User talk:Oberst

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

{welcome} -- Longhair | Talk 00:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Yellowknife

I have adressed things at Talk:Yellowknife, Northwest Territories. Thanks for your note. --W.marsh 13:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frye

All about perceptions, connotations, etc - & some folks wanting to glorify reasonably mundane folks. Personally, I'm thinking of nominating this for WP:LAME, but have also seen this thin-edge-of-the-wedge thing in a few similar pages where eminent (or distinguished) becomes in short order 'the preeminent glorious world-renowned great......which proves the supremacy of......etc ad nauseum'.Bridesmill 20:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Open proxy block

I don't know why it didn't take... Jayjg (talk) 01:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prin suspected socks

I noticed you created Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Prin. There seems to be a current CheckUser request with a few more possibles. I noticed that the User:Ghajini account restored a rather juvenile vandalism edit originally by User:81.158.122.184 [1], and the User:Prince 06 account seemed to pick up a few hours after the now-banned User:Jath16 account stopped. I'm highly unqualified in the area of East Asian film stars, but the edit patterns are not dissimilar; perhaps some sort of fan club at least! - David Oberst 09:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Quite possibly. I don't think I'm in a position to do much about it, though. Stifle (talk) 00:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of "democracy"

LSJ's oldest citation for democratia is Herodotus. There is also an orator Democrates, who was an old man in 338 B.C., and may attest a slightly earlier usage. Solon described himself as following a middle way, and we do not know what the people to his left called themselves.

There is an argument in Athenian democracy that the word was originally negative, being derived from kratos not archê, and was coined by the oligarchs. Septentrionalis 21:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Direct Access Democracy

Have you seen the Direct Access Democracy Canada article? Certainly a type of democracy which is recently coined, and with only 133 votes it is very obscure, though perhaps a small notch above single person usage, being a tiny segment of the Canadian political scene. In essence, I think, the concept is to harness the Internet onto representative democracy. Perhaps this idea might develop more in the future. I don't feel strongly about this, but my luke warm feeling is that if it rises to the level of an article in Wikipedia, it should to be included on the disambiguation page. If the article gets deleted from Wikipedia, obviously, it should drop off the disambiguation page. BruceHallman 17:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] J. W. Smith

Concur. Merge those two? I think the gentleman in question is posting a vanity autobiography. V. Joe

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Raphael1

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Raphael1. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Raphael1/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Raphael1/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 11:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request text on J.W. Smith

Hi,

I vaguely thought the gentleman might have been notable, but there was nothing in the threadbare text to gainsay an A7. Here is the text in toto:

J. W. Smith is an independent economist. He founded and presides over the Institute for Economic Democracy, which promotes Smith's economic theories and research. Smith has a Ph.D. from Union Institute and University of Ohio.

If and when you recreate, I will do a history undelete to satisfy GFDL. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emancipation

Ah, thanks for the info. I really just scanned the block of text, and aside from seeing that it was in the wrong place, the content didn't really register in my mind. That's why I just moved it to the seemingly appropriate talk page instead of moving it and commenting on it, or just deleting it for being in the wrong place. I think you're right about removing that section from the Emacipation of minors article, though, as it's empty, so I'll go ahead and do that. --Icarus 23:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cite your Quote?

Would you mind citing the quote you added to "Politics of Noam Chomsky"? New content = good but it needs to be cited.

Thanks much.  ;)

Antelope In Search Of Truth 23:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

"If you look my note on the Talk page, the quote was actually added by another user (68.20.192.126, but actually User:Skovoroda)......."
lol. Oops.  ;) Nevermind then.....  ;)
Antelope In Search Of Truth 18:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] user talk for democracy

Thank you for responding to me and suggesting I do something about my user talk article. THis is my first day with Wikipedia. Just so you know, I resent your use of the word "idiosyncratic". My article on the defnition of democracy interprets the facts in a view that is not mine alone, nor is it unfounded. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sean1K2GA9 (talk • contribs) 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Democracy (disambiguation)

Is now a good time to take the scissors to this page? Or do you need more time to work up the History of political parties in the United States article? IMHO, we've been letting the disambig page hang without appropriate cleanup for too long. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 17:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

My spare time for playing with Wikipedia has been limited lately. However, I did create a draft of a possible disambig page at User:Oberst/Democracy (disambiguation). It was designed so that the bottom part would be extracted to a separate List of democracy articles (or other suitable name). I've seen no other disambig page which lists such a large number articles as this one does, which are mainly [(some adjective) (main term)] and not the normal sort of wiki disambiguation. For instance, the freedom page doesn't list intellectual freedom or all the many similar articles. If you agree with this approach, we can may do any tidying necessary on the draft and drop it in, and I would hope gain consensus. People can then take any battles to the "List" page, create or improve the other overview articles, or whatever. My feeling is that this would make the disambig page fall into line with general WIkipedia practice. - David Oberst 18:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Looks pretty good. I added E-democracy to the list. I'm not sure of the formatting in the opening--perhaps start with a sentence, and then bold the top disambig terms? Generally, I like this and would support it strongly. Thanks! —  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 19:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I had toyed with a paragraph format for the main disambig links (see diff), but it seemed unsuitable. There is probably room for some sort of brief opening statement, if someone wants to craft one. Further discussion is probably best taken to the draft's Talk page. - David Oberst 19:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
From my comments on the talk page, you'll see that I agree with your edits to the page. I trimmed down another editor's result, although I prefer your version. BTW, I decided to withdraw from the fracas. I posted in the first place only to show that another editor supported the slimmed down version. --Usgnus 19:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

(I posted this to wangi's talk too, but slightly different) Thanks for working with me and others on this article. I have to say I'm flabbergasted at BruceHallman's repeating of the same rejected viewpoints, as if repeating them will make the viewpoints gain more currency. He keeps asking us the same questions we've already answered over and over again, and it's like it doesn't matter if his position is now obviously incorrect or not, he just seems to be pursuing this to a pyrrhic victory to achieve something he's not telling us about. I honestly don't want to take this to a next step, like an RFC regarding him, but it's starting to look like this will be necessary. Do you have any thoughts on how we might proceed? Thanks. — Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 22:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, it doesn't seem worth the trouble right now. I'll strongly defend the current page again major changes back to what it was, and I'll remove the NPOV tag if Bruce doesn't provide some sort of dab-examples or support that is external to his peculiar arguments. Until that changes I'm not going to bother with any long comments on the Talk page - the whole thing is silly. If it continues to be a pain after a couple of days, then maybe try bringing it to the community. The logic would almost certainly bring a horse-laugh from the dab-wonks - disambig pages would be unworkable on this basis, and all sorts of WP:POINT examples come to mind - adding all the "Parliament of xxx" articles onto the Parliament (disambiguation) page, for instance. - David Oberst 22:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I had already attempted to pull in editors from the Village Pump (policy) regarding this, but apparently, that hasn't been bearing much, if any, fruit. I agree this is all silly, and I'd love nothing better than to move past this. Hopefully, over the next few days, the issue will become increasingly clear (esp. via community involvement), especially to the lone holdout. :) — Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 23:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi there David. I just felt like signing up to this MEDCAB case. If you would like to provide your statement now, that would be appreciated. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 02:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the democracy "vandal"

Did you read my entry? i am working in good faith i am not vandalising. if you disagree with me that's ok i undderstand but saying that i am vandalising that is unfair and hurtful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.106.19.3 (talk • contribs) 2006-08-03T03:40:01 (UTC)

yeah the last little comment was from me. i'm not very technically proficient, yet.... but i just made an account and i'm NOT a vandal —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Esmehwk (talk • contribs) 2006-08-03T03:49:59 (UTC)

[edit] thanks and sorry

thanks for the heads up on the 3 change rule and sorry i didn't mean to be annoying just getting the hang of things, i love wiki and want to help it. chao

[edit] IIM content per your request

You asked for the content of the IIM page as it existed prior to my speedy deletion of it in January of this year. Here is the entirety of the content from that version of the article:
"{{wikify}} {{advert}} International Institute of Management (IIM) is an advanced executive education and development institute. IIM is known for its accelerated and online executive MBA programs and management best practices research. Other IIM services include the annual management conference held in Las Vegas USA, CEO club networking events, executive search, and the publishing of executive journal and its annual management papers awards. To learn more visit http://www.iim-edu.org"
--Durin 12:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IIM AfD closure

After careful consideration of the AfD and the evidence presented, I've closed the AfD as delete. This took more than two hours to work through. Uhg! :) I provided an extensive rationale at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/International Institute of Management. --Durin 14:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

David, thanks for the tip on quoting from earlier versions and for your cordial tone. I've found the Brits and Canadians on Wikipedia to be helpful in every case so far. Curious! FYI the link to a previous version doesn't work once the article is deleted. I went back to IIM today to add a link to my anonymous edits (due to the computer timing out my login) to my user page and couldn't find anything. Oh well. Guess I wasted time yesterday trying to improve the article.--Beth Wellington 16:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Durin, thanks, especially for taking the trouble on the closure. Beth, no problem, Canadians are required by law to be polite, courteous and well-mannered, or we lose the right to put those little maple leaf patches on our luggage and backpacks when travelling abroad. - David Oberst 01:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wangi/RFA

Thanks for your support on my RfA. Give me shout if I can be of help. Thanks/wangi 00:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

What if I were allergic or phobic to bees? Insensitivity is one of my retroactive RfA criteria. I will be petitioning for immediate revocation of new admin powers - prepare to be defrocked... - David Oberst 00:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
In that case there's the sting ;) (and let me tell you, it wasn't much fun being stung in the top of my mouth last month by a wasp!) ! /wangi 00:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is your PROBLEM???

So, someone -- I don't know WHO --bioinformaticist or whatever -- votes KEEP on a woman's bio and YOU ACCUSE ME/HIM/HER of sockpuppetry????

GROW UP YOU BABY!!! MathStatWoman 18:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

You are correct, one of the parties in this conversation is indeed exhibiting childish behaviour... - David Oberst 21:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
And I also say - the Baby is YOU - Master Oberst. Please grow-up or please produce your evidence, if you have any? I bet it will prove you wrong- and I sugest you then say sorry to BOTH of us!!! And stop wasting everyone's time playing these stupid games. If you had any skill, you would see that our styles of writing was different, I am in the UK, etc, etc. Please Grow up!! Have a Nice day putting more silly comments on the net or playing with your other toys!! I hope you will ask for my and MathStatWoman's IP addresses to be checked? MxM Peace 11:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Sock or meat, it is still puppetry. Who is Punch and who is Judy isn't really of interest to me. - David Oberst 15:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

She's already been proven to have used sockpuppets in the past. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop talking rubbish - I am NOT Ksingh20. I am a hairy monster in London. I know of Ksingh but he lives in the next district. So, please either get proof or stop playing these stupid games - Ask for IP addresses. Your link proves nothing. MxM Peace 02:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
You have been proven out by a person with the CheckUser capability. I do not doubt him. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Let's see the proof, if you don't mind. Just because he has the capability does not mean he is right as has been proven many times. I know this info is incorrect and so I would like to see the proof so I can highlight the weakness of your system - just saying things does not prove anything. Lets see the IP address numbers and any other research that you may have done. Obviously, if you have no proof or have not carried out a search of the background to the IP addresses than your words are meaningless and have no weight! --MxM Peace 04:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
CheckUser does not reveal the proof, this is personal information which they are not authorized to reveal. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Your IP address is like a number plate on a car - It's not confidential information. It's there for everyone on the net to observe and note down. Please be fair and treat everyone else in good faith as adults and not as kids. Data Protection Act only stops personal details like your real name, address, telephone number from being revealed. I have complained about this to Jimmy Wales and will be taking futher action --MxM Peace 23:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppet tag

I have marked this account as a suspected sockpuppet of User:MathStatWoman. On August 23, this (newly created) account created the article Elaine Louise Zanutto, which contained the same text as a previously speedy-deleted article Elaine Zanutto created by User:MathStatWoman, who has a previous history of sockpuppets. - David Oberst 02:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I have changed the tag to indicate that User:Ksingh20 and User:MxM Peace are the same person (per Fred Bauder, here). As this is the older of these two new accounts, I have given it the puppeteer template, although it is likely both are being run by someone else. At a minimum, this user somehow managed to recreate (with the same text) a deleted article written by User:MathStatWoman, as noted above. - David Oberst 02:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

"Somehow" is not a mystery. Text of deleted articles is readily available to hundreds (maybe more than 1000?) of Wikipedia adminstrators. The speedy deletion in this case was clearly improper. Those who wanted it deleted are now going through proper channels instead. Michael Hardy 20:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It was a clearly valid speedy deletion as it doesn't even make any assertions of notability, unless getting grants and a PhD are notability. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In the information age, who has elected "Oberst" as wikiWatchdog?

We can all agree that Wikipedia is a wonderful tool. I don't know as much as some do about this website, but I do know that it offers a wonderful source of knowledge that is growing in popularity and usefulness. What makes Wikipedia so great is its ability to combine the perspectives of hundreds of millions (billions?) of people, the result of which doubtless gets us very close to the truth. All perspectives are necessary for the truth and so none can be discounted.

Some of the perspectives conflict with others, and so one might think that they contradict each other and cancel each other out. But if we ignore either perspective, we lose a valuable (necessary) tool in the pursuit of truth.

It appears as though you, "Oberst," have taken it upon yourself to cancel out things that conflict with your stance. It might be your intention to better the site by eliminating things that you think do not belong, but in the end, you are halting the truth. Articles and sections that you have recently vetoed were sources of much activity, proving that they were quite popular for one reason or other. Do you get to halt that flow of information? Who has chosen you for this role? Do we need anyone to perform your "duties?"

Instead of simply deleting, perhaps you can work with the author to come to some sort of common ground. Find out what the author wanted to accomplish with his piece--don't assume that it is a negative or useless aim--and try to mold it in a direction that also satisfies you. Ultimately, both perspectives will be shared and the truth will be more accessible.

Thank you for your time.

Ermorse 20:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, Eric Morse is referring to the deletion of this section from Young Republicans (Talk), and the AfD discussion for Wikitistics. As I wasn't aware I had a stance, duties, or a role, much less a veto, or that I was somehow damming the inevitable stream of truth, and since it would be unhelpful to attribute this to personal pique on the author's part, I'll just have to muddle on as before. - David Oberst 23:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Oberst--sarcasm doesn't traslate well over the Internet.
Also, thanks for attempting to clarify what I was talking about, but I fear you've misunderstood me. I wasn't referring to any specific article or AfD, but rather your behavior in general. Who are you clarifying for anyway? All your fans?
Ermorse 02:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your goal

Perhaps it would save me from a lot of pointless typing if you were to come out and explain your objective in 1) editing Wikipedia in general, and 2) targeting a number of my articles of interest in particular (Young Republicans, Young Democrats of America, Logo, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikitistics, and 3) generally working to remove information from the site as opposed to add to the site (from most recent contribs):

05:17, 27 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hardware Store (song) (Delete) (top) 02:28, 27 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George W. Bush Scotland bicycle accident (Delete) (top) 02:24, 27 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about the seasons of the year (Delete) 00:53, 27 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Logo (→External links - removed link) 21:54, 26 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom El Fuego (Delete) (top) 21:35, 26 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikitistics (Delete) 10:44, 26 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramp Meter Effectiveness (Delete) 06:31, 26 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rocky Gordon (Delete (and fixed sig on "Bustapete"))

A brief explanation would be great. Thanks Joe 00:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

If all that is worrying you is my motivation, that should be easily solved. I've found Wikipedia useful, and have used portions of my spare time to contribute back to it. I certainly have no particular politcal or personal axes to grind. I recently came across some useful lists of ongoing AfDs, so have been particpating in a number of these recently. Mainly these are ones which have gone "overdue" past their normal 5-day course, where (if the subject is amenable to evaluation) my input might be useful. Since items at AfD are usually there for a reason, and since I'm more likely to catch on to something that seems to meet obvious deletion criteria (I don't make up the guidelines, you know), it is no surprise that most of these will be Delete opinions. The fact that these were nominated at all, and most closed as "Delete" would indicate I was hardly alone.
As for "your" articles in particular, I had never heard of you before stumbling across the Wikitistics AfD discussion. I will certainly admit to a dislike (shared by the majority, I would assume) for the use of anon IPs, new accounts, etc., for multiple voting and other attempts to mislead consensus, which is certainly a problem with some AfD and RfA areas I have come across. Seeing "morse" in a couple of the Keep votes and as the main site contributors (I did actually browse it to see what it was) certainly made me take notice and do a little further checking. As I mentioned to Eric, I'm willing to let it go that you didn't feel it necessary to mention this, but certainly the fact that all the keep votes appeared to be by the site owners or closely related was something I felt of interest to the closing admin.
I've posted a note to Eric in regards to Young Republicans and Veracity (magazine). I merely added the natural External Link for Young Democrats when I checked it as a comparison to Young Republicans, which has too many. Similarly, Logo I only came across via the AfD - I've posted there, and will comment further when I return this evening.- David Oberst 02:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Logo

Hi, I just wanted to say thanks for catching that the users adding the link to Logo are likely the same person. I wouldn't have noticed if you hadn't pointed it out. Keep up the good work! Wmahan. 01:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I'm envious of your talk page. Judging from some people's emotional responses to your removal of information, you must be doing something right. Wmahan. 01:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

wow- is that the goal? I must be missing something —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jsmorse47 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Good?

I bet your parents are proud of you for how much good you're doing for people. Your edits really help people stay ignorant of their health- good job! Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Evolution_Diet Jlangley3007 19:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fodder for your anti-spam campaign

This guy should be of interest to you in your crusade to rid the WP world of spam: User:Jkatzen Vendormate Logo_extraction_puzzles I'll be very interested to see how you respond to this. Joe 19:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Themasterofwiki

I don't think Themasterofwiki is editing in a malicious way; some of his edits may not be in keeping with the manual of style, but that's something better taken up with him on his talk page. It's quite likely that all he needs are a few pointers. Kafziel Talk 20:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NZ DVD Rental

Hi there,

Just a quick thing about the amendments to the online DVD records being updated. The NZ Herald interview with Gill South misquoted me on several counts - both market sizes and estimations on company sizes were taken from conversational estimates and printed as fact. Amazing to see how conversation becomes news then a wikipedia fact.

The journalist contacting me did so the day prior to the article being printed, and conversations from both operators in the industry were also misquoted (or had self-interested comments printed). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ribfeast (talk • contribs) 20:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] WP:3RR?

You recently made the following contributions:

You said that 155.246.1.207 violated 3RR. However, because 155.246.1.207 was first, he was only up to his second reversion at the time you gave him the warning. --Kevinkor2 23:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I just put the 3RR template on the Talk page to point them to what 3RR was and to warn against it with continuing reversions. They seemed determined to insert the crankish gibberish (original edit plus two reversals of my revert, in a short span) with no discussion or edit summary. Fortunately they went away, so an actual 3RR situation didn't arise. - David Oberst 00:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with the page Democrat on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Davidprior 01:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops, had an edit conflict reverting vandalism and must have put back the bad version on the second attempt. - David Oberst 01:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oopsie

Ouch. Looks like they self-reverted and then you reverted the revert! :) — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 00:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] religious democracy

Hi. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Democracy#religious_democracy Farhoudk 10:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AN/I grouping

Will that mess up the wikilinks in my response? I have since apologized to Mardavich for calling him a name in my talk page. I didn't explain that I was deeply frightened by his behavior. I have been stalked before and his actions seemed very similar in nature. I don't like the user, and I feel he is not filing complaints in good faith, but I should have kept my personal feelings for him out of it. Arcayne 18:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not an admin, I merely thought the two separate pieces belonged together to avoid a lot of duplication, and to help the admins sort out whatever trouble seems to be going on. I didn't even see the third Mardavich section (re: Thuranx). I'm sure that much friction will cause one or more admins to look things over. I'll check the links and fix any broken internal refs to the AN/I page. - David Oberst 18:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] David Oberst's Copy Of Our March 14, 2007 Response To Ted Frank. RE: The Suitability Of Scientific Communities of Practice for Wikipedia Inclusion

Dear Ted Frank,

We apologize for any disruption caused by our unfamiliarity with the details of scripting in the submission of any of our contributions for Wikipedia: Any and all assistance in making necessary improvements in that regard will be appreciated.

At the same time, the notability of this scientific subject material, that includes citations from notable international-caliber scientific agencies (like the U.S. National Institutes of Health), national scientific policy boards (like the U.S. National Academy of Sciences) and major academic institutions (like Northwestern University), seems unquestionable.

If any editors have different interpretations of any cited references, again -- we would appreciate your clarification.

In closing, we hope that the current debate is not a rejection of a 'Scientific Perspective' on any relevant subject issue (like 'communities of practice'): Scientific perspectives have their own stand-alone merit, as they add balance, to other views of a pertinent subject (such as a 'Philosphical Perspective' or an 'Economic Perspective'. All of the Wikipedia patterns of practice on other sites reveal this claim to be true.

There should not be any exception in this case: As the scientific readership of Wikipedia grows, then the scientific relevance (at least as a reading option) for any relevant issue should also grow.

We are contributing referenced and scientifically-objective reviews on important scientific topic areas that we manage professionally every day. While we welcome any constructive editorial contributions to our submitted material, we will do everything possible to ask for higher administrative action, if the stated intention is to reject any of our contributions -- mainly because they represent a 'Scientific Perspective'.

Thank you for your consideration of our request for active, line-by-line, constructive improvement of our contributions to Wikipedia.

Sincerely, Stevenson-Perez 21:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)stevenson-perezStevenson-Perez 21:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User pages

Were they just part of an inactive bunch you were going through?

Yah, part of an on-going -- and seemingly endless, I swear -- personal project to tag inactive and never-active user pages, particularly those which are only being used as adverts and self-promotion. I did notice a couple of Globalist Manifesto pages -- including User:GlobalistManifesto, which I tagged as outright spam -- but that was merely me running across them while checking out user pages that use freehost external links (there 25,000+ links to geocities, for example, on Wikipedia, 1,200 of them to user pages), an unfortunately rich source of not-user pages.

In any case, thanks for the heads up, and I can take it from here -- I've got a file full of boilerplate text, which would save you the trouble of having to word things yourself, and I'm (unfortunately) getting this down to a process. --Calton | Talk 00:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You reverted the information about Rwanda

Hoi, I am back from the ICANN conference in Lisbon. I met the representative of the Rwandan government; it is his information that I have replied. I can get him to confirm this. Thanks, GerardM 19:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Religious democracy

Hi. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CU and explain why Religious democracy needs to be cleaned-up (ex. grammar, spelling, formatting, order, copyright issues, confusion, etc.) in its talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Religious_democracy. Best Farhoudk 05:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Grammar of "whose"

Consider me humbly corrected. :) - Mark 03:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Link to RfA library broken

Hey, thanks for pointing that out! I've fixed it now. Cheers, Tangotango (talk) 14:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trolling

Hi, what do you think about Wikipedia:What is a troll.Ultramarine 21:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Logo amc theatres.gif

Hello, Oberst. An automated process has found and will an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that is in your userspace. The image (Image:Logo amc theatres.gif) was found at the following location: User:Oberst/AMC Theatres. This image or media will be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. This does not necessarily mean that the image is being deleted, or that the image is being removed from other pages. It is only being removed from the page mentioned above. All mainspace instances of this image will not be affected Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 18:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Democracy, participatory democracy, User:Raggz

David, the democracy article is in need of work, and I hope that you will continue to help accomplish this. I starting working on this article because it lacked a NPOV and because it was almost without citations. The definitions section was indeed "mishmash of dueling dictionary quotations" and required being "completely rewritten". When you deleted this section you deleted a lot of work I had done, particularly my citations that I have now lost.

We need an actual example of "participatory democracy", is Poland such an example - or not?

You say: "I doubt they are the result of experiments in the (somewhat fuzzy) things that article covers". Policy requires that you balance, not delete. I encourage your restoration of this section with whatever material suits your POV. Such an addition is now your responsibility by NPOV policy. Will you comply?

Courtesy requires that if a citation is to be challenged, that it not be deleted so it can be reviewed and debated first? I am unable to read and review the reference about Poland because you arbitraily deleted it without prior discussion. Please discuss your concerns before deleting entire sections, and especially citations? Raggz 20:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Addressed at Talk:Democracy, Talk:Participatory democracy and User Talk:Raggz - David Oberst 23:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I will look again at that page. Raggz 09:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC) Nothing on those pages since 17 May 2007? Not finding your comments. Raggz 09:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

May I begin deleting the OR now? Do you need more time? Raggz 05:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NWT Links

Sorry I did mean to come and tell you. I also tested in in Fort Reliance. I got distracted by a hoax article and forgot to let you know. The Census uses slightly different names than the GNWT. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Democracy et al

Thanks for the message. To be honest I think I'll stay away .. I only started editing Wikipedia at all because I used to spot minor but important errors in quite a few articles (eg on films and wine) and thought the least I could do was put them right, where I had relevant knowledge. I tried to avoid the politics articles at first because of the huge debates that start over them, plus I think a lot of them need a lot of work and I don't have the time or inclination to do it to be honest. However I ended up getting sucked in when I made one or two minor - and I would argue uncontroversial - changes or reverts to a couple of articles, such as Democracy, Human rights and the United States and Far right. Then, as you say, you end up in conflict with either trenchant ideologues or people who don't really know what they're talking about and don't write very well - both of whom want to push their own views and theories into articles. Neither myself nor Wikipedia seem to be getting much out of that process --Nickhh 09:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism from 216.108.4.71

All I did was issue a final warning. Just because it is a shared IP, that doesn't mean vandalism should be tolerated. Were I to block that IP, it would be an anon block, so those with accounts could continue to edit. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 21:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:ObertestTemplate2

A tag has been placed on Template:ObertestTemplate2 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)