User talk:Smith Jones/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 User talk page editing 2 Homeopathy 3 Moved from Talk:Homeopathy 4 we al need to grow up! 5 Firefox 6 No respect and honor among Wikipedians? 7 Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar 8 League of Copyeditors Request 9 Spell check 10 Spelling, multiple signatures 11 Incidents board comment 12 January 2008 13 Your comment on Wikipedia:TALK#Others.27_comments 14 Reply to your comments 15 Stop spamming 16 Revert warning 17 Just a suggestion 18 Comment on WP:NAR 19 Threatening other users 20 Thread regarding your behavior at the Administrator's Noticeboard 21 Edits to Aos Sí 22 Copy edit request 23 Bronwen Mantel... 24 League of Copyeditors roll call 25 Kevin Trudeau talk page 26 Psychic 27 WikiProject Biography Newsletter 5 28 October 2007 29 January 2008 30 Your comments on User talk: SineBot 31 Talk:Homeopathy 32 Talk:Homeopathy 33 Using caps 34 Your edit summary usage 35 Jan 2008 36 January 2008 37 A Friendly Reminder 38 Another Reminder 39 Jan 2008 40 January 2008 41 A Friendly Reminder 42 Another Reminder 43 If you are not so new 44 By the way 45 Automatic archiver 46 Comments 47 Talk:Waterboarding 48 Re: Warning 49 Global Community One World Unity Army 50 Hug 51 New Shortcut 52 RfD nomination of User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States 53 ANI 54 Clarify? 55 Random FYI 56 Derren Brown, Criss Angel, and Roy Raphaeli Bonuses

[edit] User talk page editing

[edit] Homeopathy

Please calm down a bit and try to make constructive edits. You're overuse of bold etc isn't appreciated. Also, you may like to try Mozilla Firefox and install the included spell checker. Cheers! --88.172.132.94 (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moved from Talk:Homeopathy

[edit] we al need to grow up!

PERHAPS you thinkt aht you're insults and slanders will stop me from working hardto improve wikipedia. if that is your mindset, fine, but i must warn you that you are wrong. i am not a straw-man and my support fro homeopathic medicine is as sincere and honest as is your oposition to homeopathic mediine. there are some whose mindsets prevent them from beliving that any-one who disagress with them is serious, but that is again the typeo of attitude that is poison to any free editable encyclopeia. i was under the impression that this was a forum in which the body of human knowledge can be placed together and amde easily accessible to the commonf veiwr, but increasingaly have been notocing signs that a few people (not necesarily the people here, but a few editors in gerneral) consider wikipedia to be their own private fortress in which no dissenting opinion no mnater how well-sourced or how comon it might be outside their little bubble is permitted. looking back i must admits that i have been overreacting alittle bit on this talkpage and that i have failed =Jan 2008==

Please do not undo other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Pharmaceutical company, or you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the 3RR. Thank you. Shot info (talk) 01:06, 10 January 2008 (U

ARCHIVE they are on the link on the top of my discussion page. Smith Jones (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Firefox

Hello. Could you please get a web browser (such as FireFox) that checks your spelling? This and other posts you've left are nearly impossible to read. Thanks, Mønobi 18:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Right click in any field in firefox and make sure the "Spell check this field" is checked. Mønobi 18:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No respect and honor among Wikipedians?

Cculber007(Talk Archive) 06:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, users have broad discretion to manage their own talk pages. Smith Jones is entitled to delete messages which he has read. —Whig (talk) 23:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Whig is correct here. See Wikipedia:User page#Removal of comments, warnings. The assumption is that if an editor deletes a warning from their talk page, they have read it. However, calling another editor's comment "spam" is somewhat insulting, and should be avoided. If anyone is uncertain what spam means, Wikipedia has both policy and article pages describing the subject. / edg ☺ ☭ 00:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I noticed that you took the time to find something good to say about another editor who is having some trouble. I present this Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar in recognition of your positive influence on the project. TableMannersC·U·T 05:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] League of Copyeditors Request

Hi there. I have reverted your edits to Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Requests, for several reasons of which you should be aware. First, your request circumvented and completely ignored the system that has been established at the LOCE to ensure that requests are processed as efficiently and also as fairly as possible. That system exists for a reason - the League has an enormous workload and it is simply not fair for some requests to be given priority over others. Secondly, the request was improperly formatted and largely unreadable - I can also see no reason why it should need copyediting "urgently". Finally, even had this request been properly made it would have been immediately denied because it fails our request criteria number 3 - the Battle of Mediolanum article is very clearly not free from major content issues. The League cannot assist you in rewriting, cleaning, wikifying and (above all) referencing this article, all of which are required before it is a suitable candidate for copyediting by the LOCE. While I appreciate your interest in the League, to the extent of considering yourself a member, please do keep these points in mind when considering making requests like these. And next time, please use the proper formatting - I like to think it's really not that difficult. Happy editing! Happy‑melon 21:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Given the points I've raised above, this edit is unhelpful to the point of verging on vandalism. Happy‑melon 11:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spell check

Please take a moment to review your contributions for spelling, grammatical, capitalization, and punctuation errors before you save. This will help lessen the amount of copyediting others must do on the article, and will help maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance of Wikipedia. This message is not meant to discourage you from editing Wikipedia but rather to encourage the best possible writing from our authors. Please take a look at the Manual of Style and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Metros (talk) 00:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling, multiple signatures

I noticed this edit of yours, where you signed the post 3 times. Can you tell me a little about this, and about your spelling errors? Why do you think they are happening? I think you could be a far more influential editor if your posts looked more carefully written, but I wanted to inquire to see if there was something preventing you from typing normally. Antelan ^talk 21:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, sounds good. Good luck with getting a new keyboard. I hear ebay has some cheap ones. Antelan ^talk 21:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Even old keyboards have backspace keys. If it's not worth the time to type it legibly, is it really worth the time for millions of wiki users to read it? Pete St.John (talk) 22:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incidents board comment

Hi. Your comment which expresses pleasure a contributor has left (inexplicably, serving as some sort of a solution to a dispute) is out of line. Also, the extremely poor spelling comes across as disrespectful. Further comments of the sort are likely to be viewed as provocational, so please be mindful to and sensitive of others around you. This is a collaborative project and certain minimal social skills are expected. Thanks. El_C 03:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC) TC)

[edit] January 2008

Please stop. If you continue to add promotional material to Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. aliasd·U·T 02:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I will have to decline. DodgerOfZion (talk) 02:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you use Wikipedia for advertising, as you did with User talk:You Can't See Me!, you will be blocked from editing. aliasd·U·T 03:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC) to obersve good faith on the part of my fellow editors and that i should apologize for that. however, i am not the onyl one who has been behaving contrary to the stated goals of wikipedia and i alsmo must observe that in your zeal to make sure that the drug companies get their way in all areas of published research that you have ignored your obligation toassume good faith on my part as much as I have. i Still want to work past this and if we areEdits like this need to stop immediately. Canvassing isn't appropriate. IrishGuy ^talk 00:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

able == Your recent edit at Non-administrator rollback ==

Hello. You recently made a change to the page Wikipedia:Non-administrator rollback. I gather you were trying to make some kind of statement. However, in the process, you moved the comments of two other contributors (diff). This moved their comments between the Support/Oppose sections. Per Wikipedia:TALK#Others.27_comments, changing the meaning of other's comments is "never" acceptable. I reverted your edit. Unfortunately, it wasn't clear to me what the intention of your edit was, or I would have re-inserted your comment alone. Your edit summary said you were changing to support, but the text of your comment was still decidedly against. • If you do want to comment in the discussion, please take care not to modify the comments of others. You can use the "Show changes" button to see what your edit has changed. • Regards, —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your comment on Wikipedia:TALK#Others.27_comments

The comment you made on this page broke up a post I made. It might be a good idea to familiarize yourself with== Wikiquette alert ==

Hello, this message is to inform you that there is a wikiquette alert that has been opened regarding you. You may view the alert here. Thanks, --Nn123645 (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:TALK as changing the meaning and/or context of another users comments is never acceptable. Thanks, Justin chat 04:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to your comments

Hi Smith Jones. The discussion at ANI is progressing past things that need administrator attention, so if it's all right with you I'd like to continue the conversation here. To respond to your comment "i have apologized erepatedly for my initlial mistakes as to the purpose of an ARbitration committee, and yet my past mistakes continue to be dragged out of the closet to be used agianst me in unrelated disputes", I should note that I asked you to stop threatening other people with reporting to ArbCom twice before this edit, which again threatened another user with reporting. I guess I'm not seeing how this constitutes bringing up past mistakes. I have also not seen this being used against you in an unrelated dispute - could you show me where that is happening? The discussion on the admin's noticeboard was in regards to your general communication style and the overall way you've been interacting with other users, not in regards to any specific dispute about an article.

I would also like to apologize about speculating about your communication difficulties. I'm sorry if that seemed rude, but I was somewhat surprised when dealing with you. As I believe I said there, my first thought was that you might be using a screen reader, which are notoriously buggy. Given the information you've provided, though, I am a little surprised at your apparent unwillingness to apply Wikipedia policies in general, not just to the specific examples that are mentioned in the policies. To give you an example, on one article talk page you were directed to the policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. I believe I also suggested you read that at one point and others may have as well. The specific part you were directed to is subtitled "Wikipedia is not a soapbox". However, you responded on that article talk page that you saw nothing in the policy forbidding discussion of homeopathy. That, to me, indicated a misunderstanding of what exactly policy does or how to use it. Perhaps I'm reading this wrong, but that was the impression I got.

I'm also sorry that you're feeling harassed, but noticing what other people are doing and commenting on it does not constitute harassment in this community. We get new editors every day, many with a fundamental misunderstanding of the encyclopedia and even a few who understand how this is supposed to work and still want to manipulate to serve their own agenda. It is quite normal when one comes across a new contributor to check their contributions and see if there's any information they're in need of, any inappropriate behavior they're engaging in, or other things like that. I would also note that numerous people have come to your talk page to express their concern with your behavior and many have expressed similar concerns on article talk pages. This would belie the suggestion that this is a single person's campaign against you. When multiple people are suggesting that you change your ways, they often have a point.

Again, I would suggest that you look in your talk page archive for the various policies that have been suggested to you. I know you said you've read them, but you appear to still not understand them, so I would suggest you read them again. Another thing you might find helpful would be to scan over past discussions of article talk pages (pretty much any popular article at random would do fine) to get a sense of how people here interact and communicate. Natalie (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I have one p.s.: One the admins noticeboard you said "i have already addressed your decision to label me as a psychic and a quacker on the numberous other article talk pages that this has been done to me." Firstly, I didn't say you were a psychic, but you are a defender of psychics. And I took that identification from your own statements on Talk: Criticism of Sylvia Browne: "What I intend to prevent is Wikipedia's deteroriation into a little advertising service were top corporate and mass media spin forces get to determine the slant of each idnividual article... all i want is Sylvia Browne and her colleagues portrayed fairly and in a balnaced way irregardless of the amount of blogs that hate her." That seems to very obviously say that you are here to edit a specific group of articles to reflect a specific point of view. Perhaps I have misunderstood; please explain further if that is the case. Natalie (talk)` —Preceding comment was added at 18:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I can understand that. I will say that your recent behavior does fit some of the definition of a single-purpose account, and you do seem to have a particular view you want expressed. All I can do about that is again urge you to read the Wikipedia's key policies and ensure that you are editing in accordance with those policies. Natalie (talk) 20:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stop spamming

Leaving messages over many editors' talk pages may not be taken very well...it's like spam. Leaving ALL CAPS text and deleting other messages is inappropriate. — Scientizzle 00:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revert warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Pharmaceutical company. Note that the [[Wikipedia:

[edit] Just a suggestion

You are making a lot of people upset and you are likely to be blocked from editing if you do not do something to change the situation very soon. I think you might want to consider WP:Adopt-a-user and perhaps find an experienced Wikipedian who can help you stay out of trouble. —Whig (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC) Three-revert rule|three-revert rule]] prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. — Scientizzle 00:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC) op it currently is. Smith Jones (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which is edited based on it's policies - some of which contradict your interpretation of what Wikipedia is - hence your problems. I encourage you to review WP:NOT to help you with your understanding. Shot info (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

i have revewied those informaitons more times that ic an possibly counts, and i see nothing in them that specifically rejects theidea of homeopathic medicine. Smith Jones (talk) 03:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I suspect a referral to WP:NOT is in reference to the fact that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Wikipedia is not a platform for you to advance your own opinions. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 04:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on WP:NAR

I left you a comment on the WP:NAR discussion page. This message is to notify you of it so you are aware of the comment. Thanks, -- Nn123645 (talk) 06:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Threatening other users

Smith Jones, I've asked you time and time again to stop threatening to fellow contributors that you are going to report them to the Arbitration Committee. Yet in this edit, you have once again threatened numerous people with some form of tattling. Allow to ask you for a final time, and once again explain the relevant policies to you. Firstly, threatening your fellow contributors is uncivil and fails to assume good faith. Those links go to policy pages, which govern the interactions between Wikipedia users, so I'd recommend that you read them carefully. You are subject to following just as everyone else is. Also, calling a good faith edit vandalism is also considered uncivil and a personal attack. Consider this your last warning - if you threaten another user again or call good faith edits vandalism, I will block you. Natalie (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thread regarding your behavior at the Administrator's Noticeboard

Another user has opened a thread concerning your behavior at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Smith_Jones. You are invited to comment there. Natalie (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You recently blanked your talk page, removing the links to Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3 and Archive 4. Please retain links to these pages as it is not immediately obvious to others how many archives you have and any naming conventions you might have used (e.g. Archive01 or Archive001, etc). Though not as much of an issue, try to keep your archives of similar lengths. Your longest is currently 25,434 bytes and your shortest is 3,013.

You also appear to have removed various notices put on your talk page and placed them - rather haphazardly - at the top of the first archive. In other words, before all other messages left on this page ever (with the exception of the welcome message). This makes it extremely confusing for people who may want to find past discussions. You also linked to Archive 4, stating it is not an archive, and linked to Archive 1 when referring to Archive 4. You've since blanked the page - you may be intending on rebuilding the talk page, but I'd implore you to reconsider your method of archiving and to keep messages on this page for longer. Thanks, UnaLaguna 09:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Please be respectufl of my decision to keep my user talk page clean of old discussion. Smith Jones 20:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, The Royal Irish Regt NOT the Royal Irish Rangers went to Sierra Leone. I am an ex-Ranger. --MJB (talk) 08:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to Aos Sí

I see that you do not want SineBot to sign for you. Will you consider signing your own messages? Signatures and edit histories are the only things that identify who said what on a talk page, and searching through the edit history to find the author of a particular message can be quite tedious. Signatures also mark when one speaker finishes and the next begin, making talk page conversations easier to understand. Finally, many discussion pages are automatically archived by bots, but they use the date stamp that is part of the signature to determine when messages should be archived. If you don't sign, there is also no date stamp and this archiving function is impeded. So please consider signing your messages. You can type ~~~~ or use the signature button in the row of buttons above the edit window. Thanks, Natalie (talk) 02:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess I wouldn't describe the bot's single message as harassment, but to each their own. SineBot also doesn't leave you a message until it's had to sign several of your messages, to prevent people from getting messages from SineBot after a single mistake, so you've probably neglected to sign quite a few times. But don't worry too much about it, just try your best to remember! Natalie (talk) 03:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

If you wish to discuss adding that text to the article, please take it to the talk page. You reverted a number of edits just to put in a paragraph that didn't really fit there, and which broke formatting. While the entire article needs more sourcing, if you want to mention a particular castle or pile of rocks as a sídhe, I'd suggest discussion and sourcing. Please do not just revert other people's work to add that. Thanks. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copy edit request

Hello, Smith Jones,

I recently requested a copy edit from the League of Copy Editors and noticed that your name is included on the list of participants. At this writing, Jimmy McAleer, a B-class biography of an old-time American baseball figure, is in the peer review process. So far, all reviewers have suggested that the article is ready to send to the GAC. A couple of them recommended that I send it straight to the FAC. Before considering the latter, I would like to ensure that the article is as clean as possible. I'd greatly appreciate any time you're able to devote to it. Cheers, -- twelsht (talk) 14:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bronwen Mantel...

In July you asked for help with this actress's bio: I've pitched in. See if you can add any sources - I'll be back. Season's Greetings! Shir-El too 23:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Since I only found this portal, your request and the article last night your "it took you long enough" is uncalled for. Also, unless you are two people using the same username, your typing has gone south :p. I also tried to narrow the infobox, unsuccessfully; the layout will look much better as soon as we can get more information into the article and a usable picture of the lady. Cheers, Shir-El too 23:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Looked up TS. Good Luck. Talk to you again next year :p! Shir-El too 14:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] League of Copyeditors roll call

Greetings from the League of Copyeditors. Your name is listed on our members page, but we are unsure how many of the people listed there are still active contributors to the League's activities. If you are still interested in participating in the work of the League, please follow the instructions at the members page to add your name to the active members list. Once you have done that, you might want to familiarise yourself with the new requests system, which has replaced the old /proofreading subpage. As the old system is now deprecated, the main efforts of the League should be to clear the substantial backlog which still exists there. The League's services are in as high demand as ever, as evinced by the increasing backlog on our requests pages, both old and new. While FA and GA reviewers regularly praise the League's contributions to reviewed articles, we remain perennially understaffed. Fulfilling requests to polish the prose of Wikipedia's highest-profile articles is a way that editors can make a very noticeable difference to the appearance of the encyclopedia. On behalf of the League, if you do consider yourself to have left, I hope you will consider rejoining; if you consider yourself inactive, I hope you will consider returning to respond to just one request per week, or as many as you can manage. Merry Christmas and happy editing, The League of Copyeditors.

Melon‑Bot (STOP!) 18:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Please do not attack other users personally, I tire of reading them. Thanks.

John Doe or Jane Doe 14:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove other editors' useful contributions from your talk page or replace them with inappropriate content. Removing or maliciously altering your talk page will not remove them from the page history. You're welcome to archive your talk page, but be sure to provide a link to any deleted legitimate comments. If you continue to remove or vandalize legitimate warnings from your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks. UnaLaguna 21:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin Trudeau talk page

The statement about trimming the section down was a GENERAL ONE making mention that this still needed to be done. It was never implied that it should be any one person's responsibility. Rather it was simply that it was an on going project. TheDevilYouKnow 00:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Psychic

Hey, I'm so sorry to take this out [1], it's good information, but a little too much detail for the lead section. Mebbe discuss it on the talk page for inclusion in the body of the article? Thanks... – Dreadstar † 23:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Addition of Crookes! Excellent!. Good find! – Dreadstar † 01:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Biography Newsletter 5

The Biography WikiProject Newsletter Volume IV, no. 4 - September 2007
Project News The three-month long Summer Assessment Drive, organized by Psychless, was a huge success! It ran from June 1 – September 1, and reduced the backlog of unassessed articles from 113,385 to 56,237. In all, over 100,000 articles were assessed. Over 60 people contributed in some way. A barnstar has been created for exceptional work on Wikipedia biographies and for assisting the project. The Biography Barnstar is listed with the other WikiProject awards and can be awarded easily with a template. See the template page for more details. Member News Congratulations to the editors who worked on the newest featured biographies: Augustus; William Shakespeare; Adriaen van der Donck; Alfred Russel Wallace; Alison Krauss; Anne Frank; Anne of Denmark; Asser; Bart King; Bill O'Reilly; Bobby Robson; Bradley Joseph; CM Punk; Ceawlin of Wessex; Colley Cibber; Cædwalla of Wessex; Dominik Hašek; Elizabeth Needham; Frank Macfarlane Burnet; Georg Cantor; Gregory of Nazianzus; Gunnhild Mother of Kings; Gwen Stefani; Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery; Harriet Arbuthnot; Harry S. Truman; Henry, Bishop of Uppsala; Héctor Lavoe; Ine of Wessex; Ion Heliade Rădulescu; Jack Sheppard; Jackie Chan; Jay Chou; John Martin Scripps; John Mayer; Joseph Francis Shea; Joshua A. Norton; Kate Bush; Kazi Nazrul Islam; Kevin Pietersen; Martin Brodeur; Mary Martha Sherwood; Mary of Teck; Maximus the Confessor; Miranda Otto; Muhammad Ali Jinnah; P. K. van der Byl; Penda of Mercia; Pham Ngoc Thao; Rabindranath Tagore; Ramón Emeterio Betances; Red Barn Murder; Richard Hakluyt; Richard Hawes; Robert Garran; Roman Vishniac; Ronald Niel Stuart; Ronald Reagan; Roy Welensky; Rudolph Cartier; Samuel Adams; Samuel Beckett; Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough; Sarah Trimmer; Sargon of Akkad; Shen Kuo; Sophie Blanchard; Stereolab; Sydney Newman; Sylvanus Morley; Tim Duncan; Timeline of Mary Wollstonecraft; Uncle Tupelo; Waisale Serevi; Wallis, Duchess of Windsor; Walter Model; William Bruce; William Goebel; Yagan; Zhou Tong; Æthelbald of Mercia; Æthelbald of Mercia New Members Congratulations to our 225 new members	From the Editors The newsletter is back! Many things have gone on during the past few months, but many things have not. While the assessment drive helped revitalize the assessment department of the project, many other departments have received no attention. Most notably: peer review and our "workgroups". A day long IRC meeting has been planned for October 13th, with the major focus being which areas of the project are "dead", what should our goals be as a project, and how to "revive" the dead areas of our project. Contribute to the discussion on the the new channel (see below) We decided to deliver this newsletter to all project members this month but only those with their names down here will get it delivered in the future. This is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue. Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned or post news on the next issue's talk page New irc channel Lastly, a new WikiProject Biography channel has been set up on the freenode network: #wikipedia-en-bio Our thanks to Phoenix 15 for setting it up. Contributors to this Issue Psychless (talk · contribs) Phoenix 15 (talk · contribs)
Complete To Do List Write Expand stubs: British • American • Japanese • Indian • Pakistan • Australian • French • Canadian • Chinese • Polish • Russian • Turkish • People by nationality... Auto racing biography • Basketball biography • English football biography • Ice hockey biography • Track and field athletics • Sportspeople... British nobility • Military personnel • Canadian politicians • Australian politicians • British politicians • More politicians... Academics • Actors • Artists • Business biography • Mathematicians • Musicians • Television biography • Writers Collaborate: Ali Create: Articles requested for more than a year - Biographies requested Add infoboxes Review Peer Review: Insane Clown Posse • Jane Elizabeth Hodgson • Paul Koehler • Charlemagne Tower • John Zorn • James C. Duff • Skip Holtz • Dredg • G. Edward Griffin • Tenacious D • Jordanus de Nemore • Johan Arnold Smellekamp • Eros Ramazzotti A-class Review: Gregory R. Ball • Milla Jovovich • Gordon Bell (American football) • Jack Clancy • Elmer Gedeon • Dick Rifenburg Assess: Assessment requests • Assess an article Assessment Progress Biography articles Importance Top None Total Quality FA 21 480 501 A 2 19 21 GA 24 966 990 B 151 14396 14547 Start 2 110533 110535 Stub 336778 336778 List 111 111 Assessed 200 463283 463483 Unassessed 56189 56189 Total 200 519472 519672
We couldn't do it without you!

To receive this newsletter in the future, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot 16:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC) .

[edit] October 2007

Nobody "spammed" your talk page, and please keep cool and civil, especially since we're only trying to help each other here. Una Laguna^Talk 07:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] January 2008

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article Uri Gellar has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. Please consider WP:CIVIL. This edit summary was neither helpful nor justified. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your comments on User talk: SineBot

Please stop threatening other Wikipedians. The user account that you left this message for is a bot. That is, it is an account that performs a simple automated task that would be tedious for a human to do. It does not have any human intervention. SineBot simply signs and date stamps talk page posts that are unsigned. It does not need your permission to do this, and if you do not want SineBot to sign for you all you have to do is sign your own posts by typing four tildes (~) at the end of your message. Again, the Arbitration Committee does not handle petty complaints such as this, nor would they probably take any complaint about SineBot. All bots have to go through an approval process, which SineBot has, and it is not in any way misbehaving. Speedy deletions are also not in any way applicable to this. A speedy deletion would not delete the account (there is no technical mechanism to delete accounts) and furthermore, the bot's talk page does not meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion. You are on very thin ice so far, considering the way you have been behaving in the past month. I've said this to you before, but it bears repeating: stop threatening to report people for the slightest misunderstanding. You are being incredibly uncivil to your fellow contributors and appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how this community functions. If you continue in this manner you will likely find yourself blocked in the near future. Natalie (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Homeopathy

Hello. I saw your comments in the talk. There is a very serious bias in the article now, I agree. I would suggest you make very careful and specific observations in the talk. If you have experience in controversial Wikipedia articles, you should expect that it will take time to work out. It will not be helpful to make personal accusations, even if you have private ideas of people's motivations. If you want to discuss it further, I'm happy to do so. —Whig (talk) 06:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You're brilliant! You should do stand up, you remind me of Mark Thomas. It's a shame Whig didn't get the joke, but sometimes there's no joking with these people. You might want to put a blinking JOKE tag next to your comments in future!! Cheers! --88.172.132.94 (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Homeopathy

Why did you move the section I started and change the time stamp? It is generally considered impolite to do so. If it was a mistake, please be more careful ne== Beware of tigers ==

This is in response to your recent comments at WT:Non-administrator rollback. Looking at your edit history, I think you have a misunderstanding of the spirit of Wikipedia. You may want to read the essay "Beware of the tigers". People who have passionate opinions, who feel they are defending the truth, often run into trouble at Wikipedia. It's one thing to add coverage of minority opinions, but when you start defending them, you are in dangerous waters. For example, in this edit, you added the phrase "it was conclusively proven" to an article. That kind of assurance -- that you know the truth -- is against the spirit of neutral point-of-view. • I hope this message helps you understand Wikipedia better. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 04:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)↓ xt time, or use the section editing feature. Thanks, --Phirazo 18:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Using caps

Hi Smith Jones. Sorry to bother you again, but I've noticed that you are still using all caps in some of your talk page comments. ALL CAPS WORDS are understood as shouting on the internet, and should only be used for emphasis. In this comment, for example, you seem to be shouting when there is no reason to. Just like in face-to-face communication, many people find unnecessary shouting rude and off-putting, so you might find that limiting your use of all caps eases communication with other users. Thanks, Natalie (talk) 00:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Harassment? I'm just trying to give you some pointers on interacting with other user's here, because you seem to be annoying people. Leaving you an incredibly polite message with a concise explanation does not constitute harassment, in my opinion. But if you are of that opinion, then consider me gone. Natalie (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit summary usage

Hi there. When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field. If you are adding a section, please do not just keep the previous section's header in the Edit summary field - please fill in your new section's name instead. Thank you. Ohmpandya (Talk) 00:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jan 2008

Please do not undo other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Pharmaceutical company, or you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the 3RR. Thank you. Shot info (talk) 01:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] January 2008

Please stop. If you continue to add promotional material to Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. aliasd·U·T 02:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I will have to decline. DodgerOfZion (talk) 02:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you use Wikipedia for advertising, as you did with User talk:You Can't See Me!, you will be blocked from editing. aliasd·U·T 03:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Friendly Reminder

While I realize that you believe whole-heartedly in the edits you make to articles and you are striving to be an active part of the Wikipedia community, your current editing style has been extremely disruptive. You are attacking other editors and removing sourced information from numerous articles, such as Kevin Trudeau and Homeopathy. In addition to that behavior, you are inserting unsourced material into articles. This behavior is the hallmark of disruptive editing. I urge you to fully review the following policies (WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV) and to take a break from editing for a bit in order to calm down. Also, two other matters should be addressed. Firstly, please do not canvass on Wikipedia, as you have recently done in order to recruit more people to join the Homeopathy project. Canvassing for support for your viewpoint is frowned upon. Also, as this is a community project, it is important that editors are clear in communicating with each other on talk pages. It is always good etiquette to use the 'show preview' function and proofread your posts in order to ensure that they will be clearly understood by other editors. If you have any questions, feel free to seek out help from other editors, but remember to be civil. Cheers!!! Baegis (talk) 04:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another Reminder

Please do not delete substantiated warnings from your page... It is uncivil, and does not indicate you wish to constructively edit Wikipedia. DodgerOfZion (talk) 07:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jan 2008

Please do not undo other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Pharmaceutical company, or you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the 3RR. Thank you. Shot info (talk) 01:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] January 2008

Please stop. If you continue to add promotional material to Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. aliasd·U·T 02:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I will have to decline. DodgerOfZion (talk) 02:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you use Wikipedia for advertising, as you did with User talk:You Can't See Me!, you will be blocked from editing. aliasd·U·T 03:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Friendly Reminder

While I realize that you believe whole-heartedly in the edits you make to articles and you are striving to be an active part of the Wikipedia community, your current editing style has been extremely disruptive. You are attacking other editors and removing sourced information from numerous articles, such as Kevin Trudeau and Homeopathy. In addition to that behavior, you are inserting unsourced material into articles. This behavior is the hallmark of disruptive editing. I urge you to fully review the following policies (WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV) and to take a break from editing for a bit in order to calm down. Also, two other matters should be addressed. Firstly, please do not canvass on Wikipedia, as you have recently done in order to recruit more people to join the Homeopathy project. Canvassing for support for your viewpoint is frowned upon. Also, as this is a community project, it is important that editors are clear in communicating with each other on talk pages. It is always good etiquette to use the 'show preview' function and proofread your posts in order to ensure that they will be clearly understood by other editors. If you have any questions, feel free to seek out help from other editors, but remember to be civil. Cheers!!! Baegis (talk) 04:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another Reminder

Please do not delete substantiated warnings from your page... It is uncivil, and does not indicate you wish to constructively edit Wikipedia. DodgerOfZion (talk) 07:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] If you are not so new

Another possibility might be WP:ASSIST or WP:Mentor. I am not trying to bother you, but to offer you a helpful suggestion. —Whig (talk) 22:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] By the way

I think I understand that you are a controversial editor and so you draw a lot of fire, and do not want your talk page cluttered with that and distracting people who just want to leave you a comment. When you have received a message you archive it or if it was something that was completely personal you may delete it as any user may choose to maintain their talk page in a style they prefer. It might be helpful to describe your policy at the top of this page however to prevent confusion and upset. —Whig (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

May I help you to set up automatic archiving? There are tools which will remove threads that have been inactive for more than a certain period of time automatically. —Whig (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

May I move or rename some things and do a little organizing? Also, how often do you want threads archived? Does once a day seem reasonable or do you prefer a longer or shorter time? —Whig (talk) 23:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I guess we'll have to see if that works because I've never set this up for someone before, but it should archive threads once per day now. —Whig (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have a favor to ask you now. I know you have trouble typing but checking your spelling would really help a great deal. If you use a recent version of Mozilla Firefox to access Wikipedia, the spell-checking functionality should be built-in, and will place a red line under words it does not recognize. This might be helpful to you in getting people to understand you better. —Whig (talk) 00:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't setup archiving on a user's page without first consulting the user. Unless I'm mistaken this is kind of a one sided conversation where you are answering your own questions for yourself. You need to get Smith Jones to declare that he wants archiving, not just decide it forum. Its his talk page, and within reason, he may manage it how he wants to. -- Nn123645 (talk) 00:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Smith Jones replied on my talk and asked me to help. —Whig (talk) 00:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahh ok, I didn't know he replied on your talk. Carry on then. -- Nn123645 (talk) 00:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Automatic archiver

Maybe it will work now. I took a Wiki-break shortly after setting it up for you, and then noticed it didn't do the archiving for a whole week, so I changed it to old(24h) instead of old(1d) and if this doesn't work, I'm not sure what the problem is. —Whig (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

Just note that it is good practice to leave new messages at the bottom of the page, not at the top. Happy editing....! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Waterboarding

So you've encountered the hive over there. Don't let them intimidate you. Neutral Good (talk) 11:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Warning

please sotp being mean to uSER: King Zeal. Smith Jones (talk) 14:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Tell User:King Zeal to stop being mean to me first. Then tell me to sotp being mean to uSER: King Zeal later. Do you even know what you are talking about, or just read what User:King Zeal cherry-picked and put together from a bigger conversation to make him look good and me look bad? Shrine Maiden (talk) 04:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Global Community One World Unity Army

Prods can be removed by anyone for any reason. I've removed the prod from Global Community One World Unity Army because I assume you are disputing the deletion based on the fact that you've changed the date on the prod template twice in the last 5 days. Please don't change the date on prod templates in the future. If you dispute a proposed deletion, simply remove the template yourself. --Onorem♠Dil 04:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Side question: How is this a typo? I don't disagree with the addition of Hungarian, but please don't use misleading edit summaries. --Onorem♠Dil 04:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hug

[edit] New Shortcut

In my current holding pattern, I have created a link that I think you and others might find useful. WP:PSCI Cheers. Anthon01 (talk) 00:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfD nomination of User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States

I have nominated User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. meshach (talk) 04:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ANI

Please pay close attention to your edits to ANI. Twice in the last 20 minutes you've removed posts from the board while posting your own. See this and [2]. You need to pay more attention so you don't knock others' constructive conversations out. Metros (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Second this, a few weeks later - please pay more attention to your AN/I edits, its a high traffic page where clarity is important if you are going to comment about actions to take in a dispute. Your spelling/grammar and the formatting of your posts makes it difficult to follow your comments or, frankly, give them much weight. Avruch ^T 00:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clarify?

Hey what did you mean by "editing to blow off ssteam" in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#THUGCHILDz. Also was that towards me or someone else. Can you please clarify your statement on my talk page? Kind regards.--THUGCHILDz 20:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Random FYI

Dana's a "he," not a "she," and also this guy. Just wanted to make sure you know who you're dealing with so you can judge his comments appropriately. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Derren Brown, Criss Angel, and Roy Raphaeli Bonuses

[3] [4] [5] Kazuba (talk) 00:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)