User talk:Mjb/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Apology 2 Wikipedian Rollergirls 3 Electronic dance music 4 Your note 5 Fairly worthless awards? 6 IDM 7 a user conduct RFC 8 Northern Soul and ABC 9 Trafford publications 10 Join us in the "Terminator" Article discussion page...please... 11 Thanks 12 Apizza! 13 Uniform Resource Identifier 14 XML intro 15 HTML WG edits 16 Flashback (band) 17 John Bedini article 18 Professional v. Amateur, take 27 19 Acid house 20 Trivia and WP:FIVE. 21 Category:Roller derby 22 User talk:64.38.167.66 23 Please be nice to the newbies 24 Harvest Records 25 Acid house 26 Minnesota RollerGirls 27 Character set tables 28 Roller Derby and Its History 29 de:User talk:Raymond

[edit] Apology

mjb-- I am very sorry about inadvertently removing your edits. I thought I was simply deleting what looked like an irrelevant external link. I'm not sure I understand how removing your edits happened because all I did was remove one line of text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjmt (talk • contribs)

Thanks for getting back to me. You must have loaded an old revision of the article before you edited it. Either you clicked on a date in the history, or you are seeing cached, not-up-to-date pages somehow, perhaps through a 'web accelerator' or other HTTP proxy. I'm glad it wasn't intentional, but you should figure out what happened, lest it happen again. —mjb 18:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedian Rollergirls

I removed the roller derby article from that category, which is just for Wikipedia users who are rollergirls. We could make it a 'See also', though. If you do that, put a colon in front of it, like this: * [[:Category:Wikipedian RollerGirls]]. That will cause it to link to the category rather than making the article be in the category. —mjb 00:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll think about how I want to approach this a while, and either leave it out or move it elsewhere. -- Marumari 01:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

One thing I haven't gotten around to is linking to the various derby related Y! Groups, other than bankedtracknews… do you want to do that? —mjb 01:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. There's probably around 200 different groups. If we're just talking *big* groups than the only other really big group is roller_girls, which has over 2000 members (but generally rollergirls only.)

200!?! Jeez! Well, the way I see it, the only ones that are worth linking to are the ones that are of 'for further research' interest. We don't want to set a precedent of linking to groups that are just for certain leagues or whatever, since then everyone would want to have a link. So, I'd do roller_girls, plus whatever ones would be of interest to people researching the topic of roller derby in general. That's why I linked to bankedtracknews; AFAIK it's the only one that's populated by old-timers. —mjb 01:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

One thing I haven't gotten around to is linking to the various derby related Y! Groups, other than bankedtracknews… do you want to do that? Also, I'm working with Cat O'Ninetails on the DMOZ links. You wouldn't happen to have an editor account on there, would you? We could use some help… before we ask about the right way to set up a regional hierarchy, we need to get the descriptions of each league site updated to indicate what kind of content is on that site. There are a lot of sites to check; I added a ton of them somewhat blindly, just making sure they loaded but not reviewing their content. —mjb 01:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't have an editor account there. Sorry. AFAIK, bankedtracknews and roller_girls are the only two important Yahoo groups that have information and posts that the actual public can read. Most of the other groups are closed to the general public. If you're going to set up a regional hierarchy, I'd use the same hierarchy as in List of roller derby leagues, or go by state, or even better, choose one of the regions in List of regions of the United States. Another possibility is sorting them by WFTDA status - ranks I/II/III and non-WFTDA. I don't like the "Professional"/"Amateur" division, though or go by. I mean, some of those Amateur leagues pull in 5000 fans at a bout, and all of the Professional leagues are long gone. -- Marumari 13:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I like "Census Bureau-designated areas" best. Time zones is a good second choice.

If there are groups worth linking to, then I think it'd be OK on Wikipedia to link to Y! Groups that require membership, as long as we mention that requirement in the link.

Re: regional divisions, I didn't think of using Census regions/divisions. I do kind of like that. I (of course) also like the way I did it on the List of roller derby leagues here, since it's splits them up into groups of fairly equal size, but in any case on DMOZ what I have to do is run it by the senior editors in the Sports category. They're pretty fussy about keeping regional divisions the same as in other parts of the site, but might give me some leeway. Running it by editors means drawing attention to what I've already done, though, so I need to make sure that I've first beefed up all the descriptions; they won't like seeing nearly identical descriptions for each site because it indicates that I didn't give them the full review that's required. I too, don't like the professional/amateur division, but I really don't feel it's fair to lump the 'pro' leagues, with their completely different way of doing things, shady management, infrequent bouts, etc., in with the amateurs. A couple of those leagues are now trying to capitalize on the all-female DIY success, marketing their teams as if they were same kind of thing, but basically still being 95% hype. So that's why I keep them separate. In Wikipedia it's a little easier because I have more freedom to say "these leagues tend to misrepresent their size and level of activity" and write gobs of prose to counter reader assumptions about what it means to be 'pro' or 'am' (strictly speaking, the distinction is only about whether athletes are paid to play). In DMOZ I can only list the links and describe the site content; no prose other than a category description which most people don't even get to see.

Besides WFTDA membership not being something I want to keep track of, I'm inclined to avoid inflating WFTDA's de facto authority by mentioning WFTDA status either here or in DMOZ. There's already a pretty widespread feeling that WFTDA membership is a necessary seal of approval that legitimizes a league, even though non-members are obviously very successful and can (for now) have interleague bouts without involving WFTDA. (This may change though, as there's a rumor that WFTDA is moving to prevent its members from having non-WFTDA interleague bouts; I have it on authority from one of the B.A.D. Girls that they were already threatened and voted as a league to cancel their bout with the Renegades in order to stay in the good graces of certain WFTDA members.) On the WFTDA article, I recently mentioned how the division structure is changing, anyway. Also, my gf's league is facing an uphill battle to get into WFTDA, since it formed from a WFTDA member league's split. Hard feelings remain, and it's looking like WFTDA is out to punish and exclude nonmembers (only) and no one can afford to say how they really feel…I'm sure either of us could tell you more about it; use the 'E-mail this user' link and we can take that discussion offline. :) —mjb 19:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand the concern about articles for each and every team, however, just like people, some teams are more notable then others. The tag placed on the article about the Rat City Rollergirls should clearly be removed at this time. The article itself is still in need of detail, but I find it disheartening to try to contribute to an article that seems to be going away. And contributions to articles tagged seem to seek to establish bona fides rather then to inform a curious reader.Michael J Swassing 18:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Electronic dance music

Did you move Electronic dance to Electronic dance music by copy/pasting the contents ? That's generally NOT a good idea, as the entire page history is lost in this process. GFDL requires that all contributers are listed... I have put a request Wikipedia:Requested_moves#24_August_2006 for an administrator to undo your move, and the REDO it again, by usting the normal "move" method keeping the history intact ;-) Regards --LimoWreck 10:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your note

Hi Mike, it's very good, but I think perhaps a little short, and the definition of terms is a bit legalistic. The editors on WP:ATT seem pretty happy with the current version, so I don't think anyone will go with a rewrite. You could try to help out making things more succinct, or do the same at WP:ATTFAQ, which is starting to suffer from severe bloat. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, the point that says "Every Wikipedia article should cite the reliable sources to which its content is attributable; material without cited reliable sources is considered unsourced and may be challenged or removed," isn't quite right: claims challenged or likely to be challenged should be cited, and quotations, but not everything has to be — although it has to be attributable i.e. there must be a source out there for it, even if not actually cited. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, not citing is getting to be a dangerous practice. I am always arguing with Septentrionalis about whether math articles on undergraduate-level (or below) topics should bother to pick a couple of decent textbooks for the explanations and cite those in a references section, since the community of editors is well-qualified to evaluate the proofs and explanations. Those are the sort of articles where inline citations would be, I think, silly.

I understand but dislike the use of "normatively", because it is one of those words that a lot of people don't understand. A more organic organization is also likely to be accessible to more people than a formalistic organization, and the rules of formal construction are also not well understood by most Wikipedians. Robert A.West (Talk) 17:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, "normatively" is a term I'm familiar with because of its ubiquity in Internet technology specs; it's not going to be well understood by most readers. One of the main aims of my rewrite of WP:ATT is to be very clear about (and formally delineate) which statements constitute the Attribution Policy, which statements are supplementary explanations to help people better understand and apply the policy, and what the policy's canonical definition of its key terms is (or where such defs can be found; I would like there to be no conflicting definitions or scope creep). As long as that is achieved, I'm not concerned about whether it uses the words "normative" and "informative".

Regarding overciting (e.g. in lower math articles), both WP:ATT and my interpretation/rewrite of it encourage citations but don't require them (except for WP:BLP). The degree to which an article "should" have citations will vary from subject area to subject area, and will generally be reflected in the actual demand that arises. I prefer my version (of course), where I say "No part of this policy should be applied to cause disruption by prematurely removing or demanding citations for material for which reliable sources can reasonably be found, except in the case of controversial material about a living person." This is almost identical to what is on WP:ATT, but I've added the "or demanding citations for" part. —mjb 22:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think that lower-math articles should have a bibliography as a service to our readers, pointing them where to go for the next level, irrespective of the need to verify. As such, I am not sure about making demanding citations equivalent to saying, "I don't believe this." I have often demanded citations for statements that I felt were probably correct, but wanted to check further, and the article is nearly always better off for it. In one instance, I had to threaten an AFD before the editor including material found a non-classified source for certain assertions about the Army of the United States. He sounded reasonable, and my gut reaction was, "probably true," but I felt it was the sort of material that should be sourced, since some of it bore superficial resemblance to certain tax-protester type claims. Robert A.West (Talk) 23:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fairly worthless awards?

Hello, your edits here and there suggest that you might know what is worth knowing about web awards (as opposed to all the puffery that isn't). I recently discovered some oddities about one Sacha Dean Biyan (no, I'd never heard of him either). We're now reminded that his site is praised here. (It's "legendary", but the legend goes unidentified.) I wondered about the site that said this, but most of the damn site requires Flash, to which I refuse to subject myself. So I then went to Favourite Website Awards, where the stench of promotion almost knocked me off my chair. I note that the major contributor is User:Treecity, and that "FWA is a project originally developed by 'treecity'". Uh-huh. Google has lots of hits for it, but a quick look suggests that many of these are self-promotion, promotion, mutual congratulation, keyword seeding, etc.: I don't have the appetite (or time) to investigate. Is this AfD material, or is there something to it? (Please reply here rather than in my talk page, if it's all the same to you.) -- Hoary 06:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IDM

www.pandora.com lists IDM influences as a musical attribute- I had no idea what it was until I started building my radio station.

Thanks for the list.

166.70.17.61 03:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Rian

[edit] a user conduct RFC

Hi. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BZ(Bruno Zollinger) involves a user who exchanged words with you on Talk:Damon Runyon, in case you might want to add any comments; the RFC deals with a number of similar conflicts. It looks like you made a very good effort to work with this editor back in May, but unfortunately it doesn't seem to have made much difference. ←Hob 06:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Northern Soul and ABC

Please visit the talk section of ZTT entry. At the end of the day it matters very little, but please consider the impact of labelling a band for only their earliest years. Also, ABC's first album diverges significantly from the New Romanitc bands in style, and the name itself came from Northern Soul admiration of Motown and the Jackson 5 record in particular. Sincere Thanks for all the effort you contribute to the Wiki and your obvious desire to keep things right! Cheers Mate, --Tednor 01:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trafford publications

I removed the prod. I appreciate your comment, but that might not have been taken into account--if you're not an author removing the tag is the way, possibly sending it to AfD as well. Works for me. (Smile)DGG 06:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC) Apologies--I didnt notice the date of you advice to them.DGG 06:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Join us in the "Terminator" Article discussion page...please...

If you are still a member of Wikipedia, please join user:TomTheHand and myself in a discussion of which terms should apply to the Cyberdyne Systems Model 101 Infiltration Unit in its various forms.

To be as neutral as possible, I will relate the views of TomTheHand as well as my own, as accurately as posible:

Tom believes that the term "Android" should apply to all of the incarnations of the Model 101, from Endoskeleton all the way up to the gestalts of flesh-and-blood and the combat chassis played by Arnold in the movies. He furthermore believes that the term "cyborg" does not apply to any of the Terminator's forms.

Thanos777 -myself -thinks that the Terminator is worthy of multiple appelations depending on which configuration (read: Type/Series) the Model 101 is configured as.

That is to say, I believe that the "Base" Model 101, just the endoskeleton with no cosmetic enhancements, is best defined as either a Humanoid Robot, Anthropomorphic Robot, or simply a Robot.

When the Model 101 is outfitted as a Type/Series 600, the endoskeleton covered by rubber skin, I believe that the Terminator is then most correctly classified as an "android."

And finally, when the Model 101 is equipped as a Type/Series 800/850, the endoskeleton with the living flesh-and-blood covering, I believe that the most correct term for the creatre is "cyborg."

Again, I respectfully ask you to come back to the "Terminator" Article and lend your input; those of us who are there in the Article's discussion page are engaging in a lot of back-and-forth regarding the different terms and the disagreements as to when they should be used.

Hope to "see" you there soon!!!

[edit] Thanks

I've deleted my question about record labels. I wasn't thinking about the context I was writing. And thanks for the link. I'll check it out.McTavidge 03:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apizza!

Mike, if you're ever in the Connecticut area, hit me up. I'll show you some examples of great a-BEETz first hand. Jsderwin 09:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uniform Resource Identifier

I am glad of granting you this Barnstar because of your +4 years improving Uniform Resource Identifier. =)

Rjgodoy 22:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] XML intro

Hi Mjb, recently you made substantial improvements to the XML intro. I added to your change in order to slightly clarify for general-audience-level readability. I leave this note just in case you want to review to make sure the changes are consistent with your improvements. Regards, dr.ef.tymac 17:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HTML WG edits

Restored some old text to HTML as you requested. Added link to the XHTML2 WG charter. The first sentence under "1. Scope" reveals that the XHTML2 WG continues the work of the previous HTML WG. In practice, it is the same group of people and the same main deliverable with a new mailing list. The new HTML WG has different participants and deliverables. Hsivonen 23:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting! Thanks! mjb 01:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flashback (band)

A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article Flashback (band), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. slakr 07:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Quite all right with me if it's deleted. I was in a generous mood when I created the stub. I was just trying to get the SoCal band info off of the Flashback (disambiguation) page. Here we are 2 years later and no one has come up with anything more to say about their notability, so good riddance to it.—mjb 20:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Bedini article

You have somewhat arbitrarily deemed insignificant the scientific investigation work done in 1974 by John Bedini into the subject matter of the work and artifacts of R. R. Rife. The investigation conducted resulted in a corporation being formed, law suits, books being published, and so on.

If you look up Albert Einstein his scientific theories are listed and articles linked. The wiki article on Einstein talks about his entire life activities (drama)--significant or not to "important contributions."

Do you have the "point of view" that scientific investigation, and scientific theories, and history should not be present on WP? I will direct you to the Albert Einstein article--have at it too.

Bedini's historical contribution to Rife assists in explaining the scientific basis of the R. R. Rife frequency equipment and microscopes. This science is important to people involved with medicine, alternative medicine and the politics thereof (historical and current). For example, there are many quacks producing what they are calling "Rife frequency equipment" when it does not operationally share the principles involved with Rife's original research and equipment. A current day medical doctor who might be interested in the actual working technology will be put off in investigating into it further if they are only exposed to "such quackery devices" and "quack people." The US AMA and FDA have deemed every medical treatment device using radionics as quackery--dismissing out of hand reports that some of it works. The drug industries who are supported by the AMA and FDA fund disease research into drug-based treatments. Cancer research web sites have web page articles declaring all such Rife equipment as fraudulent when it is clear they are dismissing as quackery even the "Bedini-proven" devices also as such.

To me John Bedini seems to be "a non-quack person"--NOT a pseudoscientist.

Rife and Bedini's investigation into Rife's work are very important to both medicine and alternative medicine groups. Mention of Dr. Robert Strecker is also significant.

The section / paragraphs are relevant to today's medical battle with HIV AIDS, the family of ebola viruses, Epstein-Barr virus, Chronic fatigue syndrome since the Rife microscopes could have been used to discover the true causes of these and other diseases by being able to view live samples, their life cycles, and what if anything could stop them.

In addition, Rife's frequency instruments as investigated by Bedini may have demonstrably been able to defeat such pathogenic causes of these diseases.

The Royal Rife article links to John Bedini's article for Bedini's scientific investigation and historical information into whether or not Rife was a fraud or legitimate scientific medical inventor / investigator.

Alternative medicine is a field that accuses its opponents of suppression of information. Certainly deletion of this information would somewhat suppress the knowledge of it.

I will assume good faith, and so I ask you to please reconsider your removal of all of this "important" information since without it the POV of WP has Rife otherwise appearing fairly fraudulent for both his disease treatment claims, and high magnification microscope claims. Oldspammer 05:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It was not an arbitrary decision. Your complaints and arguments here are all very typical of those who advocate using Wikipedia to publish, promote, extrapolate from, speculate about, and lend undue credibility to largely untested and controversial theories, which is expressly forbidden by WP:V and related policies — policies which in no small part were designed to prevent this sort of thing from happening.

If you can cite reliable sources, you probably have a case for mentioning in the John Bedini article the information that Bedini led an effort to verify certain theories of Royal Rife. I, personally, am fine with that, as long as you are careful in how you characterize everything: when the ultimate source of info is Bedini's own writings, you have to be honest and say that it's his claims. For example, I haven't reviewed it in detail, but in the Royal Rife article, Bedini's videos are described as if it's indisputable that they show what's claimed they show; that's irresponsible. In any case, going into detail about drama and specific experiments that are already well documented on his own site, and speculating about the importance of his theories if they're confirmed, is inappropriate for Wikipedia. The more terse the article is kept, the more likely it won't attract a deletion nomination.

You should consider using Wikisource as a place for the bulk of the material you wanted to add to the Bedini article. You can go into as much detail and provide as much analysis (e.g., to conclude that his free energy theories aren't pseudoscience) and speculation as you want there, and we can even link to it from the Bedini article in Wikipedia via a {{wikisource}} template reference. Wikisource was set up, in part, to handle this kind of information.

The continued existence of the John Bedini article on Wikipedia is attributable to my efforts to keep it concise and skeptical (to the degree required by policy), and to carefully cite sources where possible. You also might consider reviewing Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics and its talk page where I brought up the recent issues. —mjb 18:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Is everything necessarily a debate involving skepticism?

What controversy / objections to Rife have any merit? Oldspammer 20:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

No--Not everything is a debate. This is when consensus happens about a given subject. How does consensus about something come to be?

The arguments against Rife are merely misunderstandings of the science involved since no one seems to be arguing that any "magic" was involved. When these misunderstandings are resolved scientifically, then only disarmed "politicos" will be left arguing against it perhaps because they wish to preserve an older paradigm in which they have heavily vested interests. The sooner that scientists move away from such flawed paradigms, the better we will understand the universe. Oldspammer 06:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Woo hoo! I just posted a reply at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics, but I see that you've already found the motherlode. linas 02:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Professional v. Amateur, take 27

In the meantime, I can tell you about the Hell Marys photo. It is one of only a very small number of photos that have ever been uploaded for inclusion in this article. The others that were uploaded, one of which was a nice historic photo from Jim Fitzpatrick, got deleted because copyright and permission-to-use information had not been supplied with them. I think we're all in agreement that the current photos leave much to be desired, but simply put, no one has taken it upon themselves to put forth anything better in the manner necessary to ensure their survival on Wikipedia. It's kind of ridiculous; all one has to do is click "Upload file", upload a photo, supply copyright/permission-to-use info, and make a reference to it in the article. I'm sure one of us with more experience could help someone with the latter steps; we just need someone who has a photo they have permission to republish to just upload it and supply the necessary info!

The caption on the Hell Marys photo used to just say it was the Hell Marys, but I changed it to what said before you trimmed it down on Sep 8, just because any photos that we keep need to be relevant to the article, and their captions should justify their existence. I felt that that particular photo is, at best, is an illustration of the 'look' of a modern all-female team, so that's why the caption said what it said. I was grasping for a reason to keep it, since someone who apparently was angry at that league had tried to remove it. But I'm all for ditching it as soon as someone follows the right procedure to upload something better. mjb 00:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

How's that image look? Feel free to tinker with the caption. --Marumari 15:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it looks great! I'm glad I wrote to bjmacke about it. Thanks for posting it and for your other work on the article today.

The OSDA site I agree is a bit weak, but I figured it was only a matter of time before they add it or accuse us of being partial to WFTDA (which I think is overpromoted as it is, but I'm being choosy about my battles).—mjb 18:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Acid house

Hi, I am still working on it. I will go back and review the use of "weasel word" formulations I and make sure it doesn't look like original research. I moved a lot of details to the reference section, which some people think is OK (like endnotes to a book), but I agree some reference numbers have too much textNazamo 20:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not that there's too much text (I think it's all quite useful), it's just that the formatting got crazy when you moved things around. There were various markup issues when I looked at it earlier today. I'll wait until you're done before commenting further, though. —mjb 21:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia and WP:FIVE.

Since you edited the "five pillars" document to change the link destination of the word "trivia", I would like to invite you to participate in the current discussion concerning the phrase "Wikipedia is not a trivia collection". DHowell 20:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Roller derby

I read your note regarding the need to remove the tag for Category:Roller skating when listing in the subordinate Category:Roller derby. And so I attended to that reasonable request.

I was looking for the Category:Wikipedian Rollergirls, to try to get some help with some of the articles and saw that it had been deleted. I also saw that the article Lonestar Rollergirls was deleted, even with the obvious notability of the subject.

There is still a notability tag on Rat City Rollergirls. The notability is strongly established, and references cited. Please remove that tag.~~ Michael J Swassing 22:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of the subcategory issue.

I wasn't aware there had been any league-specific article deletions other than the 'TXRD' and 'Treasure Valley Rollergirls' articles a long time ago. I mentioned those two back when raising the question of whether to continue to remove such articles for non-notability and apparent promotional nature. Since there was no consensus, I felt that just leaving the articles tagged and awaiting more feedback was prudent. Anyway, there's no deletion log for an article titled 'Lonestar Rollergirls'. Was it under some other title?

Thanks for adding citations in the Rat City Rollergirls article. I went ahead and removed the notability tag, but only because the citations satisfy the letter, not the spirit (IMHO), of the general notability guideline re: press coverage, and because even after I raised the question and presented arguments, no one else has yet objected to relying on that rather low standard for inclusion. —mjb 23:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:64.38.167.66

You're welcome. Sincerely, I thought he was just removing your message, but when I saw the diff I realized what he was doing... I'm just trying to start my contributions here on the English Wikipedia. // Matheus Wahl //, 22:52, Sat 29.09.2007.

[edit] Please be nice to the newbies

Your reversion to the edit by Dontaskhim was probably appropriate. Dontaskhim's edit was poorly sourced, it probably contained original research, and even if it is true and worthy of inclusion, it probably needs to be reworded and possibly put in another section.

However, you really should have made a comment to Dontaskhim explaining what you were doing, especially since Donataskhim is a newbie. That was Dontaskhim's first edit, and it really would be more within the spirit of wikipedia to work with Dontaskhim to get what he or she is trying to do into a wikipedia-able state, than just reverting the first edit of a newbie.

I've made a comment here on Dontaskhim's talk page that shows what I'm talking about.

Fredsmith2 15:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Before reverting it, I looked at the article Dontaskhim linked to, David Pollack (which redirects to David M. Pollack), and saw that it was about the Cincinnati Bengals player, who doesn't have anything to do with roller derby. I then did a Google search for "david pollack" "roller derby" and it turned up nothing linking anyone by that name to the sport. So, with the plausibility of that edit's seriousness and survivability reduced below a reasonable threshold, I didn't feel a need to assume good faith and just request sources while letting the claim stand; rather, it's OK to be bold in such situations and just revert it.

As for leaving a comment, if it's a user who has made any good-faith edits in the past, I do normally do that. I also normally leave a templated welcome message, but decided not to this time. I don't feel the need to hold a newcomer's hand if it appears they were just playing a joke on the site. Anyway, I've been using popups to do reversions, and didn't realize until just now that there's a way I can configure it to let me modify the edit summary first. I'll be using that feature more in the future; I do prefer to explain every edit in some way, even if it's uncontentious. —mjb 21:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harvest Records

I see you've tidied this article up, In particular created a heading "acclaimed pre-1984 issues", which contains one item. Are you intending to fill this with the roughly 100 items it needs, because I don't have the time? Also, you broke the link to Picnic - A Breath of Fresh Air and it went to some sort of outdoor feast instead. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 01:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, terribly sorry about breaking the link to the compilation album; that was an accident and thanks for catching it! I'll respond further on Talk:Harvest Records.

Also, if you're a collector and haven't done so already, I recommend buying Yuri Grishin's book. I got the Island one and am very happy with it. —mjb 04:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Acid house

Hi, I've reported 121.222.189.102 on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR following a 4th revert. Thanks again for the assist. Jvhertum 10:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minnesota RollerGirls

Hey there, Mister! With all your awesome experience on roller derby, I was just wondering if you'd be willing to give Minnesota RollerGirls a quick look-over for me to see if you have any suggestions. Thanks! --Marumari 20:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Character set tables

Are you still interested in standardizing the format of character set tables? —Random832 16:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC) User:Random832/Code tables —Random832 17:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roller Derby and Its History

Thanks for your renovation of the Roller Derby article and its history subsection. It looks much more professional now. kencf0618 20:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] de:User talk:Raymond

You has got an answer. --Raymond 07:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)