User talk:Savidan/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Hello

Bhadani has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

--Bhadani 09:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Clone High Pics

Hey, I've been adding a bunch of stuff to the Clone High episode pages, and it might be nice to get some more pics for the later episodes. Most of the episodes past about episode 4 only have one or two pictures. I noticed you were one of the people who added a bunch of pictures in the first place, and I was wondering if you could tell me how you did it. Not how you uploaded the pictures, but how you took the pictures. I'm guessing they were screengrabs off of a video files of the episodes (naturally, video files that were paid for and legally obtained through appropriate channels), but I was just wondering what program you used to take the screengrabs. Sorry for the incredibly easy question, but I'm kind of new at this. Thanks in advance! --Gpollock 05:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I think I forgot to thank you for the info. So... thanks for the info. I made a couple test images and it seems pretty easy to do, but haven't uploaded any images yet... I'm mostly working on filling the Clone High pages with information now, then I'll work on the images later. So thanks again. And sorry for not mentionning it earlier. --Gpollock 07:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Please fix your mistakes w/ using the AWB bot

I noticed that you seem to have applied the AWB bot across The Simpsons episodes articles.

I never used bots on Wikipedia before and I don't really know what this one is supposed to do. Unfortunately, its change breaks Wiki parsing, in particular the resulting wiki-markup ends up being:

==External links== {{wikiquote}}

This results in "External links" not being parsed as a section heading, and you end up with:

==External links==

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to:


To fix, place "==Externan links==" and "{{wikiquote}}" on separate lines. (I would actually advocate putting the wikiquote template below the list of links, but that's just a preference and not directly relevant to the problem at hand.)

Please fix this mistake, I'm assuming you can use the bot to make the fix? Thanks. 24.16.27.166 06:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks best with the "External links" line first, the template on a new line then followed by the list of links. Please use the preview function before making massive changes next time. Regards. Valentinian (talk) 12:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I've fixed the errors. You should have used the replace function replacing "==External links==" with "==External links== \r\n{{wikiquote}}" (without the quotation marks). The \r\n creates a newline. Regards. Valentinian (talk) 13:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

Thanks
Savidan/Archive 4, thank you for participating in my RfA. It passed with an amazingly unopposed 77/0/1. Thanks for the support everybody! If you see me doing anything wrong, want to ask me something, or just want to yell in my general direction, leave me a note on my talk page. I promise to try and knock out Wikipedia's problems wherever I may find them!

Staxringold talkcontribs 21:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Your vote on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Snail-WA

Hi Savidan!
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Snail-WA seems to be getting into a bit of a bog. Could you please specify which version your vote goes for? This will help to reach a consensus on which version to promote. Thanks! --Fir0002 10:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for supporting my Request for Adminship! I appreciate it and will do my best to maintain the faith you have shown in me! – Ben W Bell talk 07:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Cattle Drives

You want an article on cattle drives? I'll give you one! --Sean gorter 02:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Cattle Drives

I'd like to point out that we don't have an article on cattle drives. But I don't know which category this belongs in. savidan(talk) (e@) 22:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Check it out! I created this article. Improve it. --Sean gorter(talk) 12:06 PM 10 June 2006 (UTC)

pope pius

I saw the video at teh knights of columbus museum in new haven, ct. The website for it is http://www.kofc.org/about/history/archives.cfm. Hope this helps!

My RfA

Hello, Savidan/Archive 4, and thank you for the supportive vote on my recent RfA! With a final vote of 84/1/4, I have now been entrusted with the mop, bucket and keys. I will be slowly acclimating myself to my new tools over the next months, but welcome any and all feedback and suggestions on how I might be able to use them to help the project. Thanks again! - Kukini 05:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

FYI

I know you're heavily involved both in film articles and in improving the quality of articles up to and beyond GA status. Thus I thought you would be interested in such an annoucement. --P-Chan 01:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films#Key articles for Wikipedia 1.0

Magna Carta

I think it is worth mentioning that it is not 'the magna carta', but 'magna carta', it is the way it should be properly referred to as, despite what most people think. All others have agreed it, the heading has been edited a number of times and agreed on that.

It has nothing to do with including articles in front of other documents such as the United States Constitution, it specific to magna carta not to documents in general.

So, far from being 'almost asinine', it is actually quite important to note the difference between the two.

Thank you for the definition of the word 'the', however.

NeilKing 08:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

There has been quite a lot of discussion on this point on the talk page of Magna Carta, that heading was decided on.

User:Dionyseus

I see that you had some unpleasant encounters with Dionyseus on the Kasparov article. I've requested an Arbcom review of his conduct. I don't know how bad that dispute ever got to be, but If you are inclined, I'd appreciate a summary of your perspective on the [arbitration request]. I'm trying to establish a history of irresponsible behavior on the part of Dionyseus. Thanks! Danny Pi 20:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

All right. I'm just trying to dig up some history. If it wasn't so unpleasant, then you may feel free to disregard my previous message. Alternatively, if you feel like it was a positive experience, you may want to consider giving Dionyseus support. It's up to you. I'd rather be fair than "win" in the Arbcom. Thanks! Danny Pi 21:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks... I'm just finding he has a history of 3RR and unilateral decisionmaking. He has certainly annoyed me. Again, whatever perspective you can bring to the table would be much appreciated.Danny Pi 21:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I believe this was unnecessary. The matter was easily dropped and I allowed for your version to remain. Dionyseus 22:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes I would appreciate if you withdraw your statement. DanielPi is trying to create a little witchhunt here, asking help from members who have had minor arguments with me that have been solved long ago. Dionyseus 22:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I thought the dispute was [[1]][[2]][[3]][[4]]. If this is not the case, I apologize for wasting your time. As for "witchhunting," I don't really know of any other way to establish repeated instances of unilateral edits other than to ask other users to chime in. Tried not to be too pushy... Thanks anyway for looking into it.Danny Pi 23:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Notice that the fourth link is dated April 26th, it's not a revert it's me attempting to make the succession box more accurate. The third link is me fixing an anonymous user's false claim that there's no such thing as a "Braingames World Champion." A quick look at the edit history for the Kasparov page will show that my last edit was on April 27. Dionyseus 23:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I have no interest in coupling these disputes. I regret my initial misunderstanding, but the Kasparov article is fine now and the discussion there have been largely productive. I don't understand the Topalov dispute, so I can't help you two with that one. savidan(talk) (e@) 00:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Understood. Sorry to bother you. Thanks again for looking into it, though. Danny Pi 00:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Reversions

Hello - you left a message on my talk page about an hour after I performed significant number of reversions related to Michael D. Wolok. There are a number of users who have expressed a concern with those reversions. I have some more details at the bottom of my talk page which you are most welcome to read. In the meantime, given the number of comments I received, I am not sure if I will be able to personally address each of your concerns. However, I hope that at least I am able to convey some sense of accountability and resolution here. Thanks again for taking notice. --HappyCamper 03:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi there,

Dear Savidan,

> First, I think that you should be flexible

> in terms of tone

I don't know what you mean by this.

> and willing to provide sources.

I provided many sources for each and every point I made on the discussion pages of the article. Among physicsts there is no dispute about any of my assertions. You may want to read Michael Clive Price's Hugh Everett FAQ.

> I agree that noting the pros and cons of certain theories

> is suitable for an encyclopedia as long as it does not bias

> an article not solely about that theory towards overcoverage

> of a minority view.

I don't understand the relevance of this statement.

> Especially if the number of adherences to this theory cannot be sourced

> (I haven't heard of any such survey of cosmologists)

I don't know what you are referring to. In any event, I suggest you first read Michael Clive Price's Hugh Everett FAQ.

> I don't think that your text should start with the construction "So many people

> believe in this. Why is that?".

I don't what you are quoting.

> Instead, you should concisely state the problems in physics that the theory

> explains

That is exactly what I did.

> (perhaps linking to those articles)

What articles?

> A list I feel may not be the best way to do this.

> Consider organizing the material you want to add

> thematically. I suspect that some of these problems

> are actually just two examples of one of the benefits

> of this theory (although I'm not familar with it myself).

I apologize but you are not making much sense to me. I listed the reasons why those who favor the theory do so.

Lethe reverts everything I try to add to the article. I appreciate your offer to help me, but we seem to be on two different wave-lengths. I think I need an advocate with a better grasp of the subject matter.

Here is what I want to add to the article:

Advantages of MWI

If Hugh Everett's theory was just another interpretation of Quantum Mechanics it would have no followers, especially since it proposes the existence of countless other universes which theoretically can never be observed. Because it is not falsifiable it seemingly violates Popper's criteria for a good scientific theory. The reason it has so many adherents is because it offers numerous advantages over the Copenhagen Interpretation, among which are the following:

1. Quantum mechanics becomes a deterministic theory making it more compatible with the theory of relativity and all other physics theory to date which are all deterministic. The Copenhagen Interpretation introduced indeterminacy and randomness into science. Aside from the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics there is no scientific theory that includes indeterminacy or randomness. Einstein particularly objected to this aspect of the Copenhagen Interpretation. In response to it, he said, "God does not play dice with the universe."

2. It eliminates the "measurement problem."

3. It eliminates Von Neumann's "boundary problem": where to draw the line between the micro world where quantum mechanics applies, and the macro world where it does not. Shortly before his death in 1953, Albert Einstein wrote: "Like the moon has a definite position whether or not we look at the moon, the same must also hold for the atomic objects, as there is no sharp distinction possible between these and macroscopic objects."

4. It eliminates the special place for an observer and human consciousness.

5. It restores objective reality of the universe between measurements. Shortly before his death, Albert Einstein also wrote: "Observation cannot CREATE an element of reality like a position, there must be something contained in the complete description of physical reality which corresponds to the possibility of observing a position, already before the observation has been actually made."

6. The wave-particle duality paradox evaporates. It does away with Bohr's "principle of complementarity." It simply and naturally explains the double-slit experiment. Richard Feynman said, "[the double-slit experiment] has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality it contains the only mystery." David Deutcsh wrote: ". . . the argument for the many worlds was won with the double-slit experiment."

7. Schrodinger's Cat paradox evaporates.

Einstein's main objections with quantum mechanics had more to do with the Copenhagen Interpretation, than with quantum mechanics itself. Einstein mainly objected to quantum mechanics because it was not a deterministic theory, and it required doing away with classical realism. Hugh Everett's theory automatically eliminates both these objections. While MWI does not quite generate the kinds of worlds necessary to justify the anthropic principle, it is a step on the way to Stephen Hawking's No Boundary Proposal and to Max Tegmark's All Universe Hypothesis which do justify the anthropic principle. The anthropic principle resolves the fine-tuning problem, and how our universe started with such low entropy.

John Wheeler, a famous physicist and Everett's thesis advisor, put his name on Everett's thesis, but later criticized it as "carrying too much metaphysical baggage." Hugh Everett left physics because of the poor reception his theory received. It initially attracted no followers and was largely ignored. It gained adherents in the 1980s, and today is considered a mainstream interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Its popularity continues to grow.

Moved from WP:ESP

The following appears to have been posted to Esperanza in error. I've moved it here as I believe it to be for you. ➨ ЯЄDVERS 08:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello there,

Assuming you are talking about the Many-worlds interpretation article, would you consider adding your content into the existing structure of the "Advantages of MWI" section, making sure that its not repetitive. Also, please do not request the assistance of dozens of advocates at the same time. Other users may frown on this practice as "spammig". savidan(talk) (e@) 21:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I am the one who added: the "Advantages of MWI" section.

What you see is all that's left of my addition after Lethe finished with it. Other editors modified my addition. What I sent you was the modified version that other editors agreed with. Then Lethe removed everything but the few lines that remain.

Before people offer advice they should first read the article's discussion pages and past revisions of the article.

Michael D. Wolok 06:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't find your email address

Moved from the Esperanza talk page as well. --JoanneB 17:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC) The name of the article is Hugh Everett's Many-Worlds Interpretation. In order to understand what is going one, someone needs to read my first edit to the article, and Lethe's reaction to my first edit, and his totally dismissive comments on the talk page. He insists that everything I write is patently wrong, even though I have ample support for every one of my contentions. As a matter of fact, there is no dispute among physicists about any of the changes I want to make to the article, that is what makes this so frustrating.

I see much more of what I originally put in the article has been put back after Lethe revereted all of it. The problem is if I add something, Lethe reverts it. If someone else adds the exact same thing, he doesn't. My problem is with Lethe. Lethe says everything I write is patently wrong, even though I provide ample support each of my claims on the articles talk page. Lethe claimed my assertions were so wrong, he could revert them all without bothering to address any of them.

Lethe claimed the word "paradox" and "constradiction" always mean the exact same thing. Instead of editing my additions or modifying them, he always reverts everything I add.

I think it is better to list each point separate instead of lumping them all together. Michael Price says if a person disagrees with one advantage, that weakens the whole theory so it is better to lump all advantages together under a few points. I disagree. If you lump many points together, and someone disagrees with one aspect of one point, many advantages they agree with are lost, as you've lumped many advantages they agree with together with one they don't. If any part of a point is wrong, the whole point is lost. Hence, it is better to list each advantage separately.

Moreover, there is no dispute among physicists about the truth of any of the advantages I listed. I have ample support for each and every point. Everything I wrote is important to the article. I would like to hear one objective party tell me that is not the case. I am ready to support each and every contention I've made. CSTAR who initially objected to my list was satisfied with it after he modified it.

I want to find one objective person interested in the subject tell me that what I wish to add does not improve the article. I provided important, highly relevant quotes by Einstein, David Deutsch, and Richard Feynman that have all been stripped from the article. Anyone should be able to see the difference between what I want to add and what is there now.

If given the chance, and the benefit of the doubt, I can justify everything I want to change in the article. If you start with the belief that I should be doing something other than what I want, and don't give me the chance to support my position, that is not fair.

If you disagree with what I am trying to do after you hear my side and understand it, I am willing to modify my position.

Why don't you email me at MichaelDWolok@aol.com

Michael D. Wolok 17:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Pius FAC

Sorry, Savidan, I cannot support the current version as a Featured Article, as the quality in some parts has plummeted since my last full time involvement with the article, taking a decisively anti-Pius POV. I will soon comment on specific problems, but right now let me just point your attention to a review of Scholder's book. I have scanned the pages from teh American Historical Review Vol. 83 (no.5), pages 1285-1287 (published December 1978). The files can be found here and here (only the second scan is important, the first just contains the headline). Cheers, Str1977 (smile back) 12:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why the second scan is not loading. If you don't mind (and tell me your e-mail address) I will send it to by e-mail (bmp or png). It is quite important for our issues. Str1977 (smile back) 15:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

A short Esperanzial update

As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.

As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Wikipedia:Esperanza/June 2006 elections.

Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, —Celestianpower háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

Hi there, sorry about the ForensicsWiki/Sister-Project Template error. I will remember to add it as an external link in the future. --Buckaroo54 20:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:VT-6TBDs.jpg

I know you won't get this for a while, but that's OK because it's not urgent. Thanks for uploading Image:VT-6TBDs.jpg which really contributes to a great featured article. I was wondering if you would have any objection to cropping the image to get rid of the white space at the top. Hope the training is going well; get back to me when you can. savidan(talk) (e@) 04:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead, but make sure to mention that the image is edited from the original one. Palm_Dogg 01:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Your Vote on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hippo pod

Hi Savidan,
Could you please specify which version you support in Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hippo pod? Thanks, --Fir0002 08:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Translation: de:Katholikentag

I translated as much of the article as I felt was worth translating and juggled things around a little bit. There was hardly any info on the non-German event, though, so that might need a little work. I left the request up because I added that de:Deutscher Evangelischer Kirchentag ought to be done as well. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 16:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Adolescent

Ok, I'm not wanting to make a big deal of it. I just meant it in a general way, as an adjective, not as a description of young people and certainly not aimed at any particular person. I won't use the term again in that fashion if it is offensive. --DanielCD 19:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Pope style box

Where is this discussion about the style box? Adam Bishop 20:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that...I thought it was something more recent. Adam Bishop 21:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, maybe you shouldn't install them...no one bothered to do it before, and we got along pretty well without them. They aren't particularly appealing... Adam Bishop 21:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Catholicism!


Hello, Savidan/Archive 4, and welcome to Wikiproject Catholicism! Thank you for your generous offer to help
contribute. I'm sure your input will be much appreciated. I hope you enjoy contributing here and being a Catholic Project Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to discuss anything on the project talk page, or to leave a message on my own talk page. Please remember to sign all your comments, and be bold with your edits. Again, welcome, and happy editing! - MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 10:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


Orphaned fair use image (Image:Jfk-clonehigh-2.jpg)

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Jfk-clonehigh-2.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 05:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


Pius XII

Thank you for providing a detailed reasoning for your reversion of my edits to the Pius XII article. Since I have not been involved in the article up to now, I do not know what has gone on up to now, and it seems unnecessary to have to AGF, as I am a longstanding contributor to Wikipedia. I am not used to having my carefully referenced additions to articles removed without letting me know in advance. The artice as it stands is misleading. It could lead the uninformed person to believe that although Pius was aware of the holocaust in Slovakia he did nothing about it, wheras his representatives condemned the happenings in the strongest possible way. The sentence on Slovakia cannot be allowed to remain as it stands without explanation.--File Éireann 20:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your great graciousness in restoring my Slovakian additions. I will shorten the text of my first addition, which is excessively long, and, with your permission, add another very short referenced sentence giving the Vatican response to the nuncios news. I shall try to ensure that the whole does not greatly exceed the total length of my first addition. Once again thank you for your patience. I have not read the talk section of this article for at least six months.--File Éireann 20:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

VP

Hi, to comment on the bug you reported ("Admin has received no warnings"): I had the same problem in VP 1.2.1. but it seems to be fixed now in the 1.2.2 patch. Regards --Mbimmler 09:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikicladogram Project

The Wikicladogram Project page was designed for creating a a large cladogram on wikipedia. When you saw it and posted the speedy deletion notice the page was incomplete. Check out the page now. I'm hoping you'll like the general idea of wikipedia cladogram and remove notice.

Thanks. Pax. Jfraatz 19:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)Jfraatz 22:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)jfraatz


I saw the message regarding wikiprojects I'll try and fix that. Thanks. Pax. Jfraatz 22:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)jfraatz

Primer — when does it take place?

I deleted a paragraph from Primer (film) stating that it takes place in March 2003. I believe you originally wrote that paragraph [5]. I explained it a little on the talk page of the article; briefly I accept that the film takes place in the month of March (other than the first 20 minutes or so, which takes place at Christmastime), but I don't see any reason in the film itself to believe the year is 2003. There is evidence within the film that it is 2001 (the sheet at the storage facility) but in the commentary track it seems that the director wanted to make it "timeless", not set in any particular year. (You can respond here; I'll put your talk page on my watchlist.) --Cinematical 04:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I wrote that a while ago; you're probably right. But why delete the whole paragraph? Why not just the year? savidan(talk) (e@) 05:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Good point, I restored and elaborated the reference to March Madness. --Cinematical 08:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Catholicism Assessment

Hello, fellow WikiProject Catholicism member. The project has recently begun work on assessing articles relating to Catholicism, and you are invited to comment and participate. The subpage for this assessment is located here. Thank you. —Mira 07:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment on my talk page :). I got the same message from MiraLuka that you did. To find the assessment criteria, go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Assessment, where the importance and class attributes are defined. Anyone who is a member of WikiProject Catholicism 101 can assess Catholicism-related articles.
I've been looking at the articles and determining how important the article is for an understanding of Catholicism in general. For example, I rated Pope John Paul II as GA, because it has been through the Good Article process, and as top priority because I don't think a reader can have a basic understanding of Catholicism without knowing about JPII. If I were to rate Pope John Paul I, he would probibly be mid importance, as his influence was limited by his short term in office. As another example, we could rate Joan of Arc, as she is venerated as a Catholic saint; however, knowldge of Joan is not essential for an understanding of Catholicism, so she'd be a mid or low. On the other hand, if there was an assessment for French history articles, she'd be a top or high priority subject, as she is a well known, central figure in a significant period of French history. Anyway, please go out and assess the articles. There are thousands of articles relating to Catholicism, and more hands lessen the work.
Gentgeen 18:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

AMA Roll Call

There is currently an AMA Roll Call going on. Please visit the page and sign next to your name to indicate whether or not you're still active. :-) אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 18:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


Ericsaindon2 AMA Assistance Needed!

Hello. My name is Eric Saindon, and I am currently listed on the ArbCom list, which was after a series of abuses by an admin, and his friend. I have felt powerless to stop the abuse, and it came in conflict with the debate I was trying to pursue. I was trying to give a community known as Anaheim Hills, California the name of either Anaheim Hills, California, or Anaheim Hills, and take it away from its existing name of Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California. The name was used on this page for about 2 years before I arrived at it, and gave the article a complete overhaul. It was at Anaheim Hills, California at the time I got to overhaul the article as one of my first edits.

See, when I came to Wikipedia nearly three months ago, I had no clue what the site was about. I came in as an expert on the Anaheim Hills area. I have worked with the Anaheim Hills area for about 20 years now, through my job which includes this part of North Orange County. The first edits I made were trying to figure out what this whole site was about. I applied all my knowledge about Anaheim HIlls to the editing of this page (which was pretty sad when I got to it). Now, my job more specifically is enhancing features of communities and citites to bring in revenue, so when I came in here for the first time, I came in with all of this swayed information about Anaheim Hills putting it in a positive light. Now, had only being there 5 minutes, I didnt know that all sources had to be cited, and that it couldnt sound like you were promoting something. The next day, I was totally bashed by users:Alex, and Will Beback for writing that article. So the very next day, I went through the rules of Wikipedia, created Ericsaindon2 as a username, and edited the Anaheim Hills page again. I took the comments made about me about how "funny" and "embarassing" my writing was because I did read back on them, and yes they were pretty self promoting. But, then I completely went back, and started over on the article after all of my edits were completely erased by Mike Dillon, another involved user. He also went into other peoples talk pages and made fun of the way I wrote the page for the first time unfamiliarly for my first edit. I always kept that thought in the back of my head, and didnt take it too strongly against me, but knew that I wasnt going to take anything from these three users that had slandered me for writing one bad article. So two weeks later after I had completed research, and went online to the Database I have access to at my job about not only cities, but communities that were privately researched, I felt like I had enough information to add an infobox to the page. So, I completely modified the existing city infobox to create the community infobox. It didn't include all of the other stuff that incorporated cities have, but it had avalible facts that were compiled by my dadabase. I was lied to by Will Beback in the regard that I needed to use Census for these statistics as for a rule that I still have found no basis for, so I did. I physically went in, and calculated all of Anaheim Hills neighborhood by neighborhood with Census (22 neighborhoods and subdivisions in all), and reposted it. Then, I was protecting my Monday nights entire work, and reverted it three times back onto the page because I really thought it was appropriate for the page. Now, to avoid a 3rr, 2 othert editors went in on a consensus (because they were still bitter about the incident two weeks prior), and reverted it together so that they couldnt violate the 3rr before I did, and I got suspended. Then, the next thing I knew, a straw poll for my infobox was created. It said things like "no basis for facts" and "doesnt have real borders", which were things that were not true. So the introduction given to the straw poll of the infobox was totally misleading not at a neutral point of view, but to make it look like I totally decieved Wikipedia by adding it, and I created a total hoax. As expected with slander like this, I lost my case. But I protested again for there being such an unfair straw poll that I ended up getting myself suspended again for the 3rr. At this point, I was getting suspended for everything I did, left and right, and so I created Ericsaindon154 to try and gain a new identity on Wikipedia apart from what my assumed fate was on Ericsaindon2. But three minutes after I created it I had sock puppet tags all over the page. Then, my half brother, Etton Smith got involved, and tried to edit these pages too. But, he was accused of being my sockpuppet for still undefined sources and evidence. So both he and I were put on 3rr after he made alot of edits to back me up, and I was also suspended for it. Then for a week, I was on the 3rr, but whoever submitted for me to be suspended had it on 1 week instead of 1 day, so Etton let me edit from his account. So I did, trying to stay like him while I was on there. Then, the next thing I knew, the Anaheim Hills page had been moved to Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California. This rule was not stated anywhere in the rulebook that this was standard for communities, and so a slandered strawpoll was created for this naming issue by the same editor that created the infobox one. But this one also said things like "every community uses community, city, state" format, and "it is stated in the Wikipedia rules that this is how to name a community", when in reality neither of those facts were true. And because of this misinformation, Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California won, and the page was moved there. Then I told myself, wait a minute, that is violating Wikipedia's own rules

Evidence of statement: According to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions:

Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. Since NOBODY outside of Wikipedia uses the term Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California to refer to the community of Anaheim Hills, naming an article about it with this term is in direct violation of the primary Wikipedia naming convention. An alleged standard naming "convention" dreamed up by Wikipedia administrators for their own irrational need for perceived order is null and void because using that reason violates the naming convention too, which also is also stated as follows:

Another way to summarize the overall principle of Wikipedia's naming conventions: Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists. The much simpler and more recognizable term of Anaheim Hills alone is what should be the article name here, regardless of what a handful of editors happen to vote for in a strawpoll.

I have yet to find any place, besides Wikipedia that uses Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California. There are a few references that are currently larger and more powerful than Wikipedia that dont use Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California when referencing Anaheim Hills, but rather use Anaheim Hills, California.

So, then I learned and had proof that Anaheim Hills, California was the only proper way to name the article, and that Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California was clearly not the choice by Wikipedia standards. Then, Will Beback came up with a compromise saying that the best name was Anaheim Hills, California. I wanted to see if his compromise would withstand the test of the complaining editors, so I created a straw poll seeing how his name would withstand the test, and see if his way was unanimously approved so that another edit war wouldnt come up in the future. And all I got was crap from these people for creating it, stating that the prior straw poll (which was based on no facts, just slandered opinions) was legitatite, which it was not in any way. I had now finally found some outside support in a couple of Anaheim Hills residents, saying that Anaheim Hills, California was the proper way to name the article. When I got this support, immediately Will Beback told AmiDaniel to put it on a move protection because the proof against their ruling, and the support I had lacked was starting to show.

Regarding the Census issue, and that I dont have any proof for the infobox, which they lie about in the ArbCom statement too. I have put a tedious amount of work into the page, and have based all of my statistics on Census™ neighborhood by neighborhood to determine an overall Census statistics for the community. Since I worked 6 hours on gathering this information for all the areas south of the 91 freeway, Will Beback and Coolcaesar (the filer of the complaint) have continuously tried to keep it off the page, even though I continue to provide sources through Census. The infobox has been totally modified to meet a community standard, deleting all the details that are only true for cities. It even includes the city it is part of in the infobox, and is titled Community of Anaheim Hills, California, with a map that shows Anaheim Hills within Anaheim. There is no way that you can mistake the community as a city, for it is referenced 3 times in the infobox alone, not to mention in the article several times.

Comments on naming issue from the ArbCom Page: The page sat at Anaheim Hills, California for nearly 2 1/2 years before I edited it extensively. After I edited it, user:Mike Dillon moved it to Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California after no consensus or talk about this. I moved it back, and he seemed to back off, and said that it was typical, but he didnt mind the change, so he let me keep it at that location. Then, user:Coolcaesar came along. He stated that the ONLY location for Anaheim Hills, California was using the {community, city, state}, and that EVERY page used this format, and there were no exceptions. Since then, they have yet to find any page that clearly states that Anaheim Hills, California has to be at the {community, city, state} format. Since then, I have had the brunt of retaliation from Coolcaesar, and have heard no proof for the statements he made about the format. The only rule stated by Wikipedia is that you use the most common name known for the topic, and that would be either Anaheim Hills or Anaheim Hills, California; and by no means is Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California the most simplified version of the name. Plus, rules have it that you must also use the most common name, which in this case is Anaheim Hills, California. When referring to our president of the USA, you dont refer to him as George Walker Bush, his legally technical name, you refer to him as Geroge W. Bush, which is what the page is named. Or we dont use Magnoliophyta when referring to a flowering plant, because the common name is flowering plant, although the government states it in an official document as Magnoliophyta. Now, the word flowering plant is probably never referred to in the official governmental plan directory, but just because it isnt listed there doesnt mean that it doesnt exist, and it is referrred to as a flowering plant on the Wikipedia page. It is referenced at the most common name. Now, using all these lies that could not be backed up, a highly manipulated straw poll, which sold all this unreferenced information to the voters lead to a minor defeat on my naming setup, and it was all because of them stating how the name had to be {community, city, state}, and there were NO EXCEPTIONS. Yet, they found no answer when I found hundreds of communities that didnt follow that setup (listed below), it was after the straw poll closed (which was closed convinently when they finally had the majority of the votes).

As far as their claim as to me having sockpuppets, I have none. I use my IP number before I log in sometimes to Wikipedia. But I have no sockpuppets. The users that claim I have sockpuppets only feel that because they think that everyone who agrees with me must be a sockpuppet, which is purely false. Many times in the past, many of these users that they claimed as my sockpuppets, Will Beback has blocked them when I break a rule, and I get blocked when they break a rule. So, whether were guilty or not, we are continuously all blocked if one of us does something wrong, which is totally showing a lack of proof.

And referring to the behavior of the admin and his little friend, Coolcaesar. Over the past few weeks, Coolcaesar has been contributing to this dispute equally as I have. The difference is that he has hired this guard to protect him, Will Beback. Since this abusive relationship began, every action I make is scrutenized and reported to Coolcaesar to give him information from Will Beback, the admin. I, and all my supporters are allowed to make a combined 3rr's a day, yet each of them (Coolcaesars supporters have been given 3rr's each which is what the rule states). I can make 1 edit in 24 hours, but if someone else who supports me (even in one instance a bot made a revert in my favor) I get blocked. I dont know what the relationship between the two is, but Will Beback has coached him on his talk page about how to increase this nonexistent problem, and its believability from this honorable commitee, just because he has disagreed with me from the beginning, and magnified the problem with all the editors that come along on the page. There was no problem until Coolcaesar created it, because I have off and on edited the page for 6 months with no problem until Coolcaesar showed up. Even to this moment, this abusive admin (Will Beback) still has blocked my brother, and the block that was suppose to be 24 hours for one of our "combined 3rr's" has gone on for 9 days now, so he has been unable to comment on the ArbCom page, but he is angry at them too. I understand the arguing of people when disagreeing, and this step is totally unnecessary. I dont see how two people who were equally involved in a dispute can only punish one, just because another has enlisted an admin who acts as his attorney, and information source. Its downright wrong. You can clearly see how the admin has used his abusive powers on the Anaheim Hills talk page, and being subjective to his punishments. He punishes everyone on the talk page who makes a rude comment to another editor, (which in total is about 12 or 13 instances) yet has never told the very bold Coolcaesar to keep his comments friendly. There are many examples of this subjective punishment on the talk page. If this goes to arbitration (which I hope it does not) I will not sit there and let these admins harass and abuse other editors if it is the last thing I do on Wikipedia. I hope that you will realize that Coolcaesar and I deserve the same punishment, if any at all for content dispute (which could be cured with mediation), and that Will Beback will learn that his adminship is not to be abused. I would like your neutral POV on the issue. --Ericsaindon2 09:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Your reversions of IP 83.70.104.249's edits.

Hi Savidan,

You've been much too heavy-handed with regard to 83.70.104.249's edits. While some of them were fairly obviously POV and required amendment, he was clearly editing in good faith. Moreover he provided adequate sourcing for some of his material. You should not be blanket-reverting these sorts of edits. Please abide by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. In particular note Other Rule 7 of the Simplified Ruleset:

7. Particularly, don't revert good faith edits. Reverting is a little too powerful sometimes, hence the three-revert rule. Don't succumb to the temptation, unless you're reverting very obvious vandalism (like "LALALALAL*&*@#@THIS_SUX0RZ", or someone changing "6+5*2=16" to "6+5*2=17"). If you really can't stand something, revert once, with an edit summary something like "(rv) I disagree strongly, I'll explain why in talk." and immediately take it to talk.

--Chris 21:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

About your removal of the Carol-Abbing quote - it'd be more appropriate to condense and rephrase it than to remove it, as it appears to be legitimate content.--Chris 22:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
If you don't mind, I'll continue this thread on my own Talk page. Bouncing back and forth like this is too much like playing telephone tag.--Chris 18:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Ericsaindon2

Thanks for the response. I do realize that 3rr's are wrong and disruptive to the project as for I do apologize for the 2 unfortunate ones I have recieved in the past 6 months. But I am claimed to have 3 others, which is incorrect. You see, Will Beback seems to think that anyone that supports me must be my sockpuppet, and the only sockpuppet (if you can call it that) is my IP address before I log in somethimes. So, when I perform 1 revert, and maybe a supporter of me commits 2 more reverts, we are both suspended. This has happened twice. In another instance I had 2 supporters make 2 different reverts, and a bot made a revert and I got suspended as well.

The debated issues are the community infobox, which I have proved the methods of the ways I achieved the numbers, and modified it to meet a community standard versus a city standard, showing people on the page how the numbers were achieved through Census, and writing community 3 times just in the infobox alone to state it was just a community.
The other issue is the naming issue which I already explained to you on my introductory Wikimail

--Ericsaindon2 06:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


Savidan, thanks for helping out. "Blessed are the peacemakers". FYI, the views of other users are expressed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ericsaindon2 and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Ericsaindon2 (talk • contribs). I hope this all works out. Cheers, -Will Beback 07:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Prince

I'm pretty sure that WikiProject Musicians is dead, as its founder walked away from the project. Perhaps you could post over at WikiProject Guitarists? Prince does play the guitar, after all! --Aguerriero (talk) 23:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Can you post that to the FAR as well ? Sandy 23:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree: I almost wish you had left it at FAR, so others would recognize the problem. Sheesh. Sandy 23:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Ourtunes1.3.3.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ourtunes1.3.3.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Advocacy request

Heyo, Steve Caruso here. There is a Request for assistance by Danbarnesdavies (talk) on many British royalty articles. Would you be willing to take their case? If you will, please leave a note and sign under the entry on WP:AMARQ and change "(pending)" in the heading to "(open)." When you're finished with the case, set it to "(closed)". If you're not able to take the case, please leave me a message on my talk page so I can continue searching for a willing Advocate. Many thanks! אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 16:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

St John's School notable alumni: R. Lee Fleming Jr.

While he may not be as well known as Wes, he is a writer of two high school movies, She's All That and Get Over It (film), and also he writes/produces for One Tree Hill (TV series). Tycoonjack 23:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The Shell Game

You placed a dispute tag on "The shell game" article, but failed to discuss your reasons on the Talk page, as it says you are to do on the tag. Please do so. Soapy 05:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

British royalty Advocacy

Hiya - don't know whether you'll've read up yet, but I just thought I'd let you know that I'm keen to go ahead whenever it's convenient for you - I believe my grievances to be well-expressed, and hope you'll drop me a line soon Many thanks -- DBD 11:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Many, many thanks for your help - I believe I'm going to look into starting a WikiProject for British royalty - do, of course, remain in touch - I should value greatly the input of a more-experienced Pedian. -- DBD 22:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

About my edit to Policy debate

Why did you revert my edit? I don't want to have an edit war, but "spewing" refers to simply speaking very fast, whereas "spreading" refers to one side making so many arguments that the other side can't refute them all. If I'm wrong, please correct me, but for now, I'm going to revert it. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 23:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I assume you were writing this while I was leaving the message on your talk explaining the edit. Feel free to respond on your talk: I'm watching it. savidan(talk) (e@) 23:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I've gone ahead and described "spewing" as a term with negative connotations. I guess "spewing" isn't a very commonly used non-pejorative term. Thanks for clearing things up - I'm a second-year LD-er, so you would obviously know more about this sort of thing. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 00:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)