User talk:Isotope23/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17

Contents 1 Interlock research and Lateral communication 2 Ivana Miličević 3 Robert Young Pelton 4 Lumbee RfC 5 Articles - IRG, Relevance Paradox etc. 6 Ping 7 the philosophers discussion 8 Sweetest Day 8.1 Ha! 8.2 Chips 9 will you ever stop vandalising body count? 10 Lakeport Brewing Company 11 resubmission of AfD 12 i still dont agree... 13 AFD 14 Marjorie Wee 15 Gtapro91 16 Eleazar: 17 Move 18 My RfA 19 Balmoral school afd 20 Thank you and to answer you 21 Ooooops 22 Nazarene Prophecy 23 This edit 24 Norton 25 Nikhil Parekh 26 Table of books of Judeo-Christian Scripture 27 Ultra Grand Am 28 RfA thanks! 29 Shiny new buttons 30 From one proud member of the candy cartel to another 31 Masts for deletion 32 Ray Sherwin 33 RE:Uncle Mart and sockpuppets 34 user:kronecker 35 Whip Jones 36 Jeff Rosenbaum 37 Murchison 38 Verifiability Discussion 39 WP:RFCU 40 BTW 41 Speedy Deletion 42 Honda S2000 43 Barrett v. Rosenthal 44 Removing Warnings 45 Why for not? 46 Barrett v. Rosenthal 47 Adminship 48 Thanks 49 Truce? 50 Your RfA 51 Charles C. Poindexter 52 Thanks 53 Section break

[edit] Interlock research and Lateral communication

Iso, I wanted to add Interlock research and Lateral communication to the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bioteams AfD, but am unsure on how to do it. Can you direct me on how to do so?--Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 18:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Damn, you beat me to adding that comment to the AfD! Great minds think alike hum? --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 18:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi - I've now added some verification - will this bring the article up to standard?

If not could you tell me what is wrong with it?

kind regards

Dave Andrews

References:

1. "Beyond Mass Media" Brian Martin. Science, Technology and Society University of Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia. General discussion of the IRG concept(http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/95metro.html).

2. The Power Of Open Participatory Media And Why Mass Media Must Be Abandoned. Brian Martin, March 20, 2006. General discussion of the IRG concept http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2006/03/20/the_power_of_open_participatory.htm

3. The IRG Solution - Hierarchical Incompetence and how to overcome it. David Andrews. Souvenir Press, London, 1984. Pages 200 - 220. isbn 0285 626620. Detailed description of the proposal, hampered by the then general lack of awareness of the coming inter connectedness, and ubiquity of personal computers.

4. The Hidden Manager Communication technology and information networks in business organizations. Taylor Graham Cambridge / Los Angeles,1986. David Andrews and John Kent. Much tighter description of IRG concept and its application to business management. ISBN 0 947568 15 8 1986

5. Niss, M. (1994) Mathematics in Society. In Biehler, R., Scholz, R. W., Straesser, R., Winkelmann, B. Eds. (1994) The Didactics of Mathematics as a Scientific Discipline. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 367-378. Relevance paradox

6. Energy Research Group, Open University. Communication Within the Agriculture, Water, Waste and Energy Industries. Discussed examples of how the industries mentioned can be integrated to a greater or lesser degree, leading to lower pollution and energy use. Emphasizes problem is lack of co-ordination and communication. DC Andrews. ERG 033. Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, England 1980. David Andrews

6. "The Importance of Knowing the Right People" (Article on Lateral Access Networks - the forerunner of Information Routing Groups. Printed in the Guardian Newspaper, London (The National Newspaper) March 20th 1980.

8. Energy Research Group, Open University . Information Routing Groups. Discussed the need for IRGs and how they might be organized. DC Andrews. ERG 037. Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, England 1980. David Andrews

9. Yewlett, J . L . Town Planning, Wales, Institute. of Science & Technology . "Networks : Developments in theory & practice" . The paper reviews developments in the U .S .A. & U .K . in recent years, progressing beyond network analysis to explore the structure & use of networks. The paper seeks to address questions of how to construct multi-actor policy structures, & build networks for particular purposes. Contributory concepts explored included the 'Reticulist', the 'Leader/Co- ordinator', the 'Segmented Polycephalous Network' & the 'Information Routing Group'

10. Shan Wells

[edit] Ivana Miličević

Well, I did revert his edits a few times, but now that I see his arguments, it looks to me that he is right. --Ante Perkovic 21:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

HOpe this is the right place to reach "Isotope"

[edit] Robert Young Pelton

I did a pretty big edit to the Robert Young Pelton and before you go and revert it, I want to explain what I did and why I did it. The changes I made were in the interest of making this article conform to the general look and feel of the other biographies of living persons we have here on Wikipedia. First off, I took out the book reviews section. I have no objection to one review of your current work being there, but having review after review is not generally allowed on biographical articles and runs counter to the WP:VAIN guidelines. While I was add it I removed the (vandalism?) about your moustache and some of the personal info about the "The Black Flag Cafe". I'd like to see some citations for the 2 quotes I left in (and tagged it as such). If they are online and you send me the URLs, I will fix it up. Secondly, I removed the links from the Bibliography because linking every book you have to it's Amazon.com listing is going to be seen as an attempt to use Wikipedia for your own marketing purposes and is generally frowned upon. I also removed a vast majority of the external links section. Again, if you look at other contemporary articles on writers and jounalists, most have a handful of links. I rather arbitrarily picked the links I left on there, but if you have 5-6 external links that support the statements in the article, it would be fine to include them. Linking to a huge number of your works is not in line with the general practice here and again, might be seen as a misuse of Wikipedia's resources. Please don't take any of this personally... I don't know you, nor am I in any way affiliated with the other user you appear to be having some sort of issue with. My only interest is making sure this article is verifiable, is not an advertisement, and conforms to accepted style and content guidelines. This is not in any way related to the Articles for Deletion discussion that is currently going on (other than the fact that I became aware of this article because it is on AfD... I have not participated in the discussion there). If I wanted this article deleted, I wouldn't be taking the time to edit it. If you have any questions, feel free to post them on my user page. Regards,--Isotope23 19:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello "Isotope"

First of all thanks for stepping in and stopping the kids from throwing rocks... The reason all three flags came up (Delete, Bias etc) is because of a single individual who used to post on my web forum. Its sad but one person can task dozens of people just to get back to where things started.

Typically authors do have their published works and profiles (living or dead) along with a photograph and perhaps some commentary. The quote by Tim Cahill is clearly seen on the front cover of my book 'Three Worlds Gone Mad" and you are welcome to contact Tim Cahill directly if you want (Please contact me directly for his personal email) I don't know of any online source. Secondly the Time Magazine article is from November 3, 2003 edition.

As for the number of links, I noticed that when my listing appeared it was continually changed, expanded, changed, vandalized, changed etc... so I felt the healthiest thing was to simply let my work and articles other people have written about me be the most accurate source. You mention you want cites...I could send you the latest Lexis Nexis which has over a thousand articles, transcripts, reviews, profiles etc etc..but even I would have a hard time...But if you want it tell me where to post it to provide backup. For now my web site contains over 4000 pages of free information designed to keep people safe when they work or travel in high risk areas. It is derived from a best selling book that has been updated for over a decade. I think that alone merits an effort to stop arbitrary posting and wasted time.

Finally is nothing for sale as far as I could see, I used the links to Amazon because they have cover photos, reviews and editorial information. Yes if they buy a new book I would recieve a royalty but I also know that they sell plenty of used books at deeply discounted prices that I get no benefit from.

All the links I supplied go to other peoples web sites who have ads, products etc. So you might want to rethink how content is provided. If anything they benefit from the traffic not me.

In closing I would ask you to reconsider deleting the columns from Nat Geo, the online articles and other links because if one person travels safer or is wiser for it then I have done something good. I don't see any reason to restrict ground truth and free information in the WIkipedia format. If you have any further questions or need more info please contact me directly.

RYP

[edit] Lumbee RfC

Hey Isotope, I started an RfC for the Lumbee article, which I know you have edited. Your input would be appreciated.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles - IRG, Relevance Paradox etc.

Isotpope 23 - thanks for your helpful comments. In fact I have been going through the references and tweaking them in detail. I had lost some of them and am recreating them. I should have them all by the beginning of next week, and I will adjust the list to be more specific and adress each point.

I will take your good advice and go over the aricles to make them more accessible....

Thanks for your help.

Engineman.....

[edit] Ping

You may want to see User_talk:Isotope23/Notability:Buildings. Friday (talk) 16:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the philosophers discussion

please tell me then where i should put my information about the philosophers, because a section on the goings on at the school itself, should be there, otherwise what is the point of there even being a page on onslow college, if students can't put their input onto the goings on at onslow college. anyway how can you varify that my information is wrong, you don't know onslow college, i do, therefore i think i have a better idea of onslow college then you.ugh i hate wikipedia now, with wikipedias stupid stance on what makes an article. this is my opinion, i don't care if its an "attack" because i am allowed to state my feelings on the goings on at wikipedia, i feel its standards are poor, and needs to be reassessed.... Bassist girl

[edit] Sweetest Day

You said: "and for the record, I think Sweetest Day is the bloody stupidest "holiday" I've ever seen." And for the record, I agree with you although it does make me a few extra bucks come October even if I don't celebrate it. $-) Dismas|^(talk) 14:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ha!

So you're the industry insider...  :) I'm in IT, the only effect this would have on me is if my significant other wanted to celebrate it and thankfully, she has the same view of it as I do.

Miracleimpulse created a POV fork at The Sweetest Day Hoax because apparently he/she was not happy with the "constructive editing" that was happening at Sweetest Day. Once this all gets sorted out, I have no objection to adding back the image gallery, just resized a bit smaller. I just wish the image names were a bit more NPOV... The problem here is that there are several different versions of the inception of this holiday ranging from start dates of 1910 or 1920 to who actually started it. I'd like to have an article that accurately and neutrally discusses the murky beginnings of the "holiday" without advancing any POV or agenda. Hopefully this can happen once the furor dies down.--Isotope23 14:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. A well sourced article may even make it to featured status, I dare say. And actually, you and I are both in IT. I probably make the chips that you deal with during your job. Dismas|^(talk) 14:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chips

Not AMD, IBM. Dismas|^(talk) 15:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

We make quite a few. Both here in Vermont and in New York as well. Those are the two facilities that I know of. See SiGe for example. Dismas|^(talk) 15:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] will you ever stop vandalising body count?

no text --80.134 00:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lakeport Brewing Company

FYI, someone removed your needs sources tag. But I'm confident you'll find its well sourced now. WilyD 17:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• I didn't really think you'd object, but it seemed like the friendly thing to do was give you a heads up - generic complaint tags are more dicey to remove if the issue isn't completely addressed, and I'm still unsatisfied I can't find a reference for Lakeport being the largest discount brewer, for example (but I do believe it to be true). WilyD 18:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] resubmission of AfD

Hi. Sure I get your point but this is somewhat of an exceptional case where there were only two votes based on the argument that "Executives of top-level professional sports teams are normally considered notable" which of course is fine except that the guy was never a top executive of a top-level professional sports team. The International Basketball Association was a short-lived very minor league. Pascal.Tesson 20:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] i still dont agree...

...but i decided to give in on the body count. "The cleverer give in", they say. --80.134 21:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AFD

I would like you to re-consider your vote on AFD for the Grand Cities Mall. There actually IS a something that sets this mall apart from hundreds of others. The mall was the first ever in the entire state of North Dakota. The article also cites its sources. Please consider changing your vote to keep. Weatherman90 20:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marjorie Wee

I noticed that you replied to my delete opinion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marjorie Wee. I replied further to avoid any accusations of sock or meat puppetry -- I highly doubt that TbT is the puppetmaster. I agree that some puppetry is/was going on at that article's AfD, but I'd appreciate any comments you might make in reply to/confirmation of mine on the AfD page to clarify your position (since puppetry accusations are quite serious). Thanks, Storkk 01:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gtapro91

In case you did not realize it, this user vandalized your userpage. I will report this to an administrator, 'cause this is just about his last straw. What a menace. ---Charles 01:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eleazar:

Out of curiosity, I took the removal of the text on that page (and its replacement with the message asking for it to be deleted) as something along the lines of the author requesting deletion, rather than vandalism. I'd be interested to know - if you've got the spare time - why you felt that it needed to remain there. Not that I'm accusing you of doing anything wrong, mind you, since I think we're 100% in agreement that the article doesn't need to be there. I'm just curious about a different course of action sort of thing. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 02:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move

Actually, you can't move an article over an existing article. Only over a redirect that points to the article being moved and has only a single edit. That's why I AfD'd Dakini. Should I speedy it instead so I can move the orginal article back? Ekajati (yakity-yak) 20:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

What you just did is not correct. Cut and paste moves are NEVER supposed to be done. It loses the edit history on the article. The bad article should be delete and the good article then moved. I will do it correctly. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 20:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

You should have left it alone. I had a good reason for AfD'ing it, to make it clear that the moving of the article and the new article was not according to consensus. But since you've interfered and done something you shouldn't have done that seriously complicates things, I will simply speedy it and be done with it. Please let AfDs run their course, whether you think the artcle should have been AfDed or not. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 20:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I've been a bad girl and simply closed the AfD with a note that it had been speedily deleted my an admin.... Ekajati (yakity-yak) 20:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Just wanted to send a quick note of thanks for your support in my RfA. :-) I really appreciate it! Best, Irongargoyle 03:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Shan Wells- This entry has already been sent to articles for deletion. Verification was provided and a consensus reached that the article mertited inclusion. Please desist with the vanity listing, and check the history, here reposted: 21:16, 1 October 2006 Glen S (Talk | contribs) (afd - keep)Shantroywells 04:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Balmoral school afd

Since you've been involved in the discussion there, you might be interested in this: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ForbiddenWord. Akradecki 21:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you and to answer you

In one of the discussions you are following you wrote, "thanks and please know that it is nothing personal...I hope regardless of what happens with these articles it doesn't sour you on involvement or use of the project."

I wanted to let you know that you & XP have been very likely the saving grace out of the whole process. There are a number frustrations with all of this. First, the original page has been up for over a year and to have to now encounter is frustrating. Second, I only decided to begin adding these after seeing other pages (what I thought were part of Wikipedia but have discovered that Wikias are seperate...sort of). Specifically one for Glenn Beck and one about Star Trek. The one for Star Trek was, to me, so incredibly helpful that I began updating the show page in the same manner...in the pursuit of comprehensiveness. Basically, if one was reading an article and could think "what/who is that" then there was a link to an article about that. I was only trying to expand the reference of Wikipedia.

I have read many, many discussions related to the policies, guidelines, essays, processes, etc. What has soured me the most is frequency of experienced people exercising rigidity, the disrespect from so many (e.g. Charlene), and the ease that people go after those who are obviously new. If anything, THAT is what I think should be more strongly policed.

This did not seem close to germane to any of the discussions and I did want to be frank with you about my view on the project. Also, I wanted to directly thank you for being a great example (I saw that users can be given nominations or awards but did not bookmark it...how can I do that for you?). Regardless of what happens with the articles I will likely not be involved much as a result of the discussions...at least for a while. My usage, well, that may change now that I realize Wikipedia is less about being comprehensive than I believed...which is what the beauty of the project was to me.

Again, thank you for you help, guidance and civility.

[edit] Ooooops

Ooooops! By the time I have read your message, I already have added another from the band members fro debate. Mistake again. - Aditya Kabir 19:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nazarene Prophecy

Got your message. I don't mind if it is deleted as long as links to it are removed from pages pointing to is so that there are no pages pointing to itself. I did not like the fact that Nazarene (sect) pointed to it and arrived back at itself, but did not want to offend anyone watching that article by deleting the reference. If you need votes for deletion I will happily add mine, youi are of course welcome to try again, but I don't think re-directing solves anything really. All the best.Budo 15:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This edit

Hi Isotope. Quick question re this edit here [1]. Since the subject of the article is a blogger, doesn't WP:EL allow a link to said blog? There is an entire category of blogger, and the blogs of same are routinely linked. That's my understanding but I wanted to run that point by you before reverting. --Mantanmoreland 09:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Norton

Good lord. Percy "Nobby" Norton is a real article with genuine, verifiable, reliable sources. I am stunned. DS 14:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nikhil Parekh

I have just placed this notice on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikhil Parekh page, and am bringing every voter's attention to it as promised.

Comment. Sigh. Despite the inevitable tirade that this will unleash, I am sorry to have to bring new information to the table. I have this morning received an email from Vijaya Ghose, editor of the Limca Book of Records. "Dear Mr (----), We have enlisted a couple of claims of Nikhil Parekh. Longest Poem is not one of them. He has formidable competition in John Milton's Paradise Lost and our own Mahabharata. However, he has written to many heads of state and has received replies but not from the head of state but the secretary or executive assistant. He is is the first from India to feature on Eppie. We checked with them. Regards Vijaya Ghose. So Parekh, though probably not notable as a poet, is indeed an Indian world record holder. I suspect that this changes the balance on his notability, though the article would still require a great deal of clear-up. I will notify everyone who took part in this vote and ask admins to extend debate a little. Sorry.

I don't know whether this changes your vote, but thought you should know. Vizjim 06:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Table of books of Judeo-Christian Scripture

If you really want to add information for the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria's canonical biblical books, all the information you need can be found at this website, English Bible - The Old Testament & The New Testament - Saint Takla Himanot Church - Alexandria - Egypt. I've been meaning to add a more general Oriental Orthodox canon to the page, but each of the sister churches are too different to make one. I would add this information myself, but I don't have the time as of late. Plus, be sure to read the Deuterocanonical Books link also. - Markio 17:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC) ^(Talk)

[edit] Ultra Grand Am

I share your suspicion. I reported his activity to an administrator (Merope) to whom I was already talking in regard to another matter. You may want to share your suspicion with her... or, I could do it. ---Charles 20:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

No need for apology. Glad we are on the same page, so to speak. ---Charles 20:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks!

My RfA done I hope to wield my mop well (Her name is Vera) I appreciate The support you have shown me (I hope I don't suck) Anyway, I just wanted to drop you a line (damn, haikus are hard)

Heh, even if you had voted oppose, the overwhelming support still would have gone to my head. Trust me, nothing can be done to curb my ego... ;-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shiny new buttons

Dear Sir:

Thank you for helping me. May I assume I am free to edit now, and that Demiurge will restore the edits he deleted. I do not know how to make the kinds of links he does, so I am going to copy your "Assume Good Faith" and paste it on his talk page and ask him if he will leave me alone. If not can you speak to him? I heard how wonderful Wikipedia was form some friends and co-workers and that has been a disappointing day so far, but I hope it will turn out OK.

Thank you.

Btw: I am over 40 years old and I know a lot of words that unfortunately many younger people do not (at least in the USA) such as: Doppelganger, bathos, hypersolicitous, anecdotal, stupify, niggardly (can't use that one for obvious and understandable reasons despite the actual meaning of the word), wainscoting, Lollard, Hessian, Dahomey (the old name of the country now known as Benin), etc. I do a lot of reading. I can even name you three English (presumably) sayings I picked up from Agatha Christie mysteries many years ago:

• What can't be cured must be endured
• Least said soonest mended
• Old sins cast long shadows

Mikijaniec 18:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. - Should I remove the "helpme" request I made on my talkpage over a half-hour ago to which no one has responded? Mikijaniec 18:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Wow! Even your talk page comments are identical in style to RMS'. Nice try, Robert - Alison^✍ 19:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From one proud member of the candy cartel to another

This is getting ridiculous: Talk:Sweetest_Day#Anonymous_industry_spin_doctors_on_Wikipedia. Not a dog 00:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Masts for deletion

Hello. As the closing admin, I'm notifying the most active contributors to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of North Carolina Tower Chapel Hill, which has now been closed, in case they want to take any action about it. Best, Sandstein 12:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ray Sherwin

Per decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julian Vayne

The nomination here included a series of other articles, including Ray Sherwin. These were listed prior to anyone else commenting, and no objections to the group nomination were raised, so my interpretation was that this had gone through AfD. But *shrug* it was pretty thin, I'll admit. Perhap a "PROD" if I get a roundtoit.
152.91.9.144 23:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
PS - I walked 29 blocks in the snow to see the Surfers in concert on Ney Year's Eve, 1988.

[edit] RE:Uncle Mart and sockpuppets

Why thanks. This is worse than I thought. Should that IP range be blocked? Regards.--Húsönd 22:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] user:kronecker

he edited my user page, yet again. Please could you, again, warn him.--Tresckow 02:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

How nice of you to delete my request of the congressional IP address to stop removing content because they don't like it. If you don't believe me, look at the history of the discussion page. No one is "spamming". It is sick to see staffers delete stuff they do not like. This is not a first time occurance.

[edit] Whip Jones

I've revamped the page and I'm asking for a revote. Please see the discussion on this. Please reply there to comment on what you think we need to fix to keep it.

[edit] Jeff Rosenbaum

I have to dispute the nominator's claim of "no outside sources, questionable notability" on this AfD. Number one, there are outside sources listed under references. In particular, he was one of the subjects of RE/Search magazine special edition on Modern Pagans: an Investigation of Contemporary Ritual (Re/Search) by V. Vale & John Sulak. This is a litmus test for notablity in the neopagan community. Most of the other interviewees have articles on Wikipedia. Notability is not an issue, regardless of what other issues there may be. This is not to belittle the problem of his posting the article himself, but if someone else had written it, there would be no question in my mind that it should be kept. Pagan typically avoid usual local newpaper and other media coverage, as it can lead to harassment in primarily Christian neighborhoods, especially if they have children in school. But RE/Search doesn't write articles on people they don't think are notable in some way. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 17:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• My opinion wasn't based on the nom's reasoning as much as the fact that I don't see how Mr. Rosenbaum meets WP:BIO as all the media linked in the article seems trivial to me.--Isotope23 16:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Murchison

Will probably have to be reverted. If you want the long boring story you will have to wait 24 hours - I'm well past my bedttime. SatuSuro 15:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

See the article page but in short they're two seperate overlapping areas. Gnangarra 00:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey thanks very much for your negotiability on the subject - that is very much appreciated - if you want a good example of the intransigence of some issues and editors look at the recent edits on Orangutan it sort of is some 'vengeance from the deep' in comparison to our discussion on the poor old murchison ( I used to stay on a goat farm there) , anyways have a good christmas! SatuSuro 00:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Verifiability Discussion

Hi, as you were engaged in a discussion with me and other editors on this subject, I thought you might want to know that I have started a discussion on the Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Verifiability_as_a_basis_for_deletion.2C_Burden_of_Evidence_Section page. I welcome your point of view in this discussion. Alan.ca 03:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RFCU

Just letting you know: as a checkuser clerk, I've moved the request you submitted to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Miracleimpulse. It may also be helpful if you select a code letter from the table at the front of WP:RFCU; if you need assistance with that, you may be able to get in touch with User:Daniel.Bryant (I'll see if I can get him to have a look). Luna Santin 16:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh, unfortunately I'm too new of a clerk to know. ;) DB is our current head clerk, hopefully he'll be more helpful to you, in that regard. He's around pretty often. At current, I seem to be the only RFCU-involved person who isn't asleep, but I'll see if I can rouse somebody with more experience on IRC, later. Luna Santin 16:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

That's fine... I simply did this because there is a sock investigation open, but since the last sock investigation I opened was at the beginning of september and it is still ongoing, I thought a checkuser would be a faster way to clear (or damn as the case may be) the person in question.--Isotope23 16:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Results are in. I've unblocked meisterchef. Thanks for your effort. Luna Santin 11:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BTW

I just got around to looking at the Orangutan article you mentioned before. I can't believe that people are essentially edit warring over whether or not Every Which Way But Loose et. al. should be mentioned. I left them a reminder that WP:LAME exists for such arguments...--Isotope23 17:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

In actual fact there are two issues - (1) whether a description of a primate (biology ec) should have 'popular culture' in the article - (I am increasingly of the opinion it should be in a subsidiary article) (2) whether editors who are persistent (belligerent) in putting in or reverting have anything other than the 3RR rule to discourage their passions either way. Some articles are not helped by 'In popular culture' or'trivia' sections and arouse correctly some passion in the 'defenders' of 'cleaner' articles. Equally the passion of the variegated article of the 'we gotta have popular culture in' is something clearly one participant appears to not have given up. One admin I deferred to for advice was in full support of the variegated article - even with refs! The other th other way. It might end up being more than just 'lame' - it might end upas a bloody good example of an issue that might not be adequately covered in policy - articles - variegated or pure SatuSuro 22:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Hello. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Otherwise, people might consider your edits to be vandalism. Thank you. Hondasaregood 16:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

So, you asked me what edits of yours might be considered contriversial. I'm referring to your content removal from Barney & Friends, as well as your addition to Honda S2000. Your AfD nomination for The Delinquent Road Hazards might also be considered contriversial.Hondasaregood 19:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy Deletion

Hi there, from now on I'll try to write a brief description in the edit summary box when I nominate a page for speedy deletion; Thanks!

Respectfully.... Tellyaddict^{Talk 21:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)}

[edit] Honda S2000

I have blocked User:Hondasaregood for 24 hours for violating WP:3RR; however, you are close to the limit as well, so this serves as your warning. Thanks, —bbatsell ¿? 23:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand. I know that the information he was removing was well-sourced, and you attempted to discuss it on the article's talk page (to no response from him), so I'm not faulting you for anything; it just wouldn't be fair for me to block him and not warn anyone else who was involved. —bbatsell ¿? 01:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed.--Isotope23 01:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barrett v. Rosenthal

Thanks for jumping in like that. Wow, that was unexpected and funny. I'm glad you didn't write "good, secondary sources" or they might have thought you were a sock puppet of me. Thanks again! --Ronz 23:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well if it gets primarily sourced that is a completely different issue, but right now with no sourcing it should probably just be left out...--Isotope23 01:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you are talking about here, but I added a source re the statement about Bolen's email. It is what is at issue in the case. And thanks for deleting the section 230 - You are correct that it is not needed, when there is an entire article to reference. At the time, I did not realize there was an article, so I referenced CDA.Jance 16:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing Warnings

What if I were to ask User:Jimmy Wales (the creator of Wikipedia) myself? I mean, if he says it's alright for me to remove what I want (meaning warnings/comments) from my user talk page, then no one else, not even administrators, could somethin' 'bout it right? I mean, they can't say I can't remove my comments/warnings if someone like Jimmy Wales said it's alright, right? PL(DB) 19:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why for not?

I know you aren't, but why? Many people less capable and experienced than your good self put themselves up at WP:RFA. I can understand if you're waiting to meet some arbitrary self-imposed {{shrubbery}}^Wtarget before requesting it, but I'm curious. Do tell. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

An extremely sensible answer which makes me even more convinced that you should be! Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barrett v. Rosenthal

Hi Isotope. Would you mind helping word some of this, if you think it needs clarification? Barrett v. Clark was the lower court case. It was a case against brought by a number of plaintiffs (those listed) against a number of defendants, including Rosenthal. Rosenthal filed a motion to strike under the CA Slapp suit. (That is referenced). Therefore, the relevant appeals court only considered the defamation claim againt Rosenthal. That court said that all but one of the statements republished by Rosenthal (against all the plaintiffs) were non-defamatory opinion. The appeals court held only one statement against Polevoy was potentially defamatory, and that Rosenthal was not immune under Section 230, for that statement. After that ruling, Rosenthal then appealed to the CA Supreme Court, arguing that Section 230 provided immunity for Rosenthal (as regarding that statement that was republished by Rosenthal). The CA supreme court also said that Section 230 would not protect Rosenthal (or anyone else, for that matter) if she had been the primary publisher, but tht question was not before the court.

Does this help? The case is a bit confusing. Please read the intro to Barrett v. Rosenthal. If more is needed, then I'd appreciate your help right now. I have been working all day on an emergency problem for a client, and am burned out.Jance 23:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I reread the article and I see that it explains everything I said above. I'm not sure what the confusion is. Barrett v. Rosenthal does not relate to any of the original defendants, except Rosenthal. Therefore, a discussion about the other defendants is irrelvant to this article (and case). In fact, the only plaintiff Barrett v. Rosenthal addresses is Polevoy. Jance 00:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship

Hi ... I was going to post here today urging you to consider a run for adminship ... but I just checked my Watchlist and there you are. :) Good luck! Regards, Newyorkbrad 19:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks, but I think I'll keep it for the comedic value. John Reaves 19:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Truce?

Let's end this silly edit warring once and for all. Truce?Hondasaregood (Talk•Contribs•Subpages) 20:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your RfA

I didn't mean to step in and answer for you, but I've seen a few RfAs go off the rails for equally trivial reasons and subsequent snowballing of neutrals and appose. Feel free to remove my comment as you explain it in your own terms. --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 02:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charles C. Poindexter

Thanks - I agree with you, and I've watchlisted the article and am watching User:MrDouglass (who hasn't contributed since creating that article) as well. In reality, you and I both know it's Mykungfu, but since he hasn't done anything really wrong via that account, I thought a block might be a little premature. Let me ask you this - would you have blocked right away? I know you're not an admin yet, but you're pretty damn close (and now you're one vote closer)! | Mr. Darcy talk 16:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

for advice. Have done --BozMo talk 17:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section break

As an interested party see this recent change in archive. See: AN/I changed section or this diff // FrankB Subst:00:10, Thursday June 11, 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, I wasn't party to that conversation at all. My involvment was in the thread directly above that which (I think) was completely unrelated.--Isotope23 20:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)