User talk:Athene cunicularia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Overboard

I think going and calling "bad reference code" over at Fox News Channel is a little much... it's nothing more than a missing url= tag, and functionality is the same. Please go easy on the removal of descriptions or information, or claims of "bad coding" :) thanks /Blaxthos 17:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I came off as overly sensitive -- the Fox News Channel article has always been a serious flame and vandal target, and I was a little confused regarding the removal of information from the citations that had no error at all -- it's one thing to add "url=", it's quite another to remove descriptions from working citations. It's been no easy task keeping the trolls off of FNC article, and I'm sure my WP:AGF reserve is lower than it should be. No hard feelings?  :-) /Blaxthos 19:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Off-road vehicles

The new edit is much better. Thank you. -- I already forgot  talk  16:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I made a proposal it starts a paragraph above Talk:Off-road_vehicle#Build_a_criticism_section. Please come take a look and see what you think. Jeepday (talk) 03:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a desire to participate in writing a criticism section for Off-road_vehicle? Jeepday (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
If your question is do I (Jeepday), make significant contributions to Wikipedia, look at Road and it's history. If your question is will you and I have different perspectives, I am pretty sure we agree in advance that will be true :) Hopefully I have outlined a process that will minimize the stress, in Place to discuss the steps and process I put an area to fine tune and reach agreement on what we are going to do before we actually start writting.
If your question is what body of work do I expect major participants (you and I, and who ever) to contribute. I expect at step 3, 4 and 5 we will each have an even division of labor on researching and writing about the subjects we select (maybe each will write 2 or something). I also expect that step 6 is going to be the hardest, but that can be minimized if we do a good job on step 1. I would expect that you I are probably pretty far apart on POV but I think as long as all participants are committed to working equally towards a WP:NPOV body of work and we do our best to assume good faith it should be fine. Jeepday (talk) 23:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have a paragraph posted at Talk:Off-road_vehicle#Place_to_work_on_the_paragraphs and a discussion about vandalism at Talk:Off-road_vehicle#Jeepday_paragraph_on_Illegal_activities_of_ORV.27s take a look and let me know what you think. Jeepday (talk) 13:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

How is it going? Jeepday (talk) 02:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

I found this one http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9989&page=6 while looking for my stuff. Seems like a pretty strong reference, that talks to fuel consumption and such. Jeepday (talk) 04:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "punctuation always goes inside quotes"

I provided a Government Printing Office cite on my reversion of your edit with the above explanation at UCS since the Chicago Manual of Style site wasn't opening, but ran into a link to the Wikipedia MOS shortly after, so can now point to WP:PUNC (note the very first sentence) for examples of punctuation not migrating into quotes. You had me questioning my understanding for a sec, but... Andyvphil 08:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scott Thomas (disambiguation)

Thank you for your good-faith edit to the Scott Thomas disambiguation page. I have reverted your edit for a couple of reasons:

1. It has been incontrovertibly proven that Beauchamp fabricated his stories.
2. Per WP:MoS (disamb), the description associated with a link should be sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link.
3. Per WP:MoS (disamb), articles should not be pipe linked. Since there is no biography article for Scott Thomas Beauchamp (and since he is only notable for one incident, there should not be), the link redirects to Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy. When there are exceptions to piped links, they should be explained. The article is about the fabrication controversy, not the controversial articles themselves--hence, noting that he fabricated the stories will lead the reader to identify the Scott Thomas Beauchamp Controversy.

In order to maintain a neutral point of view, the article could be tagged {{NPOV}} and other editors could comment. In the meantime, we should refrain from editing it further unless someone can come up with a more neutral way to mention that he fabricated the stories in a sentence fragment.

Thanks. MrPrada 22:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Speedy deletion of Scott Horton (lawyer)

A tag has been placed on Scott Horton (lawyer) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —Jonathan | Quality, not quantity. 00:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Big reverts by IP

Hi. I wanted to thank you for this restoration of a revert. I feel like this IP users is following me around reverting anything I write which he personally disagrees with.

Would you like to take a look at this reversion too? I would appreciate it. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I did not make it clear about the "reversion" thing. I mistakenly assumed you had read the IP's Dec. 3 edit comment, "Reverting quite biased recent changes by Ed Poor. We're not going to have the Hoover Institute defining what constitutes this topic and article."

I probably should have made it clear that it was my extensive changes to the article - rather than the longstanding prevision version - that I was asking you to review.

Please accept my apologies for confusing you and wasting your time.

I will butt out now, except to make comments on the talk page. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring discouraged

You might not know it, Athene, but there is a Wikipedia:3RR which forbids multiple reverts of the same article in quick succession. You don't want to run afoul of this policy. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Politicization of science

Hi, sorry for any misunderstanding on my part of your intentions there, and for linking you so directly to Ed in my comments. I feel that you were trying to improve the article, but weren't aware of the conflicts or of Ed's rather tempestuous history. Ed has been around for a long time and is known for persistence in subtly pushing his conservative pov. Several editors, such as the anon., have tired of it. Anyway, I hope we can work together to improve the article after it is unlocked and again, I appreciate your good faith efforts there. Vsmith (talk) 03:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello Athene. I don't know what you mean when you say that you were "tricked". I've looked over the matter and it looks to me like both versions of the article have merit and it may make sense to incorporate them together. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your complaint about User:Steve Dufour's COI

Hello Athene. This COI item, which you opened on 11 December, appears to be winding down without much further discussion. Periodically I try to go through the noticeboard to see whether the various issues seem to be resolved, or if there is more to do. I really can't figure out what to do in this case. Your original complaint was a touch vague about what Dufour had actually done:

His m.o. seems to be to slowly remove information in an effort to prevent the appearance of controversy, or reduce notability, in an effort ultimately delete sections or articles. It is more difficult with a larger article like Insight, but much easier for a stub like Kuhner's.

Can you give an opinion whether the responses in this thread were of any use? If you wanted Steve to recuse from these articles, he seems not to have done that. Do you have a preferred draft of any of these articles to offer as an alternative to what's there now? Either respond here if you will, or add a further comment at WP:COIN. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to voice the strongest possible support for Athene's complaint. The combination of COI and tendentious editing among a small cabal of Unification Church members has NOT in any way been mitigated over time, and is rampant across virtually all Unification Church related articles, especially the Unification Church media properties. The effect is pervasive and pernicious. I will comment in greater detail, and Athene...let me know how I can help. WNDL42 (talk) 23:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] January 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Nuclear Information and Resource Service. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. I think you probably removed this template by mistake - but please just take special care as AfD templates should not be removed except by the administrator who closes the debate --VS talk 10:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, this was unintentional. I had reverted to an earlier edit and accidentally removed the notice.Athene cunicularia (talk) 17:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes I expected that to be the case. No problems everyone makes accidental mistakes. --VS talk 20:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Insight magazine

Athene, can you get the Insight magazine "frozen" long enough to get the issues hammered out? The politico's actions are reinforced by the UC member's occasional "chime in" that presents the illusion of a "consensus" unless there are equally comitted editors "riding" all of the UC related articles. The latest round of edits turned the thing back into a virtual "parroting" of the Insight speculations, with a few "alleged's" thrown in for techincal merit points.

Anyway, can the thing be "locked down" in a reasonable state somehow?

Thanks, WNDL42 (talk) 23:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Athene, thanks for responding on my talk page, sorry to see you drop the topic, calmer heads usually prevail in the end, but in the short term, life's to short...and I understand fully.
FYI, things seem a little calmer now but the political sensitivities remain high. Hope you'll check in from time to time. WNDL42 (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Athene, I support your recent re-addition of the "smear" aspects to the page at Jeffrey T. Kuhner. I hope you do understand that my reason for removing it was in hopes of avoiding an edit war over this controversial subject. I wanted to make sure my intentions are clear...I do not wish to mitigate or soften the impact of what are clearly seen as Kuhner's journalistic abuses, but as the article is a BLP wrt Kuhner, I hoped to "short circuit" any possible complaints from the subject regarding the portrayal of the incident. Again, I do not object to your edit, just wanted to clarify my intentions. Thanks, and I do enjoy working these topics with you!!! WNDL42 (talk) 20:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rollback

You have been cunicularia granted with the rollback permission on the basis of your recent effort on dealing with vandalism. The rollback is a revert tool which can lessens the strains that normal javascripts such as twinkle put on the Wikipedia servers. You will find that you will revert faster through the rollback than through the normal reversion tools such as javascripts and the undo feature, which means that you could save time especially when reverting very large articles such as the George W. Bush page. To use it, simply click the link which should look like [rollback] (which should appear unbloded if you have twinkle installed) on the lastest diff page. The rollback link will also appear on the history page beside the edit summary of the lastest edit. For more information, you may refer to this page, alternatively, you may also find this tutorial on rollback helpful. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Politicization of science‎

Hi there. I noticed you have contributed to politicization of science article, when you have time could you drop by to the Talk page to see my proposal for a NPOV leading paragraph and contribute to that discussion. Thanks. Mariordo (talk) 02:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)