From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ward3001 is currently wikibonked and is operating at a lower edit level than usual. Hitting the wall is a temporary condition, and the user should return to normal edit levels in time.

Ward3001 is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archives

Archive 1

[edit] Gabrielle Union links issue

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Every link in there follows wikipedia rules. Treybien (talk) 18:02 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyrighted images

Okey what?Genisock2 (talk) 16:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Okey lets go through this point by point. Don't upload photos. Err this account doesn't upload photos. The vast majority of my uploads are to commons. And copyright wise they are fine. Don't even try and argue with the point unless you know a lot about crown copyright (even then don't I phoned up OS twice and went through the law with a toothpick). "don't add them to article" Ah a clue to what you are actually talking about. Image:Jena Malone downstairs at Union Hall.jpg yes? Well you will note I didn't upload it. Still you've only been editing since 2006 so a mistake like that is I suppose understandable. Anyway you want more copyright info. Fair enough so did I. The difference is that I went looking for it asked as was given it User talk:Bow Wow is a real Musician. If you had bothered to check the image history you would have discovered that. You don't seriously think I add {{Multilicense replacing placeholder|class=people|reviewed=1}} to pages without some level of checking do you? "until you thoroughly read and understand WP:NFC and WP:IMAGE.". Um I helped with writing some of them. "You have added images that are either copyrighted" oh dear oh dear anything under say the GFDL is copyrighted. The GFDL doesn't really work otherwise. "have no copyright information on the image page" actually it does. See those cats at the top of the page oh wait people use that fancy new monobook skin now I guess they are at the bottom anyway that one saying "Reviewed images of people replacing placeholders" should give you quite a bit of info. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars and take it to heart because seriously no one is going to block me for copyright issues and you will save yourself some sarcastic messages. In short I admire your enthusiasm but probably need a bit more thinking before acting particularly when your actions are queried.18:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sigmund Freud

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Sigmund Freud. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

How condescending! This contribution was perfectly valid and hardly 'experiment'. verifiability policy refers to material that is 'likely to be challenged'. Freud's time under Charcot, and the latter's influence on him is so well understood and documented as to be very unlikely to be challenged. The correct response, I suggest, if you feel this needs verification, would be for you to add a citation, or mark it for citation. Reverting is not a proper response. --Memestream (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

No, verifiability policy applies to all edits. It is a cornerstone of Wikipedia. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiablity, not truth". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not your personal website. If you look at any other legitimate encyclopedia, you will see that all information is properly attributed to a reliable source. The editors don't wait for information to be "challenged". And look at any article on Wikipedia that is classified as a good article. You will see that virtually all of the information is cited.

There is no need for a challenge; you still have to include a citation to an appropriate source. But to cut to the chase here, I challenge your edit. So put a citation after the edit if you restore the information. And please thoroughly read Wikipedia policies before accusing someone of being "condescending". My challenge of uncited information is not condescending; that's the way it's done on Wikipedia. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

One more point: You appear to have copied much of the information in your edit from this source instead of the one you just cited. I believe you may have cited the wrong source (whether intentional or not). I also ask that you place direct quotes within quotation marks, per Wikipedia policy. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I wrote my own words, after reading many sources. There is no requirement to quote, and I don't like 'cut and paste editing'. Inevitably, certain phrases will always repeat in sources. I cited a source which I think supported what I said. If you think there is a better one, by all means use it. --Memestream (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof. - quoted from WP:Revert

Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it. - quoted from WP:Revert --Memestream (talk) 18:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You seem to think that a cite supports material copied from the cite. I say it only needs to support the essential facts. Do you realise that if you attempt to cut and paste a section from a web article, you are likely to get an immediate challenge from a 'bot' which appears to search for every edit made on Google and will remove your edit on grounds of 'plaguarism'! It happened to me! --Memestream (talk) 18:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Why are you deleting my questions? I just joined Wikipedia and I am not vandalizing. I have the same right to contribute to Wikipedia as anyone else. If you're having a bad day, don't take it out on me. Just because you've never heard of a psychologist doesn't mean my edit was vandalism. And I don't appreciate your threats. Futurefriends (talk) 02:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spam on Scent of a woman

I do not intend to spam the page. What I like to do for all references is to provide redundant information for each reference cited, and identify the author etc if I can. This works less well for "external links" sections, and I probably should have figured out how to turn that into a footnote. Anyway, that is why I put the front page of the website there.--Filll (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scary Movie 2

Hi. I don't quite understand the reason for removal of the Scary Movie film series template from the bottom of the page. Could you explain? Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 16:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops. That one was just an accident, probably from looking at the wrong line on the list while removing the template from movies not in the series. That one certainly belongs. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Best, Doczilla _RAWR! 17:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Natalie Portman, mistake

Hello Ward,

Concerning my commentary on Natalie Portman's article discussion section: I first thought there was a mistake in the article, but later I noticed it was not a mistake (does not matter what it was...) so I removed my message... Sorry :)

--343KKT Kintaro (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Freud

I put his ethnicity at Jewish simply because it is widely (but not unanimously - see Who is a Jew?) accepted as an athnicity. Ashkenazi, which was listed before, is not considered by anyone to be an ethnicity, but rather a cultural subgroup with different traditions from, say, Sephardi Jews. As such, listing his ethnicity as "Jewish" is appropriate, seeing that it is commonly accepted that he was. Eddy23 (talk) 03:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Eddy23

[edit] Evangelicals and Plymouth Brethren

Plymouth Brethren are a sub-group of the Evangelical (capital "E") family of denominations. In any case, if GK is not a member of that religion anymore, it's hardly defining and Category:Plymouth Brethren people should be removed too. I've been adding Evangelical-nationality categories to those in the Plymouth Brethren category in a batch-fashion, which hardly qualifies as "original research" warning requiring a template on my talk page. You might be confusing capital "E" Evangelical (which is a religious "family" of denominations, etc.) with small "e" evangelical, which describes a mode of Christian behaviour/worship. Calling someone a small-"e" evangelical would definitely require citation to include, but someone who's already cited as being a Plymouth Brethren member automatically qualifies as a capital-"E" Evangelical. Thanks, though. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Natalie Portman article

"Please remove the entire section on the talk page. It has no purpose and is very confusing. Thank you"

Done ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 343KKT Kintaro (talk • contribs) 04:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rorschach Page

I am pleased to see that tomorrow will be two weeks since my last edit on the rorschach talk page and nobody has posted an objection to my standing proposal. I maybe should not be so happy since nothing at all has been posted on the talkpage.

I want to make sure I get proper consensus on the proposal. But what if nobody types anything in 6 months? How about 4 months? I doubt that it will happen and I will stay patient. But I wanted to hear from you what your impressions are so far.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Next will be the edit wars, followed by the page protection. Ward3001 (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't doubt that you have good reasons to say it. I still think if we seek to side with common sense we are better off. I would love to see you voicing strong agreement with my proposal. You already made the consensus objection and I took it to heart, plus it has not been contested. In other words voicing strong agreement does not negate the consensus requirement, but it helps to maintain consensus. Even if you thougth it is not viable you could say it's the ideal case.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Friendly Notices

Please read Wikipedia:CANVAS#Friendly_notices before commenting on my friendly notices in the future. Thanks, and have a great day! Dimension31 (talk) 00:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I selected them based on their substantively edits of the article and related articles. Now how about you stop posting negative messages on my talk page, and go contribute to Wikipedia. That's what I'm going to do! Dimension31 (talk) 00:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

If people go around reverting any attempt to remove silly trivia, then how exactly is trivia being "discouraged"? WillOakland (talk) 04:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thanks for letting me know about the better link on Rorschach inkblot test for Norm. I think I have another article that also will link to Psychometrics after second thought. Thanks, Lisatwo (talk) 13:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

My name is starskydogg and I am a fluent speaker of ASL! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starskydogg (talk • contribs) 03:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another Friendly reminder to play nice

You sent me this note "Your edit makes no sense. "this fails to support the claim..." has the opposite meaning of "which would support the claim..." If this was an honest mistake, I ask you to be more careful in editing technical articles in areas for which you do not have sufficient expertise. If it was intentional, let me caution you against vandalism. Thank you. Ward3001"

I was extremely bothered by it and pointed this out on the talk page of the article in question. I don't want to rehash all of that, but rather, I wanted to point out my frustration with this on your user page as a friendly reminder to place nice and as an indication to others that I did have a problem with your attitude.

I said on the article talk page that you "read me the riot act". I hoped this would be seen as hyperbole, however I do regret that choice of words and I apologize for it. However, I would like to point out, you "cautioned" me against vandalism when there was absolutely no evidence of it. I have been registered for almost 2 years and done a relatively small number of edits, including one on that very page. None of my edits has ever been reverted or even modified. A perfect record which you chose to break and mention I may be a vandal at the same time. I believe a retraction of this on my user page would be the polite thing to do.

I still believe my edit did not give the sentence "the opposite meaning". I explained this to you on the talk page and direct you there when time permits. However, I don't think we necessarily have to wait to hear "what other psychologists have to say". I think we both understand the point the sentence is trying to make, our dispute is more about logic and grammar than psychology.

I noted a number of other posts on your user page and archive where people complained of being talked down to. I highlight User_talk:Ward3001/Archive_1#Psychological_Testing_edit_comment as one example and respectfully remind you of the advice user Fremte posted there: "Perhaps you would consider being a little less abrupt in your posts to others' talk pages and refrain from stating conclusions until you have data on which to base them. Such would be consistent with a data-driven approach versus relying on initution. It would involve minimal psychological acumen to anticipate that such abruptness would not be particularly well-received by other users. This response is only to respectfully provide you with some feedback re this exchange with you". I would only add that even stating conclusions on which you have data to base them is best avoided, if those conclusions can be perceived as a personal attack. In plainer English, if you ever find yourself telling someone they do not have "sufficient technical expertise", stop! It can come to no good. You can only be wrong or hurtful and neither option is good.

If you feel that errors are made by people who do not have sufficient expertise and this is bothering you, then I suggest you lobby for a rewrite to Wikipedia:About. Specifically the lines like "Visitors do not need specialised qualifications to contribute ... Anyone is welcome to add information, cross-references or citations, as long as they do so within Wikipedia's editing policies....There is no need to worry about accidentally damaging Wikipedia when adding or improving information, as other editors are always around to advise or correct obvious errors, and Wikipedia's software, known as MediaWiki, is carefully designed to allow easy reversal of editorial mistakes."

Let me close by saying that the dedication you have to fighting vandalism and improving Wiki has certainly earned you plenty of "Good Karma". It would be a shame to waste anymore of it with posts like you sent me. Gwilson (talk) 02:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding what others write on my talk page, I remind you that you do not know the history of someone else's comments. You know nothing about the other editors, their vandalism habits, or whether they have a history of making negative comments on others' talk pages. If you wish to remind me about what others say on my talk page, that's your choice. For example, if you look at the edit immediately above yours on my talk page, you will see that an editor called me an "asshole faggot" because I politely reminded him not to add unsourced information to articles. You can make of that what you wish. I personally never assume anything about an editor based on what others say on his/her talk page (except for blocks). Thank you.Ward3001

I did see the immediate previous post and that certainly was not the kind of thing I was referring to. Granted, I didn't research the full history of the Fremte post, the striking similarity between the words attributed to you by Fremte and the words you posted on my user page were enough. I quoted Fremte advice because it said, in a respectfully manner, what I wanted to say about your behaviour towards me. It makes no difference if it turns out Fremte had a history of vandalism or a history of making negative comments on others' talk pages, [User:Fremte|Fremte]]'s advice is good advice to us all. I concur with it. I hope you do to. I don't believe I wrote anything which assumed anything about you based on what others wrote on your talk page, I merely noted that there were a number of others who had complained of being talked down to. I noted a fact. Are you suggesting that all these complaints are from vandals and people who have a history of placing negative comments on people's user pages?

I just want to add that the verbal back and forth has taken up a good deal of valuable time for both of us. That time would have been between better spent coming up with improved language for the page in question. You could have reverted my text and simply added a note in the talk page which said "I have reverted this because it appears to me that it gives the sentence the opposite meaning it had before. If I am in error, then I can at least say the sentence is open to misinterpretation (since I, for one, apparently did misinterpret it). In that case, please suggest some alternative wordings we can work toward consensus on". I think that simple and polite wording would have eliminate all of this discussion and better served the Wiki. Gwilson (talk) 15:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rorschach discussion

It seems the compromise issue is heating up again...Faustian (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's up for a vote now...Faustian (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Village pump

While I disagree with your basic position in regards to the inkblot issue, you do put that position across very well and if you have the time would appreciate your input here. I'm not looking to rehash the inkblot issues but rather think that a general discussion about the broader issues around the use of medical and other factual material would be of benefit to the community. --Fredrick day (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

opps wrong page but I'll leave this as it might be something you are also interested in. --Fredrick day (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Beatles

thank you :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CDaly (talk • contribs) 22:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Silence of the Lambs

My opinion doesn't matter. The talk page doesn't matter. What matters is that the sentence isn't referenced. If it can be backed up by a reliable source, we can add it back in. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 16:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eric Clapton Associated Acts

In the article it claims Eric Clapton was associated with The Beatles. I am aware that he recorded several songs with them, but he was never an official band member (as far as I am aware). Therefore I think that this affiliation should be removed, unless I am wrong and recoding one song constitutes band membership. Andypandy2020 20:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The list is Associated acts, not Bands belonged to. He wasn't part of Roger Waters either (a solo artist). I've always been confused myself about what an "associated act" is, but I think The Beatles belong there as much as others in the list. What I'm even more confused about is that you argue that The Beatles should not be included, then you added "The Glands" (whoever they are) without a citation. Who are The Glands, and was Clapton a member of that group? Ward3001 (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I fully understand what you're saying about the confusion and ambiguity over the problem with associated acts, and after reading what you've put, I would think it wise to leave it there. The Glands is a band he was an official member of from August to October of 1965, and which more information can be found here [1]. There is also information and facts about the Glands in his autobiography. I've put in this citation now, and so I think it's all good. Thanks for the advice. Andypandy2020 (talk) 20:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Minor edits

Thanks for paying attention to my various additions of categories and my errant use of the "minor edit" checkbox. I apologize for offending you and for being "rude." I'm forever changed by this revelation and will behave accordingly. --Caponer (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rorschach reference

Someone is asking for the reference for the statement I put in, that it's necesary to get an unfilteed first impression of the inkblots (thus, that seeing them first might invalidate the test). I'm reluctant to provide a reference to manuals for it because 1. the Exner system was copyrighted in the 1970's and the information (including methods)shouldn't go on the page, and 20 someone's probably going to try to put up more information than is necessary. Do you have a general reference book with the information about the importance of not being contaminated?Faustian (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Academy award image in infobox

I have added the recently uploaded image Image:Academy Award Winning Film.jpg to the Infoboxes of Academy Award motion pictures, mostly winners of Best Picture, as a way of identifying the movie as an academy award winning film. So that the reader can recognize the film being an Academy Award winner. I noticed that it was hard to recognize that the arctile about the film did not say on the Infobox if it was an Academy Award winner or not. So I made a small icon for the reader to identify as an Oscar, and relate to as an Academy Award. The Oscar next to the title is to note that the film won Best Picture, the icon can also be used in the Awards section of the Infobox. Thanks for asking, if you have any more questions, I will be happy to answer. Jughead.z(1) (talk) 22:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anon comment

Sorry for my post if you think that sarcasm was inappropriate on the talk page; even though the current discussion may be relevant, it is still more a "meta-discussion" than a discussion on the topic itself. Sure it is allowed, and I have nothing against it per se, but I still observe that we are not getting closer to a resolution to the main question. But in a sense, it does not really make a difference and I don't think discussion on this talk page will get us any closer to anything: we have read every possible argument, I think everyone understands all of them, but different people prioritize them differently, and this won't change easily. Getting external opinions seems the only way to go for me (and my opinion was external until a few days, since I had never edited the article before).

Anyway, more importantly, I have warned the anon editor on this talk page for his attack; I personally don't condone modifying someone's comments, but if you do it, I think it would be a good idea to clearly indicate the change, either within the sentence to indicate where words have have removed, or right after the original poster's signature ("Comment modified by ... to remove personal attack"). Sure, the change can be seen in the history (or in the discussion below), but a reader should not have to check every single diff and edit summary, or every single comment on a long talk page, to see if someone has changed some text. It's just a suggestion, you're welcome to do whatever you want with it. Cheers, Schutz (talk) 08:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] KMA

you can go kiss my Canadian Butt.. I was updating the Lindsay Lohan page.. putting a newer more relevant Picture up on the site.. And I was also adding factual evidence into the site.. jackass. Go do something constructive buddy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcmlxxviii (talk • contribs) 17:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Little Inez

Sorry, you have a good point. I was not sure because in some places, it is labeled Little Inez and others Li'l Inez and I was not sure but thank you for the correction. RPlunk2853 (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lewisohn & Pollack on The Beatles

Thanks, I noticed that in my watchlist; thanks for tidying them up, I was intending to do that. His heart is obviously in the right place, and he now seems to be getting the hang of things. I'll keep an eye on things. Regards, --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I've heard of Mark Lewisohn, and he has given an ISBN, so I reckon that's good enough. I have most Beatles' stuff on watch anyway, so I'll drop him a note if he seems to be getting over-optimistic with his sources. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Andy Griffith

Truly sorry. Sometimes I end up hitting the revert button at times I really shouldn't.... Two One Six Five Five ^τ _ʃ 20:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligence

I have replied to your comment on my talk page. Pgr94 (talk) 23:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

ditto. Pgr94 (talk) 23:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

RFC placed at Talk:Intelligence. [2] WLU (talk) 13:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that for and against arguments have been presented at the RFC, I don't think my 'for' is comprehensive by any means, so please feel free to expand, modify or completely remove my point if you think there is a stronger way of presenting it. Strike it through or delete it if you wish, you've my blessing/permission/acknowledgment that I've probably done a shoddy job. WLU (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I have seen User:TimVickers comment at Talk:intelligence, I propose we wait a bit longer, perhaps a week, in case someone else wishes to provide a comment then attempt to resolve the issue. WLU (talk) 19:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rorschach page

The case for not showing the original inkblots needs your feedback. You could maybe add some references.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 02:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

If I find something, I'll post it. But I think it's a losing battle anyway. that is quite alright. I may take this all the way to arbritation, it would be a bad solution, but better than leaving the issue unresolved. I hope you find something.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 03:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for not knowing the difference between "psychiatrist" and "psychologist"; I'm not involved in the case... I think someone else was looking to pick it up. Just curious is all. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Linkspam

When I used the term linkspam, I am referring to WP:SPAM. On wikipedia, "spamming" could be the act of promoting a single website by repetitively adding it to multiple articles. I had previously tried to communicate with the user why the link was inappropriate, yet the user re-added it. On top of that, and much more importantly, the link clearly does not meet WP:EL. A) the page does not give more information about the topic. In fact, the link on that webpage about the topic takes you back to wikipedia. B) the page seems self-published/amateurish (hosted by a "free" company) C) the page is about a church, while the wikipedia article is about a person. The link is therefore off topic. D) wikipedia is not a web directory, especially not a place to link to everything that used and individual's name. Hope this explains my link removal. I'd be interested in hearing why you think it meets WP:EL, if you believe it does. Thanks for contacting me regarding this. -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Do you have much experience in developing sock puppet cases or advice on doing so? The time has come to do something about a situation, which may well be a difficult one to prove. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. This is something that another editor and I have had to deal with for some months now. We submitted a sock puppet report in November here but the time frame conspired against it, since it was Thanksgiving week. A lot of the activity at that time came from the UCLA library. I responded about it here. Since that time, two other ids have been used, including User talk:Debbiesvoucher and User talk:Nyannrunning. The articles in question are essentially the same as in the sock report, but have concentrated mostly on Dorothy Kilgallen, Janis Joplin and Johnnie Ray. The editing and grammar usage styles, talk page commentary, logic and reasoning, and edit summary styles are all the same. We opened a dispute resolution regarding Johnnie Ray, with the Dooyar identity, but he or she simply disappeared and it was closed. Since then, Dooyar returned briefly, but mostly it's been Nyannrunning. By now, all four of the registered identities have edited on some of these articles, especially the ones which tend toward dispute. Since some of these articles are actually quite obscure, it's odd to me that four people, using the same language style, would work on the same articles using the same obscure references (for example, discussing kinescope copies of TV shows or the same book), with the same points of view regarding relationships and sexuality, yada yada. Everything I know tells me they are the same, and since at least one of these articles is likely headed back to dispute, it seems to me it's an early effort to line up "support." I don't know, I just know that it's getting crowded. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moron

Would you block this moron please. He's doing my head in. Realist2 (talk) 02:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flag?

Why you deleted FLAG from Judd Nelson page? US - Jimmy Slade (talk) 14:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of keytarists: Jeff Abbott

Hello. I've started a section in this article's talk page so we can establish some consensus and avoid constant reversions. Please see Talk:List of keytarists#KeytarJeff/Jeff Abbott and weigh in with your view. Thanks. Nick Graves (talk) 02:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I went ahead and reported the IP user for violation of 3RR. S/he reverted one more time after you warned hir. Nick Graves (talk) 08:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thandie Newton

Hi. We do not use Wikipedia itself as a reference, so telling me to "read the article" in an edit summary is unhelpful. Please provide a reference for the category you wish to add as it is not mentioned in either of the references. Thanks. --John (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pulp Fiction

Thanks. I had already reverted the IP once before. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Help

Hey I'm the same guy that uses the account PadlockMan. I have a problem. I forgot my password for that account and I cannot remember that password at all. How do i get it back? Or what else should I do? I tried deleting that account but I couldn't do it. Any help please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.146.54 (talk) 23:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Minor edits and edit summaries

I apologize for my inconsiderate behavior when it came to my edits. I suppose I misunderstood the definition of a minor edit, but I understand it now and I'll not make the same mistake of marking larger edits as minor in my future edits. As for summaries, I suppose I thought I didn't need to explain some of them, but I shall in the future, for the sake of clarity, etc. Thank you for making me aware of my errors, and again, I apologize. TakaraLioness (talk) 02:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Headstrong Neiva

I have my own set of problems with Miss Neiva, so I keep an eye on her talk page. Your last warning seems a bit strong to me. Why do you think there is a policy against links to foreign language resources in Wikipedia?Kww (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia, and there are lots of English reviews. How many English Wikipedians can read Portuguese? And where do we draw the line? Shall we insert links to reviews in every conceivalbe language to any Wikipedia article? I don't want to get into an argument over this. If you wish to revert my edit, go ahead and I'll leave it alone. But I would seriously question the logic of what you're doing. Ward3001 (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I would hope that most English speakers could work their way through a Portuguese article, but that probably just shows that I moved to South America. My concern really isn't the review, it's the warning. You warned her that she could be blocked for including such reviews, and I don't think she can, because, unless you can show that she was being disruptive by including the review, it isn't a blockable offense. I don't want to put the review back, but I would like you to soften the warning.Kww (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. With all due respect, I'm getting more than a little tired of you self-righteously telling me (and probably many others) what to do. You've done this to me, quite unjustifiably, in the past, as well as refactoring my comments on someone's talk page. I'll revert my comment on the talk page, and I'll also be watching your edits. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 21:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you interpreted my request as a demand. I certainly tried to phrase it as a request. As for losing my temper in the face of an editor that kept edit-warring and refusing to talk, I most certainly screwed up. If I remember right, I got a couple of warnings from admins over it as well.Kww (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] American Sign Language

Although my edits to American Sign Language were sloppy, I do think that it needs a serious clean up. The list in the beginning needs to be put in a more-fleshed out History or perhaps Distribution section; it's too much detail for the summary that the lead is supposed to provide. And the gigantic Linguistics section definitely needs to be merged somewhere. ALTON .ıl 07:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I apologize for that. No, I don't know the language, I just have an interest in the idea. If you prefer then, I will not do any work on it. ALTON .ıl 19:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Carol Channing

Her father was at most half-black (based on her word only); making Carol, at most, a quadroon. To label her as African-American, would be silly and unrealistic.

Yours, Underbilled & Overworked (talk) 16:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

No, Tiger Woods is "CaBlAsian" by his own self-definition - a quarter black, a quarter white and half Asian (his mother is a Thai, from Thailand). He has never described himself as African-American to my knowledge. Underbilled & Overworked (talk) 17:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, you state "Many people consider him African-American. He is identified in his article as African-American" without sourcing this claim. I am not crazy about your disrespectful and accusatory tone. Remember WP:AGF. Underbilled & Overworked (talk) 17:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

"Fortunately, Wikipedia isn't written just on the basis of your knowledge" is disrespectful. And you have not yet even won the prima facie battle, much less the war. Let's see some hard evidence for Woods and especially Channing. Underbilled & Overworked (talk) 17:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You are wrong

The "I am the Walrus" lyric DOES appear in Chicago's song South California Purples. Don't just go around different Wikipedia pages deleting stuff because you think it isn't true. I spent a lot of time researching that and putting it on there. Here's a reference: http://www.seeklyrics.com/lyrics/Chicago/South-California-Purples.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kstern (talk • contribs) 15:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Carrell is hosting

Even look under the discussion page for Saturday Night Live season 33 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.67.120 (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Overeaters Anonymous

I moved the discussion about sources and attribution to the piece of information on food plans to the Overeaters Anonymous article's talk page. -- Scarpy (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalize Bio Page

I put the right age for Rachel McAdams bio, How is that vandalizing it? Someone put the wrong of for her.

--Lilmissy (talk) 00:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] talk page warning on Exenatide

I'm not the person who added that post back. I removed it and placed a template on the page so i am removing your comment from my talk page.Awotter (talk) 20:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cedar Hill

I created the category. Now the links are blue. Yes, Cedar Hill is a cemetery, not a town. I guess it could be misleading, but I thought Cedar Hill noteables sounded better. Chrissypan (talk) 18:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Relax, dude. I'll change it. Just tell me how, since Id on't know how to edit the title of the category, and I'll use the naming suggested by the other member. Chrissypan (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll fix it later on tonight... I have to get going. Thanks for the guidance. If you want to, you can go ahead and do it. If not, I'll just do it when I get home tonight. Chrissypan (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I made the changes. It's a confusing process but I'm pretty sure I did it correctly. Chrissypan (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Piped link

Thanks for your comment. I had found out about that a bit ago. (Wikilinks were a headache before!) I didn't use it here, because I didn't want to mess things up too much and there might be a page for dislocation going up in the future. There is a problem on that page , though because the conditions that have the multifactorial inheritance are actually cases of hip dysplasia. Dislocation is only part of that complex. The term "congenital" with regard to hip dysplasia/dislocation is considered obsolete by most sources these days. The condition is not yet fully understood, but there seem to be cases that have mainly mechanical causes with no apparent genetic link. --Lisa4edit (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism on Liesel Matthews?

Excuse me, but how is THAT vandalism? There are plenty of other pages that have interviews linked to them that the celebrity has dne AND aren't references to the celebrity's Wikipedia page. I don't get what the big deal is and I find it strange that you seem to be the only one that keeps editing out what I put on Liesel's Wikipedia page. There is nothing wrong with it. I also see that you have claimed vandalism on some other people on your discussion page. Hmm. --MadisonGold (talk) 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ward3001, can you reconsider your decision to remove the link to the interview for Liesel Matthews? You removed it saying that it adds no new information however most of the interview talks about her acting career and experiences yet currently there is very little in her article about her acting. And Wikipedia:EL#What should be linked #4 says links to interviews should be included. Granted, there isn't much there but there aren't that many interviews for her available so I don't think it would be asking for much to let this one stay in there. For An Angel (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean to say that everything in the interview was useful, my point was that your saying that it added no new information was incorrect. Besides, what difference does it make if it's used as a reference or an external link? For An Angel (talk) 23:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to make any assumptions either but you seem to have a very condescending attitude. You say that if I feel strongly enough that there's anything in the interview that is worth adding that it's up to me to add it but you already said that you don't think there's anything there worth adding so I know you'll just revert me so what would be the point? For An Angel (talk) 23:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

But you already said that you think that there is nothing there worth adding so anything that I add you will think should be removed. Anyway this is not something worth arguing about. I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. For An Angel (talk) 12:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cousin couple

Just letting you know I am restoring the link to parallel cousin. You said that it didn't have anything to do with cousins marrying, but the article does in fact directly discuss the different attitude to marriage between parallel and cross cousins in some cultures and has a section discussing the possible reason for this. I think there should be a paragraph on this in the Cousin couple article itself, but it's not my area, so I just added the link. Robina Fox (talk) 23:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. I would have taken it, but see you are ahead of me. I still think the article is relevant enough to justify a cross-reference under See Also, but okay. Robina Fox (talk) 23:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Minor Edits

Thank you for your note on the definition of a "Minor Edit." And I will definitely keep this in mind on my future edits.

Sorry that you think I'm being "rude." Sometimes someone does things out of ignorance, and with no malice intended, which was truly the case here. I certainly wasn't trying to pull a "fast one" on your or anyone else at Wikipedia. Asc85 (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Far from Heaven

Thanks for the heads-up; I've realized that I should have been clearer in my edit summary. Let me know if my revisions are acceptable, though I think it may be worth mentioning the other awards, too, to lessen the focus on the Oscars. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rfa

You might find this amusing. Occuli (talk) 08:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] EoGuy

Actually, his edits were quite correct. "The Beatles" refers to a single entity--the band--therefore, as a singular noun, the use of singular verbs is quite correct. That it is made up of many people does not change the fact that, syntactically, it is a single entity. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply here. Ward3001 (talk) 17:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, it's generally known that British bands are referred to as "are". He'll learn :-) Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 17:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

From EoGuy:

I wish I knew how to repond to these criticisms.

"The Beatles" is the name of a group. So, "Beatles is" in that context is correct.

However, when you are mentioning appearances by that group "Beatles are" is correct.

EoGuy, Mesa AZ, USA (in English Wikipedia) EoGuy, Mesao, Arizono, Usono (in Esperanto Vikipedio) (Eo is the abbreviation for the Esperanto language.)

PS - I am a retired English teacher and compulsively make corrections. In the near future I may continue so to do.

PPS - You may contact me directly at azespero@yahoo.com if you wish.

az = Arizona, espero = Esperanto for "hope" —Preceding unsigned comment added by EoGuy (talk • contribs) 22:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No where did I say the following quote: "staff found her in the bathroom having sex with another patient"

Neither does the url link I posted mention that. The url I posted talked about how Tony Allen's wife is divorcing Tony Allen because she believes the allegations that Lindsay Lohan had sex with Tony Allen in the bathroom at a rehab clinic in Utah.

I would appreciate it if you did not threaten me anymore about blocking my account for defamation. Even if I made an argument that relied on a quote that is a rumor, that is not defamation.

Furthermore, your script must be outdated and in error. First, it did not give any link for "policies against defamation." Second, the phrase "inserting controversial, unconfirmed, defamatory content into any Wikipedia page" is in error. My comment was controversial, unconfirmed, but it was not "defamatory." However, for that phrase all you have to do is say "inserting defamatory content into any Wikipedia page," which I did not do. It is a rumor, something that has not been verified to be true or untrue through reliable third party sources.

Thus, I do not understand why you threaten me with a defamation warning about a discussion about a rumor. The most that is, is something that is not verifiable, but you were threatening based on "defamation." Sp0 (talk) 04:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

No where did I say the following quote: "staff found her in the bathroom ...": You said it here, here, here, and here.

"a rumor, that is not defamation"": Wrong. Making public statements (and a Wikipedia talk page is very public) about someone based on rumors IS defamation. Ask any attorney.

"it did not give any link for "policies against defamation."": Read WP:BLP and WP:LIBEL. Please read them thoroughly. You are in violation of Wikipedia policy. The first time may have been because you did not understand. Continuing to do so after it is explained constitutes vandalism and will result in a block. I don't plan to continue arguing basic Wikipedia policy with you. If you don't add more libelous content, we're fine. If you do, I will not discuss; you will simply be blocked. Ward3001 (talk) 15:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

First, I did not say the said quote. I paraphrased what I read.

Second, a rumor is not necessarily defamation. Defamation is making a false statement and expressing it to be true. For this rumor, it has not be proven to be false. Furthermore, Wikipedia says that burden that it is a false claim is placed upon who the statement was made out [3]. Again, it is a rumor. Therefore, future justified grounds for blocking me would be based on verifiability and not on being defamation of libel. To illustrate this, if Lindsay Lohan did have sex with a patient in a bathroom while she was at a rehab clinic and someone tells lots of people this information; then, it is a rumor and it actually happened. That is not defamation. If you ran a stop light and I do not know you, yet I publish in a newspaper that you ran a stop light; then that is not defamation because it is not a false claim. It is a claim that has not been verified. Sp0 (talk) 05:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) This is my last round with you because I don't have time to argue fundamental Wikipedia policy that everyone is required to follow. As I said, if you add rumors that could be considered defamatory again you will be blocked. That's the bottom line no matter what kind of excuses you try to come up with. "First, I did not say the said quote. I paraphrased what I read": You did not indicate that it is a paraphrase. You said "staff found her in the bathroom having sex with another patient" as if it was a fact. And secondly, whether it's a paraphrase or not, you are the one adding the information in a manner to make it look like a fact, and that is defamatory. "[Defamation]] is making a false statement and expressing it to be true": Correct, and that's what you did. You don't know what Lohan did, but you wrote the statement as if it was true. "Furthermore, Wikipedia says that burden that it is a false claim is placed upon who the statement was made out [sic].": And when you placed it in the article without indicating that it is a rumor of which you have no knowledge, then you are making a potentially libelous statement based on rumor. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Not a tabloid. It has no place for rumors, especially when they are written as if true. "if Lindsay Lohan did have sex with a patient in a bathroom while she was at a rehab clinic and someone tells lots of people this information; then, it is a rumor and it actually happened. That is not defamation.": But you DON'T KNOW that it actually happened, so when YOU wrote the statment (four times) "The worst thing I remember about Lindsey Lohan in the news was while she was in a drug rehab clinic, staff found her in the bathroom ... (etc.)", YOU added defamatory content to Wikipedia. Once again, no need for you to continue this debate because I'm not wasting my time any more. But you will be blocked if you add defamatory content to any part of Wikipedia again. Ward3001 (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I added poorly verified content to wikipedia. You cannot say it is defamatory unless you prove it is a false claim. I do not understand why you persist on arguing that it is defamatory because that line of argument is unsound, unfruitful, and a waste of time unless you wish to understand semantics of "defamation." You arguments that is what I did are unsound. This can simply be said by saying that the claim has not been proven true or untrue; therefore, it cannot be judged to be defamation or not defamation. You give me truism statements, but that does not matter. It does not matter if I make a bunch of guesses about Lindsay Lohan because that is not a necessity to something being defamation. Defamation is making a false claim to be true. By that token, I could make a bunch of guesses about something I do not know and about someone who I do not know, if those claims are guesses that are also true claims; then that is not defamation. Again, it is fruitless to continue to argue that I defamed someone when those claims have not been proven true or untrue (neither one nor the other). Therefore, judgment of defamation has no backing. Now, if you argued that the comment is poorly verified; then, that is grounds for being blocked, based on wikipedia's policy. However, in three comments to me, you continue to pursue defamation even after I told you that being unverified is a more sound argument. Sp0 (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

           "You cannot say it is defamatory unless you prove it is a false claim": With that kind of pitifully absurd logic, I could claim that you secretly are a Satan-worshiper, and you could not argue defamation because you can never prove a negative. So go ahead: prove you are not a secret Satan-worshipper. If you say no one has ever seen you worship Satan, remember that you have to prove that no one has ever seen you worship Satan, and you have to prove that you've never done it secretly. Want to accuse a politician of having sex with children? With your logic that's just fine as long as the poltician can't prove that he doesn't.
           No court, judge, or lawyer in the world would buy such an argument that flies in the face of page one of an elementary logic book. The more you argue this, the deeper you dig yourself into a quagmire of nonsense. I don't know how you came to conclude that anyone can say anything about anyone as long as it can't be proven that it's not true. Even more baffling, I can't understand how you concluded that Wikipedia condones this kind of editing. End of discussion. Ward3001 (talk) 00:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

In that quote, I was restating what I cited in the previous comment. Wikipedia's article on defamation says that in many legal systems, the plaintiff has to prove that the statements/claims are false in order for a person to be guilty of defamation. [4]

I could easily prove I am not a "secret" Satan worshiper by showing that I worship Satan openly. However, if the slander against me was that I worship Satan, instead. I could prove that I worship some other god and worshiping Satan would go against worshiping that other god. Or, I could state that I do not worship anything. The proof of that would be based on interference of little bits of information to form the argument that I do not worship Satan, for instance I worship many other gods, a god that is directly opposite of that god, or I do not worship any other things. Again, the argument would be based on inference and the proof of the argument would be inferences/premises.

A politician could also argue by inference, such as that is not part of their character or that they love their wife too much. They could also argue based on inference that the accuser has no way of knowing such information, the politician does not have a history of being a sexual predator, and also also inference of people who know the politician's character not to do such a thing. Again, such a general claim could be argued against by using inference logic/arguments. I am not sure about jury, judges, or any other judgments of inferential arguments.

Specific claims about a specific place, time, and incident could be based on deduction and easier to judge as to what is true or not.

I personally, have some trouble with the absolutely of inferential arguments. The judgments might be bested on who or what is presented as the best argument or arguments. I am not sure about that matter. However again, I said that comments are not defamation unless they can be proven false. That is what wikipedia's article on defamation says. [5] I have also given you ways how something can be proven false based on your examples. They can be proven false through inferential arguments. I think inferential arguments are not as great as deductive arguments because I think they are not necessarily absolute, but they are judged to be the best arguments. Now, talking about inferential arguments in relation to truth in particular is another topic.

You are right that anyone can say anything about anyone, but it does not matter about proof truth or falsity. Freedom of speech is something difficult to stop because it is something that seems to be inherent.

Now, saying certain things has consequences and matters might be brought to court. In court, the plaintiff would have to prove that the claim is false, and they can do this based on inference for general cases like you stated or deduction for specific cases of a certain time, place, and incident. There could be other ways to press charges of defamation.

Now, I am not sure what you are assuming that I think Wikipedia condones. I did not say that Wikipedia condones poorly verified statements/claims, which are what my comments about Lindsay Lohan were. I also did not say that Wikipedia condones defamation, which my statements have not been proven to be by you.

Good bye and good luck. Sp0 (talk) 05:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A little help?

You know your way around these parts much better than I do. Would you know to revert the vandalism back to the previous version by the user named Ashton? Chrissypan (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC) Sorry! The article about Pauly Shore has been vandalized. I don't know how to revert it back to the way it was prior to the vandalism. Do you have to do that by hand, or is there a code for that? Chrissypan (talk) 18:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Morgellons

Per your comment, "If others don't weigh in, we might need an RfC to get more opinions." If you still think it might be helpful, would you post that on the talk page? I tried but was not able to format the header and reason correctly. Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 21:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Portman

Hi, I practice the "be bold" philosophy encouraged in the Wikipedia guidelines. You mentioned the dysfunction of the Wikipedia project on your user page. In my humble opinion, some of the problems with Wikipedia articles are 1) inclusion of trivia (laundry list of every person an actor went on one date with, being pulled over by police for having an expired registration) 2) a lack of editing (in the sense of cutting and pruning, as is practiced in newspapers and magazines) 3) a sort of hodge-podgy structure, as new sections and headings keep being added. The "be bold" philosophy helps to resolve these three issues. OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 04:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you for the suggestion to use more of a consensus approach. Regarding the gloss, I don't have an official Wikipedia rule to back me up, but I think that the text should be reasonably self-sufficient, so that a typical reader can go through the text without clicking on Wikilinks. For example, while no gloss is needed in a sentence like "George Harrison learned to play the sitar for the album XXXX", I would suggest that a gloss would help a reader for a sentence about a little-known instrument (e.g., "For the album XXXX, George Harrison learned to play the bazooka, a rare, novelty brasswind musical instrument which is several feet in length and incorporates telescopic tubing like the trombone.") On a technical note, could there be cases where the article is licensed to another location, in such a way that the Wikilinks don't work? (I don't know, it is just a question).OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 04:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you for your note in reply. By the way, I looked up the consensus guideline you sent, and than reviewed the "Be Bold" guideline, and I must admit to doing a rather selective reading of the "Be Bold" guideline. I think I was interpreting it as "just go onto the page, and do whatever you think needs to be done, without reading the talk page discussions." The "Be Bold" guidelines clearly state that IF you are practicing "Be Bold"-ness, you should do it carefully, and read the talk page first, to get a sense of the way editors are thinking about the page...................................................Back to the technical issue...When Wikipedia articles are licensed to other websites (under the GFDL), I was wondering if the licensees always import the wikitext HTML markup, including the Wikilinks. Could it be that in some cases, a Wikipedia article appears just as "text", with inoperative Wikilinks? If this were the case, then it would help to justify adding glosses. Thanks for the advice on seeking consensus. : ) ..... OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 17:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV pushing

I must take issue with being accused of being a "POV-pusher". In the Michael Medved article, PZ Myers never directly asserted that he was racist, true, but he ironically asked "Is it National Flaming Racist week, or what?". And keep in mind, Medved was saying that Americans are genetically superior in the area of enterprise.

Plus, the changes to the Enoch Powell and Richard Dawkins were in a spirit of neutrality. The idea of British nationality is extremely controversial, whereas the idea of English or Scottish or Welsh nationality is not. I do apologise if I came off as a "POV-pusher", but I believe I'm quite the opposite.

All the best --78.16.67.223 (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I haven't edited to Wikipedia in quite a long time. so I might be a bit rusty. I'll try not to make the same mistakes again, and I certainly won't edit those articles to say English instead of British again, although I'd be very relieved if we could get some solid expert anthropological opinion on the status of British nationality. Cheers. --78.16.67.223 (talk) 21:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Winona Ryder Editing

Hello. Recently a few edits have been undone by you on the Winona Ryder page. Apparently my username and account was indicated to be the perpetrator. I have never edited anything even closely related to Winona Ryder. My computer is secure, as are my passwords/log-in inoformation. Not sure how these edits could be attributed to my username or how my username could have been used to make them. thanks. Jpj681 (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sally Hemings

Not sure if you're aware, but you shouldn't revert anymore on this article today per WP:3RR. I'll keep it in my watchlist. --Ave Caesar (talk) 18:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tweety21 checkuser case

Just an FYI, if you have anything that might help: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser#Tweety21_.287th_request.29 Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 23:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

No problemo. Both accounts have been blocked, so now all we do is wait for the next sock, or more legal threats. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lindsay Lohan

Engagement with Ronson: Some quality newspapers have already taken up the story, so, it is referenced adequeately. Ie: Belgian newspaper 'De Standaard', http://www.standaard.be/Artikel/Detail.aspx?artikelId=DMF27052008_080&ref=nieuwsoverzicht

Hello,

the treatment by the media of the Lindsay Lohan/Samantha Ronson story is admittedly crass, but the attention over it justifies its inclusion in these ladies' respective articles. I never had any intention of including tabloid fodder on wikipedia just for the heck of it. The info is now duly referenced. Wedineinheck (talk) 08:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Parallel Cousins

On Feb 6, 2007, I created the 'Family taboos and kinship' section in parallel cousin, citing the source as Maynard Smith, 1978. Today, I noticed that one erroneous and one poorly written edit had crept into that section over the past year, and I fixed them earlier, clarifying the logic behind the error to prevent repetition of the misunderstanding. I added no novel content requiring further citation, certainly nothing beyond the limits of the section I originally created, yet you undid my edit, claiming "unsourced changes". The source is clearly cited at the beginning of the section; if this source was inadequate to support my corrections today, it must also have been an inadequate basis for the very creation of the section, for I added no further factual information today, but simply clarified a point of logic which had led to a mistaken edit.

Your reversion resurrected the erroneous claim (added on August 2 2007) that it is possible for apparent parallel-cousins to be "half-siblings, borne by the same mother". This is not possible: two children of the same mother would not be classified as cousins: they are siblings, and it doesn't take a further source to support that logical point. As I pointed out in my clarification, which you also removed, the only potential source of confusion lies on the father's side, and paternity uncertainty is the basis for the argument. This is all quite clear in the source I cited. Your reversion also changed my statement "This possibility is much less likely for cross-cousins" back to "This possibility does not exist for cross-cousins". The possibility DOES exist, as was pointed out (in flawed English) on August 16th, and I had updated my original text to reflect this insightful addition.

Perhaps you could take a little time to read the full details of each aspect of an edit and consider its logic before you decide to make a wholesale reversion of all the work under the umbrella justification of "unsourced changes". Just because an edit is 1) recent and/or 2) made by an unregistered user, does not make it entirely invalid, and even if certain parts do not meet your interpretation of citation policy, other parts may represent important corrections or contributions that should remain. If you still want to revert certain of my changes, perhaps you could do so more selectively and thoughtfully, on a claim-by-claim basis.

The only new claim I made which might require further support was the following: "However, such wife-sharing is less likely to occur between Ego's father and Ego's maternal uncle than between Ego's father and Ego's paternal uncle." Accordingly, I removed this claim when I undid your revert. Thank you for bringing this to my attention, but the rest of my edits are necessary corrections and clarifications that need to remain.

The source is cited right at the bottom of the page, under External Links. It contains the book title, year and publisher, and in undoing your latest reversion, I also added the ISBN and page number. I must note that none of the other content on that page has anything resembling an academically legitimate source, rather, it contains links to unsourced websites maintained by various anthropology departments. As a professed academic, you should realize that these links are far less verifiable than my contribution, and less clearly cited in the text. If my contributions are not cited properly, then nothing on that page is, and shouldn't you remove the entire page to conform to your verifiability notions? It seems you are irrationally privileging older information and applying lower verifiability standards, for no other reason than that it is older. Again, just because a change is more recent does not mean it must bear a heavier burden of verifiability than an older version: if my corrections are inadequately sourced, then so is my original section, and indeed the entire page.

More importantly, I cannot understand why you would revert all the changes at once, even though I've shown you that the earlier version is factually incorrect. If the citation is inappropriately formatted, why would you not fix it? Why instead choose to revert to erroneous information? Your actions are inconsistent and incomprehensible. If you want to be useful, you could fix the citation to whatever format you deem correct, rather than reverting the whole page to give incorrect information. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.202.79.74 (talk) 19:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't mention which aspect of the citation policy has concerned you in this case, but I've created a references section and linked a reference to the source in the text, and I can't see how it can still be inappropriately cited. I hope that's the problem you had in mind, but if there is some other aspect of the citation policy I need to fix, please just let me know so I can fix it, rather than undoing all the corrections again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.202.79.74 (talk) 20:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thandie Newton

Thanks for the heads up - I didn't check the article properly. I've readded the infor with a source. Amo (talk) 19:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kill Bill Character List

Thank you for your concern. Corrected.Luminum (talk) 01:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Taylor Momsen

You sent me a message about unsourced info on Taylor Momsen, well, my cousin goes to her school and is in some of her classes. I couldn't find a source on the internet, but I know that it's true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.10.205 (talk) 02:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Found a source. http://www.buzznet.com/tags/tv/polls/70531/

That's the school, Winston Churchill High School in Potomac, Maryland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.10.205 (talk) 19:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Samantha Ronson

Recently you told me I was going to be banned if I vandalised again because I wrote on Samantha Ronson's page about a report I read in LOOK magazine that LIndsay Lohan told her ex Calum Best she was going to marry her in July at Dolly Parton's Theme Park. Well this is unfair because I read it in an article in LOOK magazine. If you don't believe me buy a LOOK magazine from England. It reports it. Please RSVP as I do not like to be accused of vandalism when there is no evidence that it is untrue. Here are some sources I have found for you -

http://www.welt.de/english-news/article2038376/Lindsay_Lohan_has_announced_she_wants_to_marry_Samantha_Ronson..html

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4563165a1860.html

Also I noticed how I said it was recently reported in Look magazine I never said it was true. I'd really appreciate it if you'd get your facts right if you intend on acting like a vigilante.

You recently erased a revision I did on the Samantha Ronson wiki page. The TMZ video you referenced is MISLABELED and if you actually watch the video, you can hear the paparazzi ask her to clear up the ENGAGEMENT rumors, not any relationship or gay rumors. Listen to the video. When I made that revision, I also added a spot on the discussion page asking for input and have yet to receive any but I'm clearly hearing "engagement rumors". I'm reverting your edits. She has not made a denial of any romantic relationship to my knowledge. TheGifted1 (talk) 02:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thandie Newton

I watched a programme on June 4th at 6.30pm on BBC2 in Britain ("A Taste of My Life") which featured Thandie Newton.She clearly stated while being interviewed that she was born in London (not Zambia),but emigrated with her family to the African country stated in early childhood before returning again to Britain to settle in Cornwall.Your assumption that I deliberately 'vandalised' Miss Newton's page on Wikipedia is very misguided and with no foundation whatsoever as I've always,and will always,attempt to be truthful and honest in contributions to Wikipedia.

I think confirmation from Miss Newton's own lips herself that she was born in London is pretty reliable evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.22.238 (talk) 23:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Beatles

I think its best to leave it till tomorrow, hes clearly on a mission and isnt going to stop. Rod will hopefully do something but hes gone to bed now. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 02:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ok=

See the talk page on Formation and evolution of the solar system. And have a nice day.Andycjp (talk) 03:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John Lennon name

I'm pretty sure he didnt remove the Winston part of his name. I once read his will online and he refered to himself as John Winston Ono Lennon. Here are a few links to his will I found using Google [6] [7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omarraii (talk • contribs) 14:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Wise

What policy are you referring to that mandates that categories be verified by sourced statements? The policy you linked to (WP:V) does not discuss categories. Furthermore, only direct quotations and statements likely to be challenged require sources, according to WP:V (are you challenging the fact that he's Jewish?). Maybe you would do well to read Wikipedia:When to cite.

Honestly, your objections strike me as petty and hypocritical. None of the categories for the Tim Wise article are sourced because the article has literally no sources. Why are you objecting to the insertion of this one category? Additionally, why did you remove the category and respond snarkily on my talk page when you could have easily included the word "Jewish" in the article with the source?--Irn (talk) 02:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)