks for contributing such great articles anyway. --Carabinieri 12:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aging in Place

Smee, Do you know how to do a re-direct? When a person searches by inputting "aging in place" the system states there is no article? How can I do a re-direct? PEACETalkAbout 18:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

  1. Click on the redlinks for the non-existent article here: aging in place.
  2. Then, in the first line of that new article, insert this code: #redirect[[Aging in Place]]
  3. Click "save", and that should do it!

Let me know if you've got it, but I'll know automatically because the link will turn from red to blue, hehe. Smee 18:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

Smee, Yes it worked fine with your good tutorial. I will save it on my talk page.:-)Thanks..PEACETalkAbout 18:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 4 March 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Scientology: The Now Religion, 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.

--ALoan (Talk) 10:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aran sweater

Hi. I've placed a "disputed" notice on Aran sweater to do with the Aran/Arran controversy, and I'm inviting you, as a past contributor to the article, to take part in the debate so we can reach consensus.--A bit iffy 13:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I would have noticed this anyway at some point, for it is on my watchlist - but at any rate, I will look at it when I get a chance. Thank you. Smee 14:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Indefinite block of BabyDweezil

Hi Smee, as you've commented on this user before, would you mind giving an opinion on the indefinite block? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I had already seen this and was about to comment, but you posted on my talk page before I did. Thanks for notifying me anyway. I responded on the page you posted to. Smee 19:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Thetan

Smee, I was happy to respect your wip tag but then you disrespected me by edit-warring on two other articles with me. Respect is a two way street. And Smee, take a reread of WP:RS please because you seem to be missing something there. --Justanother 23:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion better suited for the article's talk page. See my comments there. I will stop reverting your changes on the other article, much as I disagree with them and thought the prior version by the third-party editor was a good succinct compromise. Smee 23:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] 3RR report

AN/3RR --Justanother 23:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Though this was a case of 1RR, after the result of the admin decision I will take the article off of my watchlist for a while. I have also self-reverted the 1RR, as a show of good faith. I will also take the Scientology/Pop culture references article off of my watchlist for a while, as a sign of good faith. Smee 23:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Anynobody and Justanother

I noticed you have tried to resolve some issues with Justanother, and was wondering if you'd be willing to say so on the rfC I've made. Thanks Anynobody 00:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Smee 00:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Thanks, as you can probably tell it's the first one I've done so I apologize if I set it up incorrectly. Anynobody 00:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This will probably seem like a paranoid question, but should this link concern me? I don't have a problem with someone helping him understand the procedure but this statement just seemed odd. I can't thank you enough for your advice. Anynobody 07:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it. Jossi can be fair, and in this instance is probably only offering to help with procedural issues and/or mediation. Personally I would agree with your sentiment that an RFC might be the better way to go, simply for the ability to pull in commentary from multiple editors/admins... Smee 07:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for the speedy reply, I feel fine with Jossi based on your experience. Do you think it's fair to invite editors to comment? I'm personally undecided on the question. Anynobody 07:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

They will probably comment anyway, once it is publicly listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. However, I see no problem notifying other editors, so long as it is phrased in a very, very neutral manner on their talkpages... Smee 07:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

You're right, those that are interested will probably comment. One last question, does any of this show evidence of others trying to resolve conflicts with Justanother? Some of it overlaps evidence you already put in the RfC, so I apologize ahead of time for any redundancy. User talk:Justanother/Archive4 User talk:Justanother/Archive1#3RR (wishful thinking--Justanother 00:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC))User talk:Justanother/Archive1#3RR again (wishful thinking--Justanother 00:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC))==.

This next part doesn't require an answer, I was gonna put that warning at the end but it occurred to me that it'd mean more here. Out of curiosity, can I ask when/how things went south between you and Justanother? I had assumed it was my lack of support for Scientology, I have since met another Scientologist who has found himself in a similar situation as I have with Justanother. In fact his experience leads me to believe that anyone who disagrees with Justanother, no matter how respectfully, will end up starting a personality conflict. I don't mean to sound obsessive about this, but the negative situation with Justanother is the result of my actions to avoid it. (In essence this is the opposite of what I intended, and I need to know how I got here.) Anynobody 01:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Intriguing. You can bring up that evidence and see what others think. I am not very experienced in particular with RFCs focused on user's conduct. Smee 03:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

I'm not sure why Bishonen believes two people haven't tried to resolve issues like this on JA's talk page, both of us have. I also noticed that other editors have tried to warn him about similar behavior. I added them to the RfC and put it up for consideration. It may fail, but having it sit in my userspace certainly not going to accomplish anything. Anynobody 04:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It's your call. Smee 04:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

It got approved, and I thought of a neutral way to invite people on the Talk:Barbara Schwarz page, rather than solciting individual editors. After all most of the basis for the RfC is as a result of what I have seen there. I feel partially responsible for this, so I must apologize to you: User_talk:Anynobody#Please_stay_out. I'm not sure why he lumped you in with me, but I tried to make it clear that this was a solo-screw up on my part. Anynobody 09:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I sounded harsh toward Bishonen on his talk page, regarding the deleted RfC. It seems to go against the spirit of a RfC if one can have them deleted by a sympathetic administrator. He never really responded to my point about the two of us signing the RfC, so I'm hoping this was just a mistake on his part. I still want him to understand that if it wasn't a mistake I will take this issue higher on general principle. (The way I see it, the behavior of Justanother is nothing compared to a possible corruption of the system itself.) Anynobody 05:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You were the one who initially started the RFC, so I'll leave that between you and Bishonen. I do think it would be a good idea for Bishonen or someone else to undelete the RFC, and at the very least move it back into your userspace to be tinkered with over there... Smee 05:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

I agree with you there, but I don't want to affect any friendship you have with Bishonen since you went to him to help me in the first place. He really should not have deleted without at least some discussion on the talk page. I'm still willing to give him the benefit of a doubt, so barring any new actions by Justanother I'll give Bishonen a chance to reconsider. On a related note, I really REALLY thought the erupting volcano was a symbol to the CoS. Not like a Christian cross, more like the star on the top of a Christmas tree is supposed to represent a star the Wise men followed to Jesus. (Please forgive me if I screwed up the Christian info) Anynobody 08:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

That's alright, but specifically why I'll let you take it from here on this one. As for the Erupting Volcano... I don't know, but I would imagine that other Scientologists might have differing views on this one. I mean, the symbolism of the Erupting Volcano is the cover of Dianetics, and is depicted in some of their own produced intro videos and stuff - way before the OT III stuff gets introduced. But at any rate, the Userbox: {{User Scientology project}} looks good the way it is at the moment, so I'm not going to push the issue on this one any more... Smee 08:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

Well, thanks anyway for your help with the RfC. I wanted to wait until the situation was resolved, but since it appears to be ongoing and you'll be going your own direction I'll do this now: Tireless Contributor Barnstar

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For somehow finding time to help with other editors questions AND still create new articles. Anynobody 02:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you so much! It is so nice to know that my new articles are appreciated! Thank you! Smee 02:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Notice

I put it on AN/I. At the bottom. --Justanother 20:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the welcome

Thanks for the welcome that you placed on my talk page, but I was wondering, what prompted you to do so? Not that I'm offended or anything, but I've been contributing to Wikipedia for some time now, so I was just wondering what it was that prompted you to do it? Thanks. Hero1701 00:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I saw a redlink when you posted at Wikipedia:Third opinion. In any event, Welcome! Smee 00:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
Ah, okay, thanks. Hehe Hero1701 00:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration request - Request to review indefinite block of User:BabyDweezil

This message is to let you know that I have posted a request for arbitration on the above. [[1]]BabyDweezil 03:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Am I allowed to comment on this? An excellent example of disruptive editing on the part of User:BabyDweezil can be seen on the Talk:Barbara Schwarz since she began editing there. Anynobody 22:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
You are allowed to comment on this, as far as I am aware. Smee 22:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Humble thank you

Smee, I appreciate your recognition of my persistence and pursuit of responsible editing here on wikipedia. It has been just over two years and I have learned a great deal, both from the good and bad experiences. It was all worthwhile. Thanks, again!--Fahrenheit451 04:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

  • You're welcome. Smee 04:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Personal safety?

Accusing another editor of threatening behavior is pretty serious. However, I really can't imagine how this diff would make a reasonable person fear for their safety. Is this the right diff? There has to be more to this story, eh? Friday (talk) 15:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is. This user has history of commenting on editors in disparaging ways, both in talk pages and in article summaries, with CAPS and/or foul language. And this use of caps, combined with the "HOW DARE YOU" remark, makes me very anxious and uncomfortable, I'm afraid. Smee 15:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
I can see how it might be irritating. But making you fear for your safety? I'd say that's all you. I suggest removing yourself from the situation if it really makes you so uneasy. Friday (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
If you had the history of this situation and some of the background of this user's behaviour patterns you might feel differently. Smee 15:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
Hi Friday. This guy is way abusive as an editor and over-the-top in his trying to get me in trouble. That is all I really have to say, I guess. Thanks for your interest. --Justanother 15:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I simply stated a concern for how I felt, not any accusations. However it is easier to get along with other editors that focus on commenting on content, not contributors, in talk pages and edit summaries. Smee 15:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
  • User:Friday stated: I hear you, but geez. Do you really think it's a good idea for you to be popping up on this guy's talk page? Seems to me like you guys ought to be steering away from each other. (I say this with no opinion on who's right or wrong, or anything like that- just in the interest of keeping the peace.) - A wise idea. Smee 15:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Why are you removing the link on the Bridge Film page?

Hi,

Why are you removing the page http://www.scientomogy.com/the_bridge.php on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bridge_%28film%29. It's been up there since that page was created. There is no other links on the Wiki page that link to the film. The director Brett Hanover said "This film is a free-media online release."

It contains the full movie, links to torrents, reviews and comments by the director

Thanks

75.160.18.241 19:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Paul Horner 3-7-07

  • Please note, I am not the one who is the impetus for its removal, I want a link to the film to be available on the main page of the article. You might want to contribute to the ongoing "Request for Comment" discussion, at the bottom of the talk page: Talk:The Bridge (film). You can read more about what a Request for Comment is, here: Wikipedia:Request for Comment. Smee 19:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Sorry, new to understanding how Wikipedia works  :)

Thanks—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paulhorner (talk • contribs).

No worries. Smee 20:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

I see you're fighting for the inclusion of that link. It should be there and I agree with you. I started a thread about this on a Scientology newsgroup if you're interested in reading http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/browse_thread/thread/81b458e78872b6cd/a51dbfc39479a073#a51dbfc39479a073 aka Fred Durks.

From what I've read on that talk page, the decision of whether the link to the video of a critical movie about Scientology is left up to a Scientologist User:Justanother? Does that make any sense? Or what is the step now? If I add the link again will it be deleted?

Thanks Paulhorner 00:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have tried a compromise between what you and Justanother were disagreeing about. (I simply moved Paulhorner's comments to appear under his original vote.) If Justanother is only concerned about Paulhorner's vote being counted twice, he should have no problem with this change. Anynobody 10:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cults of Unreason on DYK for 8 March 2007

Updated DYK query On 8 March 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cults of Unreason, 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 contributions! — ERcheck (talk) 05:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You are most welcome! Thanks for the compliments! Smee 13:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Images

You uploaded this image claiming that it came from a press kit, when in fact it was part of the web content of the copyright holder's website. The copyright holder sent a polite email to the Foundation pointing out that we were republishing their copyrighted work entirely without license or attribution. Please go through all of your image uploads and make sure that they conform to Wikipedia:Image use policy, mark for deletion any that do not, and, in the future, please be much more careful about what you republish here. Jkelly 19:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, will do. Thanks for the notification, thought it was a promotional publicity photo. Smee 19:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
I really want to emphasise the importance of identifying the copyright holder for anything else that you have uploaded, regardless of whether or not there exists an "implicit license to republish" due to its being promotional material. This isn't something we can be lax about. If you're confused about this, I can help go through your uploads with you, but this really does need to be done. Jkelly 19:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I will go through them, If I have any confusion I will let you know. Thanks for offering to help me with this. Since I would be the uploader on all of these images, I guess I can just tag them with {{db-author}}? Smee 22:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
Eh, even if it's not the right tag specifically, a request from the "author" of an image on Wikipedia... Admins will probably know that "author" refers to "uploader" and delete them. I understand what you are conveying and I went ahead and deleted fair use rationale on a whole bunch of images I had uploaded, and added speedy delete tags instead. As you are an Administrator, feel free to go through my contribs and go ahead and delete the images that I had tagged with {{db-author}}. Otherwise, I'm sure another Admin will. Smee 23:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
Thanks, that is very helpful. If anyone does not accept {{tl|db-author}}, or some similar magic delete tag, placed on unfree media by the uploader, please gently correct them. We absolutely cannot be in the business of refusing to stop republishing media when the uploader no longer wants to claim fair use. I'm sure that those who stop and think about this will understand why that is, even if it doesn't happen to be spelled out somewhere on our policy pages. Jkelly 23:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. Smee 23:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Public watchlist

Nice article! All you need to do to add it to the public watchlist is to go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology/publicwatchlist, edit the relevant section and add the wikilinked name of the article in the appropriate place. -- ChrisO 08:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Awesome!

The Editor's Barnstar
Nice work on Scieno Sitter! I'm very familiar with the subject matter (tho for some reason I've always called it Scio Sitter?! Great work! Glen 09:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so much! This means a lot coming from you. Smee 19:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] User Category for Discussion

A category created by you or to which you have significantly contributed is being considered for deletion, rename, move or merge in accordance with Wikipedia's Categories for Discussion policies. This does not mean that any of the userpages in the category will be deleted. They may, however, be recategorized.
Please share your thoughts on the matter at this category's entry on the User categories for discussion page.
VegaDark 10:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hi Smee, thanks for the info on WP:SCN.--Fahrenheit451 02:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

No worries mate. Smee 04:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] I noticed your good work...

...on the Do you know section, and I think you deserve a long overdue medal for your duties.

The DYK Medal
I, Smomo, hearby award you with this DYK medal for your plethora of excellent contributions to the Do you know section. Keep up the good work. Smomo 21:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so very much! This is truly appreciated! Yours, Smee 21:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Welcoming vandals

You've just welcomed a new editor whose only contribution was this. "Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia" is surely inappropriate. Please check the contributions of people whom you welcome, as explained at the project page. Thanks. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I will check contributions from now on, thank you, my apologies. Smee 02:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Simple courtesy

Smee, Orsini doesn't suprise me but frankly I'm disappointed that you did not do me the courtesy of letting me know that you were dev't'ing me at AN/I (and dev't'ing yourself and everyone else, too). Course I don't feel like playing the dev't game but you shoulda at least thought of me (sad now). --Justanother 05:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You were already aware of the notice by another user, as you stated above. Smee 05:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC).
No, I got no notice of anything and happened to spot your mention on the AfD talk. --Justanother 05:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Orsini of the 14 edits - you are not an admin and you do not get to remove anybody's postings. post it on ANI if you need help from a real admin I had assumed that after your suggestion to Orsini to in fact do this, that his actions are most appropriate. Smee 05:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC).
I suggested he ask a real admin to handle the sockpuppet. If I were attacking you on AN/I I would have the courtesy to let you know. --Justanother 05:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I am not attacking anyone, merely listing links/evidence. Smee 05:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC).
However I apologize, in the future I will notify you on your talk page of such matters. Smee 05:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC).
Smee, can you please tell me what "dev't'ing" is? I don't understand if this jargon is another personal attack or not. Kind regards, Orsini 05:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I will respond on your talk page. Justanother please do not respond here, this thread has been adequately discussed. Thanks. Smee 05:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] I'd like to thank the academy...

Hey Smee, thank you so much! I knew it would pay off one day. Cheers! ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You are most welcome. Glad to see you are still kickin' Smee 09:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Intro

Hi there! I know it's very difficult to keep these things in the intro. I don't know how many users there are on this page, but well dedicated to make the page an advertisement. Some pages are just very difficult to deal with... Tazmaniacs 16:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
There are quite a bunch, actually... It does seem to violate WP:SPAM, doesn't it? Smee 16:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] awards

yes, i realised that as soon as I saw that's what you did:) Doh!:) Never mind:Merkinsmum 17:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

  • No worries. Smee 17:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC).
The Brain Vaccinator's Award
I, Merkinsmum, hearby award you with The Brain Vaccinator's Award, for your injection of wisdom and common sense into the wiki. Merkinsmum 21:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for giving me my first award:) Unfortunately I can't code/use the commands at all so please feel free to improve upon this award I made, which is intended for those who work on topics such as you often work on:)Merkinsmum 21:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

  • It looks find, thank you so much! Smee 22:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Wog/Freezone

References for Scientology/Wog are on my website, I'll transfer some over.
Freezone is an impossible article to reference, there are no independent written sources right now. The media are in denial about the subject - cults don't have heretics, therefore the Freezone doesn't exist! You haven't reached the Ron's Org article yet I assume - it was originally written by a Rons Orger, is highly doctrinally POV, but can't be properly corrected without a debate.
--Hartley Patterson 22:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Sounds good, even individual citations in the <ref></ref> formatting would make the article look a little bit better. Smee 22:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Thanks

Hi, Thanks for your helpful information.--Ftord1960 00:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • No worries. Smee 00:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Informal Mediation

I have been informed you may be interested in this mediation case involving Steven Hassan. Please join us for discussion if you are interested in participating. Thank you. Vassyana 14:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the notification, I'll check this out soon when I get a chance. Smee 18:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC).
It seems like this case has resolved itself. If this changes, please do not hesitate to contact me on my talk page so we can mediate to avoid dispute. Vassyana 07:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for keeping me updated on this. And thank you yet again for dutifully providing an impartial voice to the fray... Smee 07:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Trapped in the Closet

I'm a bit puzzled right now on how this image has a direct connection to the episode, besides its relation to Scientology, and in which section should I add it. Or do you propose creating a new one devoted to the two articles? Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

That might be a good idea, seeing as how I have found, including those 2 citations, at least 5 or so reputable secondary sourced citations covering/reviewing the March 2007 DVD release on the Ninth Season... I'll work on it later, and then we can see about adding the image after the section is created... Smee 21:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC).
I've went ahead and added them. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
What, the image, which I saw? Or the recent articles/citations, or both? Smee 15:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC).
The image and the recordonline article. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I just put the citation to the actual Rolling Stone article itself there so readers could easily find what the article is referring to... Smee 15:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC).
Citation are supposed to confirm the information, which is already done in this case by the second citation. If you want to add a link to the actual article please add a note. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think that would be useful, but I am not yet good at the "note" formatting... I also think it would be useful to add a bit more material from that Record Online citation.... Smee 15:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC).
On a different thought the image seems to be sufficient. Michaelas10 (Talk) 16:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean, how so? Smee 16:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC).
It is preferable that external links would only be used in the references and external links sections, neither of which this fits. Besides, the purpose of the section is to discuss the picture, and adding a link of the article would be irrelevant. Michaelas10 (Talk) 16:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay, sounds good. Smee 16:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 10 March 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of groups referred to as cults in government reports, 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

Thanks for the heads-up. I must've missed it.-- Carabinieri 08:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

No worries mate. Smee 14:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Sorry, but...

... I find your GA review, to be a bit disingenuous, if not biased. I have stated my objection at Wikipedia:Good_article_candidates. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It is interesting that you have used the word "biased", for it could also be said that the article itself is "biased", as well as the major contributors to it. Let us see how the process plays itself out. Smee 23:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC).
Sure. Let's do that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I am biased, that is why I do not review that article, or other articles that I have been involved with. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Jossi, I must admit aside from your allegations of "disingenuous" and "biased", which are a bit interesting... So far this back and forth has been quite polite/congenial, and I just wanted to say that I appreciate that. Smee 23:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC).
I responded to what I believed was a disingenuous move by yourself. If that was not the case, please accept my sincere apologies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Honestly - I really tried to utilize the Wikipedia:Good Article criteria in order to evaluate, and tried to stick stringently to that. Honestly, I am a bit hurt by the usage of "disingenuous" and "biased", but I'll let that pass, considering holding all else constant, it is a pleasure to be able to interact with you politely and congenially on this... 23:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC).
Sure, no problems. Just note that a lot hangs on GA article reviews, that is why we do not review articles about which we have an early opinion based on us editing these articles. When participating in GA reviews, best is to review these which do not have neither an opinion, nor a previous involvement with. Take care. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] article review

Thank you for your kind comment on my talk page. It is sincerely appreciated. Vassyana 15:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

No worries mate. Smee 15:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] AFD template

The template you put up on the AfD page for Barbara Schwarz goes to an inactive page. Will you please remove it in good faith? There is no way of ever knowing how representative a sample of Wikipedians are responding to an AfD with or without obvious, dubious or downright secret canvassing. I'm sure this is why it goes to an inactive page and is preserved for historical purposes only. Thanks.PelleSmith 22:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Your subject heading to this very discussion posting leads me to believe that this posting was not put on my page with the assumption of good faith. Smee 00:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Template

Hi there, thank you very much for your kind comments about the SSB template. As part of the cleanup, I have nominated the old and redundant template for deletion here. Perhaps you may like to register your vote/comment there. Thanks, Ekantik talk 03:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You are most welcome. And comment provided. Thinking of it, I may be so bold as to solicit your skilled help on some other related template-creation/formatting in the near future... Smee 03:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC).
Whoops, I am not an expert! :) I basically modified an existing template to make it relevant for SSB so I basically learnt it the easy way! But feel free to ask if necessary, it'll give me an opportunity to learn something new. Ekantik talk 03:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I almost forgot about this where I have submitted a category for renaming. You may like to vote/comment there too. Regards, Ekantik talk 03:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. And I see that your template may be easy to copy and edit for other uses, I may yet do so and let you know at a later date... Smee 03:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Hi again, I can hardly believe it but there appears to be a potential dispute regarding the template. You may like to submit your views at the talk-page. Unfortunately there doesn't appear to be some sort of Manual of Style that we can consult, but I've asked around for some input on the matter here. Just letting you know. Regards, Ekantik talk 16:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. It's not on my watchlist so let me know if anything substantial happens over there please, thank you... Smee 17:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Many thanks for the cuppa, much needed and appreciated! :-) Ekantik talk 01:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No worries mate. Smee 02:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Schwarz v. xxxx

I applaud your efforts expand upon the agencies she's sued, but that's gonna be "a heap of work". Are you up for that? Besides the CIA, NSA, various branches and the hq of the FBI, there are the DOE, DOE:WIPP, NCUA, DHHS (health and human services), Dept of the Army, Dept of the Navy, Attorny Generals from Utah/Iowa/Rhode Island/NJ/NY... it goes on and on. I can help you out, or were you just mentioning a few more? (The list itself shows notability in my book and is why I've stuck around so long. As sorry as I feel for Ms. Schwarz, I feel worse for some poor Army Lieutenant or Navy Ensign being sued because they can't find the information she thinks they have. In the military soldiers are assigned posts, it's not like these two people WANTED to join up and be FOIA officers. I also feel sorry for civilians, but having worked in a customer service job before I understand there is a certain "risk" one is assuming when dealing with the public. Also please don't think I'm saying that these people should have "revenge" on her, because that too would be wrong. I just think people should understand that Ms. Schwarz is not the only person to have suffered a negative impact as a result of her actions). Anynobody 07:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the interest/acknowledgement. I was just popping by and adding a couple of citations. If I have a chance I'll add some more, if I can find them. The court cases are more notable if they were heard by an Appellate Court as well... And of course, though I was able to find that one other Reputable Secondary Sourced Citation, more citations from secondary sources would help... Smee 07:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC).


[edit] Thank you

Hi Smee, thank you for the Barnstar. It's my first! Kind regards, Orsini 02:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You are most welcome. Wear it well... Yours, Smee 02:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] LIS portal

Hey Smee, thanks for pointing out that issue. From my experience with the Visual arts portal, that's an IE display issue. I had to do some rearranging, but I think I fixed the column shove-down issue that you experienced. Thanks for taking a look! Planetneutral talk 10:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No worries. Smee 16:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Informal Mediation

At the request of John196920022001 (talk • contribs), the case has been reopened. Please join us at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-06 Steven Alan Hassan. Vassyana 12:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification in this matter. I will check it out when I get a chance. From my experiences you have been a good mediator/impartial party in the past... Smee 16:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 13 March 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Scieno Sitter, 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 13:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Scwartzbarbaratribune.jpg

I put a fair use disputed tag on the image you put on the article Barbara Schwarz. Don't get me wrong - I think an image would add nicely to the article, but that particular image doesn't have enough of a fair use reasoning behind it. There are a coupla things that could be done - You could add a "Fair Use Rationale" subsection to the image description page, with about 4 or more "points" as to your fair use reasoning, or even better, attempt to contact The Salt Lake Tribune, and see if they will give permission for the image to be used on a non-profit encyclopedia with attribution given - for education non-commercial purposes only ... Let me know what you think. Yours, Smee 00:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

hi, I'll reply on the Schwarz talk page to everyone. I didn't realize we weren't linking to the mirror SLT article so will DB self the image for now, and mail SLT for an OK. if they give it, I'll reupload the image then with an email authorization from them. thanks! - Denny 01:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Commons Ambassador Barnstar

Hi Smee: Many many thanks for the Barnstar! I have added it prominently to my user page. Damn, I love Wikipedia! Happy Editing! -- Chris 73 | Talk 02:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You are most welcome. Happy editing! Smee 03:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Notice

ANI, you know the way --Justanother 05:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Informal meditation

Regarding the mediation case involving Steven Hassan, I have created subpages of the disputed section for each side to work on. Please check out the case page. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. Vassyana 18:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Thank you again for your efforts. I will check it out when I get a chance, though Tilman is more familiar with the esoterics... Smee 22:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] My welcome

Thanks for welcoming me. 82.32.238.139 22:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

  • You are most welcome! I would highly encourage you to create a user page and register as a user with an account/screenname. Yours, Smee 22:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

Just out of interest, why? I'm not interested in creating articles (no aptitude), just like reading in general, DYK in particular (how I found you) and doing little copyedits -- changing style (apostrophe misuse being a bugbear of mine), rather than content -- altho I do add the country when people forget it's an international encyclopaedia. What would I gain by having a username? It's extra faffing about to log in and I rarely get into 'conversations'. Convince me! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.32.238.139 (talk • contribs).

  • Oh, I don't know, lots of different reasons, you can create pages, which is my most fun thing to do at the moment... Cheers! P.S. You can "sign" your comments with four tildes: ~~~~ Yours, Smee 22:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

Well, if I get the urge to make a page I shall follow your advice, dear Smee. But until then (ie, I rather suspect, never) I'll just keep on as I am. Forgot the tildes second time around (and I never knew those squiggles were called tildes til I came to Wikiworld). Best regards 82.32.238.139 23:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

That was very generous of you. Thank you very much! :) Ekantik talk 01:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • No worries. Smee 03:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Thank you very much for the barnstar you gave me. It means a lot and is special to me because this is the first Barnstar I have received for actual work with placing images on Commons (as opposed to just helping create the award). Thanks again for your support. Best, Johntex\talk 16:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You are most welcome! Smee 16:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Barnstar thanks

Thanks for the barnstar! I didn't know this one existed. :) howcheng {chat} 20:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • You are most welcome! I saw your great contributions at the Commons and felt you deserved it... Smee 20:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Bridge/Justanother dispute

Hi. I see where Justanother is hoping a disinterested third party might help resolve what I guess is something of an ongoing revert war between you guys. Thought I'd check with you and get your side of the story, and maybe I can broker an agreement, if you're interested. As I get it from him, you have a tendency to put something in the Scientology articles that he finds overtly POV-laden, he takes it out, you put it back in unless some other folks show up to endorse his concerns. He feels disrespected, and that you ought to allow the dispute to be addressed on the article talk page rather than just re-inserting the stuff he objects to. The only specifc case I'm aware of is with that "dedication" line from the Bridge, which currently sits in the intro paragraph. I have to say, that line seems to have a degree of weight there that is not warranted by it's importance to the article. So, it seems to me his request to pull that for comments is a reasonable one (I'd probably move that dedication line to the synopsis, if we keep it in the article). But I don't know whether his other requests are similarly reasonable, or whether there's something important that his version of the dispute (that I've summarized above) leaves out. Would you be kind enough to fill me in? By the way, I'm not a Scientologist or any sort of "ringer" for Justanother. BTfromLA 01:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Thank you for reaching out. The issue of the dedication has been resolved, please see the RFC on the talk page and look through the article's history. Smee 03:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC).
    • The dedication issue was just the example, not the issue-am I wrong in understanding that there is an ongoing conflict between the two of you? If you want me to butt out, I will, but if there's a chance that some agreement could be reached without RfC's and such, it'd save a lot of time and aggravation. BTfromLA 05:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Indeed it would, indeed it would. And I am appreciative of your attempt at interventions, don't get me wrong. But after repeated impoliteness from this user, and a good suggestion from another Administator not to have him post to my talk page, I think it is best to simply try to focus on content, not the contributor while on the talk pages, and just not to interact with the abusive user that much until/if/when the behaviour improves. Thank you for your time. Smee 05:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Bridge on IMDB

IMDB does not list the Scientomology.com website any longer. ju66l3r 00:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Thank you for notifying me of this most peculiar and amusingly interestingly-timed development... Smee 03:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
    • No problem. For the record, it wasn't me (and honestly, I don't care too much one way or the other)...but, for future reference, it does go a good distance to pointing out how unreliable IMDB is for attribution. ju66l3r 05:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Perhaps, perhaps not. However, it would be interesting to find out more information about the timing of all this at some point... Smee 05:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
        • I don't know if this helps but I was trying to watch the film again at the weekend for Xenu day. I clicked the link in the article and it said the film was not available to watch there. I had to download it elsewhere.Merkinsmum 14:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I would love to see the IMDB changelog for that page with IP addresses. ;) AndroidCat 15:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Indeed, indeed... Smee 15:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] john's complaints

Weren't about what was on Tilman's talk page, but rather the exchange here. Cheers! Vassyana 17:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Thank you. Smee 17:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Homosexuality and Scientology

Since you tagged that article as top priority for the Scientology project, you might like to comment in the notability thread currently going on on its talk page. (There is one person who keeps tagging it with the notability tag and arguing that it should be deleted as well as some of the other articles in the "homosexuality and ..." series.) [Also, thanks for inviting me to the Scientology project page!] Aleta 04:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

  • You are most welcome, and thank you for the heads up. Welcome to the project! Yours, Smee 04:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] My Talk Page

Do not come to my talk page to continue your fight with Justanother. Do not follow the user around wikipedia to begin fights, it is disruption and your fights have already taken up large amounts of space on AN/I. I suggest you avoid the user because if you follow him around to start fights as you did on my talk page I will enforce policy. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 04:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for this. I will follow your suggestion and attempt to avoid the user. Thank you for your time. Yours, Smee 04:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC).
I must also point out that in most cases there is no "following" the user around, but simply the fact that we have many of the same pages on watchlists. I will, however, do my best to avoid the user, as stated above. Thank you. Smee 05:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Your hard work

Barnstar of Diligence

The Barnstar of Diligence
For the diligent effort you have shown in improving, and defending the Barbara Schwarz article I feel you've earned this recognition. Anynobody 05:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much! Yours, Smee 05:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Did I err?

LOL Groo reference. Quite chaotic and good. ClaudeReigns 15:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I am not sure to what you are referring, I will check it out momentarily... Welcome to Wikipedia! Yours, Smee 15:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC).
    • Sweet! I'll have to check that out soon... Smee 15:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC).
I told everyone you eat boogers. Sorry. ClaudeReigns 04:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I do not understand? Smee 04:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC).
    • Click me ClaudeReigns 04:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    • BTW, your edits rock my jock. Everything looks really nice. ClaudeReigns 04:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I left you a message on your page. Please remove the reference to me on your User page, I do not fully understand what you are trying to do here, but your user page is highly inappropriate. Thanks. Smee 04:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC).
        • I have modified the joke on my user page to reflect that you in no way eat boogers. My apologies. ClaudeReigns 04:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Ha ha, okay, thanks! Smee 05:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Are you comfortable with Community Action?

With the end of the AfD on our favorite article, Orsini and I are going to start up another RfC on Justanother's behavior. A non involved admin thought your attempts at conflict resolution were good enough before to approve the first RfC, no offense to Bishonen. Remember it was the improper action on the part of JA that stopped it, not an uninvolved party saying we shouldn't have set it up. I won't insult your intelligence by saying nobody will perceive you to be in a battle with him, because some probably will at first (I'm sure some will think the same about me). Honestly, your actions are EASILY defendable when one starts from the beginning of this mess, and your experiences with him span several articles whereas I can only say I dealt with him on one (not including noticeboards of course). I'd also like the opportunity to call him to task on his rather odd claim that YOU are the WP:DE, and if you don't participate I can't. Anynobody 06:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I will participate, however I will not be the primary driving force behind the RFC, so to speak. I am trying to avoid the user in general, however specific to an RFC - I will participate, for this would be constructive. Thanks for your time. Yours, Smee 17:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] DYK medal

Thanks a lot for your recognition, Smee.-- Carabinieri 20:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

  • You are most welcome, you certainly deserve it for all the hard work you have done and continue to do. Smee 20:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Thanks for the Tips

Thanks for the tips. I'm new to editing Wikipedia. I'll be sure to specify why I deleted sentences in the future in the "Edit Summary" box you mentioned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roccoconon (talk • contribs) 17:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

  • This is obvious vandalism and you have been reported. Smee 17:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC).
    • And you are not new to Wikipedia, you have been editing here since October 2006. You should know better than to blatantly and summarily remove highly sourced content from articles, especially contentious articles. Smee 17:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Tilman Hausherr

A few days ago you said that you had removed Tilman Hausherr from your watch list. I wish you'd reconsider this :-) Generally, your edits anywhere have been very useful. Actually, I've never been disappointed by you ever. Even one editor whom I shall not name, who is very skilled with language and writes in "scholarly" quality, has disappointed me in maybe 1% of his edits. So you have a "perfect record" when it comes to me. --Tilman 19:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

  • (I will respond here.) Many many thanks, your compliments are most highly appreciated! However, I must decline, at least temporarily, in order to avoid being bull-baited by other editors for the time being. However, if something major goes down over there, I would appreciate being apprised of the situation, either by yourself or another involved editor. I'll probably put it back on my watchlist at a later date. Smee 19:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC).
    • I changed my mind, I agree with you that this merge idea is a revenge/harassment tactic and is highly inappropriate. In order to garner more feedback, I have listed the article Tilman Hausherr for a 3rd AFD. Smee 07:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 20 March 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Noah Lottick, 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.

You get one for your collection too (I'm just late doing the deliveries here). --howcheng {chat} 03:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, and thank you for the nom help! Most appreciated. Yours, Smee 03:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Edits to est article

You changed my edit to the box on the est article, putting back fields for operating income, products, etc. As I explained in my edit summary, I do not think it makes any sense to leave these fields there since est is not a functioning organization. It's not like the entry on Carnegie Steel includes operating income, profit, etc. These number make no sense for defunct companies. If you want to mention in the body of the article that est made X in revenue in a certain year, that's fine, but what is the point of having operating income, revenue, etc. in a summary box of a defunct company?

Furthermore, your reversal of my edit does not seem like a "Minor edit" to me. It may have seemed benign to you, but as it changed the content of the article and was not just a grammatical or formatting change, I do not think it classifies (see Help:Minor Edit). Roccoconon 18:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Point taken, sorry, I won't classify it as a minor edit anymore. But as the fields do not show up in the infobox itself, I see no point in removing them. Information can always be re-added later.. Smee 18:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/m/e/User_talk%7ESmee_Archive_Archive-Mar2007_ce5e.html"