User:Rklawton/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Aaron Burr and Dick Cheney

Because two sitting Vice-Presidents shot people, albeit under different circumstances, the reference to Dick Cheney does belong in the Hamilton-Burr duel article.

I disagree. --DanielCD 04:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Me too. The above comment was unsigned but contributed by [User:Steelbeard1]. I'm rather hoping you can take the issue up with him. Rklawton 05:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
There's a very handy rule for dealing with just this sort of time-wasting nonsense. It's called the 3RR. Consensus and plain sense are overwhelmingly against him. If he reverts more than three times in 24 hrs, he can be blocked, and I'd be happy to do the honors if it happens. --DanielCD 05:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I have much to learn (signed) "Grasshopper" Rklawton 05:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it already has happened, but I'm not one to be anal in following the rules. As long as he's behiving now I'll leave it be. --DanielCD 05:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your assistance. I agree, good behaviour is all that really matters. Rklawton 05:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hamilton-Burr duel

I've responded. If you would like to have this conversation in real time, feel free to contact me on AIM (C6o6s6m6o). savidan(talk) (e@) 20:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather keep the discouse open for public review, but thanks. Rklawton 20:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aaron Walton

Why did you delete the artist Aaron Walton? He is a national recording artist who is signed to a major label. (by User:Alw4416)

He is a self-published wannabe with no notability. See the AfD discussion for details Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Walton. Rklawton 15:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Who the hell are you to call him a "wannabe" and what is your basis? (by User:Alw4416)

Actually, it's the other way around. In order for an individual to be entitled to a biographical article in this encyclopedia, it is the author who must prove notability. That failed quite spectacularly in this case. Rklawton 15:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

There are new artists that exists that have not yet reached "superstardom" Your reasoning seems quite personal and rude to boot! Snide comments about an individuals photo is lame and jealous at best. (by User:Alw4416)

New artists don't rate articles in Wikipedia until they have achieved Wikipedia's standards for notability, see WP:BAND. I see you are rather new here. As a result, you would benefit from reading and learning rather than ranting. If you would review the AfD page again, you'll see that those comments are not attributed to me. They are attributed to other editors or admins. Please also note that the term "Speedy Delete" is used only in cases where the article is so bad that it's deletion doesn't even merit debate. In short, the article was extraordinarily unworthy and was promptly deleted - not by me - but by one of Wikipedia's administrators; it was a decision I fully support. Rklawton 16:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abraham Lincoln

[edit] Re: Abraham Lincoln

sigh. I guess I was feeling optimistic. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Some articles are natural targets. Talking about natural targets, I try to help keep the date articles up to snuff - all 367 of them. Rklawton 23:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

...OK, you knew I was going to ask. 367? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC) ....ah. February 30? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

*grins* Rklawton 00:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cathytreks

[edit] Bachelder's Carte-de-viste

I dunno. It's pretty sad; she's SO earnest and SO dedicated and SO obsessed. If only all that energy could be used for Good. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure the bare skin really proves anything. It's not worth trying to argue or debate with Cathy. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Why wouldn't bare skin prove anything? Men just don't grow out beards in four or five days! I think it's worth presenting the evidence Image:Lincoln - composite.JPG. However, I suspect you are correct that neither evidence nor logic will sway someone so emotionally invested. At least the information is available for the readers. Rklawton 04:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] please wont u stop editing my private Lincoln photo page?

I am saddened by this as I am a family friend of the surviving John B. Bachelder family members , I live only 2 miles from where the photographer, the man who too the death photo, who is buried in Nottingham N.H., (I am the caretaker of the small family cemetary there in fact) Perhaps you seemingly missed the fact that it was the Bachelder family themselves who reported that John retouched the photo of Lincoln in his beard area itself, so that he would look more "himself"...I WOULD ask of you to read THE BOOK done with the co-operation of the Bachelder family itself regarding the authentic history of the photograph..it is not a hoax, nor a fake, it was taken in a hurry by Bachelder , as a reference photo only...for a future painting he colaberated on with another artist of the period, Alonzo Chappel.

Please Robert?, wont you at the least check me out on this?, you will see my honesty..sorry about our previous squabbles...and I promise that I will be more considerate of you, Sir, and your feelings. BEST REGARDS...REALLY! Cathy (Cathytreks 16:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC))

Hi Cathy. Please read wiki policies again. You are violating two of them. First, there are no private web pages here. Second, as far as your report that the family has stated the photo has been retouched, it sounds like you want to present your own research in this matter, and that's another violation of wiki policy. All information in wikipedia must be verifiable. Rklawton 16:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Applicable policies: WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:OWN. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 17:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. Rklawton 17:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

OH DEAR ME..

Hi Robert, I do not believe to be in violation,heres why, first my words may have been ill chosen, I was mearly stating that that page in question was put up by myself , and none other,all in an attempt to show the research that was done by a Lincoln historian ,Modern day John B. Bachelder family lay claim to the fact of the Lincolns Death photo being taken by John B Bachelder himself in Lloyd Ostendorfs book 'Lincoln's Photographs: A Complete Album 1998). morningside press. It was his research and evidence that was and is being presented, not mine..so I have not violated any of the Wiki rules that you state above in fact, and I am taking steps in making sure that from here on out all things will be done "by the book", and respectfully so as Wiki policy demands it. sincerely, Cathy (small and meek) (Cathytreks 17:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC))

[edit] stop stalking me and my pages

Enough is enough!...I have now complained to several adminstrators , I am sure they will be interested in your obssessive and continual rude behaviour, please leave me alone!!!, i'm not backing off regarding the LINCOLN DEATH PHOTOGRAPH regardless of your ill behaviour towards me!, So leave off with your stalking of me and my pages I create, work on, and edit, you are in violation of three Wikipeadea rules in this regard alone! (Cathytreks 23:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC))

Give over. Cathytreks, there's no way Rklawton is stalking you. Rklawton, sorry to bother you with this. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 23:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
It happens, no worries. I stopped by Lincoln's tomb yesterday, and he's still there. Whatever else happens, at least we've got that. I shot a nice new photo of the centerpiece statue to upload. One of the guides is also a Lincoln scholar (no surprise there), and we're going to exchange some resources. I'm hoping he might take an interest in editing some of the Lincoln articles. He pointed me to an authenticated post-mortem photo taken on April 24th or April 25th. He also noted that Stanton had expressly prohibited photographing the corpse, so we now have an explanation for the lack of photos in spite of the rather prolonged period of national mourning. The bootleg photo was taken by a photographer hiding in the rotunda. All in all, it was worth the trip. I'm going to ask Cathy for a clarification regarding which photo she claims was touched up, April 10th or April 16th. It appears she's now taken both sides, but I'll leave it to her to clear it up. Rklawton 00:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Rklawton ..wrong again....want the truth???

Sec of State Edward Stanton tried but failed to have every single post mortem photograph of Lincoln destroyed...he failed.

Also, the majority of americans do not really know where Lincoln body really is at all.

For he is not still in his tomb as Lincoln's body was stolen in the 1930's by some rather clever body snatchers who dug UNDER the crypt which Robert Lincoln had covered over with concrete in a wasted effort to prevent body snatchers from doing what they did ultimately get away with from below rather than removing his body from above through 10 tons of concrete.

Currently Lincoln's body is on display in view to the select ones who are rich enough, or connected enough, (High Masonics) along with the other "right people" to see the still remarkably preserved 16th President of the United States, not unlike how V.Lenin is in Red Square in Moscow, Russia!

Lincoln is resting in a glass coffin in a secret location in Washington D.C., where he is on display for the priviledged few. (Cathytreks 17:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC))

Umm... do you have any sources that you can cite to back that up? Hbackman 02:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Feel free. Also consider reviewing Cahty's contributions to Wikipedia over the past year. Rklawton 03:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, by all means Hbackman, please look into the 1977 book "The Lincoln Conspiracy". It is all in there, what was stated above in my edit AND AT THE LINCOLN TALK PAGE!...Also then look to see how my dear friend Rklawton has been so kind...so fair,...so NPOV towards me at every edit I have made regarding Lincoln at every turn....please do!?

Thank you once again Rklawton, for being so open to new thoughts and ideas of past world history...your a real pal....and so kind. (Cathytreks 18:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC))

There's a real honest to gosh BOOK that says the U.S. faked all the moon landings. Do you believe that as well? Rklawton 21:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You cannot remove posts and that are now in your talk page as you did here regarding my reply to your diatribe at my talk page!

RkLawton....How do YOU know what the truth is!??, does anybody here at wiki know but I and three others? Have you studied The Book, and/or worked with the Bachelder family decendants for years as I have?, Or have you ever read any of Ostendorf's other books, and notes, on the subject as I and many others now have?
By "The Book" do you mean the Koran, the Bible, or the Torah? Now, as for these other books you mention - that's great! All you need to do is cite them author, title, publisher, date, and page number. I cited what Ostendorf wrote in the last edition of his last book. If you have other information, cite it - that's what Wikipedia is here for. That's what separates good editors from bad. In all your postings, I've seen no other references except to this one book and your "own" research. Keep in mind that it's a violation of Wikipedia policy to publish your own research here. Get it in a peer-reviewed journal and then tell us all about it. Rklawton 05:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
What you have just stated at my talk page does not make it (The Photo) any less real or true in spite of your continual and vindictive claims to the contrary... Sir!

(Cathytreks 05:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC))

Sure I can, but if it's important, we can leave it up. It just seems odd that a conversation you are having with another editor should appear on my own talk page. Rklawton 05:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

This is truy a case of the pot caling the kettle black!..For You started this whole thing on my talk page, and are looking for any and all excuses to not only discredit me, but the sacred Lincoln Death Photograph that you have no intimate details about as I do!

I am the care taker also of the Bachelder family grave in Nottingham N.H. I WAS THERE JUST TODAY PLACING A FLAG ON HIS GRAVE, YOUR CONTINUAL DOUBT'S IN REGARD TO MY EDITS ON THIS MATTER WILL EVENTUALY JUST SHOW YOU UP TO BE A STUBORN JACK-ASS WHO WONT BELIEVE EVEN WHAT IS PROVEN TO BE TRUE, THEPHTO IS REAL AND YOU ARE A ONE WHO SEEKS TO MAKE A LIE OF AND HIDE ITS TRUTH, YOU MUST BE A MASONIC OR JUST AN ARROGANT MALE WHO CANT STAND A WOMAN GETTING THE TRUTH OVER THEM! (Cathytreks 05:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC))

PLEASE ...just leave me alone, you are a nightmare, I wish no further contact with you and this is really it..I have had it...goodbye, I willnever waste my time trying to discuss anything with you ever ever again. (Cathytreks 05:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC))

It's not just me - your Lincoln work has been edited out of every Lincoln article by several different editors long before I noticed your work. All we have done (aside from requests for civility) is ask you to cite your sources and not use original research. Your replies have demanded we read "the book" or have indicated you have "special" knowledge. We've pointed out that your original research isn't appropriate in this forum, and "the book" you so much wanted us to read has contradicted several of your arguments. Cite your sources, mind your manners, and you'll find no meaningful opposition here at Wikipedia. Rklawton 05:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I am just about half past give a crap with your fun and games mister!

You want the info gathered by Ostendorf????

Just go to the Concord Historical Society in Concord N.H. and YOU ask to see the Bachelder collection!, And you will see I am telling the truth! and btw, This Is NOT Original Research!, It was already done by Ostendorf and others to verify the genuineness of the Lincoln Death Photograph that you keep altering and undermining, you are a TROLL. (Cathytreks 15:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Sorry isnt strong enough for my previous words

    • wow...i was really "losing it" there for awhile...im embarrased.
      • Yes...sorry isnt strong enough Rk, but just so you know the new medication seems to be working, and I am again living in the present, in this century

and on level ground, btw, I have maintained The Bachelder graveyard in spite of what some "hidden troll" under a pretend name, has said to the contrary, They never took me up on my offer to meet me at the gravesite on stevens hill rd in nottingham!, WELL...i'll be putting fresh flowers and now have the flag kept there in place at all times, tommorow for certain, the graveyard is only one that covers an area equel to less than a tennis court in size, but anyway... all the best for a happy fourth to you and yours!, Cathy (cathytreks 15:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC))

No worries. I agree that a troll tried to trip you up. I commend your response to it. What did you think of the Library of Congress links to Bachelder's broadsheets? Rklawton 17:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I was just standing up for cathtreks, my housemate and friend

That troll mitton or litton or whatever its name really is here normaly, just set up that phony name for one purpose, Rklawton, and that is that "they" are just trying to bait cathitreks once again, just when things had been calming down, I feel it is my patriotic duty to stand up for Cathi and the truth, and they deserved a slap for a punch...at my friend Cathi! Oh and btw, I was just removing unnessisary junk on my setup page, there were not any "messages" from anybody, just the usual intro bot crap! Thanks for your compassion towards Cathi at the least, how rare! Tinki. (Tinki Winki 19:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC))

Sorry 'bout that. Given the formatting, it looked like you were addressing Cathi and not the Troll. I agree, someone is trying pretty hard to bait her. Tell her I said "hi". Rklawton 19:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adarsh Samaj Sahyog Samiti

Hi Rklawton, for the above article, my interest was limited to technical de-prodding as it had been de-prodded before and hence cannot be re-prodded. I'm not sure it is notable and I think that I'd give it a "no vote." Pl. feel free to take it to AfD. btw, your userpage makes for some interesting reading! --Gurubrahma 14:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Indian language content (unlike Chinese dialects) is conspicuous by its absence on the web. However, I've done a google search with different transliterations (or spellings) as well as a google search for its founder. I haven't come up with anything substantial. I'm an avid observer of non-governmental organisations in India but this name doesn't ring a bell. I feel that I'd vote a Weak delete - Verifiability and notability are like canon to me. --Gurubrahma 15:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ADARSH SAMAJ SAHYOG SAMITI bites the dust

You had commented on this article. We all thought it was probably pretty marginal, but the way it was deleted seems a bit gratuitous.

--A. B. 17:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

PS I see you went to Rice -- what a great school. My son just started there last fall (and before you ask: Sid Rich).

Thanks for the heads up. I left a note seconding your concerns. The admin's bio & photo cracked me up... Yeah, I like Red Beans and RICE (JGSA). Rklawton 19:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adarsh Samaj

I've restored the page per the requests. My reason for the deletion was it does not assert any particular importance, is not wikified, and was titled in all caps (not a good sign for a "real" article). I changed the Speedy Request to a PROD and moved to a proper title. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - and remember, your user page says you like to help out new users. Showing new users how to improve their good faith efforts is a great way to help them out. Deleting their articles is not. Rklawton 19:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aharon Shabtai

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Aharon Shabtai, which you proposed for deletion. I am leaving this message here to notify you about it. You didn't seem to want to delete this article, but rather you seemed to want it to be cleaned up. Next time, consider marking an article like this with {{cleanup}} or {{stub}} if you want it to improve; deletion would not help improve the article. If you still feel the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to it. Instead, feel free to list the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Mangojuicetalk 14:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Jackson

Re: References
Thanks for the edits and the references to Andrew Jackson. I'm not sure if you know it, but there is now a method to use a standard citation method that creates very clean references. If you use Template:Cite_book for instance, and surround it with <ref></ref> Then it will automagically create the superscript number and put it down in the reference section. If it's too much work, no worries, I'm just glad anyone is actually providing references.  :) Wikibofh(talk) 22:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes and no. I'm aware of something along those lines, but I haven't a clue how to do it. I'll jump into my sandbox in a minute and see if I can get it to work. Feel free to format my references for the betterment of the article. In fact, if you do, I can follow your example. If you need more information from the source, don't hesitate to ask. I've got the book by my desk. And thank you for your interest! Rklawton 22:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • There ya go.  :) I pulled the book information from Amazon, so I presume ISBN, author, etc are correct...I used the paperback, so if you have the hardcover those details (ISBN, and date) may change. Hope that helps. Wikibofh(talk) 22:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
This looks great, but what do I do if I use the same source more than once in an article? Rklawton 23:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Cut-n-paste?  :) It's just a template, no real way to cross reference. I suppose you could do it, but probably not a good idea.  :) Wikibofh(talk) 05:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Angel Villalona

Re: nonsense?!

Just curious why you tagged Angel Miguel Villalona as a CSD G1 nonsense speedy delete? It appears to be completely true (I added a weak reference so others don't get confused). Am I missing something? —Wknight94 (talk) 02:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

A quick search turned up nothing, so I tagged it. A better search found one reliable article, so I added it. Rklawton 02:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asian Wisconzine

You probably shouldn't have said this, but I have to admit that's one of the funniest AfD comments I've ever seen. Brilliant. Gwernol 05:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, Hugh Laurie. I still love "A bit of Fry and Laurie" as if they were a pair of eccentric uncles. Honestly although your comment was a little on the "naughty" side it had me in stitches and I'm damned glad you included it. Soupytwist, Gwernol 05:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] April 2, 2006 Tornado Outbreak

Re: Outbreak photos

I moved the photos down to a separate section, and moved the brief description out (it was listed in its box in the main boxes), as it was not in the right section. The photos are still there, just farther down the page. CrazyC83 20:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Good idea for now - I had them together since it was likely the same tornado. (Likewise the Dyer and Gibson County events are together since they were likely one tornado as well.) If they get confirmed to be the same tornado, they'd be merged back together. CrazyC83 20:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Fairview Heights is O'Fallon's western neighbor. The fatality and damage were certainly caused by the same cloud, but I can't say how many tornados the cloud spawned. If one tornado caused the Fairview Heights and O'Fallon damage, then it had multiple touchdowns with gaps up to a mile. The O'Fallon tornado was small and it went touch and go quite a bit. It hopped over a house on the edge of a subdivision and smashed a house in the middle. It then hopped out of the subdivision again. In total, one barn was destroyed, two houses lost their roofs and had significant top-floor damage, and several hundred more houses sustained roof or window damage. The worst damage occurred in three small "hot spots" surrounded by many more houses with roof damage. Oh, and the local tornado siren failed. Rklawton 20:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bee-eater

Please note that species lists are normally in taxonomic order to put most closely related species next to each other, and are not alphabetical. jimfbleak 07:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

That's good to know. I'll go fix it - if you haven't already. Rklawton 07:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bonza Bottler Day

What a foolish mistake of mine. Yes, thanks.. I see someone has speedied them now, so it won't matter anymore. No need for snowballing, is there? I'm leaving the things as they are now. Thanks again for the message.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING(Я) 22:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

No worries. No big deal. I wasn't sure anyone would speedy them, so I thought I'd ask. I'm glad that's all sorted out. Cheers, Rklawton 01:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Camille Clifford.jpg

Re: Removing speedy from Image:Camille Clifford.jpg

"In the U.S., any work published before January 1, 1923 anywhere in the world is in the public domain." Wikipedia:Public domain Direct reproduction doesn't extend that. This seems to be a direct reproduction, without major transformation. More on Image talk:Camille Clifford.jpg. AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

While you may decide it's a direct reproduction, the image owner does not and has copyrighted the page. By not honoring the website publisher's view that the material is copyrighted, Wikipedia runs the risk of a lawsuit. Indeed, you could be quite wrong about "direct reproduction" in this specific case. What looks like a direct reproduction may well be a rather careful and painstaking restoration job. It's not something you can tell just by looking at the final product. What you can tell, though, is that the publisher has copyrighted the page, and that Wikipedia has chosen to ignore this. That's not a good risk. Rklawton 22:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
The site owner has copyrighted the page, [1] because that page is certainly his - he wrote the html and arranged the images. He has not asserted creation of the photograph in any sense. Instead, he specifically says that he took the images from a collection of antique postcards, bought on EBay. [2] Considering he tells us that much, I somehow imagine he would have also told us about any "careful and painstaking restoration job". True, we can't tell from the final product, but we can read the site. If you disagree, you can, of course, state your reasoning on a Wikipedia:Images for deletion discussion, but it is not as clear as required for speedy deletion. AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
You make a good point. I missed that part of his website. Still, it seems odd to take someone else's work, declair it public domain, and post it here. Rklawton 23:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
This guy's a real photo nerd and takes deletions on Wikipedia too seriously. I say chalk him up as a douche and move on. --Slyder PilotE@ 22:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm a freelance photo nerd and interested in what he has to say on this matter. Thanks for the thought, though. Rklawton 23:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Restoration is not transformative, in the creative sense. Anyone can slap a (c) on anything - doesn't necessarily take effect tho. - crz crztalk 02:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

With regard to your "transformative" notion. Is this based in law (in this case, English law), or is this a matter of personal opinion? Rklawton 04:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Based on my understanding of American copyright law. English law has no relevance whatsoever in WP. We're an American entity (the whole foundation) and must only comply with U.S. copyright law. IMHO. I will be a lawyer next year, but I skipped copyrights in law school wholesale. Let's hope it's not on the bar. - crz crztalk 05:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
And you should consider archiving your talkpage. - crz crztalk 02:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I've been meaning to get to it. So many things to shoot, so little time. I shot Robert Kennedy (Jr) tonight. Photographically, of course. Rklawton 04:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Childhood obesity

[edit] About Merging the articles

I completely agree, puppy fat should be merged with childhood obesity. However, im not sure how to go about doing that while keeping the section in proper english. Is it possible you could do it for me? Thanks, Wikipeedio 02:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

If you can tell me what you mean by "proper English," I'll give it a whirl. Rklawton 02:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure I could merge the two articles, while still having the childhood obesity article make sense and be in proper grammer. Wikipeedio 14:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I've merged the two and redirected the Puppy fat article. Since there was overlap between the two, I heavily edited the puppy fat contents. I like it though. It's short and to the point. Take a look and let me know what you think. Rklawton 16:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
It looks great. Thanks for doing that. Wikipeedio 16:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Puppy fat

An guy using an IP address came in and added a bunch of stuff to the Puppy Fat section of the Childhood obesity article. I read all the additions over, and I'm not sure whether they should be kept or whether I should do something with them. I just wanted to know your opinion before I went and made changes. Tell me what you think about it, but in my opinion, I think the additions are a little biased. Cheers! Wikipeedio 14:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

In fairness, I think we could move the whole puppy fat section to the talk page until we've got citations for the information provided. Rklawton 14:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your childhood obesity picture

Hey, just a quick question about the picture - it's caused some controversy (as you may be aware!), and I'm not really that interested in hearing people bang on about the fact the subject matter is healthy, beautiful etc, the reality is that the subject is obese. However, it seems reasonable to suggest that the subject's anonymity be preserved, unless you have permission from her to use an image of her for this purpose. Could you provide a version of this image with her face pixelated? Just a thought... Budgiekiller 10:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I forgot to say, good work with all your images! Budgiekiller 10:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm very uneasy about this picture, and think it should be removed. The content of the image, the context in which it appears, and the caption all appear to be derogatory of the child. Whether that's intentional or not doesn't perhaps matter: what matters is how the message of the image will be perceived by the viewer. Now, if this were a picture of a consenting adult, I'd have no problems with it, but there's no indication that the subject, and perhaps more importantly her parents, consented either to the picture being taken or to its use in what I believe to be a derogative context. Now, there may under US, UK and other laws be no requirement for such consents to be obtained, but neverleless we ought in all decency to refrain from using identifiable pictures of minors in this way. Consider the effect on her when (and I say when, not if) her classmates see the page and she has to endure the resultant taunts. On the talk page, User:Corinthian suggests that it will be a "proud day ... for her". I venture to suggest, to the contrary, that she will be devastated, as will her parents.

--MichaelMaggs 16:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GMaxwell

I took a look at this. It seems like a content dispute between you and GMaxwell. I don't feel comfortable stepping into this as I don't have a background in this area and there is enough complexity here that I don't think there's much I can add at this point. Sorry, Gwernol 16:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Closing milestones of the Dow Jones Industrial Average

How can I stop anonymous users from having an edit war on Closing milestones of the Dow Jones Industrial Average Moorematthews 20:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colin Powell

Thanks for the suggestion! (don't quite know why I didn't think of that :). I've now gone ahead and added a ref. Regards, Mikker ... 21:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chocolate Pansy

Hi, Actually I discovered that Junonia is the valid genus name and Precis is no longer valid. So I will be moving these pages around a bit. Naming ? well it is mostly idiosyncratic but mostly based on who gets to identify them first and then on finding how they are related to already named species [3]. cheers Shyamal 05:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that's a great resource, thanks! With thousands of possibilities, how does one go about identifying a butterfly found in the field? I found a beautiful specimen that looks more like a leaf than any of the leafwing photos I've seen. The topside is a beautiful blue-black-orange-black (bottom to top). I've looked at the whole USGS site for the state of Missouri, but didn't find anything that looked like it. Ideas? I'd be happy to e-mail a photo. I don't really want to post it here until I know what it is. Rklawton 07:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
First short list it to the possibilities based on geography. Look for a regional list or fieldguide. Then run through the possibilities. You could post it somewhere and I am sure someone will come along to help identify it. Shyamal 11:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

You might want to check [4] Shyamal 11:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

You nailed it on your first shot - without having seen it. How did you do that? I'm amazed! I'll upload the photos later today. I've got a great sequence with the wings opening where it goes from leaf to butterfly. Rklawton 13:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Finding it in the wild in Missouri is something quite odd and a cause for concern. This genus does not have too much of a pest potential (your winter would probably control it), but I imagine that this has escaped from a greenhouse/butterfly park somewhere, which is not a good thing to happen. Might be worthwhile bringing it to the notice of your local Audubon or other similar organization. Regarding the identification, it is risky to go right down to species level unless you have examined all the possible species. This is all the more a problem if it is not a native species with a well marked geographical distribution. Shyamal 04:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree on all counts.
  • The St. Louis Zoo has an insectorium (where I do most of my butterfly shooting). However, they don't have a Kallima in their collection. I plan to print top and bottom photos and check with their experts. Even if they don't know anything about it, they'll probably want to be made aware.
  • Yes, since it's way out-of-bounds, we can't really use geography as a clue. I checked all available photos of Kallima on the 'net and selected what I saw as an "exact" match. However, as far as species identification goes, I'm only a beginner. Now that I've got two photos posted, can you confirm its identity?
  • Thanks again for your help. I'd still be surfing the net going buggy over butterfly photos if it weren't for your quick eye. Rklawton 05:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Condoleeza Rice

Hi,

Condoleeza Rice has never claimed to be fluent in Russian. She has studied it, but she isn't fluent. For example in her 1993 Northeast Conference Keynote Address she talks about studying Russian, writting Russian and speaking it. But that's a far cry from speaking it like a native.

Juliet Bravo

She never claims she's not. Others claim she is. The key to Wikipedia is verifiability. Since you can't verify your position, it doesn't belong in the article in the face of verifiable evidence to the contrary. Rklawton 13:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


Rklawton:

July 1 2006 edition of The Daily Telegraph (one of United Kingdom's most prestigious newspapers):

"There were other angry exchanges during the conversation [between Condoleeza Rice and Sergei Lavrov], which was conducted in English because, although an experienced Sovietologist, Miss Rice's Russian is poor."

Source: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/07/01/wruss01.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/07/01/ixnews.html

I will also re-state that the venerable and peerless Condoleeza Rice has never claimed to be fluent. Also, if you read her 1993 Northeast Conference Keynote Address, your evience, it's clear that she is not fluent. I give her full credit for studying the Russian language. But SHE IS NOT FLUENT.

Game. Set. Match. Juliet Bravo

Note also that Rice's non-claim is non-evidence. A denial might be evidence (or it might be modesty), so you'll do better dropping that point.
Next: Be careful before declairing game/set/match. It's rude and it's wrong. A single reporter's interpretation of Rice's skills is not a game/set/match. It's simply a point in your favor. Another intepretation of this exchange is simple - when fighting a battle, it's better to fight on territory you know the best - in this case, English. At any rate, it's not an article about her speaking skills, it's an article about Iraq diplomacy. Many more articles reference her fluency. Here's one that is a bit more telling [5]. It's also more informative than the article you provided. Rklawton 13:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Rklawton,

Rice is not fluent in Russian! I feel like I've taken crazy pills and no one is looking at the evidence. You cite her 1993 Northeast Conference Keynote Address as evidence. Actually, it shows that she isn't fluent; she hasn't studied it enough. And once again you've provided "evidence" that isn't evidence at all. This transcipt proves nothing! The relevant bits aren't translated into English: we have no idea what she said.

So, if we take your approach, why not claim that Rice speaks Swahili. According to your methodology, there's no proof against it so it is perfectly legitimate to put it into Wikipedia. Does that sound right to you?

If you have definitive proof about her linguistic prowess then provide it. If not, let's be cautious and not leave it in the article; it's too much of a question mark. Juliet Bravo

I've provided a half-dozen links from internationally recognized media sources referencing her fluency on her Talk page. Rklawton 15:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Rklawton:

So what? If one media outlet mistakenly asserts that she's fluent, then they all will. And if that claim is proved wrong, they can shift the blame to that initial report. You can cite a million reports about her fluency. None of them are definitive, which is what we need to say that she is fluent.

Incidentially, you're being very quiet about the previous "evidence" you mentioned, i.e. that 1993 Northeast Conference Keynote Address you're so fond of. Did you actually read it? Or how about that transcript that did not prove her fluency one way or another?

Your serve...

Juliet Bravo

I've read it. Your failure so far is in verifiability. You can't verify that she doesn't speak fluent Russian, and I can verify that she does. If you want to posit the media's reports on her fluency comes from a single source, then you should provide a verifiable source stating such. Rklawton 16:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Rklawton:

I've read the latest update of the Condoleeza Rice article. I am happy with the compromise. I've enjoyed crossing swords with you, and ultimately it re-affirms the spirit of Wikipedia.

Juliet Bravo

[edit] CrD

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 February 14

That's where it is. At the very bottom of the page. --DanielCD 01:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Days of year

[edit] March 4

User Acumen76 and 4 March Acumen76 has changed a date on a opera article I Capuleti e i Montecchi. At first I thought it was bona fide, but then I saw his user page (on which your name is prominent). Was it vandalism? - Kleinzach 21:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Acumen76 has a history of changing dates without supporting citations. This makes it rather laborious to sort out fact from fiction. I have, however, found a source that supports the March 11 date [6] I'll add it to the article. Rklawton 21:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
The date he changed was from 11 March 1830 to 4 March 1830. Curiously your previous correspondence also mentioned 4 March. Is there anything we can do to stop him if this is just a subtle form of vandalism? - Kleinzach 21:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I have just checked the 4 March page and (as I expected) it has been edited a lot by Acumen76. What do you think we might do about this? - Kleinzach 21:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the wiki-sanctioned course of action would be to review his contributions and, if demonstrable, indict him either for habitually sloppy work or for vandalism. Why he focuses on March 4th is anyone's guess. Rklawton 21:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] March 7

Actually, I did not see that his death was already on the page...unless you added it. I will write a biography. Short. So someone can come along and add to it. -diediemydarling

[edit] March 26

Hello! Thanks for the comment. Replied here. -ColdCaffeine 08:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] May 25

Hello Rklawton, Israel occupied Lebanese territory since March 1978 which makes it 22 years of occupation. Cheers--A rihani 07:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] April 1

Your behavior is despicable and will not be tolerated. I am not first best random anon vandal to revert me. `'mikka (t) 21:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Glad tidings to you, too, brother editor. I'm afraid that the best of my English skills fail me when interpreting your second sentence, though your first reads clear enough. I'll be happy to pass both along to our fellow editors managing the date article project page. Wiser heads than mine can decide. Blessings to you! Rklawton 01:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] April 19

It turns out that the new date article standard is to self-reference the date within the article. I think you can find a more detailed explanation on the project page. At any rate, I changed April 19's self reference back. No worries. Rklawton 04:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Rklawton. I'll check what i did to date articles and change if i removed self references back. Cheers. --Ugur Basak 09:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] July 20

Do you use a bot for edits such as this? It seems so tedious to make so many minor whitespace changes, it seems as if you must either be using a bot or some sort of script that allows regexes in the edit box. Thanks! --M@thwiz2020 00:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I am a very patient person. I am also a programmer. The monster bot is still under development (you know, the fool-proof bot that never misses an edit or screws up an article)... Rklawton 01:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Try using the AWB. I could probably write some regex (acutally, I would need a few) that could automate most of the tasks for you. --M@thwiz2020 22:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
As for the actual changes, I couldn't help but notice that you seem to have no space before linked years and a space before unlinked years. However, the first line (events in the year 514) has a link with a space you added. --M@thwiz2020 22:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
The general idea is to get the dashes to line up in the same column as an aid to faster visual scanning. Rklawton 22:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] October 7

I tried to help make this page more consistent, why did you have a go at me for linking the years up? (Benjy613 17:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC))

Date article policy is to not create redundant year links. Simply link the year once. This keeps it consistant with the other 366 date articles. Also note the article's in-line notes to the same effect. Thanks. Rklawton 17:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] October 28

Hi, I wrote that Little Orphan Annie was born on October 28 (true) and you sent me a warning message. Why is this considered vandalism?

[edit] AOL user verses date pages

Semi-protection is a possibility. One problem is, which pages need to be protected? The alert mentioned the 13 colonies, so that would be 13 date pages to protect. But are the colony dates the only ones he's hitting? Or has he been doing the aniversaries of other events? If the latter, then the window of date pages expands greatly. Do we need to S-protect all 365 date pages? Obviously that's a bit much, but it's hard to know exactly which ones need to be protected. And then there's the general problems with S-protect. We block off all valid edits from anons for the length of the protection. I'm hesitant to do that to 13 pages, let alone the full number that would need to be protected to fully stop him. - TexasAndroid 21:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm watching almost all the date pages, and I've only seen him do this to states with bicentinnial anniversaries. I've provided a list of the affected date pages below. I understand your hesitation. If he starts up again, what reporting method should I use? Should I go back to the vandalism page and list the date pages, or is there a better route? Rklawton 22:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


Ok. Now that you know that blocking him would be useless, you're ready for page protection the next time he strikes. Semi-protection, to be specific. You will want Wikipedia:Requests for page protection when that happens. That's the proper place to request the protection. Explain the situation out fully, and provide the above list of his targets, and you should be good to go. I have no idea if the protection will be granted, because my hestitations at S-protecting 13 pages still stand, but the admins there are much more experienced at being admins than I am (i've only been an admin for a month or so), and will know what to do. Anyway, that's your next step if/when he returns. - TexasAndroid 14:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
It's all about learning: you, me, everyone. Thanks, I'll following your directions if/when it happens again. A lot of time these guys just get tired and go away. Rklawton 16:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Birth

I didn't add it, I just restored it after it was removed with no reason other than "it was red", it is better to err on the side of caution...ie: just because it's red, doesn't mean it's not notable. While I agree that being a physician doesn't make one notable, there are many physicians who are notable. Perhaps you could raise the question of their notability with the person who originally added the link, but this should be done before removing it. It isn't a requirement to write the article in order for it to be linked, red links actually help people find articles that need to be written. bcatt 02:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

If you check the in-line notes for most of the date articles, you'll see it clearly states that no entry should be made unless the article exists first. Next, while I listed redlinking as the primary reason, I also Googled the name and found no clear references to the person in question. That's another good clue that an article isn't going to be written. Next, if you check my user contributions, you'll see that I don't just go around randomly removing material from articles. I'm pretty careful about what I do. You should take the same measures yourself - or at least check with the individual making the change - as you just recommended to me. Since it's clear you had minimal reason to undo my edits, I'll go and revert them now. Please take care in the future with other people's work. Rklawton 02:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

There are no inline notes saying not to add red links to the article, so you really have no place coming down on me for that. I am not psychic, so how was I to know that you did a google search when the only reason you gave was that it was a red link? I had no reason to check your contributions before restoring the name, as the change had nothing to do with you and everything to do with the wikipedia style guidelines that state that red links are perfectly ok and that it is better to have some red links than to not link to a non-existant article that requires writing. I wonder, if before telling me that I should check first to make sure you really were deleting it for being a red link as stated in your edit summary (even though I should be able to rely on the edit summary, unless said summary refers to talk page, or is lacking in detail), if you took any steps to contact the person who added the link in the first place or at least looked for an edit summary related to when the link was added...if you have taken neither of these steps, I would reecommend taking your own advice of taking ones own advice. Taking care was exactly what I was doing...I was trying to ensure that someone potentially notable wasn't deleted before an article could be written by an editor who happens to come along and see the red link and know a thing or two about the subject. (BTW, I also did a google search and he did register, just not in English...there are non-English people who are notable...unfortunately, I am not fluent in anything but English, so I am unable to determine his actual notability...hence why it is a good idea to ask the person who added him why he was added instead of attacking me for trying to preserve information which may be important and may be otherwise lost). Also, taking care was exactly my point in requesting that you contact the person who originally added the link...I restored it because "deleting on the basis of it being red" is not an example of being careful with other people's contributions...please hold yourself to the same standard that you hold others to. You have had no reason to be so haughty and rude to me. bcatt 04:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

You can learn from this, or you can blame other people when they come down on you. The choice is yours. I've reviewed every date article between Jan 1 and Nov 30 (I start December in a few minutes), and I'm well aware of the standards for DATE articles. Check March 1 for an example of in-line comments specifying article creation before addition. The fact is, I've left quite a few redlined people in who were indeed noteable and simply required articles. The learning points for you are simple: 1) check before you revert - you didn't, and it's cost you, and 2) accept the criticism when you make a mistake. We all make mistakes, a simple "my bad" is all it takes and everyone moves right along. Rklawton 04:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Newsflash: I wasn't editing March 1, I was editing October 13. October 13 does not contain any inlines about not having red links. Period. I am able to accept criticism when I make a mistake...in fact, I am often the first to recognize and point out my own mistakes. Again, this is an example of where you need to take your own advice. bcatt 04:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

True, October 13 does not contain an in-line comment regarding redlinks. That's why I pointed out March 1st. Alternatively, you can check here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year. I fully understand that you jumped in and reverted an article from a project with which you weren't familiar. It is my hope that through this experience you will learn more about how to properly edit articles included in the Days of the Year project. Rklawton 04:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I was going by the wikipedia manual of style which states that a red link is preferable to no link at all, where an article may someday be written on a notable subject. My suggestion was to check with the original contributor of the link to see on what basis they chose to add the link in the first place instead of deeming it non-notable simply because it is red. I have never seen any recommendation, on any part of wikipedia, that encourages deleting links because they are red. Wikiprojects are great, but they should not be used to create new "rules" that clash with the universal style guide, I have seen this kind of thing cause problems elsewhere on other types of topics as well. bcatt 05:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

That is a very good point. However, I'm not willing to go against the consensus established within the project’s talk page. Any changes based upon the arguments you’ve presented above should first be addressed there. Rklawton 05:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that. I will take a closer look at the related talk pages when I am operating on more than 3 1/2 hours of sleep. bcatt 05:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Events

[edit] Proposed event policy for Wikicalendar

Hi Rklawton :). I recently posted some ideas about developing criteria for what should and should not be listed on Wikicalendar events at the Wikicalendar's talk page. Since you're actively involved in this project, I thought I'd let you know so that you can comment or add more suggestions. Thanks. Fabricationary 23:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I liked your ideas and responded there. Rklawton 05:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikidate Event Policy Proposal

Hey Rklawton, I modified the guidelines for events to be included in the Wikicalendar pages to include your suggestions and posted the updated proposal here. I've also listed it at the Village pump policy page and Requests for comments for policies page. Hopefully we can make it an official policy and start improving date pages. Thanks again for your continued input, and please visit the linked pages to add your comments. Fabricationary 22:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Album releases

Hi there Rk. You're doing a sterling job on the date pages.

I have noticed the appearance of pop album releases on these pages - I can find no guidelines about this, and I am uncomfortable with their presence. We could very well end up with masses of entertainment trivia as "events" if this trend continues. What do you think?

Nigosh 02:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. You are very kind to say so. I don't know if they exist, but I think there exists a strong need for various entertainment lists. I wouldn't have much interest in maintaining them, but clearly many people would, and I would be happy for them. I haven't hesitated to delete almost every entertainment event from a date article without discussion.
I interpret the date articles as significant dates in history. Entertainment rarely if ever cuts it as a significant historical event for me. For the most part, such event dates rarely if ever have the ability to affect mankind's development. A few events, Live-Aid, for example, affected hundreds of millions, if not billions of people, so I'd make an exception for that event. The only other entertainment event that comes to mind would be the Beatle's appearance on the Ed Sullivan show - thereby launching "the British invasion." To me, it's more than enough that every porn star* and vocalist gets their birth/deaths recorded in these articles.
* Doesn’t that ever chap yer hide? Someone wants to spread their legs for the camera, and they get listed as a notable person, and wiki editors who spread knowledge to the benefit of all mankind get no mention at all. (doh!) Rklawton 02:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad you agree. I think a gentle nudge towards [[Category:Music history]] or a regional subcat thereof may give people somewhere to list such items. Similarly [[Category:Years in film]], [[Category:Years in television]] and [[Category:History of computer and video games]]. Nigosh 03:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Gentle nudges work best! If you write a brief but useful in-line note to that effect, I'll paste it under the events section in every date article. Oh, and you'll want to update the Date Article project page, too. Give me a shout when you do, and I'll second it to help build consensus. Rklawton 03:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Self referencing

I have a solution, but it will have to wait until tomorrow. Regards. Rich Farmbrough 03:07 25 March 2006 (UTC).

OK implemented for April, it's not the most elegant solution, but I think it's unlikely to be changed by users or bots. (Incidentally there are a lot of people using AWB, and I have seen at least Bluebot delinking them as well.) If you have no great objection I'll do the rest of the year. Rich Farmbrough 11:33 25 March 2006 (UTC).
Sure. The only problem I see is that a mass edit will likely mask vandalism. These articles are frequent targets. Rklawton 14:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
OK I'm doing it fauirly gradually. Rich Farmbrough 20:51 25 March 2006 (UTC).

Hi, thanks for your note. You are perfectly correct that these are circular references, which are by and large a Bad Thing. However the badness has been ameliorated by the Wikimedia software (since about V1.3 or 1.4 I think) which displays them as bold instead of as links. Since the frist occurance should be bold anyway, this is ok. On the other hand, it also allows date prefernces to work. For a fuller discussion see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Days_of_the_year#Linking_dates_in_lead_paragraphs. Best regards, Rich Farmbrough 23:11 14 March 2006 (UTC).

I do see that difficulty, as I remember on January 1 and February 30. I'll see if I can come up with a solution.

[edit] AWB and self-referencing

see User talk:Bluemoose

Hi Robert, Martin has improved AWB which was doing most of the de-linking, to treat date pages specially, however I've left him a note to the effect that both people and other automated tools are likely to de-link these entities if they are changed back. It's certainly less of a big deal now than it was before he improved AWB. Regards, Rich Farmbrough 15:43 28 June 2006 (GMT).

Thanks for the heads up. See also my recommendations here: Martin. Rklawton 15:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] nn events

What is an "nn event"? I'm assuming it means "not news," but I'm not sure. Could you direct me to an official page explaining wiki policy on dates? Thanks. --Nick 16:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting "nn events"

I have reverted your edit for the article of June 25. It appears that these events that you have reverted appear to be notable enough to be listed on the page. If you need anything feel free to contact me! Yanksox 21:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm, I have read the page, but the World Cup is a bit more on the global scale and not limiting like an American Sports Championship. I'm also somewhat skepticial of reverting when Political leaders of a medium/large country are placed in office. But that's just me. Thanks! Yanksox 22:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Will do, I've added the page to my talk and will visit it once again to drop in my $0.02. Hope everything goed well with you. Yanksox 22:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, you too. Rklawton 22:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Holidays

Re: Church of Satan

[edit] Re: User:Engleham

Well, it's possible he might have taken offense at the suggestion that he has a specific agenda; that's why I suggested everyone hold off on the personal attacks (trying to keep the flame level low, at least until someone more deserving of it shows up.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

"A specific agenda..." - is actually pretty neutral. It could be an agenda "for the betterment of all humankind" or the like. It isn't, of course. But that's not our fault - it's his own contributions that illustrate his purpose here, and I think it's important for those who debate with him to review these contributions for themselves. Rklawton 20:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Neutral, yeah, but -- you knew what you meant and he knew what you meant, and it was a dig as opposed to useful discussion. No big deal, even vague fighting words lead too often to fights. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
The truth isn't a dig. In this case, it makes a very useful point in favor of those claiming he's POV pushing. He says he isn't, but his edits say he is. He's asking for credibility, but he hasn't built up any, and that's all valid to point out in a talk page debate. His resort to name calling should result in a warning or more. Rklawton 21:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The edit I made to the April 30th calendar to include the foundation of the Church of Satan in that year was removed; as you claim, because it is insignificant. I would not call this a NPOV by any means. The same calendar includes an entry for Ellen DeGeneres coming out of the closet on television; certainly I rate the foundation of a religion with membership in the thousands internationally more important than an item of celebrity gossip. It is of course futile to attempt to argue about it, since I will invariably be outnumbered on the issue, but it deserves to be pointed out that this does not serve justice to Wikipedia standards. - Lvthn13

You make a good point. Ellen DeGeneres was a first for American TV, may have made an impact on Gay Rights, and affected millions. Thus, there is no comparison. Even so, I have been considering deleting that particular entry since it doesn't seem to have had any lasting effect. DeGeneres came out, there was a big, short-lived fuss, and then everyone moved on. In the long run, we'll probably pick a few events that best signify milestones in the Gay Rights movement and delete the remainder. I suspect that the entry you question will come down on the "remainder" side. Rklawton 14:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Not to appear pompous on the subject, but I suspect I am far more educated on the history and impact of the Church of Satan. Its foundation inspired countless visual and musical artists, and its membership includes people from every imaginable walk of life. It is easy to assume that it is a minor event, yet it has made the news consistently for over forty years. More to the point, while it is no doubt an "obscure event" to some, it certainly causes no harm to include it on the list of significant events for that date. Doing so would, in my opinion, be quite in line with Wikipedia's standard of NPOV and true to the spirit of free information. A short session of research of Wikipedia would reveal that there are numerous articles concerning Satanism, the Church of Satan, Anton LaVey, his books, and other associated persons and issues of importance. I say that any date event which was significant enough to spawn over two dozen Wikipedia articles deserves mention on Wikipedia, even if it is unpopular. I am kind enough not ot take offense at the comment "made up church" as I consider all religions "made up" (somebody founded them, no?), all I ask in return is the same, that my intimate knowledge on this topic be respected. I am content to deal with those matters I feel I am informed on. If you still feel otherwise, I would not waste further effort as I know I cannot win a "war" of POV when it comes to editing, and I have not attempted to revert the edit since yours. Take under consideration that even if you disagree with my opinion, everyone has theirs, and perhaps mine ought to carry equal respectability. - Lvthn13
You are clearly moved by this particular subject and would like to see this event in a Date Article. However, you do not seem to have done any research into what types of events are selected to appear in date articles. Please visit the project page. Rklawton 12:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Date Article Holidays

Just to bounce ideas off of you as well before starting a discussion about this on the project's talk page - yeah, I agree about the need for specification. In my opinion, a ballpark figure for a notable world religion would be around 0.1% of the current world population is a member. This would currently be 6.5 million. It may seem low compared to the numbers you mentioned, but considering that religions like Judaism have only 15 million members (about 0.23% of the world population according to Major religious groups), this would be a large enough number to encompass all major world religions (listed in the link above) but leave out religions like Scientology (100,000-500,000 members). As far subdivisions of religion, like Catholicism as a subdivision of Christianity, do you think the same figure (if that subdivision holds a membership of around 0.1% of the world's population) would work? Fabricationary 04:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

That (3.25 mil or 0.05% of the world population instead of 6.5 mil, along with exceptions made for old religions) sounds good - perhaps you should bring this up on the project's talk page instead of me?
And congrats on your impending milestone edit! If you do have an RfA, I'd be delighted to vote in support of you. Fabricationary 18:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
That covers religions. What about observances? We've got 100+ countries out there, and they each have their own national holidays lists. On the other hand, I can't imagine how we'd narrow that down any. On the other hand two or three a month X 200 countries (over estimate) yields an average of two or three entries per date article. Maybe that's not so bad. I think we should exclude state/province/regional official days, though. Thoughts?
And thanks. I've got at least two votes then. Rklawton 18:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
National holidays haven't seemed to be that much of an issue for me. I think listing a country's national holidays, but not the holidays of its states/provinces/cities might be fair. The trickier deal is unofficial holidays, such as Pi Day. Perhaps a good general guideline for those is that if they have their own Wikiarticle that isn't being considered for afd or speedy deletion, they can stay. Fabricationary 19:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Good points and well taken. I'll see what I can draft up. Rklawton 19:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help dealing with an anonymous uesr?

Hey Rklawton, an anonymous user with IP 128.226.219.107 has added non-notable events (some wedding involving some celeb, and a bachelor party of some celeb, on September 26 and June 10 respectively. I've left three messages on the user's talk page (as well as edit summaries) asking for an explanation, but he/she has not responded. I have made one revert to each page, and the user has made two, almost at the 3RR. Could you tell me what you think about the sitation? Thanks. Fabricationary 22:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :). Glad your power is back - I still have relatives without power, though luckily the power never went out here. Fabricationary 01:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Derrick Lonsdale

Re: Prod

I want to explain why I have removed your Prod. This article has just survived an AfD here - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derrick Lonsdale. Therefore, a Prod is not suitable. If you still think that the article should be deleted then another AfD is the appropriate action but it may be considered too soon. TerriersFan 21:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Two editors voted to keep the article. Two voted to delete it. A prod does not violate policy - and it puts editors on notice that the article is severely defective. In this case, that's fully appropriate. Rklawton 01:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
A second Prod does violate the guidelines. The template says "If this template is removed, it should not be replaced." As I have explained above, if you continue to think that the article should be deleted you should submit a further AfD. TerriersFan 21:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem, it's not particularly straightforward as the templates don't allow for it. Yomanganitalk 01:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Die Entscheidung

Next time you can use {{db-copyvio|http://www.whatever}} instead of using the talk page. Thanks. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 18:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Rklawton 18:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doroud

Iran's historical sites divide into two preliminary categories : Pre-Islamic and post-Islamic. Fars (Pars) is one of the few provinces that has enjoyed a splendour life before and after Islamic invasion. It hosts numerous breathtaking monuments, gardens, mosques and etc. Its capital, Shiraz, was once a true eden on earth. For mostly Pre-Islamic monuments Khuzestan (Susa,...), Hamadan Province and its capital Hamadan should not be forgotten. If you are interested in Sassanids, Takht-i-Suleiman is a true masterpiece.

For a more Islamic-related monuments, Isfahan Province with its capital Isfahan, has a lot to offer. These are just a fraction of Iran's national treasures ! there are alot more. I hope this was helpful. Best wishes.

Amir85 22:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dudley (character)

Re: See Also section

On Dudley please stop removing the 'See Also' section.If you have a reason for removing that section go to to the discussion page of Dudley.I will be there if you have an answer. --Peace, Cute 1 4 u 03:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ellis Paul

Re: wiki dates

I've been removing the wiki links for dates that you've been adding since the Manual of Style says to make only links relevant to the context....PLUS the Wiki editor who did the peer review told me ONLY to Wiki link FULL dates - date and year. Please don't link any more dates and years that are separate. Thanks you for your help. Kmzundel 03:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Of course I don't want to screw things up. I'm putting my heart and soul into this trying to do the best job that I can!....and trying to follow guidance as it's given. Kmzundel 03:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fall of Sassanids

Re: Copy editing
Hi ! Thanks to your copyedits and User:Robth, Sassanid Empire is doing good in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sassanid Empire/archive1. If you have time could you please check Fall of Sassanids for copy editing stuffs. Best wishes ! Amir85 07:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

My work is trivial compared to yours, so congratulations to you! I will be happy to help with Fall of Sassanids right away. Rklawton 07:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fred Durst birth year

Your source was a fan site, not his official site (despite what the domain name may imply) or any other remotely reliable source. I pulled up a residency record from NC and Jacksonville, FL, and both say 1970.--Fallout boy 06:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fresa

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Fresa, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-{{prod}}ed, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still feel the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! --ais523 13:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

As it happens, I myself think this could be controversial, so I'll take it to AfD. --ais523 13:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Good advice. AfD sounds fine to me. See you there. Rklawton 15:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Future Problem Solving Program

Thanks for cleaning up that Future Problem Solving article! I was amazed to see that there were so many other FPSers (I started the article with about a paragraph, forgot about it, came back a week later and it was huge!). What is your involvement in FPS?

No involvement - just on vandal patrol and spotted an obvious instance. Rklawton 05:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Generations Linux & Mauro DePalma

I think the DePalma article should be userfied (wich I have done) and deleted, but the Linux distribution I don't see as being any less insignificant than about a dozen others that are listed, so I have to vote to keep that one (or else delete all the others). Still, I will talk to hinm and try to let him know that one way or the other it isn't personal, as new users can get pretty upset over this at times. Thanks for the heads up. (Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 18:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to explain the matter to him now. (Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 18:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] George Washington

[7] Great edit summary - thanks for brightening my watchlist! :-) FreplySpang (talk) 19:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Giraffe

Hey can you take a look at your Nubian Giraffe article? you list it as the 'reticulated giraffe' on the nubian griaffe page, but on the giraffe page there is a seperate entry for reticulated giraffes. I am not a giraffe expert so I can't tell what your pictures are of :) -Ravedave 06:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Giraffe Gaff... I relied on the zoo's signage for identification, so I'm sure the original image is labeled correctly (it's cheaper and easier than going on safari). I'll check the links and re-locate as needed. That's one thing I'm super fussy about - labels. For example, I've got tons of flower photos (another favorite subject), but I won't post any of them until I can get a botanist to identify them for me. Oddly enough, I don't actually know any botanists. Fortunately, it's not one of my priorities.
OK, the label I used in my stub (both Latin and common) is precisely what was used on the zoo's signage. The confusion comes from the parent article that I didn't write. The mix-up appears to be with the common names. I gave precedent to the Latin name and so made the link that way. I’ll print the article and share it with the kritter keeper on my next visit (next week if I can get some sunshine). For all I know, the zoo has old signs. Alternatively, he/she might make some editorial suggestions for the article.Rklawton 07:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. One thing that you could do is use the wikipedia: village pump to make sure all your flower pictures are correct. You can upload them all (good ones only!) and post a gallery to the village pump asking people to verify theier identity, or correct it. -Ravedave 06:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I'll check it out. I've got a lot of purdy flower pictures, but I suspect that they're all pretty common and not worth an expert's time. I frame and sell them to the home-decoration types.Rklawton 07:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
If you can't figure out which giraffe is on the Nubian Giraffe page I am going to need to put it up for deletion. I thought I'd give you another chance before I nominate it. -Ravedave 19:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Whee, I fixed it! Thanks for keeping on my about this. A bit of net-searching, and I had it all sorted out. Rklawton 19:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Global warming

hi -- You're being awfully forgiving with User:65.94.96.42's vandalism. I would escalate through subst:test1-n to subst:test4-n, after which I would put a notice on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, and they will be promptly blocked. No reason to spend all day editing back and forth! For a list of template warning messages, see Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace. thanks for the good work! bikeable (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Then what would I do with myself? Rklawton 19:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough -- ya gotta have a hobby! best, bikeable (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goose

Thanks for your help with goose and Canada Goose. I've actually blocked the "Canadian" fanatic for 48 hours for his repeated attacks on these articles. I noticed that you partially or fully lower cased some of the names (Greylag goose, Swan Goose linked through swan goose). I don't know whether that was intentional, but the agreed convention is that bird species' names are fully capped, and that also avoids unneeded redirects, thanks again, jimfbleak 06:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I reverted to an earlier version - probably too far. Fully capped works for me. Rklawton 14:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Henry Ford

Re: Henry Ford talk page Do not remove other editors' comments from article talk pages, as you did here.[8]. Edits like this can be considered vandalism. See WP:VANDAL.--Mantanmoreland 21:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of Western fashion

Re: Clothing edit war I have proposed a solution to the current edit war over categorizing clothing articles at Talk:History_of_Western_fashion#Resolving_the_Edit_War. Please join the discussion. - PKM 03:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Holocaust denial

Thanks for the suggestion. I footnoted everything quite thoroughly. --Goodoldpolonius2 05:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Human calculator

Dear Rklawton, gee, thanks a lot for helping me by just now on about improving the two of the both related Wiki-articles of the Human Calculator and Scott Flansburg! Guess I might owe you one! -onWheeZierPLot Sunday, 9th July, 2006ad.

I tried to adjust the style so it reads more like an encyclopedia. All that "Press" crap makes it read like an ad. The article shouldn't focus on what he has to sell. It should focus on his talents and achievements. If the advertisement tone persists, I'm going to tag it for AfD. It won't pass, but an extra dozen editors deleting the "Press" section would do the article some good. Rklawton 19:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Hhmmm..... You might be right about those ad stuffs and you really had some points there. However, I'm still doubt or still not sure about it because I believe there are yet many other Wiki-articles with those similar ads written down as well such as Bryan Berg (take that article for example), in which that article also has a lot to do or resolve with those ads or The Press(es) coupled with a lot of Wikilinks under his article section entitled the "Cardstacker Press"! What do you think and how will you consider about that? -onWheeZierPLot Sunday, 9th July, 2006ad.

Thank you for bringing this article to my attention. Later this evening I will review the article you mentioned and edit it as needed. Rklawton 23:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iran

Thanks! == Thank you very much for your offer to help clean up articles on Iran. I will contact you soon.
Thanks again. --(Aytakin) | Talk 17:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jalapeño

Re: Growing Jalapeños

I saw your comment on the talk page for jalapeño that there should be a growing section, but everything I could find on the internet was about growing peppers in general. Maybe there could be an article or a section of the Capsicum page about growing peppers, but I don't feel qualified to write it (and I don't have an account here, anyways). 4.245.149.173 21:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus' "birth"

I have left more extensive comments at the page, but here I will say only that I see no such consensus, and that Jesus of Nazareth has been the form since at least last 12.24 (I took out the "Christ" myself.) I don't fancy Xtains much, and I fight to keep neutral language in every case. However, the "traditional birth" of Jesus (false as it may be in an empirical sense) is a "fact" in a different sense. The Xtains observe that day as his birth. It is important for all culturally literal people to grasp this, while also grasping that as a "traditional" date, its empirical value is compromised. As far as I know, there are only two widely recognized "traditional" birthdays, 12.25 and 1.6, and I would support listing traditional "births" under both. Knowledge of Xtain "tradition" (and its empirical flimsiness) needs wider dissemination; as such, I object to the removal from "births" of the widely-observed, though almost certainly incorrect, date. 64.157.34.149 19:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Traditions belong under holidays - that's why we have that heading.
  • Roman Catholic/most Protestant 12/25 (or 12/24)
  • Coptic Christian 1/6
  • Russian and Eastern Orthodox 1/7
  • Jehova's Witnesses (no date recognized)
Thank you for responding here, but see December 25's talk page for futher discussion. Rklawton 20:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
My apologies for assuming you were like myself in skepticism -- common human fallacy, that. I am happy to report that Jan. 7 makes note of the day already. January 6th doesn't, unfortunately, but my own uncertain knowledge of the particulars will keep me from remedying that personally. As for the Jehovah's Witness and other Millerite faiths, I'm sure you recognize that their "non-recognition" is quite controversial among other Christians.
I appreciate your thoughtfulness in acceding for the sake of peace. As to the matter of whether traditions belong only under holidays... well, we list Washington's birthday under Feb. 22 births, as well as the holiday President's Day (though those are now never exactly coincident, the tradition began from his birthday.) Also, I believe we list Shakespeare under 23 April births, though this date is only "traditional", having been derived from a baptism record, as well as (long afterwards) the strange coincidence of his death on that day in 1616. Of course, the truth is there is no other precedent to compare adequately to Jesus, from whose birth our entire conventional dating system is reckoned. I don't see why several mentions would be advisable on that warrant alone, and I am, again, no friend of organized churches. 20:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
For someone who is no friend of organized churches, you seem to be taking a lot of initiative in supporting some of their POV in opposition to the NPOV policy and in opposition to a Christian who wishes to see the NPOV policy uniformally applied. "Curiouser and Curiouser!" Cried Alice... Rklawton 20:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
"Writing for the enemy" is a good philosophy by which to live. We also disagree on the application of NPOV in this case -- I would rather see every widely-recognized day listed than none. To the extent that I have an ulterior motive in that, it may be my desire to see that everybody finally understands that a) the traditional date most acknowledged as that intended by Exiguus is 1 B.C.(E.), not 0 or 1 C.E. and (as a corollary) b) there is no year zero. Jesus' b-day helps illustrate this. My (lack of) a creed is honest, though. Ecrasez l'infame! You might also note that, prior to your arrival at the talk page, I was engaged in effort to prevent the "C" word from popping up again. 64.157.34.149 21:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
For clarity, the other 64.157... on the Dec. 25 page is also yours truly. 21:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
True, it's nice to remind folks there is no year 0. I bet that sort of thing screws up programmers all the time. The nativity date is listed - it's listed as a holiday - which is how the early Christians meant it to be. They wanted to celebrate and possibly to take the wind out of Mithras’ sails. As for the other... and following your own logic, isn't the "C" word "widely-recognized?" Unlike the nativity date, the "C" word is uniformly recognized by Christians. In short, the "Christ" designation is dogma. The nativity date is not. If you are going tip your hat to the non-dogmatic, you should do the same for the other. Rklawton 21:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
For me, it isn't a matter of Christian "dogma" vs. "non-dogma", as I am not a Christian (though I like Jesus' moral teachings well enough.) Non-Christians are not generally offended by the fact that Jesus had a birthday (everyone has one) and that this day is observed. Mark down one day for it; mark down twenty - a non-Christian is unlikely to care, and this non-Christian happens to understand that all the various days so marked are historically interesting and noteworthy.
In contrast, "Christ" is a religious title with inflamed history, especially regarding Jews (who were so punished throughout later ages as "Christ-killers"), and Muslims, who claim Jesus as a prophet, not a God-man. There are also people like me, who admire Jesus as a teacher, but want nothing of dogmas and church ritual. To be fair to the non-Christians, call the fellow by a respectful but not overtly religious name, like Jesus of Nazareth. 64.157.34.149 21:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't buy the "inflamed history" part of the word Christ. The inflamed part comes from the Gospel of Matthew and is regrettably associated with anything Christian. (Christ, Jesus, or Emmanuel) However, I agree that the word Christ is POV. The point is, though, that the nativity date is even less inclusive and more POV. Putting it in a section with facts enforces the POV whereas putting the event under Holiday does not. On a related note, George Washington has only one birth date. He also has two different holidays associated with it. The birth date goes under Births. The holidays go under Holidays, but I would never condone putting President's Day or Washington's Birthday (the holiday) under Births. Rklawton 22:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
It's not especially a matter of whether either of us "buys" the inflamed history of the word "Christ." It has been my experience that Orthodox Jews, in particular, are agitated especially by the word -- after 2,000 years, arguments over the legitimacy of that feeling are probably outside the competence even of a general encyclopedia like WP, much less one or two talk pages. The relevant point is that enough people consider it inflamed such that it is POV, as we agree.
As you'll realize on reflection, Washington does indeed have two birthdays (11 Feb. O.S.), but that is a minor point. Shakespeare is actually in WP under two birthdays, April 23 (marked uncertain, but definitely observed by America's high school English teachers, at the least) and April 26 (the first certain date associated with him, his baptism.) Both of these dates are historically interesting, despite uncertainties, because of the history of their recognition. Though Shakespeare is no Jesus, he does have a devoted following of ardent admirers, including yours truly. :) He supports my suggestion that, were a limited number of celebrated days are recognized as noteworthy, list them all. 172.147.132.122 17:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I should mention that (thanks to new-style groupies), Shakespeare has four birthdays noted in various places, all of them interesting in some way (even to someone like me, who opposes applying New Style dates to people whose entire lives were lived under Old Style calendars.) 172.147.132.122 17:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Whatever we do, it should be in line with current academic practice. Let me know if you need the advice of a few Ph.D. Historians. I know a few who might kick in. The question itself seems simple enough: what does the current style guide say for publication in peer-reviewed journals? Whatever they do is fine with me. Anywho, the results shouldn't cause anyone any heart-ache. Rklawton 23:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
May I point out that Jesus was never called that, during his life? Jesus is the Christ. Joshua or Ioshua was a 1st Century CE Jew who spoke in Aramaic, etc. Josephus (another Latinization) writes about him in his surviving canon of work. Would Jews use Messiah not Christ? Jesus did/does not match the 1st Century Jewish expectations, hence the Christian and Jewish fork. Anyway what year did His birth fall? :) Imacomp 01:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Anyway what about the line taken by Islam on the subject of "Isa"? Imacomp 01:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Which verse? In the Koran, Jesus is referred to as "Isa son of Marium." Perhaps you mean 4:171 - "O followers of the Book! do not exceed the limits in your religion, and do not speak (lies) against Allah, but (speak) the truth; the Messiah, Isa son of Marium is only an apostle of Allah and His Word which He communicated to Marium and a spirit from Him; believe therefore in Allah and His apostles, and say not, Three. Desist, it is better for you; Allah is only one God; far be It from His glory that He should have a son, whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is His, and Allah is sufficient for a Protector." This serves to contrast Islam with Christendom.
On a side note, I find this peculiar because the Koran references the "Holy Spirit," just not that Jesus was the son of God. Actually, Jesus refers to all of us as the children of God in the New Testament. By my way of thinking, this makes you and I just as much sons of God as brothers, too. It also helps explain the last six commandments.
5:110, by the way contrasts Christianity with Judaism "...when I withheld the children of Israel from you when you came to them with clear arguments, but those who disbelieved among them said: This is nothing but clear enchantment." On a side note, I also find 5:110 interesting because it makes reference to a story from Christian apocrypha: “...when you determined out of clay a thing like the form of a bird by My permission, then you breathed into it and it became a bird by My permission...” In the apocryphal story, Jesus was being disobedient to his parents by making animals out of clay and then destroying the evidence.
At any rate, you’ll have to be specific about which line you meant, there aren’t many of them, and half or more references simply include him in the list of prophets. Rklawton 03:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish Americans category

On the first page of the Jewish American category, it says the category is for those of Jewish ethnicity and descent, it does not say religion. Sammy Davis, Jr. is religously Jewish, but he is not ethnically. Either the Jewish American category page has to change or Sammy Davis, Jr. needs to be removed from the category. 69.218.181.192 03:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

That specification you brought to my attention was only recently added to the category - and long after the category was created. It was added after discussion but without consensus. Furthermore, it is not consistent with three other Jewish-American categories: singers, actors, and musicians - none of which contain this limitation. All things considered, I accept your suggestion that we change the category. After all, how can someone not be Jewish-American and yet qualify as a Jewish-American Singer? Thank you for bringing this excellent point to attention. On a side note, I would be very interested in seeing how an "ethnic" Jewish category might sort itself out. Racial categories in general give me pause for concern because it is often difficult to discern and has been abused so often in the past. Rklawton 04:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Donnelly

I've restored the article. You're right, it was my mistake. I usually only delete things while doing newpage patrol, so there's no history to check, but the was a backlog at CSD. Not an excuse, just an explanation. Cheers, Mak (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

No worries. Some days are like that. I'm about 98% accurate. With over 6,000 edits, that's quite a few mistakes. Rklawton 22:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jutin Boggs

I recieved a copy of Justin Boggs' last one and made changes to it. I am planning on adding bios on many Hilltop Leaders who have recived alot of local press lately (in the last few weeks.) The notablity of these people have incresaed greatly since the election of June 24th. And I see RKlawton refered to the Hilltop Area Commission as a group of elite homeowners. I guess he doesn't know that this group actually is a city council just to the Hilltop. City council gives local residents power to re-zone and make decesions on their own. But he doesn't live on the Hilltop so he wouldn't know this User:jjboyle 4:44 EDT July 24, 2006

That's great. If you read WP:BIO you will see that a lot of local press does not make someone notable enough for a biographical article here. If the other bios are no more notable than the Bogg's article, I'll nominate them for deletion, too. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies before spending too much time on this. Rklawton 20:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I can see if Justin Boggs isn't known outside of Central Ohio, the possibility of him getting deleted. But what about the Hilltop Commission Page? You said all it was is a group of elite homeowners. That is quite the opposite... They represent 66,000 people, and make plans for this community. You don't think that the group as a whole is notable? User:jjboyle 4:55 EDT July 24, 2006

Great, so merge it into the communities article - the commission itself isn't notable. Rklawton 20:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Would a City Council for a town of 66,000 people be notable enough for an addition to Wikipedia? User:jjboyle 5:02 EDT July 24, 2006

No. Every town has a city council. If any mention needs to be made of it, it can go in the town's article. Rklawton 21:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Landon Pigg

Re: WP:CIVIL

ignorant - ADJECTIVE:

    1. Lacking education or knowledge.
    2. Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.
    3. Unaware or uninformed.

I have not said anything that isn't factual here. You are not educated or knowledgable about the subject whose article you have put up for deletion. Having seen citations and facts, you are choosing to bury your head in the sand. Also known as willful ignorance. That's not an insult, just a description of your behavior. PT (s-s-s-s) 21:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You do not know me. You do not know what I know. Therefore you have no right to accuse me or the other editor of ignorance. If you'd rather we let the admins review your comments on the AfD, just let me know. Rklawton 21:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I know ONE thing you know... the media coverage that justifies Landon Pigg meeting WP:MUSIC criteria, it has been shown over and over again in the AfD, yet you keep asking people who vote Keep "How does this meet WP:MUSIC?" Your failure to acknowledge the evidence in front of you makes me suspicious of an agenda that would render the AfD nomination a "bad faith nom." I don't think I would feel that way if you weren't hounding people when they vote Keep. Let's just see how the AfD turns out. When you get a free moment, take a look at my essay, WP:OSTRICH, and you will see where I am coming from. Take care, and feel free to visit my talk page to respond sometime (it's hard for me to keep up with conversations on other people's talk pages!). PT (s-s-s-s) 17:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if the media coverage came from "RCA's publicity machine," it's still media coverage, and Pigg wouldn't be the first musical act to garner it. Regardless of your taste in music or dissatisfaction with how stars are made in the industry, Pigg meets the criteria on media coverage alone. The major label assocation (even if only one album) helps, not to mention the radio play, song being on a TV show, etc. Citations have been added to the article, and the number of Keep votes in agreement with that make the AfD a forgone conclusion. PT (s-s-s-s) 17:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
You make too many assumptions. For example, you know nothing about my musical tastes. Rklawton 17:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Late Night Killers on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Late Night Killers. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. (by User:Targetter)

Actually, I neither closed the discussion nor speedy deleted the article. I did, however, change the tag from "copyvio" to "band," and will add comments per your suggestion accordingly. Rklawton 05:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of ethnic slurs

"Nig-nog" is in Merriam-Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged (2000). There is more than one dictionary with Webster's in the name. The one I'm not sure which one you looked at. The one I used is a huge book that you can just barely carry. My account is too new. Can you revert your last change?--Ngdw3 18:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, sorry 'bout that. Rklawton 22:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
You're fine. Thanks.--Ngdw3 00:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marie van Goethem

[edit] Thanks for editing

Why is there no direct link from Edgar Degas to the statue? And why is there no piece on his relationship with women?

The article is on the model, and all I did was copyedit. Rklawton 16:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Permission

I got permission from Musée d'Orsay to use the picture, after asking them. Can you help me saving the picture? The following is the exact replay of the Musée d'Orsay

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your message in the mailbox of the site of the Musée d'Orsay (http://www.musee-orsay.fr). I give you the right to use the picture "Danseuse_face_GI.jpg" for your article on Wikipedia (educational purpose) if you give all following legend and copyright:

"Edgar Degas                                                                                        
Petite danseuse de quatorze ans                                                                     
(détail)                                                                                            
1881                                                                                                
bronze fondu en 1930                                                                                
Paris, musée d'Orsay                                                                                
(c) Musée d'Orsay, Patrice Schmidt"

It could be done in English if you prefer.

Yours faithfully

Françoise Le Coz Service culturel Musée d'Orsay

I took of the replay email address --Grim Reaper2 10:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes I konw, It's hard to find reliable info. Everything about her is highly commercialized. It's all about a sales point of view. I have stated the links I'm using. This about her mother prostituding her is a sugestion made by Martine Kahane, who has a comercial intrest. --Grim Reaper2 20:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Morphinae

I restored this article that you had created then requested deleted. The redirect to Morpho was entirely invalid. Morphinae includes other butterflies that are not Morphos, like the Owl butterfly. Bastique▼parler voir 14:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Rklawton 14:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] National register of historic places

Re: Invitation to new WikiProject ==

Sorry to disturb, but am wishing to take a moment of your time for something I hope will be of interest. I'd like to invite you to join a new WikiProject I've started, WikiProject National Register of Historic Places. Should you feel so inclined, please feel free to join. And spread the word to any other interested parties.  :) -Ebyabe 17:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] O'Fallon, Illinois Public Library

From User talk:Sandstein

The person who removed the "prod" for this article did so admittedly without ever having read the Talk page for the tag's justification. In short, he made a mistake. Not allowing the readdition of the prod tag simply perpetuates this mistake. Please re-add. Rklawton 19:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

And I, too, made the same mistake... I was just about to redirect to O'Fallon, Illinois after reading the talk. Would that do? Sandstein 19:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oprah Winfrey

Sorry if I changed it the wrong direction--I was in the process of undoing some vandalism by an anonymous editor, and one of the changes from the IP in question was the change I reverted. Given that the anonymous IP is a proxy server, it's entirely possible that I confused vandalism with a legitimate change. --EngineerScotty 17:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Happens to me, too. Rklawton 17:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pat Tilman

Sorry I was rude. get that way when I've been drinking. Thought as an Army veteran you might want to check into this guy Joseph Asiegbo. 132.241.245.49 23:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

No worries. Joe's going to rock in SF. He's got it all, language, age, physical condition, and real-world motivation. Rklawton 01:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

lol I'm just imagining how many girls are going to want him.

seriously a SF and a Prince? holly crap! 132.241.245.49 05:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pediatrics

Not really sure what you mean when you say that the image looks off the page. I moved the image because almost every single article page that I see on Wikipedia allows the first text of the article to start in the top left corner. I can't remember any pages that had an image on the left side at the top of the page like that. Thanks. --MZMcBride 04:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure who "we" is in your last post, but I can say that it is very uncommon (to the point of which that I've never seen it) that there pictures on the left side of an article page at the very top of the article. I went through many different featured articles to see if any had a picture on the left side like that, and I found none. Regarding the focus of the picture, I don't believe it matters at all if the picture is on one side or the other depending on the focus. I believe the picture should be kept on the right side of the page. --MZMcBride 05:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peoria, Illinois

Thanks!George 01:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ripped

I know you have plenty of articles and AfDs you edit and keep track of, so I was wondering if you had another look at Ripped, which has been re-written to take out the PR hype and reflect the notability of the band in question. I hope to see you there, withdrawing your nomination so we can speedy keep. PT (s-s-s-s) 18:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

They might meet one criterion for WP:BAND - however, meeting a single criterion does not mean the band has to be included (as per WP:BAND). There should be discussion regarding whether or not the indie label is significant enough and whether or not (possibly) meeting one of the criteria for inclusion is sufficient. As a result, by no means does this article qualify for a speedy keep. It's quality not quantity that makes Wikipedia succeed. Rklawton 19:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photography

[edit] Article Creation and Improvement Drive

Hello, I'm -Gphoto and I noticed that you are a photographer and I was wondering if you would please vote for Photography to improved at the Article Creation and Improvement Drive. Thanks, -Gphoto 21:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: WP:WPP Do you think that everyone involved in WP:WPP should put their geographical location on the list? That would help for people who need a picture, but do not know where or who to ask for it. This would allow people on the project to work on pictures directly with the people creating articles. -Gphoto 15:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

We need to re-think how to make connections from the ground up. We're currently using subject matter. We really need to add geography. We should also consider adding time-frame/geography for future events to alert photographers in advance rather than just hope someone shows up. To be clear: ask, yes; require, no.
I'm thinking about re-writing the request section on a test page, would you be willing to review it when I'm done? Once we finalize a new layout, we can replace the existing request section with it or just point to the new page. Rklawton 13:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Road

Hi. I'm looking into it now - and seeing ways in which it may be acceptable. SilkTork 14:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

You'll have to convince me. I can see that the link could be placed on Car and Street and a number of other topics that are mentioned in the article, but the article is not about Roads as such - the article is about a political group with an opposition to cars and modern transport systems such as motorways and freeways. It is now well placed in the Anti-car and Anti-road categories and I don't see any benefit from it being linked to the Road article, especially as it doesn't directly relate to the Road article, and is only one of a number of anti-road groups. What I have done is put in a link to the Anti-road protest category. That gathers all the individual protests together in one place and might be of some side interest. Would you agree? SilkTork 14:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I think that's a great solution. Rklawton 15:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Cool. SilkTork 15:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Todd Lincoln

Oh sry I didn't notice that anyone mind. It just seems standard that pictures are on the right side and it looks a little off to have it on the left. Is there any particular reason that you have it on the left side? I didnt read what you wrote. Jerry Jones 06:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Please visit the article's talk page. Let me know if you have any questions. Rklawton 06:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roosevelt

Why does everyone keep rejecting my changes to the Theodore Roosevelt page? His nickname as a small child was "Teedie," not "Teddie" (or, as an adult, "Teddy"). Look it up. "Teddie" is incorrect. Azaner 23:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you would have better luck if you would provide sources for the information you wish to add. That's how we tell the cranks apart from the scholars. Rklawton 23:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sexuality of Adolf Hitler

FYI...This article is up for vote on AFD. OSU80 01:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ships of Homeworld

Re: Homeworld Ship Consolidation

It had been considered to put the ships into a large table, unfortunately they're not just stats. Various descriptions, limitations, uses, special abilities, and development histories are available for a large number of ships. At present, I'm going through and making the skeleton articles without this written information, which will be filled in later.

--Twile 17:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sinulator

I deprodded this as well, and added some links. Sinulator gets 40,200 hits on Google, and there's an article on it in Wired News. Mangojuicetalk 17:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

That's another one of the tags I made from the same batch. I should have used a different tag. My concern wasn't notability (as I recall) but that it was written more like an ad. Thanks for catching and fixing it. I think I used "prod" only a couple of times that day, and I'll read up on unfamiliar tags before I use one again. Thank you for your patience. Cheers. Rklawton 21:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Skydiving

Re: Parachuting
User:Rklawton/Sandbox looks like a pretty dang good outline to me. I would like to see which articles you are planning on writing though, I can't really tell from the list, maybe bold them? Some of the topics look like they might be hard to extend beyond a paragraph or two. You might end up with a bunch of merge tags if you write some of the smaller ones. World records might be better as list of world records (maybe it could be a featured list too). I'm excited for history of military parachuting (Band of Borthers is one of my favorite series :) ). Don't forget to dig up some good reference material before you start. Oh and figuring out how to categorieze this stuff would probably be good too (remember to try to have more than 3-4 articles in a category) -Ravedave 00:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Bold- good idea.
Merge- I figure if I start with high level articles with and use sections we'll find it easier (less hassle) to split the sections off into their own articles later if needed rather than the other way 'round. Some of the articles already have a lot of military history added in, so I'm not sure how much work they'll need. On the other hand, articles exist all over the place regarding people, battles, and military units that all relate back to military parachuting, and I'll see what I can do to make sure these links and categories appear when appropriate.
Categories- good point. I think we can turn level I and level II into categories, but I doubt they'll need to run any deeper.
Question- how do I cite an external reference? I looked for examples, but didn't find any or managed not to to "see" them somehow. Does wikipedia subscribe to a specific style guide (MLA, etc.)? Rklawton 02:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Check out Wikipedia:Featured_articles for example and Wikipedia:Cite -Ravedave 04:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I've left some comments at Talk:Parachuting. I agree with Ravedave that most of the smallest articles should be merged though(no need for a separate article for low and high speed mals for example.) Skydiver 09:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I took a look at your new proposed articles. They look good, but I would concentrate more on the physical and technical side of things. Regulations are different in every country, and if information on all the countries' regulations is included, the actual issue gets buried under. Maybe separate articles regarding parachuting regulations in different countries? Skydiver 14:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Excellent point. Perhaps a separate article on each national club or governing authority would be in order. For example, an article on the USPA could also introduce skydiving regulations (BSRs v. FAA regulations). Rklawton 15:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slam NAtion

Slam Nation is a group of dunkers who go around the world dunking..The are very popular. Here is there website http://www.slamnation.net/ Kadour Ziani Is Considered to be the greatest dunker of all time..He Should be on this website for sure....he once dunked over a car from the free throw line...

[edit] Taq-e Bostan

Thank you for your comments and offer, I can totally utilize your help in article. I have to thank you one more time for polishing Sassanid article that page took me about 3 months to complete for its current status. By the way I finalized Taq-e Bostan's page, you may want to take a look at it. Amir85 13:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Teleflex, Inc.

Just wanted to let you know that I'm greatful for your help on the Teleflex, Inc. article. Keep up the great work. Ackander 20:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tennessee

Re: NPOV Bias

[edit] Totalise

Re: Many Thanks

Thanks for help on Talk:Totalise, it was much appreciated!EvocativeIntrigue 15:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I should have done a better job nominating it for deletion. You can tell by his question that he's clueless and just needed better information about the process. I'll do better next time. Rklawton 15:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
It's a good idea when nominating something for deletion to send a note to the originator explaining why you are nominating it and which guidelines (WP:CORP etc) the article doesn't meet. It's also preferable not to AfD/PROD something when it has only existed for 3 minutes unless it is blatent vandalism/attack page. It's better to tag the article and contact the originator first. That said... the article is a blatent copyvio and probably deserves AfD.--Isotope23 16:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree on all accounts - except that copy-vio's are grounds for SD, aren't they? Rklawton 16:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Right you are... CSD:A8 is for blatent copyright infringement. At first look, I didn't realize Totalise was a cut & paste job; but this could have gone speedy with a note to the originator pointing them to the criteria this was speedied under.--Isotope23 16:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] University of Auckland

Re: vandal (user "Loserdick")

I see you've met the aptly named user:Loserdick. Perhaps you might have something to contribute at Wikipedia:Abuse reports#University of Auckland vandal ("Loserdick").--woggly 08:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] University of Cambridge

Re: Wikipedia.com Resembling More and More Urbandictionary.com

I'm glad there are some sensible people left in the world. I would appreciate it if you contributed to the debate over the bias that has pervaded the Cambridge University article. Courier new 22:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about the "sensible" part, but thank you. I'll read through the article's talk page. Let me know if there are other resources I should review as well. Rklawton 22:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] University of Reading

Sorry for reverting your revert of University of Reading. I've been keeping an eye on this guy, but I guess I waited too long this time to make my move! ... discospinster talk 15:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

No worries. Some days are like that. Rklawton 15:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UTFSF

Good job updating that article, which I originally dismissed as vandalism, into a workable, encyclopedic subject. I'd now support removing the speedy delete tag from it, if you wish to do it. Cheers! Autopilots 05:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It probably was just vandalism. But after I Googled the topic and recalled my own frustration with folks who don't UTFSF, well, the solution seemed obvious. Although I still wouldn't oppose a merger with RTFM. Rklawton 05:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vic Vega

Re: Duplicate

If the article on vic vega is redundent then the article on Vincent Vega must be redundent as well! Please, do not leave me messages charging me with vandalism. It is nothing of the sort and the fact that Wikipedia allows an article on Vincent is proof. --SacredVisions 00:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it is me who is confused. Isn't Vic vega and Vincent Vega the same person/character? If so, then the Vic vega article is redundant, any information contained therein should be moved to the Vincent Vega article. Rklawton 00:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
So it was me who was confused (and the Vincent Vega article had a double redirect). At any rate, I've redirected "Vic vega" to "Vic Vega" as per rules on title capitalization. I've removed the redirect from "Vic Vega" to "Vincent Vega" since they are not the same person. And I've moved the "Vic vega" contents to "Vic Vega" because the article already exists, and a move request would first require article deletion. It should all be sorted out now. Don'cha just love three-ways? Rklawton 00:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Vic and Vincent, the same characters! LOL!
Watch the movies Buddy! (Still laughing)

Given that Vic Vegas originally redirected to Vincent Vegas, it's a pretty understandle error. What's not so clear is why you would create an article with a proper name and not capitalize it correctly. Back to you laughing boy. Rklawton 01:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

"You need to find yourself a girl, Mate"

What would I do with another one? Oh...! Rklawton 02:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Blow-up dolls don't count!

[edit] Vladimir Lenin

Vladimir Lenin - the parens are still broken (missing a closing paren). Please address. Rklawton 13:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Fixed – I think – thanks for spotting. Regards, David Kernow 13:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

You rock! Rklawton 14:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Waco, Texas

Basically, it seems to me to make sense to create categories for all those cities which already have multiple pages related to them. There was a category Category:People from Waco, Texas which was not specifically connected to the page Waco, Texas. This will allow these related pages to be more easily referenced. Also, most major cities have at least one college in them, as well as other institutions, which would probably be more easily accessed if they were parts of categories as well. If you have any serious objections to my doing so, please inform me and I shall cease and desist. Badbilltucker 17:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wall walking

Hey, thanks for the info. I do love my wall walking, so I decided to make that my first article. - WallWalker 00:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)