User talk:Kevin Murray

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User talk:Kevin Murray/archive one

Contents

[edit] Saga

Hi Kevin,

Not sure why you reverted my edits back to the version I reverted. I did this because the same info was listed three times ( complete with link which when clicked on leads to 'Page not found'). I also tidied up the punctuation, corrected spelling mistakes, removed another dead link and introduced bold font where appropriate. I didn't delete any info which wasn't repeated. Of course you can do what you like with the page, but I was just trying to improve it!

btw I've now registered so people are less likely to think my edits are vandalism!

Scrabble1968 (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Argh? Yes argh :-)

I was already talking with you on the talk page, and using a post-WP:BRD-ian revert to actually invite Minderbender into the conversation. That didn't quite work then. Oh well back to the drawing board. Anyway, discuss on talk?

Note that How to create policy does not in fact have consensus, and admits as much implicitly in the body text.

It might be marked guideline, but it seems to me that this is simply a mislabeling. --Kim Bruning 00:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah you just replied there! Hmm, future note, talk first, then revert, else you end up starting two channels! :-) --Kim Bruning 00:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Something's CREEPing

Please cast your WP:CREEP detector toward a guideline (under construction) called Wikipedia:Micronations. Regards. Edison 23:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Songs - response

Definitely agree that having the songs guideline incorporated in WP:MUSIC is the far, far preferable solution. Thanks for driving that. UnitedStatesian 14:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mumble

Rather than talking about "processes to demote policy" which we don't actually have on Wikipedia, it would help if you made an argument about the content of that page on its talk page. Analysis shows that (1) nearly no policy on Wikipedia was ever written using the methods described here, and (2) nearly all proposals made using the methods described here fail. >Radiant< 15:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

  • It's always about the reasoning, never about the headcount. >Radiant< 15:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
    • You say it "has been instrumental in curbing Creep" - got any evidence of that? It would seem that instead, it has been instrumental in creating creep. >Radiant< 15:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, I'd be happy to remove all the parts that are bad advice, misrepresent actuality, or simply don't work, but if I do that there won't be much left of the page. >Radiant< 15:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Heh, Radiant is wikipedia's one-man anti-creep brigade. We've always needed to watch him to make sure he didn't occasionally kill a process or policy that was actually (still/already) in mainstream use.;-) --Kim Bruning 00:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I think he's kinda CREEPy. d;-) --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
O iaRLY :) >Radiant< 14:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Manual of Style (national varieties of English)

There is not currently consensus to determine that the proposal is unlikely to achieve consensus. There should be some warning before placing a "rejected" template on a page to see what arguments are advanced for or against the template. You gave no warning before doing it. You cannot singlehandedly make that determination, not called for by anybody else, and then revert to your version over the objections of another editor. Currently, there is one editor in favour of the template and one against. Inactivity is not in itself a reason to say that consensus is unlikely to form. I am going to remove the template, and you can propose on the talk page that a "rejected" template be placed on the page. People will of course express their views on the possibility or impossibility of eventual consensus, rather than on the proposal itself. Joeldl 10:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good idea

[1]. >Radiant< 12:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] And

[2] I've said it before and I'll say it again. It's not about the number of users. It's about the content of the page. >Radiant< 12:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Actually, it strikes me that if the HCP page was a proposal, then based on the systematic dissent on the talk page, you would reject the page as part of your cleanup of CAT:PRO. It would seem that this page does not meet your standards of being a "guideline". >Radiant< 12:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • A fine bit of logic, but flawed in that this page was already an accepted guideline, not a floundering proposal. This is one reason why I'm admonishing people to be careful about acknowledging proposals as guidelines since there is no clear-cut process for deprecating them. Clearly the precedents are that removing a guideline is more difficult than removing a proposal (i.e., protecting the status quo). --Kevin Murray 12:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    • And why do you think it is an accepted guideline? Do you base this only on the presence of the tag or do you have some other benchmark? >Radiant< 12:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Charles Murray.gif

Hello, Kevin Murray. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Charles Murray.gif) was found at the following location: User:Kevin Murray/IQ draft. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 20:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding rejection of Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Layout

It's not that there's no consensus behind Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Layout; general support of the project can be found on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon's archives. Thing is, there's just little effort put into it at the moment, which is largely attributed to the WPP members enjoying the recent release of Pokémon Diamond and Pearl. In general, the only arguments from the opposition are WP:ILIKEIT and WP:USEFUL, so the movement actually is in regards to Wikipedia standards. What's going on is really only a "It's a good idea, but it's a chore" sort of situation. You Can't See Me! 22:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Discover Sept 1982.jpg

Hello, Kevin Murray. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Discover Sept 1982.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Kevin Murray/IQ draft. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 00:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:N/HWY

Since I accidentally hit enter before I was done: a) Your determination that there will never be consensus regarding this issue is premature, especially since there are only three users objecting, refusing to compromise, and who are not related to highways; and b) Since you are opposing the policy, it is a conflict of interest for you to tag this as {{rejected}}. Get an uninvolved party to do this rather than doing it yourself. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Since you do not express interest in highways, and that you oppose it, you are no longer neutral. Because of this, you are welcome to discuss it, but not change it back to rejected. V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions 03:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Jensen2.jpg

Hello, Kevin Murray. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Jensen2.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Kevin Murray/IQ draft. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 10:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move of WP:NEO

Kevin, I posted a query at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (neologisms) asking about the discussion of the rename that you mention in the edit summary for the move. I'm not sure if you've seen that, so I'm posting here to ask again. If you're referring to the discussion a couple of paragraphs higher up on that page, which you and I participated in, I have to say that it didn't look to me as if we reached consensus on any changes. Did you have a different discussion in mind? Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 12:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

Hi Kevin: I agree that there hasn't yet been enough discussion on the "Level Playing Field" question but it seems that we are the only 2 editors interested - by making the edit I was hoping to get some comment. Any orther ideas?? NBeale 14:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kevin. Sure enough a major museum has now announced a photogrpahy competition which will make thousands of otherwise unknown photographers "notable". Shall we try the suggested amendment and see if anyone else can comment on it? Or can you amend the suggestion? NBeale 05:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal

Listen, perhaps my comment was too personal and shouldn't have been made in that way. But I wanted to warn Truth About Spelling that you have been very aggressive in your editing. You were with me by reverting back to "rejected" after I protested. The normal thing to do in those cases is to temporarily leave the status quo in place and begin a discussion. I think trying to scare people off from contributing to policy discussions is a bit of a no-no too, whatever the reason. I felt that there was a bit of a problem in acting as if seniority was the only important thing in establishing an editor's credibility to contribute to a discussion. Isn't one's own adherence to policy just as important? Also, there was nothing wrong with Truth About Spelling's contribution. He was honest about his familiarity with procedure but was expressing an opinion on the substance of the issue. So what. Why shouldn't he? Anyway, there's discussion, now, other editors... It shouldn't be personal. But to be perfectly honest, I was offended by your aggressiveness. Joeldl 15:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merging

Yes, I see no compelling reason not to. >Radiant< 21:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bus routes

You said, "The concept of having bus schedule in WP goes against the concept of ignificant or non-trivial". I tend to agree with you, but Category:Bus routes proves that other people disagree. Perhaps we should drop one or two of them on AFD to see what the community thinks. >Radiant< 09:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A FACT IS NOT A POV

Stop misleading people. >Radiant< 08:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AFD at Boeing B-29 Superfortress Survivors

The articles oringinal creator User:Davegnz believed the most recent changes were vandalism and was trying to get the article deleted again. He was attempting to re-open a new afd. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Please chip in at WT:AIRCRAFT. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I would specifically appreciate an outside view at the thread Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#Input_requested_for_Boeing_B-29_Superfortress_Survivors. What do you feel is the appropriate action? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help with WikiProject Aircraft

Hi Kevin - noticed you put your hand up to help. You might like to take a look at the list of missing aircraft and help fill in some of the blanks --Rlandmann 23:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editor of the Month

You are my editor of the month for this. Chris Croy 23:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bula Kevin

I hope all is well just wanting your help following is the last message left on my Talk page by User David Cannon

Your articles Just letting you know that the decision of the AFD vote was to delete Turaga na Rasau, Turaga na Ravunisa, Keni Naulumatua, Keni Naulumatua II, and Mere Tuisalalo pending sourcing.

In practical terms, that means that if and when you can get a credible source to cite, as you have been planning, just let me (or any other administrator) know, and we'll restore the relevant articles. (They're still in the system, accessible only to administrators). User:Davidcannon 09:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

with that in mind two weeks ago I left a message on Davids talk page but it appears with the message he left on his user page that he will be busy for some time and won't be able to respond to much of anything anytime soon, having said that I was wondering if you could assist as an administrator to restore my Turaga na Rasau article so I am able to edit it, clean it up and then add all my variuos sources.

I would be grateful for your help and feedback on this matter.

Vinaka Maikeli MB 06:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bula Vinaka Yet again

I have just created two new articles one being Fijian Religion and the other being Fijian Tradition & Ceremony, your input and help would be very much appreciated when you have the time.

Vinaka Vaka Levu Maikeli MB 02:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Melges logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Melges logo.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Congratulations on your RfA

Thank you! Given all our conversations at WT:N, your comment means a lot to me. Best, Black Falcon (Talk) 20:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help request

Kevin, a few weeks ago, you asjed if there was anything you coud do to help the WP:AIR project. If you are still interested, I have some sandbox articles that need some work to get ready for the mainspace. In particular, I need help converting text "copied" from other sources into usable, sourced, encyclopedic text. Rewriting text wholesale is pretty tedious for me, as I am usually better at copy editing and tweaking. If this is something you'd be interested in doing, please let me know. I have all my sandboxes listed on my userpage. The 3 projects I'm concentrating on right now are User:BillCJ/Sandbox/Sikorsky X2, User:BillCJ/Sandbox/Sikorsky S-69, and User:BillCJ/Sandbox/Sikorsky S-75. If interested, could you take a look at these, and see if you are able to help? Thanks for whatever way you can help. - BillCJ 17:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:DavidLynchGraphic.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Judge Patrick Willis

Thank you for your support with this article. I really want to make a legitimate contribution, and I'm doing my best to fill in the blanks. I will find citations for everything, I'm working on it but it takes a little longer for non-internet sources. I only hope the article is not deleted before I can ensure it conforms to the guidelines. I'm going to get the citations, please let me know if there is anything else I can do. Thanks again for your help! paprikaphd 23:09, 17 June 2007

I went back and read comments about the propsed name change. I certainly don't have a problem changing the name. The reason I listed it as "Judge Patrick Willis" was that I found several other judges listed that way. What do I need to do to fix it? paprikaphd 16:56, 17 June 2007

Thanks for the help, and the compliment. I hope it was enough to save the article! paprikaphd 19:07, 19 June 2007

We made it! Deletion notice was removed, the article's a keeper. Thanks for all your help! paprikaphd 21:49, 22 June 2007

[edit] Notability of Burger Boat Company

A tag has been placed on Burger Boat Company, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, 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.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Haemo 10:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind me -- I'm a dunce sometimes. --Haemo 10:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your revert

Hey Kevin Murray, would you mind looking at your revert of my edits here? In my edit I bolded the title per conventions, wikilinked the town its based in, added a citation needed, added some hyphens where appropriate, fixed a typo on the word service, moved a citation from the inside of a period to the outside (per convention), and removed references that you listed twice. In the version you just reverted to, the three sources you footnoted now exist in two sections. It only needs to be listed once (in the reference list generated by the footnoting). Would you mind reexamining your revert? Thanks, Metros 19:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] general N

Current thoughts on general vs special criteria: --I've argued both ways from time to time, for the contradiction can be used to get any desired result. If anything, it shows we need flexible rules, because after all the real point is "encyclopedic". Current idea: special rules for broad groups, then 2RSs if needed to decide or if no other rules apply. and, personally, I would include anything in de WP except perhaps German local figures--I trust them more than I trust us here--but I do not see how i can propose that :) .DGG 20:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of republics

Revert? Compound diff. The Cretan republics are some of the Greek city-states, almost all of which were republics - in any sense - at least at some point, Sparta being one of the few exceptions (perhaps the only one); including them is therefore redundant. The senses of republic on which WHEELER insists are all archaizing, being literal translations of res publica or politeia, which could mean city-state, constitutional government, or (in some passages in Aristotle) mixed government. (Aristotle had doubts whether Sparta qualified.) There is no real point in including that in articles on "republic", except as cross-references.

As for people's republics: I believe the standard position to be that they were Republics, without being free states. Tito, for example, was a dictator, but not a monarch; his family did not succeed him.

As for WHEELER's references, they are all, except for his Fearless Leader, Rahe , either dated or not English; most are both. They do not, in any case, belong in a list article, which is a navigational aid. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Fewreferences

Hi, might one of the existing template do for this? Rich Farmbrough, 10:34 18 June 2007 (GMT).

[edit] College football notability

Hello, I hope you are doing well. I have re-labeled Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Notability as a proposed guideline. I'm attempting to incorporate new suggestions from the Guideline Talk page, as well as to generate new discussion.

I thank you for providing a link to WP:ORG, that guideline is interesting, but not conclusive with respect to college football topics. According to WP:ORG, any team would meet notability criteria since they always are the topic of multiple non-trivial media reports. However, there are other questions that WP:ORG does not address. For instance, individual team seasons and individual contests such as bowl games.

These have been issues that in the past have wasted cycles in AfD and other discussions, and for that reason a guideline for the college football wikiproject is still useful. Johntex\talk 00:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi Kevin, thanks for your note. Please don't worry, I understand your motives. You are right in a way, all these guidelines can lead to a slippery slope situation - but that can work in reverse too. We could just as easily say that we shouldn't have a general guideline on organizations (WP:ORG) because it could lead to someone wanting a guideline on college football!
It would be fine with me if we just had one guideline - something like: "ANY topic is notable enough for an article if the topic is the subject of multiple non-trivial works." Until we agree on something that simple then instruction creep is a possibility.
I would like though to respond to your tongue in cheek example of guidelines for bowling tournaments, knitting tournaments, etc. One answer to this type of question is to say that if/when those activities get popular enough for an active wikiproject, then it would be appropriate for that wikiproject to come up with notability guidelines.
You may be right that it may be difficult to get agreement on a guideline such as this, but I see no reason why it should be impossible. The alternative is to have these debates one-by-one at AfD. That wastes everyone's time not only in the debate, but also in creating the article if it ends up being deleted. For that reason, it is far better to try to get a guideline in place so that deletion questions can be settled more quickly. Thanks again for your note. Johntex\talk 00:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you...

...for you support at my RFA and (especially) for your hard work on the notability guidelines. I know you catch some flack, and I can't say I always agree with you, but I definitely think your efforts have made Wikipedia better.--Kubigula (talk) 04:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC) (p.s. please consider archiving this page)

[edit] City councillors

Sorry for trying to update WP:BIO without enough prior discussion. We do need something that notes that for major cities we typically aim to have articles on all councillors. Toronto City Council, New York City Council, Chicago City Council, Ottawa City Council, and many others either have articles on all members, or will in the near future. Something should be added to prevent the unaware users from nominating such people for deletion. I agree that the term "major city" is vague. Can you think of an alternate wording that would work better? - SimonP 20:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I very much agree that our various policies should allow articles on any councillors that get enough press coverage to write verifiable articles, but unfortunately that is not how WP:BIO is being interpreted. If you look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eli El-Chantiry, for example, you will see that a number of users are interpreting the page to mean that articles on councillors are verboten. This will continue without some change to that page. - SimonP 00:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kari Schull deletion review discussion

Although we were on different sides of this discussion, I appreciate that you remained civil the entire time while disagreeing with people's votes. It's not that usual to see people disagreeing in a civil manner lately on Wikipedia (and I'm an offender). I also appreciate that you asked questions and directed (or tried to) discussion towards the issues involved with either keeping or deleting this and similar articles, in an attempt to develop future guidelines, rather than focusing on the narrow issue of one article. Thanks. KP Botany 18:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Curtiss P-40

The picture was "overlapping" the text because you changed its alignment from left to right in this edit, which forced it up against the edge of the column.

I set up those paragraphs up in columns for two reasons:

  1. a general rule of layout is that pics in text should alternate between right and left alignment, unless they are in a vertical row to make point (e.g. they represent a sequence of events).
  2. to avoid ugly "doglegs" within the text.

I'm not sure why you wanted that pic on the right anyway(?)

Grant | Talk 02:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Kevin, I don't know what browser you are using, but I checked this in both Internet Explorer and Firefox — maybe you are using something else.
Here is the page before you changed the alignment: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Curtiss_P-40&oldid=144019569
Here is the page after you changed it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Curtiss_P-40&oldid=144020207
Regards, Grant | Talk 03:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Spirit of St. Louis

Copyedit form my page: "re: Lindbergh Hi. Don't want to get into a pissing match here, but this seems like a reasonable statement. Do you dispute that Lindbergh was the first to fly nonstop from a mainland location to a mainland location? Perhaps I'm wrong on this. I have only been trying to edit other contributions into a more clear and concise text. I don't want to be difficult, but don't want to see good information omitted without reason. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 18:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)"

Hi Kevin: In response, this article was the subject of a considerable edit war recently and I had to ask for administrators to redress the problem. As to whether this is a reasonable or not statement, it is not germane to the flight of the Spirit. Neither Ireland or Newfoundland can be considered "obscure" islands which were the start-end points of previous Atlantic overflights but nonetheless, the Orteig Prize was intended to recognize the first flight from New York to Paris, with a specification that the flight be non-stop. That is the claim to fame of the Lindbergh flight. Introducing an element of first "mainland-to-mainland" claim is fine but it was not what the Orteig Prize was intended to do. Raymond Orteig was a hotelier and promoter who saw the chance to exploit the Atlantic flight to raise the prestige of his hotel and incidentally that of France. The main notability of Lindbergh's exploit was that it was a solo flight as differentiated from the other competitors who had a multi-person crew (and often a twin-engined or larger aircraft type). I will include the note in the body of the text in the description of the flight's legacy but I felt that it was not the historic recognition of "mainland-to-mainland" that should appear in the introductory passages but the successful navigation of the Atlantic from New York to Paris in a solo flight. FWIW Bzuk 19:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Relevance drafts ready for editing/comments

Hi Kevin,

Father Goose and I have developed competing versions for a possible guideline on relevancy. I note you have previous participated at this project. Your contributions would be timely now.

My draft is the current proposed guideline only because I made mine after Father Goose did his. This is not to suggest either version is favored. Thanks for your interest... —WikiLen 03:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

I'm actually not a newbie, just newly editing. That being said, I can always learn more and I'd love to get your feedback. I'll make a post on the VP soon and let you know. I'm editing Joe Montana right now, so i want to finish up that the section i'm working on before i jump to a new "train of thought" so to speak. Many thanks for your friendly attitude, it's a rarity around here. Jmfangio ► Talk 15:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It happens. A handful of editors basically railroaded their way over me and an entire project. It was a whole big mess and lasted about a month. A lot of nasty things happened and most at my expense. I eventually lost my cool with them and told them to "F-off" very publicly when nobody would step in and offer good help. I went to the MedCab, RFA, and a whole mess of other things. An admin even got into it with me (or me with him depending on your perspective) and then started using his admin powers to silence me while he falsely accussed me of things, talk about improper behavior huh. But whatever, one projects loss is anothers gain (well - at least i tell myself that to make me feel better about it!).
Anyway, I have not seen any "guidelines" in place for striking comments. I've seen small mentions of it here and there, but no real guideline or policy. Am I just not looking in the right place or does this need to be considered for guideline inclusion? I added this page to my watch list to make it easier on you. Jmfangio ► Talk 16:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Can you clarify what you mean by striking comments? --Kevin Murray 16:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Here is a comment that has been struck I have opened a discussion (per your advice) here Jmfangio ► Talk 17:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • OK so your concern is over regualtion of people striking out your comments? --Kevin Murray 17:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, like I said, I don't really want to go down that road with them again. I don't particularly care and this person, and the rest of them, will certainly bring up the issue they have with me being a WP:SOCK who has been banned. I will certainly refer to WP:IAR in that my edits are almost exclusively based on bettering the content available and the I tend to lean more towards the "deletionist" attitude when dealing with repetative content. I am just thinking that establishing some guidelines for the use of striking comments will help people understand when it is an editing tool to be relied on. Jmfangio ► Talk 17:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
And btw, i'm not saying I am a sock, only that they accused me of being one and then found me guilty. It was a pretty ridiculous situation. Jmfangio ► Talk 17:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • You are implying but not clearly stating your concern. Aside from the past politics, I believe that your concern is that people/admins are striking out your comments at discussion pages. Is that correct? --Kevin Murray 17:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Sort of, but not exactly. My concern is that a user is striking another users comments unilaterally. The fact that it involves me is imaterial as I don't care what happens in this case. I simply think establishing some guidelines could be useful to the community as a whole. Jmfangio ► Talk 17:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • But this has to do with talk pages only, not strikeouts on the articles themselves. --Kevin Murray 17:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, the instance I am familiar with is only on talk pages. Then again, I would think that the guideline could/would extend to all articles in general. The best that I have seen is a brief mention of striking at WP:TALK. Jmfangio ► Talk 17:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] your comments re MoritzB

you wrote:

I read your comment at MoritzB's talk page, and looked bit deeper into the issue. Niggerhead seems to be a common term (pleasant or not) used frequently enough so that WP has a disambiguation page. I can't speak to MoritzB's motivation in inserting the term into the gems article, but it does seem plausible that it is factual (see coral) and that his intent was appropriate. I don't know the history of your relationship with Moritz, but the harsh accusation may be unwarranted. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 17:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

My comments and Ramdrake's comments were harsh if you approach the question as a supporter of white supremacy, which MoritzB does support. The role of MoritzB on many pages pertaining to race history demonstrates that fact.Skywriter 03:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


Skywriter, I can only evaluate Moritz based on limited experience. However, we should remain civil at WP. He is entitled to his political opinions no matter how unsavory they might be. So far his comments have been in suggetion of Jewish supremacy which vastly differs from the mainstream white supremist position. Cheers and to better times together! --Kevin Murray 04:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I was not aware of your appointment as defender of MoritzB or of guardian of civility. If MoritzB wants to race-bait, then MortizB reveals self as race baiter. Nothing uncivil about that if you like race baiting. Calling race baiting what it is -- is factual.

Further, you overstepped your bounds in failing to take changes to talk page. You seem to overlook that there has been recent active discussion on talk page of Race and Intelligence. You don't seem to be a big fan of seeking consensus especially in the presence of active discussion. The removal of the Melvin Konner reference will not only be reverted-- it will be expanded. The link to Amazon merely was to show his book was well-received. Someone else removed the citation which I will reinstate. He has a point of view not represented in this article, and an informed one at that as he is both an antbropologist and MD. Cheers.Skywriter 04:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer that you not try to pain me into a corner as an appologist for an unsavory position. I am merely politely reminding you of the WP Standards of civility. If youd prefer, I'll just refer future issues to an admin, although I'd rather just keep in between editors. --Kevin Murray 04:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you stop taking comments personally, particularly when they are not directed at you. It is factual that white supremacists as well as anti-racists are editing this article. Whether or not you see one or the other as unsavory is quite beside the point. Whether or not you choose to run to an admin is entirely your option. Skywriter 04:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Awards

Image:Bstar 500+.jpg
For making a difference! This Barnstar isn't free, this is a chain barnstar, as payment please give this star to at least 3-5 others with 500+ edits but no barnstar.
Pseudoanonymous 18:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Triscuit

Triscuits and Wheat Thins are tied for number one in my book, but VERY close to Chicken In a Biscuit. So you need to lower your blood sugar, and I need to raise mine (hypoglycemic). Odd, but I have seen you at Guinea Pig as well. I have no idea what they have in common, but for 4 million users, this place seems increasingly small to me. I got seasick just looking at your contributions. Haha. the_undertow talk 02:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Call for editor participation at Relevance

Hi Kevin,

Wikipedia:Relevance requests your presence — see, "Call for editor participation" at the talk page. —WikiLen 17:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Actively demonstrating non-notability

I've seen you're very active in the area of notability on Wikipedia. I've asked a question here about actively demonstrating that an article is not notable. I would really value any thoughts or comments you might have.

Many thanks! TreveXtalk 13:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lee-Metford

As I've mentioned on the article's talk page, the photo could be a later Charger Loading Lee-Metford- it's not clear enough to tell. At any rate, the only real difference between a CLLM and a Charger Loading Lee-Enfield is the rifling, so as such I think the picture should stay until someone finds a better one... given the relative scarcity of actual MLM rifles, I think it's going to be a while. --Commander Zulu 07:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:C320_Profile.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:C320_Profile.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 01:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:C400_Aft_Cabin.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:C400_Aft_Cabin.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 02:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:C42_Galley.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:C42_Galley.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 02:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:C470_Laundry.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:C470_Laundry.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 02:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Staeckerbot/Suspiciousbox

Not sure why, but you deleted stuff on this page- it's not meant to be modified (sorry if you had a good reason- I can't think of one at the moment). Perhaps you meant to edit the listings at User:Staeckerbot/Suspicious images? Staecker 01:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem- but... you did it again. User:Staeckerbot/Suspiciousbox is being used as a template on the list page, so you should edit the listing, not the box. If you want to remove an image from the list, just edit User:Staeckerbot/Suspicious images and remove the particular line which calls the template with the image that you're concerned with. If you actually blank Suspiciousbox, this will blank all listings, which we don't want. Staecker 11:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] White/Black people

Oh, I 100% agree about these articles being unencyclopedic, but it's been "voted" they are. They've been up for deletion a couple of times. I couldn't believe there would be such articles on an encyclopedia and made a big fuss in the begining. Oh well. Thanks for the offer of the back-up. I get a little heated about these subjects, just because they attract all kinds of strange attention. Me included. lol. Cheers! :) - Jeeny Talk 9 August 2007 17:52 (UTC)

[edit] On White people

Let's hope that's what they mean by "building consensus". :)--Ramdrake 19:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] white peopel

hi, thanks for acknowledging my changes.

i added gordon brown to keep the article more up tyo date (he is current british priminister) but mainly to show a more representative picture of brits. With tony blair in, there were 2 brits with light hair and light eyes (john f kennedy included), so i added a dark haired and dark eyed brit, as about 30% of brits have dark eyes and most brits have dark brown hair anyway, only a minority have light hair. Most brits have either dark or mixed eyes and most brits have dark hair.

I think the german pictures might need to be changed to include a dark haired german aswell as most germans dont have blonde or light brown hair.

Im trying to iron out national stereotypes.

about the basque, by all means keep the photo of this person, i just thought the astronaut was more famous.

cheers.

[edit] germans

sure by all means change the german or austrian, but i think a dark haired and maybe dark eyed german or austrian should be included, again merley to iron out national stereotypes. germans and brits are not much darker haired than the french afterall and yet the french person chosen has dark hair.

im off now.

peace.

[edit] Mediation?

Would you agree to informal mediation (Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal) in order to try to resolve our disputes over Wikipedia:Relevance of content?--Father Goose 00:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe the mediator would like each of us to formally agree to opening the case: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-08-16_Relevance_of_content.--Father Goose 22:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:White people variety.jpg

Your approach sounds very reasonable. As I say on talk, I am not altogether opposed to celebrities. WP:UCS. Makka Sagaipova, but not Tom Cruise, Margaret Thatcher or Saddam Hussein. I do hope you can further improve the collection, but I guess I got tired of the task: it's difficult enough in itself, but the bickering by all sorts of ideologists that comes with it makes it near-impossible. dab (𒁳) 13:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

let me add that I am not opposed to galleries in general either. But any gallery with a claim to encyclopedicity will need to annotate each image, at least with the area or ethnicity of origin of the person depicted. dab (𒁳) 13:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

an alternative would be using mugshots of Wikipedians who are willing to reveal their ancestry (Category:Irish Wikipedians). There is some room for debate regarding WP:V here, but I am sure we can get some good images in this way -- have a look at commons:Category:Wikipedians.

Let me add that I am intrigued by your self-description-by-userboxes: not that I'd agree with everything you say there, but I'm definitely with you regarding the 'beer' and the 'speak plainly and honestly' parts. We need more of both, but especially of the latter :) dab (𒁳) 15:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimedia Commons

If you haven't used Wikimedia Commons before, it can be a little confusing. You can find information at commons:Commons:First steps. Briefly; you want to go to commons:Article and recreate the gallery there, and then link to the Commons gallery using {{Commons}}. If the images are stored locally here at en:, you'll need to upload them to Commons first. While this may sound like extra effort, Wikimedia Commons has the advantage of allowing every project to use the media stored there, and is increasing.ly set up to handle searching and rendering media more efficiently than any of the text-based projects. Unfortunately, I'm remarkably busy at the moment; otherwise I'd pitch in and help with the particular article in question. You could ask the person who tagged the article to lend a hand if there are a lot of images to move over or if the process is confusing. Jkelly 16:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Monica B 2.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Monica B 2.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 22:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP

Hi

It seems that some of the other editors have ceased any discussion and are blindly reverting any edit that I add. They have formed some kind of a cartel. I think this is counterproductive for the article. I am open to discussing the edits. Ramdrake has indicated that he has retired from wikipedia and so has Jeeny, so I think you are the only neutral editor who is left.Muntuwandi 23:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] black and white

hi. (1) I agree with you about no quid pro quo, taking each article on its own terms. (2) I do not believe that anything I wrote on the Talk:White people page (or any page) has ever implied that I think an article should be perfect. I doubt that that is possible, and the very fact that this is Wikipedia means that all articles are always works in progress. That means that no article is ever "finished" so obviously no article will ever be perfect. But the fact that every article is constantly being worked on/in progress should mean that every article is betting better and that was all my comments were meant to address: ways to make the article better. However, if you are speaking purely of standards, of ideals, I do think that our standards should be very high. What makes Wikipedia different from Encyclopedia Brittanica is what makes a free-enterprise economy better than a planned (and centrally regulated) economy: an economy in which everyone is free and competing to be better will lead to superior products. It is also the idea behind open-source software like Linnux versus somthing like Microsoft: thousands of people working freely and constantly trying to make something better will do a better job than a hundred engineers following some manager's directive. But whether you believe in open-source or Microsoft; a free-enterprise system or communism, surely people's goals are the same: to create something better. I would hate it if engineers at Boein thought that it didn't matter if their work wasn't "perfect" - what would happen to the American air industry (and, would I be willing to fly)? We expect the people who make our cars and computers to do the best they can; we expect the best possible product affordable. We shouldn't settle for anything less here. Wikipedia articles are very often among the first five or ten google hits for any topic; it is becoming an internationally recognized brand like Toyota or Sony; hundreds of thousands if not millions of people turn to it for knowledge. We shoulld give them the best we can. And: I really sincerely do not believe that several editors taking time to read books in a library or look through journal articles is at all onerous. It takes time and effort but still nothing compared to the effort that goes into most goods that are in high demand! It is a sad day for America (or England or wherever most editors are from) when people who want to write encyclopedia articles thinks reading book or journal article is just too much work! America ought to have the best education system in the world, not be second-rate or strive for mediocrity ... editors of Wikipedia (I think most are American) should reflect that, I think ... Slrubenstein | Talk 23:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jolie

Some are from the "Dark continent". Jolie had facial reconstruction? I don't really mind about removing her from the picture, until maybe a suitable replacement is found. Muntuwandi 03:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation Cabal Case

Hello, you have been listed as a potential participant in an informal mediation regarding a dispute over White people. The case page is listed at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-08-19_White_people. I am looking over the case, and am willing to offer my assistance in this. If you are willing to participate in the mediation and willing to accept my offer to mediate, please let me know. Thank you, Neranei (talk) 22:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation qualifications

Hi Kevin, I saw your posts and wanted to comment to you that just because someone is an administrator is not a good enough reason to be a qualified mediator. A lot of admins are very young -- not that there's anything wrong with that. I do agree with you that someone who is to mediate this situation have a broader life experience, and knowledge of WP policies. Another thing, I think it's better to NOT have an admin to act as mediator for they have other issues to deal with, blocking, moving, vandals, etc. Mediation groups, or members, are supposed to know how to mediate and know certain WP policies for content disputes. There should be full concentration on the case, without the other duties that admins have to deal with. JMO. See what I posted on the mediation project page for more on my opinion on this issue. Thanks! - Jeeny Talk 20:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Where was this discussion held? I'd like to take a look. --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll check the 3O archives perhaps, or ask Jeeny. --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks for the help on Westwood, Ohio! Yobbo14 01:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

Well, as per your request on the ROC talk page, I'll describe my views to you on trivia in general. I guess that's what you're asking for.

I got sucked into the issue months ago here when I saw an editor wipe out some fairly interesting material with an edit summary "removed trivia as per WP:TRIVIA". I reverted him, and pointed out that the guideline said "integrate, don't delete", but he was just dead set on getting rid of it, like too many other editors are.

I started studying the situation and saw how many editors deleted trivia left and right claiming the guideline supported them. And plenty more who deleted without bothering to say anything. A month later when Android Mouse Bot added {{trivia}} to thousands of articles, there was an upswell of support for trivia, and I tried to get WP:TRIVIA de-frocked, but was unsuccessful. I retrenched to just trying to change the line "Some trivia is especially tangential or irrelevant, and may not warrant inclusion at all." since it's an open-ended loophole: "integrate trivia", it says, "but delete anything irrelevant"... which is the entire trivia section, to some editors.

Although I got a few supporters in trying to change the wording (one of whom was Coppertwig), the deletionists watching the page wouldn't even tolerate even the addition of the line "However, Wikipedia has no standard for relevance." So I changed my focus and started work on the Relevance guideline. And yes, it does have to be a guideline, or else people won't let WP:TRIVIA defer to it on matters of relevance.

I actually support the overall thrust of WP:TRIVIA -- trivia lists are a crappy way to present information. But again, that bloody loophole is intolerable. And the deletion of trivia is in some ways worse than the deletion of complete articles, because the latter are at least subject to a debate (WP:AFD), but content can be deleted without any sign that it was ever there, unless you happen to have been watching the article.

What I've been trying to do here is assemble a reasonable standard on content that walks the middle line. Trivia shouldn't be an excuse for articles get disorganized, but I want to retain all content that can plausibly be shown to have some value, and give clearer ideas on how to integrate it, since WP:TRIVIA is very unspecific about how to accomplish that.

Those are my views on trivia, relevance, and on content in general. And those are my goals for the proposal as well. Equazcion is an "inclusionist", as am I, as are you, WikiLen, Coppertwig, and DGG. Of those who have expressed opposition to the proposal, only DGG has been willing to explain his objections and help strengthen the proposal's inclusionist foundations -- for instance, by spurring this edit: [3]. The proposal still needs plenty of work in the "content" section, but the more people contribute, the more likely we can find the right ways to say things. We also need to include more language in defense of lists and list articles; they've been taking a pounding lately.

Like you, I'm wary of using examples; I tore almost all of them out after the first draft. The proposal won't work unless we can get it to say straightforward, sensible things in a general way, and I was trying to fix those remaining faults when you and WikiLen drove up in a hearse.

There is a chance here to strengthen Wikipedia's inclusiveness, and I hope, I just beg, that we can get past our differences -- or is it just a misunderstanding? I've never understood why you've objected to the proposal, especially when you've said complimentary things about it in the same breath.--Father Goose 05:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know if you watchlist other people's talk pages, but I replied to your latest message on my page there.--Father Goose 04:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation Case

Hello Kevin, I just wanted to let you know that, as a part of informal mediation, I have asked everyone involved to make a statement. Would you mind making a statement at the article's talk page? Thanks, Neranei (talk) 13:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] OK

OK, I didn't mean to step on anyones toes. I can't agree to having some obscure manager of a multinational corporation as being representative of Welsh people though. I am Welsh and this person is totally unknown to me. There are certainly far better examples of Welsh people out there. How did such an obscure individual manage to get by such a vetting process I wonder. I'd suggest Tom Jones, Griff Rhys Jones or Catherine Zeta Jones as far more appropriate. I'll have a think about it and make a suggestion on the talk page. Thanks for the message. Alun 17:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I put that picture up. I've been critisized for ahving too many politicians, I couldn't find a good picture of Tom Jones and Catherine is so heavilly identified as being hispanic at least in the US -- does she really typify a Welsh heritage? It seems to be damned any way you slice it. --Kevin Murray 17:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I can't understand how Catherine Zeta Jones could be identified as Hispanic, it doesn't make sense to me. She's totally Welsh. She's from Swansea and became famous in the UK for acting in The Darling Buds of May on the telly. Take a look at her wikipedia entry. She also has an image on wikipedia that is copyright but states that it may be used if it is attributed, see Image:Zeta Jones.jpg Tom Jones also has an image on the commons Image:Tom Jones 2005.jpg and any commons images may be used. Griff Rhys Jones also has a commons image Image:Griff Rhys Jones IOW cropped.jpg but he's probably not that notable outside of the UK. While the current Welsh person represented is clearly notable he is not very recognisable, even to his fellow countrymen. I don't want to fight over this so if you feel that it's good to represent people other than politicians and celebrities then I can understand this. Sorry if I cane over as brusque earlier, it was not my intent. All the best. Alun 17:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gallery

Yes, ok, sorry for the delay in replying! Untagg it them. Cheers. The Ogre 17:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portuguese non-political

I'll try. Soon, I promise. The Ogre 17:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whatever

Whatever, you know what I meant. The idea is stupid. IvoShandor 18:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: We must have a policy for the company lists

I am posting this in reference to your post on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). I have trying to get this serious issue across for along time now, but no one seems to be interested. May be instead of bundling those lists in I should go list by list and get them deleted. After the first few debates it would not be difficult to figure out most, if not all, the keep arguments, as well as the counter-argument. But, I guess that would go against WP:POINT. Well, after seeing somuch ignorance, while this silly lists proliferate, I'd rather igonre that policy and concentrate more on WP:BOLD. Please, advise. I am posting part of this to the policy discussion page as well. Aditya(talk • contribs) 23:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Essay move

As discussed on the village pump last week, I'm starting to move essays to people's userspace if they haven't been edited by others (not counting typo fixes etc). Since there's a lot of pages in CAT:E, I'd appreciate some help. Other people suggested deleting some of the worse essays, or adding {{merge}} tags as appropriate; I'll leave that up to people's discretion. >Radiant< 11:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Your gallery question at the Village Pump

Hi KM,

I saw your question about galleries at the Village Pump and I agree with your position completely. I've added some galleries to articles myself, both pictures I've taken and lots of old postcard pictures I happened to find on eBay's Web site (see Jamestown, New York for example). I'm pretty sure, but not absolutely sure, that I'm improving articles with these, but I'd be opposed to any kind of a ban on gallery sections to articles. If you ever run into any conflicts over inclusion of a gallery section in an article, please feel free to ask me to join in forming a consensus, and if I'm not extremely busy, I'll try to help. I can't guarantee I'll agree with anything, of course, but I'm generally pro-gallery.

I've been hesitant to upload images to WikiCommons, where the concept of gallery pages won't be a problem, because the stated purpose of that site is to share pictures. The old postcard pics I tend to upload (along with the pictures I'm beginning to take) tend to be for locality articles (South Norwalk for instance). I don't expect that most of these pics would ever be wanted outside of Wikipedia. That makes me worry that WikiCommons might decide to delete them someday. If you have any opinons on that, I'd love to hear read them. Noroton 03:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relevance

You mean the Wikipedia:Relevance page, and assorted discussion? Hm, I'd have to read up on some things there, I hadn't been following that debate. >Radiant< 14:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] European people

I think you should take advantage of present changed circumstances to readdress the split of the article if this is what you want. As a european (who incidentally frequently visits UCB) I find it in excruciatingly bad taste and quite unscientific. The separation into two different articles as Slrubenstein has suggested could solve many of these problems and produce good and instructive articles into the bargain. Cheers, Mathsci 21:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Policy and guideline modification

Perhaps I ought to have been more clear about my own standpoint. My comments on Wikipedia talk:Avoid trivia sections were meant to illustrate the problems or inaccurate impressions which arise when the expectations or notions inexperienced editors butt up against established policies and guidelines. Sometimes where such a conflict occurs, the response from such an editor is along the lines of, "I think Wikipedia should work in this particular way, but the long-established guideline/policy says it ought to be that way. The policy needs to be fixed, so that it conforms to my view of what Wikipedia ought to be."

The solution to this problem isn't to make it easier or faster to adopt, repeal, or modify Wikipedia guidelines or policies. Rather, it is to continue to provide assistance and guidance to new editors to help explain why many of our policies are the way that they are. It may be appropriate to include more reasoning and explanation in the bodies of some Wikipedia policy documents. It could be helpful to assist these users in finding resources like the Help Desk or the Village Pump.

On relatively rare occasions, a policy or guideline may require massive overhaul or repeal. In general, our systems work passably well under such circumstances. As a rule of thumb, the larger the effect of a proposed change, the wider the consultation required to assess community sentiment and to be able to make a change 'stick'. For something like repealing a guideline (on Trivia, say) that would affect thousands of articles, very broad discussion would be required—and such a suggestion is unlikely to succeed. Help:Modifying and creating policy is a good primer for editors interested in making policy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Content policy analysis

Wikipedia:Relevance of content/Content policy analysis: let's try to synchronize our views on this subject so that our continuing work on it can be more effective.--Father Goose 23:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Essays

I take it you have seen the history of this issue? The older version kept getting tested because it isn't clearly written. The newer version remained in place for six weeks, stable and uncontested. Radiant moved it back to the much older language, including, e.g., "Essays tend to be opinionated." Well, yes, but this is not a definition. Anyway, obviously it is in need of discussion. Discussion is also at Wikipedia_talk:Policies_and_guidelines#Problem_with_wording ... Kenosis 20:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Disputed template

I don't know of many templates that are designated as policies or guidelines :) The intended role of this template that you created (please correct me if I'm wrong) is to mark the designation of a Wikipedia page as disputed; however, this function is already covered by {{disputedtag}}. Would you mind if I redirected your template one to the other one, or if you WP:CSD#G7'd it? If there's something I'm missing about the role of this template, though, please fill me in! Happy editing, GracenotesT § 03:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Essay

Thank you. I've placed some musings on the POL talk page. I believe I'm in favor of either heavily rewording the essay bit, or getting rid of it entirely. >Radiant< 09:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP meetup

  In the area? You're invited to
   San Francisco Meetup 3
  Date: September 16th, 2007
  Place: Yerba Buena Gardens, 3pm
  San Francisco Meetup 2
-- phoebe/(talk) 07:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Laminate sails.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Laminate sails.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "having an expectation of constraining behavior where it is a major departure from expectations"

This can be interpreted in several ways, hence the request for elucidation. :-) --Kim Bruning 03:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just curious

You don't need to answer, but I've seen that you've edited Westwood, Ohio. I would like to know if you know much about the area? Thanks. - Jeeny Talk 04:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Spam's barnstars

My reply on my talk page. Cheers. HuskyHuskie 20:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Merge tags

Perhaps I should have used clearer wording: the mass merge proposal appears to be rejected, so there's no point to putting up merge tags. If you want to readd them, then fine, I won't revert it, but I think the discussion has shifted away from merging into just editing them to be more concise and perhaps merging one or two of them individually. --tjstrf talk 00:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opinion request

Hi there! I would appreciate your opinion on the following two issues. First, whether it's a good idea to word Template:Style-guideline similar to the other guideline templates (e.g. Template:Subcat guideline). And second, whether this suggested addendum to the style guidelines should be considered a proposal or an essay. Cheers, >Radiant< 10:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Disputed template

Template:Disputed template 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. — The Evil Spartan 18:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hebrew Wikipedia

Please note this edit, he has removed the template again and I don't want to revert him anymore. Yonatan talk 23:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I might've done that but I think it is notable, certainly in Israel where there have been many references to it by reliable sources - maybe I'll have some free time soon to add them. Yonatan talk 00:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Adnan Oktar

I'll go check it out and see if I can lend a hand. :) --Moonriddengirl 17:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oktar

Boy are you a trooper even for trying! It will take me some time to sort out what is going on there and I don't feel ready to comment there. I wonder whether the red ink editors are not sock-puppets, but it is just a feeling and I have no reason to make an actual accusation. There seem to be many arguments going on: can you pinpoint for me one or two very specific issues I could comment on? In the meantime, there are two other editors who I trust and I think you can trust them to comment constructively here: User:Stephan Schulz and User:Jpgordon. I suggest you leave for them the same message you left for me. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Simple question

How do you find out the number of edits you have? Padillah 16:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish Bolshevism & The Jewish Bolshevism

I value and appreciate very much your contributions to the above discussions. --Ludvikus 17:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you please "fine tune" the latter in case my Merge proposal goes vthrough? Thanks. --Ludvikus 23:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
You now deserve an award of recognition (--Ludvikus 00:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)):
This beautiful Soviet Russian medal is awarded to you for your beautiful work on the The Jewish Bolshevism‎ - where you put some beautiful touches on a former unesthetic article. --Ludvikus 00:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
This beautiful Soviet Russian medal is awarded to you for your beautiful work on the The Jewish Bolshevism‎ - where you put some beautiful touches on a former unesthetic article. --Ludvikus 00:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
There is, in my opinion, Original research on the article/(s). I maintain that Wikipedia requires that we state what scholars said - it's not a place where Wikipedians should speculate "Why so many Jews were Bolsheviks." Thanks. --Ludvikus 00:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bolshevics

Please don't confuse "third opinion" with "mediation". The opinion was asked about a very limited issue: inappropriate page move. I have been repeating multiple times: I have no interest in article content and don't want to discuss it now. One has to resolve one conflict at a time, otherwise talk turns into a mess. `'Míkka 18:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Mikka says we need articles like Russian alcoholism. I deduce from that (in the context of his remarks) that he also believes we need an article on Irish alcoholism. I imagine that, from your Irish-sounding name (and self-image on your Homepage) that you would have an appropriate personal response to that. Whichever way your reaction goes, I suspect it will bear some fruitful and productive consequences. Cheers & the Best to you, Boatsman of the Seven Seas, I am Ludvikus 00:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability of religious figures

A question came up on Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism about notable religious figures. I understand you put the rejected tag on the proposal. I'd like to know more about your decision. Some things that puzzle me:

  • WP:IDONTKNOWIT makes the point that awareness of notability sometimes depends on field of interest and Wikipedia:Notability recommends using {{expert-subject}} when verifying non-notability. Given that this proposal is about religious figures, it would seem that those who study religion (i.e. the participants in religion projects) would have something useful to contribute to the question of (a) whether or not this policy proposal is well formed and (b) whether it should be stand-alone, merged into WP:BIO, or eliminated as redundant. There are at least 34 religion projects listed in Category:WikiProject Religion. Which projects were notified of this discussion? Of a pending closure? I can't find anything on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Judaism page and I read the page fairly regularly (of course it might be there and I missed it).
  • The rejected proposal was accepted even though only one of the participants in the prior discussion affirmed the rejection proposal; (as the one who closed it, you will forgive me if I recuse you from the discussion. Also you only expressed a preference for reject over historical, but expressed no explicit opinion about the merits of the proposal). Did you see a consensus and why? As I see it, this person's opinion is not representative of the discussion either before or after. There are a wide range of opinions and solutions presented including 3-5 in favor and 3-5 with no explicit vote:
  • Wikipedia doesn't make decisions by vote count, but rather the strength of the argument.
    • At least two of those rejecting the proposal do so based on the quality of the criteria. This issue is addressed by two users who provide alternate proposals. We will never know whether or not these new proposals would satisfy the objections of User:Mr.Z-man and User:UnitedStatesian since the proposal was marked as {{rejected}} before they had a chance to respond.
    • The second reason was redundancy. Of those that express clear rejects, none are members of religion projects (at least as evidenced by their user boxes or categories. This is an important issue and bears discussion. But until members of one the religion projects agrees, I would be inclined to see it only as a discussion point. WP:IDONTKNOWIT and common sense would suggest that those who are not actively studying religion are less likely to understand the difference between a religious community's definition of notability and that of the general public.

Confused, Egfrank 19:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

From talk page of User:Egfrank:

It is not about a vote nor about persuasive arguments; it is about demonstrating that the consensus of the WP community supports a policy or guideline either directly or through practice. This has not been the case on religious figures. Despite having some support from the participants in the discussion, this proposal only reflects the opinion of a tiny minority of the millions of WP contributors. Policy and guidelines are purposefully difficult to implement at WP, or else we'd be drowning in personal opinions labeled as policy or guidelines by energetic editors. Despite your hard work and good ideas, the proposal did not gain traction, but that is typical of proposed guidelines. Kevin Murray 11:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not work on the proposal at all - though I would have liked to. I didn't even know about it until well after it was closed. Furthermore, my concern is that the proposal was not given either sufficient time or exposure to make a determination of whether or not it had gained traction.

Based on my reading of the arguments, there was no consensus (yet) that could be used as a basis for closing. As for the proposal representing a tiny minority - we can't know that unless the proposal is well publicized, which this clearly was not. Finally, "tiny" is not a relevant reason for rejection when there is a risk of systemic bias by imposing a general standard on a topic that is of interest to a few. That risk makes it all the more important that we expose the topic and get a fair representation of voices and perspectives.

Also as a practical matter - we have 34+ projects that make assessments on religious figures - don't you think it might be reasonable for them to want a standard specific to their assessment process? The participants aren't all religious fanatics - some of us study religion academically and others of us (without academic backgrounds in religion) go to great lengths to avoid POV when writing on religion topics.

I have a hunch that you are a man who likes to get things done. Perhaps a month is a reasonable period of time to evaluate a proposal, but in this particular case I think it is not. September, particularly this September, is a very, very busy time for people who have religious interests. The Jewish holidays came early this year and occupied many of us throughout September. Professors of religion in secular institutions and Christians, Jews, and anyone in a tradition that provides religious education to children probably had their hands full with getting their respective educational programs off the ground.

Best, Egfrank 12:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC) (PS I've a temporary watch on your page - to keep the conversation flow clear lets continue it here)

[edit] Objects in the Rear View Mirror May Appear Closer Than They Are

Thanks for your third opinion. Yeah, I agree that there is subjectivity in selecting some elements important enough to be described over others. I'm unsure what you mean by "reviewing the song rather than just reporting the facts." I'm confident that everything is pure description, or at least, as you say, within "the normally accepted practices at WP." The article is about to be GA reviewed and it would be a shame to see my work disrespected /quick-failed because of that tag. As an outsider, per the third opinion process, are you able to remove it?

Of course, if you have any specific constructive comments relating to how the article could be improved, I'm happy to address them. Cheers, The JPStalk to me 22:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] bainer

I have moved Kevin Murray/R&I/bainer to User:Kevin Murray/R&I/bainer. -- RHaworth 10:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: R&I

I am asking you to protect the current reversion of the R&I article which reflects your compilation of the various articles, for a period of a week and then semi-protection for an additional two weeks. With the best of intentions too much has happened too quickly including additions in a time where we are trying to consolidate. As the massive amount of recent micro edits was impossible to evaluate, I've reverted to your lat version. We really need some time to evaluate and form a plan. I like the KISS overview approach, but this is an emotionaly charged topic and there will be no clear path. Thanks! --Kevin Murray 09:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I see Guy has already protected the page. I think it's important to point out that while I tried not to duplicate any material when merging the articles together, there are some sections which significantly overlap; there are two sections on stereotype threat, for example. I would encourage people to keep chopping and changing things around to see how it looks, though in draft copies if not everyone's happy with it being done to the main article. --bainer (talk) 10:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Race and intelligence/backgound

{{subst:nn-warn-Another detailed article on same subject Race and intelligence already exist. User can contribute there. Other expert users can verify importance of contribution from this user. Articles related to race-intelligence are sensitive.|Race and intelligence/backgound}}

[edit] draft

Hello. Please note the creation of this user subpage User:Moonriddengirl/Race and intelligence/backgound (per suggestion of Moonriddengirl). Drafts should not be in mainspace. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 15:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Kevin, thanks for being reasonable about my reversion! I can see you're doing important work (there are lots of stale proposals out there), and I hate reverting, but this proposal is really only just beginning. You might like to take a look at the test wiki, as well as this recent article in New Scientist. Cheers, Walkerma 02:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] In Remembrance...

Remembrance Day

--nat Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?! 21:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey a recent message you sent

Hey you recently posted a message on MoritzB user page. I thought I would inform you that he was blocked indefinately a few days before you posted your message as a result of his dispicable right-wing racism on wikipedia. Yours on the left Realist2 12:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. In situations where I contact contributors to an article to stimulate participation, I generally try to pick arbitrary but objective criteria such as has contributed in the last X-months. That is why I contacted Moritz, not because I agree with his politics. One of the great things about WP is that the majority of contributors bring us to center on most issues. But even the most polarized among us often brings some good to th project if we can endure the uglier issues. Cheers! And keep up the good academic work. --Kevin Murray 15:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] R&I

Hi. I'm satified that the section we are working on is good enough to enter to the article, but I would have like to see broader participation if just for people to say it looks OK.

Ug. I know, me too. I wish more people would jump in and say something. Post a note on the R&I talk page that today is the "last chance" for this section and then we should move on, or else this will take forever. Can we get a mod to put the new section in?

I think we should work on the subsections all at once. I find that less confusing. futurebird 15:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Kevin, just to let you know that I gave a look-see at the section and changed a few (minor) things. Looks good.--Ramdrake 16:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mitch Clem

Sorry, but after reviewing, I just can't see it. Too much primary sourcing, too little independent material used. I think maybe there will be an article to be written in a few years, but especially on a living person bio, should wait for substantive independent sourcing. Perhaps better to write about his blog? As to the refs, I think the AfD participants should see where the sourcing is purported to be from.

On an entirely unrelated note, there's a bot that archives talk page posts after they go stale. Pages this large can be really hard on dialup or slow-broadband users. I've used that bot for a long time and it works great. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I have voted to keep. One thing that can be done is to write an article on comixtalk to strengthen it as a reliable source. Its used in many articles as a source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The Minnesota Public Radio spot looks like a claim of notability, but not the PC World one. Can you provide evidence of the reliability of the comixtalk site? Corvus cornix 16:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree that comixtalk looks like it's independent of the subject, I just don't know if it's considered reliable. I guess I'd probably go with a weak keep. I'll go over and do that now. Corvus cornix 17:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think you need to remove the references to his website and comix. They are most certainly allowed. You can quote from people's posted resumes, and you can quote from people's online biographies, and you can directly quote from movies and books. I am going to restore them. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • What rule are you citing about the prohibition on autobiographies, I have never seen it. The articles on U.S. Grant, Julius Ceasar and other world leaders always use their autobiographies. Auto can always be used for verifiability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Autobiography is about writing a Wikipedia article about yourself and using your own unpublished memories as a source.
I wish I could help, but I'm seriously under educated when it comes to WP:BIO. User:Alientraveller has been working on some WP:BIO articles, you might want to ask him to look over the article. I know that it is a lot easier to identify sourced information if you use in-text citations, it helps keep the original research out of an article. But, as far as determining whether the sources there are reliable enough to warrant an article, I don't know because I'm not that familiar with BIO, or comic artists. If they talk about his accomplishments, then that's a good sign.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Don't really care

I just hope the rules are more strictly interpreted if someone happens to write an article about myself. - Francis Tyers · 18:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response

Hi Kev. I've given my considered careless and casual thoughts, and I enjoyed doing it, so thanks for bringing that to my attention. I don't feel strongly enough about the issue to vote delete (or more correctly merge), but that is certainly the way my thinking was going. It seems to me that the webcomic is the notable thing, and so it would be appropriate for the author to be discussed within the comic's article. If he creates another notable comic that would be the time to split him out into his own article - but for now, it seems possibly a bit too much. Though, as I said, I'm not strong on this view. Many regards SilkTork *SilkyTalk 19:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seriously...

Archive your talkpage man! You must have the longest talkpage in the history of talkpages. This talkpage will become legendary - but it may burn out a few dial-ups in the process! SilkTork *SilkyTalk 19:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

* OK I did it. --Kevin Murray 19:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitch Clem

Just be aware that you have to have reliable sources to write a bio from. There may be plenty of reliable sources for the comic, but not for the person drawing it. Corvus cornix 19:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mitch Clem

Yea, AfD is a busy place. Yes, we are all pressed for time and merging or adding cleanup tags for {{Tone}} tags is not always done when they should be. Then you have people making suggestions that it is OK to add 3,000+ unneeded articles and people wonder why we have problems and not time. For the record, I'm not the best bio person which is why I did not comment on the nomination, yet. But as you noticed, I did some trivial cleanup and maybe my edit comment will help improve the article so that it is less objectionable. Vegaswikian 19:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mitch Clem

You asked for my opinion; sorry it took me a few days. Basically, yes, I think the guy is probably notable enough for an article, there are several independent sources. However, the article uses self-published blog entries way too much, it needs to be cut back. Mangojuicetalk 15:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Titanic

Hi there Kevin. Apart from your having more hair and probably more money, you and I share a startling amount. German-Irish, military buffs, the list goes on. I also hold a Master's Licence and was a senior merchant marine officer for many years. I have found this is not always an advantage in naval Wiki work, often you have to let "sources" prevail, even if you know quite positively that they are wrong. Titanic is an example, there is much uneducated speculation around, and it has found its way into respectable publications. But let's give it a try! Rumiton 02:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite, Kevin. If I am over there I'll certainly take you up on it. Have a great boating weekend. Rumiton 13:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mitch

Well, it looks like a reasonable article to me, but I think the problem is that it has so many self-referential sources that this appears to drown out the sources that aren't self-referential. I can see why people could interpret this as a vanity piece even though it isn't one. Perhaps it's possible to combine some of those source entries. HTH! >Radiant< 12:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sailcloth stats

Check your spelling on the PNG Image:Sailclothfibers.png - should be "Statistics", but is currently "Statisitcs" Snori 02:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality Project

Hi, I'm trying to ensure that the Neutrality Project has not become inactive. If you would still like to participate in it, please re-add your name to the Review Team list. Jame§ugrono 07:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply at Rush Limbaugh

I have replied to you over at Talk:Rush Limbaugh. In my mind, this whole situation is a big misunderstanding. At first I am reverted (by mistake, I think). When I try to correct it with a more complete edit summary, along with a message on talk, not one editor deigns to even leave a meaningful edit summary. They all just keep reverting me, thanks to a sort of hive-mentality. So far you are the only one who is willing to talk about it. Thanks, 71.182.215.210 (talk) 13:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

In response to your reply on my talk page, the words were added as a partial revert of edits by 71.7.218.110 who deleted the word stupid, from a direct quotation. In addition he/she softened language which was directly supported by the references provided. Honestly, please see the revision history before charging me as a vandal. I did use edit summaries. By the way, I don't like being told to register so I can gain credibility: Wikipedia allows for anonymous contributions. I believe it is clear that I am trying to improve the article. 136.142.124.179 (talk) 14:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC) 71.182.215.210 (talk) 14:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! (Especially for trying to follow that complicated bit of work ;-) 71.182.215.210 (talk) 15:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Should all the other category levels be changed as well? (I.e., Television show to Prescription drug addiction?) I don't think these were supposed to be under the Rush Limbaugh show caption. 15:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.215.210 (talk)

Your entry at WP:ANI has been copied to WP:RFPP --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 16:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Titanic again

Hi Kevin. Want to go further with the Break-up section of RMS Titanic, or was I insufferably pontifical? Rumiton (talk) 11:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Veeramanidasan dispute

Hi Kevin, thank you for your comment on the Veeramanidasan‎ talk. I would like to clarify on your statement on "Ownership". Please take note im merely an initiator of the mentioned wikipage & ive been maintaining the information, picture, reference all the while infact its still under progress. A person suddently comes up claiming he is the actual ancestor of the mentioned wikipage and said he have the all rights to modify. The wikipage is of a living person (a noted devotional singer/musician). My stand point is simple, im not claiming ownership of which ever wikipage that i initiated. Im only asking for solid proof for the irresponsible modification with the claim of rights to modification. Hope you dont get confuse with my statement on the talk page. Im only preserving & maintaining the neutrality of the wikipage, since someone came in and make a claim, i left no choise rather then to defence my standpoint. --KillerservTalk 01:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Notability

Why don't you actually explain what you think is wrong with the Rationale section? The discussion on the talk page is about a separate issue and does not apply to the wording of the Rationale section that you keep deleting. —Centrx→talk • 22:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I oppose any addition to a guideline or any additional guidelines which adds bulk without adding clarity. While I don't specifically dispute that veracity of the section, I see no additional clarity to offset the potential confusion. --Kevin Murray 22:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] RMS Titanic

I see no reason why my recent edits to the RMS Titanic page were removed. Perhaps I am wrong, but I am under the impression that ANYONE can edit pages, and as long as the edits are pertinent and accurate, there should be no reason to remove such edits. I would think you would be happy someone is taking this page seriously and contributing accurate information. I have read other comments on your discussion page and this same problem appears to happen frequently. I will continue to contribute accurate and pertinent information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadow2700 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing IP Address?

I made a mistake and edited a page in a browser window that was not logged in. As a result, my IP address appears in the History for that page. I do not like this at all. Is there any way I can remove this? Thanks a lot! Prignillius (talk) 05:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll pass this on to an admin. --Kevin Murray (talk) 06:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, Kevin! He or she might want to contact me at User_talk:Prignillius Prignillius (talk) 15:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apology accepted

Kevin, I accepted your apology over at AN/I. That is all I ever wanted ;-) I too looked at who you were prior to opening the issue... and noticed a number of similarities as well. Both of us are conservatives and I noticed your numerous Barnstars... so I am more than eager to let bygones be bygones and move forward.Balloonman (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How to fix the Additional criteria section

Hi Kevin. Do you think you could spare a moment comment on this issue?

Thanks. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 09:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your message

Thanks for your kind words the other day. Yes, for now I'm an occasional contributor, and I expect to continue, but perhaps not with the enthusiasm I formerly did. Marc Shepherd (talk) 15:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re Episodes

Well, the {{historical}} template includes the line about consensus being unclear. It shouldn't be marked as an essay, because it shouldn't be followed the way it's written. I suppose rejected is okay too, but since it was used at one point, my preference would be historical. I (talk) 22:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citizenship and nationality guideline proposal

I reverted your edit to the 'Citizenship and nationality' guideline proposal, which you marked as 'rejected' and described as 'dead' in your edit summary without justification. Please note that if you do not agree with a proposal, the appropriate response is to explain your reasons for disagreement on it's talk page. Given that this proposal is only a week old, and that just two people other than myself have commented on it (one against, and one in favour), it is obvious that no consensus has emerged either way. – SJL 14:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] R & I

Hello, Kevin. I think it might be a good idea if you actually made a general statement about editing on the talk page of the article about the consensus on editing. I could not find anything. I think if you started a new section with such a statement, that would be helpful. Then in the spirit of that statement, you could revert my two words yourself, but not the three wikilinks which have all been discussed. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposal

It has been proposed that WP:EPISODE be merged into WP:WAF. Your input is desired, so please comment here. Ursasapien (talk) 11:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kindergartens & Obedience

I'd be glad to provide some sources discussing the function of kindergarten as "obedience" training:

This is from the National Educational Association, which helped design the modern American school system. It reads: "Perhaps the most important lesson of the kindergarten is obedience; obedience to law..." [4]

Or from this textbook on teaching elementary schools: "Disorderly primary grades make troublesome pupils for later grades." and discusses the importance of the teachers preserving the respect of authority in their students. [5]

And this one might be considered a bit biased, but I threw it in there because it is nevertheless informative: [6]

And like I said on Torc2's talk page, I think that any person who has been through kindergarten will remember being required to raise their hand to speak, ask permission to go to the restroom, walk in lines, etc. This is not POV, it is just the reality that nearly every kindergarten student( in the United States at least) has to deal with. There is no doubt that obedience is one of the central lessons of most kindergarten programs, and I feel that this deserves some mention.

[edit] Hello

Why did you revert the change I made to Race and intelligence? I see in you edit summary you said you were reverting 'undiscussed' changes. But both SLRubenstein and myself seemed to be in agreement that the word 'caste' was inappropriately used there, and you yourself added nothing to the discussion about it on the talk page. The article is horrid enough as it is, so surely cleaning up non-controversial terminological inaccuracies is hardly a big problem. (the 41.* person) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.229.97 (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

You are violating Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:EW by reverting blindly. I would like to invite you to undo your reverts, and participate in the consensus process. --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

  • No, it is you who are subverting the processes here with your constant and persistant POV pushing at several core pages of WP. You seem to have become a virtual single purpose editor and make little contribution to the actual content of the encyclopedia. I think that you should really take a good look at your performance at WP and stop slinging about accusations of edit warring and improper conduct. --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Heh, I don't add as many articles as I used to, but I still do so, you know [7]. :-) So much for single-purpose editing.
POV-pushing applies to the main namespace, not to policy maintenance and debates. I have been maintaining policy for quite a while now, after having learned some of the ropes from mentors dating back to the founding of wikipedia.
I am quite familiar with the policies on edit warring and on consensus, having participated in their writing, and I'm pretty sure you're in violation of both, at the moment. Would you care to discuss why I think so, or would you prefer to continue on your current path? --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Kim, we have a history of disagreement, and are unlikely to find a middle ground here as I absolutely dispute the entirety of you last three comments. We have both stated our cases at the pertinent pages; others are now involved and I suggest that we each stand down and let the process continue with other participants. --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
That would take me out of the process of policy maintenance, something I have done for years. On the long run I would have to refuse. On the shorter run, however, it is almost always possible to find some kind of agreement between all participants. Would you like to request mediation, for instance? --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC) Typically mediation works best when people *are* still holding a civil discourse, and would like to continue doing so :-)
Kim, have a nice weekend. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Hmm

Kevin, Reverting IPs adding interwiki links like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Notability_%28people%29&curid=286178&diff=181839697&oldid=181788503 because of lack of discussion on the talk page seems a bit odd. Did you click the wrong button? --BozMo talk 13:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Very simple. In this case a legit use of another language wiki added interwiki links once their language wiki had a corresponding policy page. We don't have single logon implemented yet so they don't typically have user names across the whole of language space, and end up anon on en. This is a common practice. More to the point you should not revert things just because you do not understand them; you need to check the changes first. --BozMo talk 21:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I sympathise, but I think benefit of doubt or agf applies. --BozMo talk 07:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cal Yachts

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Cal Yachts, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review?

RE:

While I still have some work to do there, I'd like another sailor's perspective on where I'm going with these pages. SVP

Slamlander (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] R&I

Hello. I have now returned from the Bay Area, which was a little rainier than I had hoped for. I am currently being personally attacked by Jagz on the talk page of R&I for upholding consensus. He has said he would report me for vandalism for removing a confusing template that he chose to display. He has also decided that if a proposed content change on the talk page receives no answer in 2 days, that means it has been approved. I find that he is rejecting the scholarly approach advocated by Slrubenstein which I thought had been agreed upon. It requires patient and hard work; from what he writes Jagz doesn't seem to take such an approach seriously. He accuses me of debating for the sake of it. It seems that the lack of honest and careful scholarship is one of the main problems with the article. If you object to his editing methods, please could you reason with him yourself? He has compressed and wikilinked the Stereotypes section, which I did not object to, although he did not properly ascertain consensus. His proposed summary of the IQ gap of Rushton, however, is worrying to me: the presentation does not seem to be properly balanced as far as I can tell and no context is provided. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 10:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revert on WP:CONSENSUS

I noticed the edit summary on your revert on WP:CONSENSUS.[8] It's somewhat ironic; the way that we find consensus for changes is by making them, so we can't expect to have consensus for edits before they are made (see WP:BOLD). It may be that you have specific concerns about the edit, but your message on the talk page and edit summary come across as resistance to editing in general, rather than to the specific edit being made. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

"(1) fewer rules, (2) clearer rules, and (3) stable rules." I completely agree with (1) and (2). I find it very strange (but not surprising, in the end) that the Wikipedia:List of policies is so long, given that we have WP:IAR anyway. As for (3), the entire wiki system is designed so that things are not stable. Even getting the stable versions extensions enabled is contentious, because editing is a foundation principle. Moreover, our policies are not written with stability in mind. When someone writes a policy, they expect that it will be edited mercilessly and updated as consensus changes. If we were going to have stable policies, we would need to greatly change the way that text becomes policy in the first place. The policy documents already in place gained consensus under the assumption that any problems that arise in their wording can be easily remedied. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

My view of the project namespace is that it is a kind of small encyclopedia (or wikipedia ;-) ) about what consensus exists on wikipedia at any point in time. Similar guidance applies to this mini-wikipedia as applies to the main one. Some guidance doesn't work though. Like I would love to be able to make everything in the project namespace verifiable, but unfortunately, most of that information is in people's heads.

Also, since my first interest is in making as clear descriptive documentation as possible, I get very frustrated when people try to treat the project namespace as a place to make rules, and try to block other people from "changing the rules". In reality, it is true that some people abuse the project namespace in that fashion, but that it is not really intended to function that way. The best way to make sure it functions correctly is by setting a good example. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute, you actually want policies to be more clear and concise? Wow. Don't you know? Here's my favorite example of what is possible, if there is mutual trust,and people work together, and use consensus. See the talk page for WP:SR to see how rapidly that came to fruition.

So now what I want to get done on Wikipedia:Consensus, is to document the process that actually leads to such pages, as well as pages in the encyclopedia itself. We should be able to do so in a clear concise way.

I haven't done maintenance at the consensus page in a while, so I started out by placing several basic core points in a separate section. This tends to get the juices flowing in lots of wikipedians, and several folks were indeed gleefully (wiki-editing is FUN! :-) ) gearing up to do a wholesale refactor (as they have told you), until you went and put the process on hold.  :-(

I'm worried that you don't actually trust the process, or me :-(

Note that no, this is not spillover, see also my comment here. I've been maintaining that particular page for quite some time. I just hope I haven't started to feel like it's WP:OWNer ^^;; --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The structure of wikipedia is a very interesting one. Hmm, do you think that that my way of working makes wikipedia into an anarchy, or that I am old fashioned, or that wikipedia dynamics have changed over time, or ... could you specify what makes you distrust the consensus process? --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
The process for editing articles is different from the process for editing policy, though the major differences are not really documented very well. (for instance WP:V is unfortunately not usable, though I wish it was.)
--Kim Bruning (talk) 08:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Your answer on WP:NOT is interesting. As I suspect, you think that the policy pages represent actual rules.
Compare your view of policy and policy page editing with how the game of Nomic is played. Do you see similarities or differences?
--Kim Bruning (talk) 08:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
You seem to prefer formal discourse, and strictly accurate wording. I have adjusted my writing to this preference where possible/appropriate, and will continue in this manner. --Kim Bruning (talk) 08:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Heh, we're both getting pretty heated. I have to admit I do actually have trouble discussing things with people who have a certain attitude about policy. There's apparently some fundamental concept that fails to get across, and both sides get utterly frustrated! It's probably my fault, but I'm not sure how to correct it.
Tell you what, to make up for it, if we ever meet IRL, I'll buy you a beer. (or, if in Egypt, a Root beer ;-) )
In other news, did you see my offer at WT:NOT? That seems like something constructive we could both get behind. --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused, what does IPA stand for, in this case? --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
In lieu of sitting down with a person over a good pint of beer, I've had a lot of good experience talking with people over skype. It's not as good as meeting face to face, but at least you do get voice. Do you have a skype client? I'll send you my skype-id and so over email. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC) This does not void my offer for a good IPA at some later date, of course :-)


I haven't heard back from you. Perhaps I missed your e-mail? --Kim Bruning (talk) 08:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Your position on a number of issues is not entirely unique (nor is mine), so it might be useful to learn the reasoning behind both sides. On-wiki discussion apparently isn't working, but hopefully voice might work! --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, I'd like to edit the consensus page soon, and I'd rather try to pre-empt long debate, and have you on my side instead. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. As we have not had the chance to have any real-time communications, we have now (predictably) come back to a collision course. I believe you have my phone number and other contact info? I can re-send it if you have lost it. The ball is in your court there.

Meanwhile, as we are arguing about Wikipedia:Consensus itself, I consider this something of a last stand to maintain wiki-procedures. I try to avoid conflict for as long as possible, but do not avoid it at all costs. In this case, (and with due respect for your own good intentions as well) if we cannot come to an understanding, I do intend to fight this out through Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. I hope we can stop short of that point! --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello , Thank you so much for trying to answer. To be able to negotiate with you, to find a compromise and ultimately to find consensus, I specifically need your own rationale for your actions. I'm looking for some kind of grounds for your actions that we can negotiate about.

This is different than what other people's reasons for their actions are, other people can speak for themselves! At the same time, I also think it is unfair to you for me to simply accept a concession without any form of rationale as well.

You have reasons for your actions, and that is what I am interested in. I would like to respect those reasons as best I can within my own framework of reasons. That's how I hope to be sure that my actions will have your respect and support in future.

Of course, a similar story also holds true the other way around, and it is also true for interactions with other people.

I try to discuss things with one person at a time, specifically those who have opposed my actions de-facto (as these are the people who I still need to find consensus with) . That makes you a very important person for me to talk with right now. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

'"OK Kim, how about this as a compromise?"

I don't know that it's a compromise, but it's going in an interesting direction. :-) It basically needs finishing. I've left some critical notes on the consensus talk page to that effect. I notice I've been a tad strict. I hope that's ok. --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


I love flow charts! (Because I'm good at them). I spotted a couple of bugs and some room for refactoring. I left a note on the talk page and I hope you can fix them. (or, if this is simply the method that people use... don't fix them, and explain that on talk... that would be as interesting or more interesting.)
Right now I might edit, but on the other hand, I'd like to see full documentation of the method you are using to edit wikipedia. :-)
--Kim Bruning (talk) 22:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


Sorry about the repeated points. I got caught in an edit conflict while still working on them and hadn't noticed. I just dropped what I was doing on the page, and proceeded to prepare a reply relevant to the new state of the discussion. Whenever you see (ec.) or (e/c), be suspicious that the text that follows might have some issues, but has been left for you as a courtesy or for reasons of completeness.

In this case, I was rechecking my work, and hadn't seen the chart change under me, you were that quick! :-). The newer points as posted refer to the newer chart and therefore may still be of some use, which is why I posted them after the edit conflict, rather than throwing them away. --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

When you made the edit about documentation, I noticed we don't really have a good (if brief) description on the consensus page at all. So reverted myself and created a new section on that topic, which was probably the right thing to do in the first place. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hajj Amin Elahi

Dear Kevin, thank you for your message. I am all ears. Ps-the New York Times citation is only to prove the date of death. Thanks--Octavian history (talk) 11:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Silence and concent

I hadn't looked closely at this for 24 hours or so; it seemed "your" version was a more radical departure from recent history. Per talk, I'd probably be happier with a non-consensus essay than an attempt at crafting a policy to please everyone. -- Kendrick7talk 23:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I reverted to that version, but that wasn't otherwise me; I haven't been messing with the tags here. I can't think about it too much more now as I'm off to my weekly poker game. I felted a guy (took all his money) last week when I shoved on a straight draw following a raise and a re-raise, and they gentleman who called was very upset at my action (especially as I made my draw) because he had flopped a set, and so was drawing to a full house. And he was right, I was way behind, but if I played all day long with the fear the guy across the table hit a miracle flop, I'd be paralyzed all the time. Which, if you followed any of that, is the same way I feel about writing policy with a mind to how all the baddies out there might use it to WP:GAME the system. You just end up paralyzed. So I'd tag this as an essay with an eye to possible promotion maybe somewhere down the line if it sinks in. But ain't really the one babysitting this guy, so I'll see what others think. -- Kendrick7talk 00:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button Image:Signature_icon.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 23:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Hajj Amin Elahi

I responded to your comment on the article's deletion page. Hopefully it adequately addresses your concerns. Teleomatic (talk) 23:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re: Wikipedia:Consensus

Good evening, Kevin. Thank you for your wiki-email message. I've replied off-line. I hope that I wasn't too incoherent in the reply.

Would you be offended if I asked both you and Kim to take a day off from editing those pages and let the rest of us catch up? We all need some time to filter through and consider what you've both said so that the rest of the community can participate in the discussion.

Thanks. Rossami (talk) 00:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletionist_versus_Inclusionist_Controversy

Kevin, would you consider adding to the article in question--and perhaps weigh-in on the AfD on it? Tarinth (talk) 15:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Germany Invitation

Hello, Kevin Murray! I'd like to call your attention to the WikiProject Germany and the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. I hope their links, sub-projects and discussions are interesting and even helpful to you. If not, I hope that new ones will be.

--Zeitgespenst (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Race and intelligence

The R&I article is being edited now. I did some reorganization of the sections. I think the focus for now is trying to improve what is there already. --Jagz (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:387_Floor_Plan.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:387_Floor_Plan.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 14:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:470_Interior.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:470_Interior.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 16:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Octavian history

I saw you thanked Octavian history. I cannot believe that he was suspended indefinitely by Gyrofrog, an admin who is abusing his powers and who has accused over 100 people of being a sock puppet. Octavian history spent an ungodly amount of time trying to improve wikipedia. Octavian history is a New York Times best selling author and I think he has decided to not waste his time with sick individuals like Gyrofrog who were harassing him every day. Meanwhile there are thousands of people who are vandalizing wiki every second and gyro decides to suspend a true scholar who cared about the preservation of wiki. I guess the world has turned upside-down. But I guess this is just a reflection of what Wikipedia really is. Unbelievable!--Wiki-user3728 (talk) 07:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:C440_Head.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:C440_Head.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 19:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Navy...

"designed by geniuses to be run by idiots" fantastic! I've never heard that one before, that's a keeper... Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chart used in other discussion

Hello! I just wanted to tell you that I really appreciate your flowchart-work. An example of where I've used one of your illustrations in a tangential discussion is here.


--Kim Bruning (talk) 19:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:CCC_Flowchart_5b.jpg or at least the underlying procedure it describes has lead to User:Ottava Rima‎ being blocked. (rationale).

I'm interested in what you will say and/or do, knowing this.

Obviously Ottava Rima is responsible for his/her own actions, but this person was apparently following your advice, or at least your recommended procedure.

Please contact me first in case you're considering anything ... really interesting. :-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 06:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello! Nice to hear from you.
Note that chart 1 explicitly allows a user to edit first. Chart 1 does not justify reverting a person on the sole ground that they have made an edit, while chart 5b can be read to say that this is possible.
What I'm mostly trying to put across is that this documentation work does have actual consequences for people. Due to chart 5b being up, it will likely be difficult to correct this user's behavior, and they will likely be banned from the site.
I'm interested to hear what you propose to do in this particular situation. Zooming from global helicopter view to local action, are there any actions you and I can take to try to get this user to become a productive wikipedian? Once we do, we might be able to take our experience back to the global level, and document our procedure for future reference.
--Kim Bruning (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
(as you can see, ultimately, I don't actually deal in theory ;-)
I do believe Ottava Rima has some inkling about 3O and village pump, but nevertheless, they are heading for a ban. If you think that educating this user about these two items will convince them to change their behavior, I will request for the talk page to be unprotected, and I will mail Ottava Rima that we will brief him/her, with the ultimate goal of getting the block lifted.
However, I am not yet entirely convinced that this would be the practical solution. Wouldn't discussing actions like taking things to 3O and VP actually end up convincing Ottava Rima of the righteousness of their behavior (and thus actually accelerate them being banned?).
Do you see any potential alternate approaches?
--Kim Bruning (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC) It may not be possible to convince Ottava Rima to sufficiently alter his/her behavior to prevent the ban entirely, though it might be possible to improve their behavior and thus their lot to some extent at least.
<scratches head> Don't take this the wrong way, and not to put too fine a point on it, but aren't you effectively saying that... You don't understand the specific case enough to be able to comment, but you do audaciously presume to advise people on the general case?
That can't be right, I must be reading you wrong. O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 07:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Interesting response. Apparently our views on both the genesis and purpose of policy differ somewhat. At any rate, I see this as an opportunity to explore and possibly set community standards (aka. policy), and am explicitly inviting you into the loop so that you don't feel shut out at a later date. If it is truly your wish to decline, then I'll sadly accept that. --Kim Bruning (talk) 08:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Murray

Considering a "political pundit" would be a political expert, and he is indeed a researcher in political science, I don't think it was much of a change. However, I agree that his political leanings should be left out of the article.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] mediating/moderating the discussion on race and intelligence

Would you mind commenting here? I think we could benefit from your insights and past experience. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 18:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shockley

Ramdrake has been wiki-stalking me as recent edits proof, hence why I've been short when dealing with him. --Zero g (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Phot Permission Sherman.pdf

Image Copyright problem

Hi Kevin Murray!
We thank you for uploading Image:Phot Permission Sherman.pdf, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem, this is a PDF of an email demonstrating the release of a photo to GNU> Have done the same for the email PDF. --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cattle Health Initiative article name

Hi, I see you've worked on this article recently. I'm a little confused by the precise naming, I haven't been able to find any references to "Cattle Health Initiative". I can find "Cattle Health Planning Initiative", "Cattle Initiative" and "Cattle Health Planning Project", but not the actual article title. Now this is admittedly a pretty obscure thing to be bringing up, but what do you think, should the article be renamed? Thanks! Franamax (talk) 20:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It is not appropriate to cahnge names during and AfD, otherwise I ould have wanted to somehow make it clear and that it is a UK government program. I'd like to know a bit more about the scope of the program and perhaps look at broadening the topic. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, the AfD has been withdrawn, largely due to your commendable efforts, it would seem a rename can go ahead. Picking the new name is still a conundrum. Based on this, "Farm Health Planning Cattle Initiative" might be the official name, I haven't found an actual press release. Mentioning the country is a good idea, but there again, it is a UK government plan but the program seemingly only applies to England, as farm health is apparently devolved to the other Parliaments. No easy answers here. Cheers! Franamax (talk) 18:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] KXAN-TV

Thanks for the 3O about KXAN-TV. I am curious, though, about some of the facts in the article vs the facts in the reference source, plus the fact that the reference source is a blog entry and concerns a living person, which I am under the impression is a violation of BLP. I have in good faith and effort tried to find better reference sources and just really can't turn that much up. Not trying to pick a fight; I'd just like a little clarification for future use. Cheers. Paxsimius (talk) 23:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; this is going much smoother, and I'm much calmer about it. Paxsimius (talk) 02:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your comments at my meta page

Thanks for them, and you were correct that that was a typo. Unfortunately, in addition to being a careless typist I'm apparently also a careless reader - while I thought that statements were to be a maximum of 1200 words, it turns out that they're supposed to be a maximum of 1200 characters, which means I've had to take the whole thing down pending some serious editing. Thanks again! Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Manual of Style (Burmese)

"routine marking of obsolete proposals as rejected - feel free to revert"

And what gives you the idea that this proposal is obsolete (or rejected as the notice says)? Do you customarily go around marking proposals with 100% support as rejected without so much as saying hi on the talk page?? Kaldari (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I do routinely mark these obsolete pages as rejected. Rejected is a harsh term but it is the tag we use for proposals which have not been accepted. Please read the policy page on proposals. I typically prune old proposals each month or the list of proposals becomes clogged and worthless. If your proposal has died out you might want to advertise it at the Village pump or at related project pages. Good luck! --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
What gives you the idea that the proposal has "not been accepted" or is "obsolete"? Please explain. Per previous discussion on the proposal talk page and the fact that the conventions given in the proposal are merely descriptions of already well-established and non-controversial conventions which might not be obvious to new editors (and considering Wikipedia:SILENCE), I have changed the page to an official guideline. Kaldari (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Silence and consensus is an essay. I've asked for feedback at the Burma project. I've no objection to your proposal, but I do have an objection to your actions and sensitivities around this, so I will now become more involved. --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I know that Wikipedia:Silence and consensus is an essay. I've only been an administrator on Wikipedia for 3 YEARS! Jeezy Creezy! And for your information, I have advertised it at related project pages, in case you didn't notice. There's no point advertising this on the Village Pump since only about 5 active editors on Wikipedia know anything about the Burmese language (and thus would be qualified to have an opinion about it). And also, this is not a Wikipedia "policy", it's a list of helpful guidelines. It describes already established conventions and provides valuable information to new editors who might be interested in editing articles related to Burmese topics. It's not about me trying to dictate rules to the rest of Wikipedia. Have some faith! Kaldari (talk) 23:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, having faith works both ways, and your status as an Admin holds no weight in this discussion. You could have just reverted the routine tagging and be done with it, but now you've made it an unpleasant issue. Just show a bit of support for tagging it as a guideline and be happy. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
My being an admin holds no weight in this discussion except that it should be a decent indication that I have rudimentary familiarity with guidelines, policies, and essays. Sorry to have made this an unpleasant issue, but I consider tagging things without discussion as rather unhelpful behavior. Also, I do not believe that guideline proposals are subject to any specific deadline for approval. If you believe that proposals need to be approved within a certain amount of time or marked as rejected, you should propose that as a policy. Enforcing your own arbitrary time limits, however, seems a bit unilateral. Kaldari (talk) 23:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Per the policy page: "A rejected page is any proposal for which consensus for acceptance has not developed after a reasonable time period. While our policies remain ambiguous it is left to us to determine what is reasonable. No consensus for acceptance was generated and there has not been discussion for some time; the page was tagged with the edit summary, "routine marking of obsolete proposals as rejected - feel free to revert." This is really much ado about nothing. I expect more from an Admin. --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the note. There's really nothing to be done. No ill will. No problems with Wikipedia. Just...ready to stop. Thanks again.--Eva bd 18:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Technical 3RR vio?

I think we're all editing in good faith there, did you really do 3 actual reverts? If it's just slightly different edits, that's not 3RR, that's actually fine. If you're trying to work something out something complicated with Rhanyeia and I'm actually in the way, I'll take a step back 'till you're done.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC) not enough go-juice in system :-P

No per my interpretaion I did not exceed the 3RR rule, but i would if I went further. She and I worked together in collaboration this morning but I edited her then you then you. Please see my message at the talk page. I'm off to crack open that IPA in your honor. I think that we've done some great work together today. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I somehow suspect you just wanted an excuse to go crack open that IPA O:-) Cheers, have a great day! --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-05-08 Curtiss P-40

Sure, please list me. MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: On Break?

Hi Kevin,

I do take a few breaks from Wikipedia, as you can see...I am an administrator on another large wiki, and that takes up a good amount of my time, as well as real life work. I apologize for not answering faster. As for User:Gjenvick, I understand that I may have removed some of his or her links as I believed they didn't go by the WP:EL guidelines. If you would still like to speak to me regarding this issue, please do.

Thank you, Maniac18 (talk) 23:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] William Gaillard

Sorry I didn't answer when I read the message first off. I am more than happy for you to act in any capacity in relation to the article.Londo06 16:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

FYI [9] Your work here was good, I think it got it all going well. Maybe the section on editing could go back in, I guess it depends what happens with the flowchart. Cheers! --NewbyG (talk) 01:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] yeah but

but i have like over 500 edits, man! And i'm talking about edits by hand, no bots baby! JeanLatore (talk) 02:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean, "troubled"? And I think I can be admin in about 1,000 more edits. I love sluts and hot young women but don't think Wikipedia is myspace either. JeanLatore (talk) 02:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dave Zirin 3O

Dave has wrote several articles defending bonds against accusations of steroids and repeatedly refuses to give a yes or no answer to a simple question: DO you think barry bonds has done steroids? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.94.0.250 (talk) 10:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re: Harlem Heights

Hi Kevin. I'm familiar with MEDCAB although I've never submitted a formal request. On the rare occasion that I am in disagreement over an article, my usual plan is 3O and then MEDCAB, however nothing has ever gone that far. In this case, my first recourse was 3O, seeing as the current dispute is between myself a Trip Johnson and I was not party to the earlier confrontations. However, the user does seem to be in a number of disagreements with a number of editors across a number of articles–how would you suggest we proceed? Thanks. MrPrada (talk) 01:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dennis Dechaine

The ostensible Wikipedia policy rationale for censoring the name of Sarah Cherry (which has been on the article since inception and was not put there by me) is that the name "was not widely disseminated". I addded a half dozen sources to the article, including the NY Times, Village Voice and a best selling book. I think it is safe to say this qualifies as "widepread dissemination". John celona (talk) 02:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Awards as evidence of notability (fiction)

I would be grateful if you would make your viewpoint known at Notability (fiction): AFI example, as I believe your earlier points could result in the guideline being changed.--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What are you trying to achieve at Wikipedia:Consensus ?

I thought we were past the point where people could hold the page hostage. :-/ --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Drug policy of Sweden

Yes, I first looked in and offered a third opinion, but have decided to stick around and help improve the page as an editor. Neither of the other editors is a native English speaker, so if nothing else, at least I can help there. Since my participation makes this a three editor disagreement, mediation is the appropriate way to go. I do appreciate your input. When I stepped in, the two editors had become pretty polarized so there was not a lot of trust. I personally thought the latest call for a third opinion spoke more to the editor's frustration with his inability to push his POV than to any inability of the editors to eventually reach a compromise. Mmyotis ^^o^^ 10:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks ...

... and thanks! Hope you have been well too. What are the policy issues you have in mind? Many months ago I was heavily involved in an argument at NOR - I feel like I said my peace there, even worked on some compromise positions which were accepted - only later to be deleted - and frankly feel burned out there. And a few weeks ago I think I was involved in a lengthy discussion at V which ultimately went nowhere. I am not sure I have anything more constructive to add, but keep me posted! Slrubenstein | Talk 10:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for noticing my somewhat-upcoming graduation. After changing majors a couple times, it's about time I finished up. I do want to go into business for myself after graduation, but I don't have any capital, so I guess I'll be looking for venture capitalists and angel investors. Wish me luck. Useight (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks so much for your support in myRfA, which closed successfully this morning. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 18:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Isis Gee

Hi Kevin, am happy to go with your revert but let me give you some background.

This page has been a PR speel for a number of months.

I've spent some time re-writing it so it is accurate.

Isis Gee has been publicly proven to use sockpuppets on youtube to remove negative comments.

The other user is simply removing negative comments on the article and has added nothing new.

I am also a little upset as she is misrepresenting the polish article by translating them incorrectly on the talk page.

It is getting very frustrating.

Eurovisionman (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


Hi Kevin,

Thanks.

Is there any way you can full-protect the page for a couple of days. I am a new user so if you semi-protect I can't edit and the sockpuppets will run wild. Eurovisionman (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kevin, could you look at the talk page again. I'm just concerned about the sources overall. Also, the same BBC commentary is being used at For Life (Isis Gee song) and I would like your opinion on that as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Eurovisionman

Kevin,

I was very happy to see you intervene in the Isis Gee debacle, but I fear you might be manipulated by this use. Please note that this user is using legitimate-looking arguments to push his version of the article, which is quite clearly OR and POV. He is simply reverting any change to the article, referring to the editors as "sockpuppets" (do I need to prove to you that I am not? dunno who to anonymous editor is though, maybe this is an actual sockpuppet, though I doubt it), referring to "consensus" that did not take place, misuing references to substantiate his edits (i.e. he quotes a "reference" which has little to do with what he has written), and another user has questioned the validity of the BBC player reference (can't access the clip myself, I am not in the UK which is apprently required). On top of that, the user attempted to wipe clear his talk page after I placed a lenghty reply there.

I know a barely notable Eurovision Song Contest entrant might not be of utmost interest to you, but if you could take a look at the involved articles' and talk pages' histories, you could perhaps get a broader view of the issue.

Kind regards,

PrinceGloria (talk) 21:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Kevin, this user seems to be a veteran vandal to me. He clearly DOES know about our policies, he has been quoting their names from the very beginning but in a malevolent way. Since the article is of current interest, I'd see a block on it very appropriate - there are many parties interested in defamation of selected artists for various reasons just before the final. PrinceGloria (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
For sure, but I'd hate the article to contain pretty obvious attempt at defamation of a living person just because we hope for a good dispute. Please take a look at the discussions on the article's and user's talk page - I have explained why I find the edits inappropriate. I strongly believe the original version is a better one to start a debate from. PrinceGloria (talk) 21:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Kevin 1) I have done plenty of talking, Eurovisionman not that much, but a lot of editing, and I don't think there is anything he hasn't said yet 2) the only parties involved are myself, him and you - I clearly cannot agree with Eurovisionman, as he insist on his version beyond any discussion, and there is only you left. So, if you please, do decide. PrinceGloria (talk) 21:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
IP user seems to be blocked now, and per his modus operandi I'd actually suspect him of being Eurovisionman's sockpuppet if anything, used to purport his sockpuppet theory. PrinceGloria (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I sure will - need to get something to eat ;) In the meantime, you could also checkuser Eurovisionman just in case ;) PrinceGloria (talk) 21:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Catalina Yachts

Hello - Regarding the new "references" section: There are no references to these items in the article. For instance, the "Sail Magazine: August 2004 pages 54 - 57" item. Also, the "Catalina Timeline" is really just a nice external link. I don't believe we need a "Notes" section that is contains inline references and a "Notes" section that contains items that could be distributed elsewhere... The inline refs should be under "References". E_dog95 Hi 22:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I do tons of work with referencing. I typically don't include items that aren't easily verifiable. So the inclusion of "Sail Magazine: August 2004 pages 54 - 57" as a bibliography item makes little sense especially since nothing points to it in the article. It hangs out there alone. The article really doesn't need a bibliography section. It looks like you've worked on the article for coming up on two years. Why now? I just think the items we have could be covered more simply as they stood. E_dog95 Hi 23:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
You are the first editor. Your style prevails. My POV here is that the article reference has little value as it's not easily verifiable. I am finding new references that are. E_dog95 Hi 23:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
No longer working on the article. I don't see a reason to have both inline refs and "general" refs (the kind that aren't easily verifiable). Good luck & no need to respond E_dog95 Hi 05:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cobal Case

Could you please keep an eye on this discussion for a bit longer: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-05-15 WikiProject Automobiles, I have been unblocked. 842U (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Drug policy of Sweden

I thank you for showing interest in the article Drug Policy of Sweden and your work as 3-O. If I interpreted user Steinberger correct, he now accepts that the issues identified as important in the National Action Plan of 2006 are relevant to the article Drug policy of Sweden which reasonably also means that one can write on relevant statistics for these areas. I have added an additional source to the page that I absolutely should have included earlier. European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction: National report Sweden, 2006 Dala11a (talk) 09:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Your dispute

Kevin I heard about this in LBC radio today. It was actually quite funny but sad. Some user has put wording in the entry to make it appear that Isis Gee came 2nd last when she came last and had a very bad performance. I have added my views of the entry and hope you can comment. Polishchick99 (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Fordmadoxfraud's RfA

Hey Kevin-- I saw what you said in FMF's talk page & in his RfA, & I wanted to commend you on your well reasoned arguments. It is good to see good folks kicking around. --mordicai. (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation Cabal • 2008-05-15 WikiProject Automobiles

Hi, Kevin. It looks like you're busy or away. When you get a moment, could you please come back and have another look? There are a few loose ends to tie up, as it seems. Thanks! —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 16:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)