User talk:John Carter/Archive Dec 2007

Have at it! You really have to wonder what subject I edited across to attract that sort of thing. I must be doing something right. -- SECisek 20:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

--Andrew c ^[talk] 22:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Notice that my comments have been blanked from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Agriculture and about five other talk pages. Call your favorite admins, we need them. Montanabw^(talk) 19:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

You are already in debate on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Agriculture, if you note edit history of both discussion page and project page, that's two. Phony warning to me here, blanked my comments here, oh heck, read his talk page, you will note there is a pattern here, oh heck, now I have admins on MY butt. HELLLLP!!! Montanabw^(talk) 19:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry you got drug into this. I was only trying to cool things down over on the Agriculture page but it backfired completely. Sigh. Montanabw^(talk) 20:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes he does! Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yep, I trust you've gotten the idea that warning or reverting editors over these sorts of removals only inflames the situation.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I see you are a member of WP:NEVADA, do you live there? I am looking for a photographer, skill is not a necessity, I just need pictures of a house, any help or even a direction you could point me in would be great. Thanks.IvoShandor 10:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC) (bump)Reply

I'm sorry, I checked there earlier and didn't see the reply then. :) I found some stuff on Flickr and I think I have traced the actual photographer's account (they were consistently reproduced even on Flickr despite the copyright status, so I will inquire there about those pictures. Thanks for your response, I also have some other options, I know some people in the area, whether I can convince them to go do this, well I will have to see. IvoShandor 23:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much for creating this wonderful portal. A couple things. First, why does it still have lots of redlinks? And second, I really think that for an article from the project to be featured in the portal, it must be quality material. Thus, I think that only articles that have been passed as either WP:GA or WP:FA on Wikipedia should be featured at Portal:Scientology. Your thoughts? Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 14:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC).Reply

• Maybe that's too harsh criteria. I would revise it to include only current WP:GA and WP:FA, as well as WP:FFA, because those at one point had consensus as an FA, so that is saying something. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 14:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC).Reply
  • Well, we certainly won't get the FP with the current B quality articles featured, in my estimation, so it's a catch 22. Why not simply start with the smaller amount of a pool to choose from, it is quite possible that in the coming months, we will have a large pool. Perhaps not of too many more FAs, but I have a feeling hopefully some more GAs. Other than this discussion, how else can I help you and what are the other criterion for FP ? Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 14:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC).Reply
  • Also, do you like the image I am currently using as the default portal icon from now on? Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 14:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC).Reply
    • Portal:Psychology is by far the best and most comprehensive and active Featured Portal I have ever seen. We should model the portal after that. So, no "Suggestions" redlinks, but instead the links they use, and the criteria they use for inclusion as well. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 15:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC).Reply

Hi Curt & John, I saw the note on the Religion Portal talk page about adding a Scientology Portal link. I'll do that in the next few days if no one else does. Other points... You don't need featured or good articles to get a featured portal. Important and complete is a better way to think about what you might include. The best place to start for feedback is Wikipedia:Portal peer review. That gives you a good idea of where things stand. You can look on my user page for examples of featured portals I designed. Take a look at Wikipedia:Featured portals for the complete list. You also can get some clues about what to do at Wikipedia talk:Featured portal criteria Regards, RichardF 17:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

• RichardF (talk · contribs), thank you for taking the initiative to come here and offer us advice, that was very kind! We'll take a look at the suggestions you mentioned, and as the portal develops, try to implement them and go for a Wikipedia:Portal peer review. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 19:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC).Reply

• John, I made some adjustments to the portal subpages, modeling after Wikipedia:Featured portals, Portal:Psychology. Let me know what you think. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 00:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC).Reply
  • I have a few more creative changes in mind before a Peer Review, bear with me a moment or two... Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 01:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC).Reply

Thinking about a review in a bit

• We need to have 10 featured pieces (not WP:FA), just featured in our portal, in each of the sections that recycle random material, before we can go for a review and stand a good chance. I expanded 10 for the bios, trying to keep and even keel between successful scientologists and controversy, and men and women. I also added a few to the pictures segment, same deal, trying to give a nice light and some controversial history highlights touched upon. Now to see if we actually have 10 nice articles to highlight. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 04:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC).Reply
  • So now I completed the 10 images with a nice pic of Hubbard's navy vessel. We currently only have 5 articles in the portal. Do you think we should add in the other two GAs that are currently not there? I am working on getting some other related articles up to GA status, but FA status might take a deal more time. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 05:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC).Reply

{{WPMILHIST}} generates those assessment categories because that's what Phoenix-wiki asked for. I don't particularly care one way or the other (although I think the current approach will reduce the desire to double-tag articles); you guys just need to decide if you want them or not, and I'll change the template to suit. Kirill 18:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I asked because of the double tagging thing, but another way around it would be to create stat box as a subpage of WP:HIST with it on. I'll rmv it if you want but I think it's a pretty good idea, seeing as it's for version 1.0.--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 18:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

If you want, ask him to remove it. I don't mind to be honest. Forget what I just said--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 18:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Okay, we'll remove it then, like I just said. Could you see to it cos I'm kinda busy right now--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 19:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

'Tis done. ;-) Kirill 03:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish my twenty favorite fellow Wikipedians a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

If you'll refer to the AE talk page, you'll see there is one split scenario I could accept, as I see that it would have the best chance of being balanced from the start. It's just Dab's splitting scenario which I can't accept as such. However, I would personnally prefer the article be kept as one for now (it's not huge), but I can compromise some, as long as a separation is done with the proper care, and to me, that would mean a 3-way split.--Ramdrake 15:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

So you spotted me reeviving that too? Yes, assessing importance seems a good idea. Maybe we should do it with history too--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 21:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Any idea who is gonna make the decision to promote Zinta to A class? We now have 7 clear supports ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 22:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi John. Due to the strong support for the article I do think with perhaps only very minor adjustments it is up to FA standard. Therefore I am proposing it for an FA now. I am using the A-class nomination which received a significant turn out as a form of peer review which has persuaded me to nominate it so soon. I hope this is OK - I have also contacted the league of copyeditors who can hopefully do anything that needs adjusting. Your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Preity Zinta would be warmly appreciated thanks. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 10:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

P.S if you are going for adminship (which I certainly wouldn't want to do!!) I would also offer my strong support for you. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 10:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I normally discuss these things via email but you don't seem to have one set. I was wondering if you wanted nominating for adminship. I'd be willing to nominate you--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 23:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'd be happy to second it. (Emperor 23:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC))Reply

I would gladly third it. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 00:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC).Reply

I replied on my talk. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 00:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC).Reply

No worries - just keep it in mind. I think if you looked into it what they require isn't so exacting but in the end it is your call. (Emperor 00:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC))Reply

Could you do the technlogy categories the same way you did the history ones? thabks--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 17:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'd like you to organise the categories like Category:Stub-Class history articles for an example. Put the links at the top etc. I'm doing some other stuff with WP:TECHNOLOGY now so I'd be grateful if you'd do it, thanks--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 17:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

In partial answer to your wondering about Lentz's contributions to the books, I found the following on a promotional page:

Christ in the Margins
by Edwina Gateley and icons by Br. Robert Lentz, ofm
"Christ in the Margins features forty Br. Robert Lentz icons and biographies of Christ-figures who confound the status quo. Together with Edwina Gateley’s lyrical portraits of contemporary men and women who have revealed the Christ-presence to her in the most unlikely places, it is both profoundly spiritual and spiritually profound."

and
A Passion for Life Fragments of the Face of God
by Joan D. Chittister, OSB and icons by Br. Robert Lentz, ofm
"Benedictine Sister Joan Chittister reflects on the lives and gifts of saints and heroes throughout history, women and men who each reflect a facet of the face of God. This book includes icons by Br. Robert Lentz of Pope John XXIII, Hildegard of Bingen, Martin Luther King, Jr., Saints Francis and Clare, Dorothy Day, Teresa of Avila, Archbishop Oscar Romero, Edith Stein, and many others."

Obviously, these quotes are not appropriate to the article, but I thought they might help answer what you were wondering.  :) 00:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Cell Signaling: Is your offer still on the table? Biochemza 15:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:A-Class Academy Awards articles, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:A-Class Academy Awards articles has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:A-Class Academy Awards articles, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 19:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sam Blacketer 20:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

There are a few things going on right now in WikiProject Maryland that I thought all members should know about, especially the first one.

• Not too long ago, Marylandstater raised the question of exactly how many members of the project are still active. For this reason, I'm asking everyone who is still active, and wants to remain in the project, to put an asterisk (*) after their username on the project's participants list. You have until the end of November 17, 2007 to do so, sometime after that, all the names that do not have an asterisk will be removed. This is just to clean up the ever expanding list. If you've been gone and come back to find that you've been removed from the list, don't take it personally, just re-add yourself! I won't feel bad at all if no one gets removed, in fact, it would be nice if all 30 members still consider themselves active. Also, this won't affect the two subprojects, but speaking of the subprojects...
• As of sometime next week WikiProject Baltimore City College will be no more. Myself, Golem88991, and John Carter have decided to make it into a task force of WikiProject Maryland. If you have any objections, concerns, or comments, please post them in the talk page topic concerning this.

Now for the exiting news:

• I'm pleased to announce the creation of the Baltimore Task Force! Those interested in contributing to Wikipedia's numerous articles related to Maryland's largest city, now have a place to collaborate.
• I'd also like to take this time to propose a project newsletter. Any comments should be directed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maryland#Newsletter.

A couple last things:

• The portal is in desperate need of maintenance, anyone who's interested, go check it out.
• It's probably a good idea to add the project page (and thus the project talk page) to your watchlist. That way, you can easily see when new comments are posted.

I hope you read through all that ;). Thanks to all members for your contributions to the project's articles so far, let's keep up the good work!
Sincerely, -Jeff ^(talk) 05:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

The October 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 15:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC) Reply

Wikipedia:WikiProject Belarus has been created, you had expressed an interest! Chris 17:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Thank you for your feedback, however I cannot move it to user namespace as I haven't got admin PhilB 20:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ah how very naive of me {groan}. Sorry I have never used it before! BTW is it possible to move a template (this one inparticular) to the user namespace? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philipbembridge (talk • contribs) 20:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

{grr sign bot damn you I keep forgetting!} Thankyou! PhilB 20:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your kind words John. I have been working on the Scientology articles for over a year now and find that I am probably too emotionally involved now. I don't expect to spend much time, if any, on the project anymore. I also find that I can do more good elsewhere. For instance I recently made some major improvements to Yoko Ono and no one got upset. Wishing you well as always. Steve Dufour 22:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I can understand, believe me. If you ever think be of any help to you, let me know. John Carter 22:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks again. Steve Dufour 01:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure if I should put this under the DYK box to keep things in chronological order or below it to keep the box in its prominent spot at the very bottom of the page.

Anyway, thanks for your remark on my talk page. As I've mentioned to the others who have brought this up, I'm really uncertain as to whether I'd want to be an administrator. I have to think about it for a while. I also want to take this month and probably next month to work on what I see as my own weaker points before I even contemplate it, which is a good exercise regardless of any possible RfA nomination. In the meantime, though, it's very gratifying to know that some people feel that way.

Best,

Doczilla 17:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi John,

I noticed your post on the Administrator's Noticeboard about needing administrators. I would like to become an administrator, and if I were elected, I would help with new page patrols. I'm not sure if I have a good chance of election, though. Also, I imagine it would be bad form for me to nominate myself. I hope it's OK for me to ask. (It seems like the coaching page is backlogged.)

Best wishes,

Gnfgb2 18:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Bummer. I do have a little over 300 and I did edit as an IP for a while, but I understand that's certainly not 5000. Thanks for the reply, though.--Gnfgb2 19:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

--Carabinieri 19:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

HI john. I'm absolutely appalled now that the same few who ganged up the stop Preity Zinta becoming a feature are now intentionally trying to demote it not only from an A but below a GA back to a B with a Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. This is a disgrace and i tlooks as though they are going to ruin everything. How could this happen? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 10:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC) Reply

I'm thinking it might be best to present the information regarding Michael's at least occasionally dubious activity in chronological order, as that would be probably the way in which the arbitrators would understand it most easily. That would in effect be requesting you to present the first statement of those who question Michael's conduct. Would you be willing to do this? In any event, I believe that, at this point, the end may be finally in sight regarding this matter. John Carter 16:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately, my time is too limited to participate in this action so you will have to proceed without me. --Loremaster 12:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I will proceed forward without Loremaster to make the opening remarks for evidence. However, my immediate priority is work with Str1977 to address the objections of FAR. Ovadyah 14:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

John, I am finished presenting my evidence to ArbCom. I focused my efforts on misleading and fraudulent content. Unfortunately, I used up my 100 diffs, and there are still some things that need to be covered or could use more coverage.

1. Eisenman & Tabor conflations resulting in misleading or fraudulent content
2. Refusal to cite sources and provide specific evidence to support claims
3. Personal attacks
4. Persistent disruptive editing against the consensus of four editors
5. Disregard for Wiki policies
6. How all of the above was the main reason for demotion of the article

I hope you still intend to contribute. Michael Price shows a history of passive-aggressive behavior, and if nothing more is done, he will return to the article worse than ever to make life hell for the new editors. Ovadyah 03:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I responded to your question on my talk page. Thanks for contributing. Ovadyah 17:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have proposed a remedy on the Workshop page that Michael Price should be permanently banned from editing on the Ebionites article, and I detailed my reasons for your review and comments. Ovadyah 17:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

as part of your talk tagging, you included fictional characters. i assume this was just simply error on your part and have reverted White Rabbit and March Hare - Quaeler 06:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Generally it's probably better to use the {{trivia}} template rather than the raw category - incidentally this is a cleanup template and category. Rich Farmbrough, 09:10 7 November 2007 (GMT).

I just wanted to point you over to the new book that Diane Duane is posting excerpts of on her site for subscribers. The chapters so far haven't pulled much from Burroughs, but there have been strong hints of Barsoom-ish stuff coming up later. :-)

Also, I wanted to point a couple things out not-on the Catholics and Freemasonry talk page, after what happened with MSJapan's RfA. :-) The first is that since no one body speaks for Masonry, it's entirely possible that there are regular jurisdictions out there that don't follow the 2B1ASK1 policy. Also, as you told the story, he didn't offer membership: he indicated that he thought that you would be a good addition, if you were to apply for membership. Not a huge difference, but enough to get by.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 15:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the link. I'm happy to see that the ERB estate has permitted such.

I acknowledge that no one person will necessarily act in full compliance with rules. Having said that, I didn't state earlier that I stated immediately upon the offer to "get me in the Masons" that I said I couldn't, that the employer responded emotionally, saying "But we're losing members" in a tone of abject despair, and continued to basically harass me on becoming a member for a full week thereafter until I got one of the other officers of the firm to talk to him. I do not take the full nature of the discussion as being necessarily regular for freemasonry in general, given that individual's widely acknowledged tendencies toward emotionalism and self-aggrandizement, but didn't think to question the possibility of the "offer" itself not being at least acceptable by the rules. John Carter 15:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

1. I don't know if it's something that involves permission... We'll have to wait a while to find out. :-)
2. Ok, definitely out of line. Thanks for the clarification.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 15:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

John, How do you count the number of articles in a category including all subcategories?
Also, is there a tool or some other way to take two categories together and create a list of all things that are in both categories?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

• I wish I knew. There might be some such tool, but I've personally never used it. My guess would be the best place to ask would be either the WikiProject Council talk page or the Wikipedia:Bot requests page. Someone at the latter should definitely know if such are available. John Carter 22:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you John Cater and I truly appreciate the heads up. I seem to clash with the belligerent types it seems because I don't put up with nonsense. I truly hate to assume bad faith on you, but some of your charges against me I felt were unwarranted and out of context, so I really wanted to distance myself from it. I mean no harm to no one and I'm sure you don't either. Thanx again.Taharqa 23:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for getting back so late; I've been away. But in response to your last message, and after some reflection, indeed, I concede to a lot of my mistakes. I still contend that my intention is not to "insult" per se, but a lot of my language usage (when in a heated dispute) can come off a bit condescending and every once in a while, I may intentionally hurl an insult out of frustration as I'm admittedly... not emotional, but reactional/confrontational. A few users used to help me out with suppressing that urge, but I've deviated a bit when put under pressure. I will watch it and consciously make it an effort to destroy that nasty habit since it is nowhere near productive and indeed, only adds to the contention. I see that when practicing such behavior, nothing gets done so thanx for the reminder and I'm still working on my conduct and etiquette, one day at a time (maybe in an approachable way, I just need to be reminded more often)..Taharqa 02:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Best I can tell it is done and should presumably go public soon. I'm a bit confused on that front but I have accepted the nomination I think it is a question of just making it public that needs to be done. (Emperor 01:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC))Reply

Sorry... I will revert... and raise the issue on the talk page. Its just that JAS's addition was so over the top as far as mis-representing the source that I over reacted. One Masonic essayist, who admits he is not a historian, becomes "some scholars attached to UGLE", the quote he cites discusses Italian Freemasonry and does not mention GOdF... etc etc.Blueboar 23:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC) Reply

I see it's already there! Pedro :  Chat  16:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, someone moved it in the interim. Sorry for any possible disruption. John Carter 16:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dear John Carter. I felt ashamed, what with computer problems among other things, I couldn't pull my weight in the arbitration process, and felt as though I had let both you and Ovadyah down. So that graceful badge on my page just now chuffs me somewhat. I have electrical storms overhead ad must get off line to save what remains of the computer. Could you pass on the thanks I extend to you to others, especially to Ovadyah. Yes, if I can I will certainly in the near future look at the pages you indicate. Finest regards Nishidani 18:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

John, thank you for the Purple Star. It is very much appreciated. :) As for the articles you wanted me to look over, unfortunately I've lost complete interest in Jesus-related articles so I will have to decline especially since my time online is limited. Take care. --Loremaster 18:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I was wondering if you could fix something. All of the quality and importance categories are coming up red. How do we create them? Wrad 03:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Have you considered applying for adminship? I'm currently looking for good wikiproject-oriented editors who might have a use for the tools, and your username stood out. --Tony Sidaway 04:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

See here - we'll get him to agree eventually ;) (Emperor 12:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC))Reply

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The Arbitration Committee found that MichaelCPrice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in sustained edit-warring and is subject to an editing restriction for one year, he is limited to one revert per page per week and must discuss any content changes on the article's talk page. Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. For the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 04:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

In regards to the AFD nomination for my article page:

Comment. I'm not stupid. The Wiki-masses have spoken. Be it as it may, I disagree with the 'snowball' interpretation. Rather, I see a 'stacking the deck' situation where the opposition became quite vicious in their determination to 'exterminate' this article. I was not given the benefit of the doubt on anything, including:

1.First and foremost, it seems that comments made in my favor were removed or collapsed, evidence withheld, etc. If a user did argue for keeping, that was quickly and viciously opposed. There was no 'assume good faith' here.

2.Anti-canvassing by User: Brown-haired girl, About Movies, Pete Forsyth, Kitty Brewster, and ShotInfo...at least one of which admitted to it, and the others the evidence exists, denials or no. In four of the cases, the dispute centered on a previous article or issue (supercentenarian trackers, Mary Wood, David Horrobin). Not that they shouldn't be allowed to opine, but it was clear there were biased motivations at work here.

3. The article was pinned to the 'academic' page standard, even though my notability is not as an 'academic' but as an established 'media' authority (that is, an 'expert' that the media turns to to answer questions or back up a statement about an issue).

Read WP:BIO again. It says:

[edit] Specific examples of sources The person has been the subject of ONE of the following sources (which must be referenced in the article):

1.A credible independent biography. Database sources such as Notable Names Database, Internet Movie Database and Internet Adult Film Database are not considered credible since they are, like wikis, mass-edited with little oversight. Additionally, these databases have low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion.

2.Widespread coverage over time in the media such as the BBC, The Times or other reliable sources. If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted.

3.Demonstrable wide name recognition from reliable sources.

4.In depth, independent, coverage in multiple publications showing a widely recognized contribution to the enduring historical record in the person's specific field.[4]

It doesn't say "ALL" of the following. It says "ONE" of the following. If it had said "ALL" I would have never created the article in the first place. But it said 'one' and it appears that I meet 2 out of four, widespead coverage in the media and wid name recognition from reliable sources. Therefore I assert that this article meets definition #2 and definition #3. I have not claimed to meet #1 or #4.

I have, in fact, had 'widespread coverage in the media over time' and 'demonstrable wide name recognition from RELIABLE sources.

So, that means that a single trivial mention in the BBC isn't enough. But if, over time, there is 'widespread coverage over time', that SHOULD count. Last I checked, I have been in over 1,000 news articles from all six inhabited continents. I also pass the 'Google test'.

Results 1 - 10 of about 58,900 for Robert+Young+gerontology.

Results 1 - 10 of about 242,000 for Robert+Young+oldest.

Results 1 - 10 of about 173,000 for Robert+Young+Guinness.

That's not 10. That's not 100. That's not 1,000. That's, in fact, hits in the five and six digits.

At the very least, those voting 'delete' should have voted 'weak delete'. To do otherwise is simply to ignore the evidence. Even Cambridge University uses my data:

http://pimm.wordpress.com/2007/09/14/sens3-stephen-coles-on-the-secrets-of-supercentenarians-slides/ (see slide 5)

However, I can understand, given that the arguments I made were collapsed, hardly a fair fight.

There has also been coverage:

http://www.globalaging.org/health/us/2006/longevityclues.htm

I admit that MOST of the coverage isn't ABOUT me, directly, and this seems to be the crux of the issue for some. But my biggest disagreement is the hangup on 'trivial' coverage. When you are the cited authority in an article, that is NEVER trivial. The example given of 'trivial' coverage is a rock band mentioned in Clinton's autobiography. That band reference could be deleted; therefore, it is trivial. But newspaper use of an 'expert' to make a statement, assertion, or contention is NOT. I do think quite a few of you here need to go back and re-read the definitions. And while, in hindsight,

Further, given the 'stacked-deck' approach here (most of my comments deleted or shrunk down, while false/incorrect statements were bandied about by others), it does seem this ship will sink. On its maiden voyage. Like the Titanic. Like Kenny Rogers said, "Know when to hold'em, Know when to fold'em." But like losing a single football game, there's always next week. Or next year.

Ryoung122 06:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

User Carter,

I'd just like to note that, ironically, I've had arguments with Michael C Price before. But I can respect those persons, like Canadian Paul, where arguments can lead to 'constructive' improvements. That occurs when both sides give a little and listen to what the other is actually saying. That comment wasn't directed at you but at Wikipedia in general. If it's the encyclopedia that 'anyone can edit', it stands to reason that a majority of the persons here will be less-educated or less-intelligent than an 'expert' or even just a non-notable scientist. To me, Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia but a social experiment, like Facebook. People build alliances, friendships, tribes. It's like "Survivor." Who will be voted off the island next? In both cases, had I kow-towed to the original push to delete the 'supercentenarian trackers' category, both my article and Louis Epstein's probably wouldn't have even been nominated for deletion (whether they meet the standards or not) because the only people that visited would be those that were interested. Like the 'Flight of Icarus' story, downfall comes from 'flying too high' (too close to the sun). Hiding under a rock is acceptable.

Note I originally created my article, in part, as WP:POINT. And though the article is going down now, my point has been made. Other, similar articles, like David Allen Lambert, that probably shouldn't have existed, but maybe so, are going down. It made sense: if that article could survive, why not mine?

However, it wasn't just about that, either. It is also about the fact that, any time a new idea emerges, it has to be adjusted to. Cortes was initially defeated by the Aztecs in 1519, but won two years later.Galileo backed down to the Catholic church, but now we do believe that the Earth revolves around the sun. Sooner or later, people will realize what the scientists already have: that studying supercentenarians involves more than simply 'honoring' the world's oldest person as an historical relic. No, we are finding genetic keys to longevity and the aging process.

In addition, I have been leading the charge for Wikipedia to respect the mainstream scientific and publishing consensus regarding extreme human longevity. When people insist that Mary Ramsey Wood lived to 120 in Oregon in 1908 (disclosure: and they are from Oregon, and their sources are all local), it raises questions of whether enough is being done to counter 'localism' and 'localist myth.'

Finally, even if the articles I created were found to be not 'independently notable' by a Wiki-majority, that doesn't preclude my comments that the articles were nominated originally by persons who were first involved in a dispute with me. Thus, Wikipedia is 'not a computer' and its editors are not 'robots' (well, not all of them, anyway). Personal biases, emotion, etc. all get in the way of objective fairness. I also find some coming across as extremely arrogant. The irony is that, perhaps, had I posted 'nothing' to the AFD page, perhaps the results would have been closer. But I am reminded of Mel Gibson in the movie Braveheart, where he is given one last chance to kiss the ass of the powers that be, and instead chooses 'freedom' (or torture, as is what happened). I do not regret the choices I made, though I do feel that a certain 'tribalism' exists and that it is human nature to kill those those that may be different, much as the first one killed in the Lord of the Flies was a fat nerd with glasses. Ok, I'm not fat, but I do have glasses.

I do note that each person has their own personal biases/favorites. I tend to favor 'inclusion' of biography and geography. I favor exclusion of non-notable college football players who scored one career touchdown, fake TV characters from minor shows, and lists of takeoffs and landings from Manchester airport (I thought Wikipedia was 'not' a phone book? 'Not' a directory? Therefore to have articles like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_destinations_served_by_Manchester_Airport_Terminal_3

really means that Wikipedia is out of control. That the articles 'survived deletion' says even more.Ryoung122 19:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

P.S. In response to 'canvassing': I think such accusations are, once again, biased. We see users such as Kittybrewster admit to it, but nothing happens, because she is supporting the status quo. Canvassing for the status quo=acceptable. Canvassing for a minority position=unacceptable. This, despite the fact that Wikipedia calls for a pluralistic approach that takes multiple viewpoints into account, unless those views represent an extreme margin. And in this case, Wikipedia may have erred. From BBC to ABC, Cambridge University to UCLA, my work has been accepted by the very highest echelons in academia and the mainstream media. Yet I'm being voted off the island by persons such as MLA, who doesn't know anything about the field and whose main contributions to Wikipedia have bee the creation of MMA articles. And this speaks to the larger ills of society itself, not just Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a tool that reflects society. We still, in the majority, value violence and sports over academic pursuits. Football, soccer, basketball players all make much more than college professors, even the best and brightest in the field. Thus the problem is not just with Wikipedia, but society itself.

Finally again, FYO I am more than two, but slightly less than three, standard deviations above the 'average' IQ, and therefore I see fit to say that I, like Michael C Price, and more than two orders of magnitude above the average member of society. Even if the average Wikipedian is slightly above societal average, we can still see the groundwork of 'one' order of magnitude higher. Of course, an established Wikipedian may be well above the average Wikipedia user, so again those comments were not about you personally but about the system, which I see as having quite many flaws. I do hope that these types of 'essays' will lead to 'constructive' improvements in the future.

Sincerely, Robert Young Ryoung122 20:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hmmn: comment, I don't know enough about the 'Ebionite' controversy to really chime in about the merits of the debate itself. The point was that Michael C Price appears to be a bright individual. Sometimes that becomes a problem because exceptionally bright children are often raised when young to think too highly of themselves and not respect the positions of others enough. So, enough about that.Ryoung122 20:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. I think several people have gotten that impression regarding this individual. Regarding your own article, however, I think that, with the existing 2-1 of delete over keep, what might work best would be to try to create a subsection of another article regarding the subject, and turn the existing article into a redirect, at least for a while. John Carter 20:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

John,

A friendly word. I know that you want to be an admin, but many of us are pretty happy to potter on editing our fields of interest and not paying too much attention to policy. So terms such as "deprecate" are jargon to us. Please don't shout at us for not showing the same ambition as you, we believe that we are playing just as important a role in the whole process by editing our areas.

I really don't mean to chide, and I'd have no problem in you deleting this message once you read it, but please remember that we rubes also make up Wikipedia.

JASpencer 23:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC) Reply

I noticed you voted on the List of the Day proposal. A new one has been made and your comments are welcome. The Placebo Effect 01:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi John, I've made a couple of set nominations (Post-colonial leaders and Tennis) for Version 0.7, and I'd like to have someone from the Review Team take a look at them. I've got some feedback and suggestions from the Tennis folks. I know you're busy, so only if you have time, but I'd appreciate your opinions - I don't want to promote them without approval from another person in the team. BTW, User:CBM is writing a selection bot for us, so hopefully most of the approvals will begin to be done automatically soon - not ideal, but MUCH faster than the manual system we've used so far. Cheers, Walkerma 02:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I saw that you had previously named yourself as an interested user on the WikiProject proposal page, and thought that you might be interested in joining the finished Skyscrapers WikiProject. Cheers! Rai-me 03:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

--Carabinieri 15:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

J. L. Wilkinson's article says that he founded the All Nations baseball club, in contrast to your article. Can you harmonize it with the facts, perhaps with an inline citation to explain the confusion the story of the absconding former founder isn't widely known. It would also help ensure the DYK hook is accurate (or at least verifiable). Rigadoun (talk) 19:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC) Reply

--Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

HI John I'd like to thank you for all your support and your high regard for me as an editor. I found it odd that an FA can be rejected despite 25 supports against 6 as it "isn't a vote" but then an article can then be delisted from a GA on grounds that it was a "8-2 vote to delist". Its not the first time I've seen double standards!! in this way and major decisions made by a tiny group of people. What is GA or FA does have some element of POV depending on who is reading it whatever the "criteria" is. What I found appalling was that somebody had referred to efforts at adding all the images and developing general articles which people have worked hard on in Indian cinema as "a pile of garbage" when they've spent many weeks trying to improve it and have clearly improved. I couldn't believe how bad other editors behaved on many of the recent events which continously made things a lot worse. It made me loose faith in how this site is run and I am still far from convinced that the system of decision making around here is secure. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 11:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Edits such as this are clearly disruptive and vandalising yet nothing was done about it and this which shows a clear aim by this user to remove existing content and damaging the encyclopedia. I've had enough of trying to protect articles being damaged ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 14:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Right I've just speedied about 10 or so images which are questionable as they are either screenshots or promotional shots the remaining are legitimate and this has been confirmeds. This site while appearing to be a lousy blog is owned by Caledonian publishing , a company worth $100 millions of dollars . They employ an agency of many photogtaphers based in Mumbai which deal primarily with the Bollywood film industry. Excluding screenshots and obvious promo photos this agreement is valid. I have suggested writing this into the agreement that screenshots or promo posters can't be used but the vast majority are valid and it is a superb source,. People were using a handful of images as an example to ruin the entire lot ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 16:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately he has removed your message as "nonsense". I've tried to go out of my way to justify things, I'm only doing it as I feel hundreds of articles are under future attack. He has responded but it a clear sarcastic tone. I don't know what the issue is. I'm tired of my work being disrupted. I always try to avoid conflicts but if articles and weeks of people work and effort are to be just thrown away then this is just unacceptable. This is the situation I'm talking about and nothing is being done by admin about it. Every time I log in a peacefully try to continue with my work I see that things are continuously up for deletion or under attack ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 16:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Located at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Sarvagnya. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 16:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry yes KNM - sounds like an airline. The same succession everytime. I wonder when Nichalp will turn up. Its gone on too long -I only care and am bothering with this because I don;t want to see people like this ruin articles which everybody reads ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 17:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Increasingly you can see what I have had to put up with over the last few weeks it is a nightmare and unless I am willing to see articles begin to be deleted and real helpful content removed then I can't escape them. One Indian editor supports the other. User:Gnanapiti has recieved an award by Sarvanya. The same group of editors who know each other every time. Hey I have to get off here now for a day or two . It does my head in ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 18:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

By the end of the discussion they end up dominating everything -the same group every time-the decent wikipedians like you and I are attempted to be pushed to the side or made to look foolish when we are much much better than this. It was the same group who unaminously delisted the article as a GA which we spent time in doing without any discussion and attempt to improve it first. It is not just this which is why I am concerned there are lot of things which is why I am bothering to comment on that page. Adios ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 18:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

My patience is really being tested today. Does The Little Ones look like a speedy to you? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 16:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

What concerns me is this user is applying for adminship. I really worry whats happening around here!!! Soon it will be accpetable to start speedying existing articles without going to afd or at least prodding them ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 16:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Which one are we talking about here? John Carter 16:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

The recent deleter Metalhead or whatever his name is not Sarvagnya. See User talk:Jimfbleak#Adminship. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 16:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wow he has a history with more editors than I thought -apparently he has been reported many times before but by "mindless trolls" as he put it not by "somebody like Blofeld". I doubt anybody's going to do anything and the problem remains and content affected. His tone when referring to others not just me is awful -it is clearly reflected in all of his edit summaries and past conversations with editors outside his cling along group. And then he expects people to assume good faith and that he is working significantly to contructively edit wikipedia. I don't know what you think of me because of this but it isn't making me look that great . I'd rather they settled it and I could continue peacefully. Hey ever heard of Saint Baruc?? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 18:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't know if you;ve noticed but every time another editor tried to make a valid and strong claim against him one of his band of cronies steps up in line to try to make it invalid ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 18:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes at present they are renonating the local library and a lot of content isn't accessable in the temporary place. I'm sure I could dig up some local historical info about him. There is some great local history where I live and another saint Saint Canice or Cainnech of Aghaboe was ordained at Llancarfan. St Andrews Major (my photo) about 3 miles away is a beautiful little church and it is one of the most tranquil spots I've visited , even on par with Kauai! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 18:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Are you certain I can't email you? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 19:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Actually, right now, I'm fairly certain you could. John Carter 19:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Seems a lot more calmer today (thank goodness) although Riana and but serious ran into a heated conflict over that message sent to the blog. Hopefuly they can do something. If not tough luck if they don't want to use a resource of 20,000 images!! Any time spent on something like that and conflict I think is a waste but I couldn't really keep away from injustice. luckily I hae been able to continue as normal today. Hey you did know that on that editor list the top two editors are bots. Polbot I know has often created 6 new articles a minute!!! That makes me top !! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? —Preceding comment was added at 16:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Anyway I've done pretty much all I can to make admin aware of his actions and that they are a potential threat to the fair running of wikipedia in the future. I have seen many exmaples of where they have combined to almost bully people and get their own way. I've also tried to highlight that some of their policies on their own articles are often misguided and missing the most important purpose of them. As you said the report has made people more aware of him and them as a group than before and if other editors come across him in the future and report him again, sooner or later something is going to twig with admin. This could be months even years and it is clear not for me to personally waste any more time against them. If they really want the articles to improve I'd like to see them do a lot more about it. What do you think? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 21:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Have I offended you or something? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 11:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

The Preity Zinta article. Technically we can't claim full use I think but I persoanlly think one or screenshots to illustrate key points in an actor's career should be acceptable if detailed rationale is given. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 17:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

The problem lies in that you generally can't obtain free images of films unless they are older people like John Wayne where many ofhis films are public domain. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 18:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC) Looks like our friend has begun vandalising articles that are already FA articles. While I can see what his idea is I am certain many film companies would be very pleased images from their films are being used. Such is the traffic of wikipedia images are likely to attract people to the films and encourage people to buy the dvd -hence they profit from it. There again is a lot of fuss being made over nothing don't you think? Is anybody going to sue wikipedia? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 20:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've just looked at his contributions over the last few days and can anybody honestly say his edits are constructive? Nearly every one is confrontationl and disruptive. I can't believe nobody can see it. Nobody will do anything and he'll continue doing what he thinks is correct. What do you suggest ? PLease respond on this ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 20:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't know what this is about, but you really need to take a deeper look at the article.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

John, I just through these stubs together, wondering if you are familiar with these and can add anything.

• The Eternal Lover (the only one of these three that I own or have read, I need to go back and re-read it)
• The Cave Girl
• Jungle Girl

--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 10:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

See User_talk:Kevinalewis#Fantasy_vs._Lost_World. I'd appreciate your thoughts, if you agree with Kevinalewis just tell me, if not then we should probably take it up on the Edgar Rice Burroughs talk page.

Also see my latest The Moon Maid again just a stub so far. I've got this one but I don't think I've ever read it.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 02:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm afraid I don't remember that much of about any of the volumes, and, worse, can't find right off any review materials on any of them, although I'm fairly sure the Lupoff bio will have some. I remember reading all the Ace editions when I was in school, but that's some time ago now. Regarding the genre, Lost World is probably more technically accurate, but it seems Kevin prefers Fantasy, which might be a better choice, if for no other reason because of the existence of the related Fantasy task force. -- John Carter (talk) 18:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

*grin* I never liked those mile-log custom sigs, so I found a way to be distinctive, short, and sweet. :-)--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 19:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

John, you created category:Old Testament saints in February, and were populating it. It was then redirected to a replacement category:Hebrew Bible saints which is now up for deletion - please comment there. - Fayenatic (talk) 09:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I considered not spamming talk pages but not saying "thanks" just isn't me. The support was remarkable and appreciated. I only hope that I am able to help a little on here. Please let me know if I can help you or equally if you find any of my actions questionable. Thanks & regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Here are the images: this, this and this. From the page of Preity Zinta. A new reuest for a peer review was opened, and Sarvagnya and Gananapiti say that they aren't allowed. See how it's used here. Can't just we do the same? It's a recently promoted FA. I really doubt these users' claims are 100% right. Acceptable free images are definitely not available. What do you say? Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I'm still writing up the darn thing. Hang on for just a bit, please and thanks for the heads up anyway! BTW, here's the working link: [1]---- Ramdrake (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jonh. Your MOS tag is perfectly legitimate. However, at least large parts of the article cites references and the "lack of reference" tag is therefore not in place. It can be added to specific section which lack references, if you like. Regarding the question whether opinions which differ from the broad concensus should be mentioned in a physics article, I believe the situation is different compared to other fields, since physics is an "exact" science, meaning that almost everything can be checked experimentally, and the concensus is usually just what fits the experiments, while other opinions are almost always crackpots or highly exentric non-scientists individuals, whose opinion is unrelated to the real world. In this particualr case, Feinberg's treatment of tachyons is quite old, and quantum field theory has evolved a lot since, and a "tachyon" is understood today differently than it was understood at the time when Feinberg was active in the field. Remind you, quantum field theory (specifically quantum electrodynamics) is the theory which has been successfully tested in experiments to a great accuracy, more than any other theory. Thus I don't think his opinion on the matter is of relevance, and surely saying that "tachyons don't exist" is NOT a POV. Finally, with all due respect, the Encyclopedia Americana is not a qualified source for studying physics (surely not as much as Peskin and Schroeder). -- Dan Gluck (talk) 20:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I won't mind if you add a comment citing Feinberg's article in Encyclopedia Americana, so that the final version will be in the spirit of something like "it is usually thought they don't/can't exist (reference to Peskin), though some still disagree (or - less preferred: though there is still some controversy on the subject) (reference to Feinberg)." Maybe my style sucks, but I think that the content should be something like that. Dan Gluck (talk) 20:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

John,

I'm afraid that this category was deleted and salted without consensus or adequate discussion. While I think it was a poor decision (like the previous one) I've made a list of the people in the category here.

Well done for trying this out. It was a natural category and I do think that you were badly done by.

-- JASpencer (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

And the Prince Hall Freemasonry category is being deleted. I've preserved the list here. -- JASpencer (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

You know, if you have questions, it might be better to ask the individual personally, rather than on a project talk page? Anyway, you've got mail. I hope that answers your questions. If you have any more, please contact me directly. I'll have my e-meil enabled while I'm online when I remember to enable it. John Carter (talk) 23:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

No, the project page is the correct location. You all were asking for input on the project, thats what you are getting. And I've replied there too. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 23:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey there. I noticed you made the banner for the WP:WHS project. I don't want to bother you, but if it would be possible to include the importance rating in the the banner, as well as comments - similar to the banner used for the WikiProject Schools. That would be much appreciated. Thank you. _Jame§^ugrono 12:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I should have made myself clearer. I'm aware that the importance can be set, and that it categorizes the article accordingly. But, yes, what I was asking is for the importance to be displayed on the banner. Thanks again, _Jame§^ugrono 21:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Blueboar has put a cfd tag on Category:Prince Hall Freemasons. Despite the fact that they don't have a seperate list and that they are, if possible, a more natural category than Freemasons. I'll let you know when and where the debate appears. JASpencer (talk) 15:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's here. JASpencer (talk) 15:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi John. I'm really excited at what has been happening the last few days. As you may know Myanmar has strict censorhsip and limited Internet access - particularly with the english speaking world. However User:Ekyaw (check his contributions) is a computer engineer I think and has got onto here and speaks fairly good english. He has a scanner and will be able to scan in images from sources within the country that we can't access for use in new articles he is creating on here when absolutely nothing!!! is currently available on google the whole web in english. Basically this is a breakthrough I've been looking for a long time to find. For instance check out Burma at the imdb - it has about 3 films. now compare it to List of Burmese films (which I will add the tables to). Burma is one of the few major countries with the exception of some African countires that doesn't have much info online because of the current regime. Articles like Phoe Par Gyi, Style (2004 film) etc. Isn't this superb news? I hope the country can increase internet access and increase english teaching to make this even more possible.

Now his english is far from perfect and some of his new articles may not be wikified properly but he is clearly learning - I think this is a great development ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 19:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

This looks great! I would love to see more of the Burmese content improved, and having an inside source helps even more. Actually, even being able to say things like "having an inside source" feels good, as it lends a note of high adventure to the proceedings here. :) Regarding working with English, if you ever see an article with good content, but maybe less than adequate phrasing, let me know and I'll try to pitch in as I can. I'd like to maybe try to get the League of Copyeditors to do the same thing, but I wonder what you think of maybe trying to get more "speciailized" groups together for specific regional linguistic variations. -- John Carter (talk) 19:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yeah I've never been there but have flown over it and it looks stunning every 35,000 feet up. I love that part of the world anyway particularly Tibet and Bhutan. Absolutely stunning scenery and they just seem so spriritial and peaceful. I'd love to trek through Nepal and Bhutan up into Tibet - a kind of pilgrimage to Lhasa through the Himilayas!!! The men who have done it have said it is a life changing experience. User:John Hill who I have a great respect for his a bit of expert on this area. He has written books on Central Asian history and uploaded tens of pricelss images on Tibet such as Image:Mother & son playing lute. Lhasa 1993.jpg. I started an article on the UN operation in Burma eariler -there are so many important articles that are missing. There must be thousands of missing articles not created yet because of lack of access to information. Thte country has a rich history and culture that little of us know anything about. Anyway I noticed you seemd to create the WikiProject South America. If so this is a fantastic achievement -another region I have done a lot of work on and am interested in. I have a cousin working in Peru who is a tree geneticist and regulates some of their national parks for Amazonia. Anyway I happened to come across the provinces of Bolivia many of which are one liners. I have requested expansion on the project page. It would be good to do some expansion in this area also. The deepest parts of South America seem to be the most underdeveloped on here It would be good to collaborate some time friend. Adios ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 22:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wow. Check out the question at the bottom of User talk:Butseriouslyfolks. This guy is actually asking if he can use a copywrighted image of a living actor in a biography article!!!! I thought he was shocked by other editors stupidity at using them ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 14:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Help!!! User:Ekyaw is turning into an article creating machine and I can't cope!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 19:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

If you are still interested more good news, Ekyaw has told me he has been in contact with the head of the National Library of Myanmar and is familiar with him in Yangon. If we could somehow gain access to this and translate content I can see things developing very well indeed. This is exactly what we are looking for. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 21:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Absolutely. My hope is that english will be taught and more and more people will have access to the Internet there. That library evidently contains a staggering amount, rare ancient Burmese manuscripts etc that could be translated etc and most contains thousands of books which contain an endless supply of information. I've urged him to tell the head of the library about english wikipedia and the chance to put the history of myanmar on the world map. Even if we only get some brief articles on this I think it is important to spread the word at a potential key source in the country and hope it would become a reality in the future. I am already amazed at how quickly things have been developing not only on here but on the Internet. This is one of the dreams and prime goals of this project I think to obtain information from places such as this ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 21:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Prema Sai Baba is an idea stated by one man, that someone will be born someday. The article is tagged as a WPBiography but contains no details of any actions of a person alive or deceased or even fictional. It is also tagged in the scope of Hindu Mythology but this is comparable to saying the future child of Tammy Faye Baker is to be a part of the Holy Trinity and quailfies as Christian Mythology. I think the admins are dead wrong on this one and choosing to placate the Sai Baba faction with another entry. This article is the espousal of one man's doctrine at best and in that sense is originally flawed as an encyclopedic article. You might as well post an article on every person that holds a streetcorner sign that reads "The End is Near".--Iconoclast Horizon 14:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I just came accross this and I know you're gonna like it. User talk:Outriggr/assessment.js is a pretty cool script for assessing articles. You can place a banner on the talk page from the article page itself, which is great too. This is basically the syntax for adding to your monobook.js (User:Warlordjohncarter/monobook.js, I know it has a warning about a link from your talk page but that's just to stop people adding crap)

  // User:Outriggr/metadatatest.js 
      importScript('User:Outriggr/metadatatest.js'); 
      assessmentMyTemplateCode = ["{{TemplateA|class=|importance=}}", "{{TemplateB|class=|importance=}}", "{{TemplateC|class=|importance=}}"];
      assessmentDefaultProject = "TemplateA";
   // 

Replace "{{TemplateA|class=|importance=}}" or whatever letter with the name of the assessment template you want to use (Eg, WikiProject History) and it'll add it to the dropdown list. It's obviously handier if you add multiple templates. Template that are alreaddy on the talk page will also be on the list, but coloured. Have fun!--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've looked at your monobook.js and youdon't seem to have doneit...correctly. The above was an example, and you have to add which templates you want to use. For example, if I wanted to have the WP:HIST, WPP:BIO and WP:AGRI banner displayed you would incude the following:

  // User:Outriggr/metadatatest.js 
      importScript('User:Outriggr/metadatatest.js'); 
      assessmentMyTemplateCode = ["{{WikiProject History|class=|importance=}}", "{{WPBio|class=|importance=}}", "{{WPFarm|class=|importance=}}"];
      assessmentDefaultProject = "TemplateA";
   // 

Hope that helps!--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 23:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

One could, of course, add more than three banner to the list (Obviously). This is the above with WP:MILHIST's banner added in too:

  // User:Outriggr/metadatatest.js 
      importScript('User:Outriggr/metadatatest.js'); 
      assessmentMyTemplateCode = ["{{WikiProject History|class=|importance=}}", "{{WPBio|class=|importance=}}", "{{WPFarm|class=|importance=}}", "{{WPMILHIST|class=|importance=}}"];
      assessmentDefaultProject = "TemplateA";
   // 

Just thought I ought to let you know we're grumbling about you behind your back here. ;-) Hesperian 12:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just wanted to let you know that at the moment, the task force does not cover actual award winning persons or films - only specific articles directly pertinent to the awards themselves. I noticed that you did some tagging last week and wanted to inform you before there was a giant tagging spree! ;) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 18:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Reply

I agree with your reasoning on islands which are within a group which are World Heritage Sites. If you are thinking of running a bot to tag categories with a certain template, you should probably include some kind of a disclaimer in the edit summary. I don't think plants can fall within our scope, and with over 800 world heritage sites, I should think that there are enough articles to work on. If, at a later time, we decide to expand our scope, to include the plants and/or animals which make the Natural WHS's listed, then perhaps a different template, identifying it as being related to World Heritage Sites. _Jame§^ugrono 09:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC) Reply

Wow it is true you have an IQ of 166? That's incredible. Thats like high genius isn't it. Einstein was supposed to have had an IQ of 160. Gary Kasparov is supposed to have an IQ of 190 -thats just crazy. I thought my IQ of 149 was pretty high but 166 is amazing. Do you have a photographic memory like I do? I always found it easy revising at school as I could read the revision books and when I came to test myself I could visualize the whole page as you would when you look at a book and the sentences in my memory. I always find it easier to remember this when there are images or colours -this is why I am obsessed with images in articles!!. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 13:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

No, the memory isn't photographic, and actually that was pretty much the only IQ test I ever took, back in high school. And unfortunately I don't think in images at all. I think that really all that is involved is that for whatever reason I can access memories a lot easier than other people, although I honestly haven't a clue how that developed. John Carter (talk) 13:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi John I need some help. I recently added the list of List of Hungarian sculptors. But they need rewikifying so the surname is last not first. I aim to start all of them some time and have done much work in this area to date. I also created a template for Hungarian art which I hope can develop into a longer side plate with many articles related to Hungarian art, sculpture and architecture. Do you think its best to have a footer template instead? What do you think of the idea? Today I created pages such as Fülöp Ö. Beck. My aim is to not only get all the artist articles up and running but eventually I have plans to have articles on their own sculptures and paintings. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 18:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've done A-H. its I-Z that needs doing. The surname should go last but on Hungarian wikipedia they use a traditional encyclopedia method of surname first even for articles. I've corrected some of the exisiting ones which have articles but you can see the ones which aren't done. For me it is specialist subjects like this which take the encyclopedia to the next level. I have very passionate about art and architecture anyway -eastern european art and architecture is stunning - look at Istanbul and Byzantine art-wow! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 18:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

What I'd love to see eventually is it all develop to the point where many of the lesser known artists and painters have articles on all their works and footer template for many of the notable ones connecting their article. Something like the footer template of Van Gogh etc. The potential is endless I think. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 19:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why do you speak in the third person? Also, what is the meaning behind your user name, "Warlord". Why do you feel the need to label yourself? Serious questions. - Jeeny ^(talk) 03:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

The use of language was chosen to mimic that of an encyclopedia entry, and when I chose the name I didn't know about the specific requests that were possible. The name "John Carter" was indicated to be too similar to other existing names. If you were to look at the link, you would see that "Warlord" is the title of the fictional character whose name is linked to. Generally, everybody else who has noticed that seemed to recognize that instantly. I am somewhat curious as to how you alone so far weren't able to perceive that, or, alternately, why you alone so far have chosen to raise such frankly completely irrelevant questions. I also wonder why you haven't posted similar questions to User:Blofeld of SPECTRE. Regarding your summary statement that I am "stalking" Hayden, that is a serious allegation which, to the best of my knowledge, is also incomprehensible, because I don't know who "Hayden" is. I personally consider such subtle attempts at unverified attacks completely unjustifiable, and see no reason to respond further, particularly as I honestly don't know who this alleged "Hayden" is. John Carter (talk) 14:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)#REDIRECT [[]]Reply

Thanks for the explanation on Girolamo's discussion page, but my initial suggestion was to have a sub-page of WP:FILMS (a task force) and a leading unique WikiProject simultaneously (by moving and instantly redirecting the page). We allowed to do that, aren't we? Is it forbidden by WP's policies? Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

No, it would be allowed. However, as I stated already, I can't see why you would request that that specific group be treated differently than all the other task forces. As I said earlier, it gives at least the impression of that group not cooperating with the parent group and all of its "named" task forces, making it the only one that retains a separate project name. If it were to do that, it would give the editors from the Films project the definite impression that that group somehow perceives itself as "different" from all the other groups, and there is no clear advantage to doing so. Like I asked before, I am curious why you want to retain it as a separate project. You haven't yet indicated why it is so important to you why it, alone among the national/regional projects, retains the "WikiProject' name. Without such information on why such a specific request is made, you force people to come to conclusions as to why you want to make such a change, and that isn't in anyone's best interests. John Carter (talk) 14:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK, I won't oppose to it further. The only thing I wanted is a strong WikiProject which will produce many successful articles. I hope it's possible in its current status. Thank you very much. Best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'd have left this at the ANI page, but I didn't want it to seem self-serving. If you read any attitude into my response, please don't. My comments are merely matter-of-fact. I appreciate your input, but the problem with this particular matter is that far too many people already have assumed far too much and simply seconded already erroneous assumptions based on completely bogus charges -- and those were acted upon by an admin who wasn't "in the mood" to either investigate or respond to questions regarding their precipitous and clearly ill-considered ban. And then another admin acted upon that ban under similar assumptions. They merely took the word of another admin who, by all accounts of the editors directly involved at Afrocentrism, was conducting himself inappropriately -- he was belligerent, insulting, disruptive, by his own admission revert warring, and editing against editorial consensus. But because that person is an admin, people simply jumped on his rickety bandwagon, and what we have are two serious actions taken by admins that cannot stand up to scrutiny of any sort. So, that's the deal. While it may not have read that way, the "with all due respect" was meant as a courtesy. Peace. deeceevoice (talk) 18:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ugh! I just realized you're the same guy who left the second message to me. God. Was this post (above) a waste of time! lol deeceevoice (talk) 19:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

  You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:Green Party of Prince Edward Island. Note that 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 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. J (talk) 19:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I fail to see why it needs a new banner in the first place. It's edit warring since you did it twice. J (talk) 19:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I would be happy to discuss it there, I don't see it posted yet, but I'll check back in a few mins. J (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

• WRT my comment at User talk:GreenJoe, that was directed to GreenJoe. —C.Fred (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Of course I'll help. Just tell me where you want them put and I'll put them together. If you want I can put a to do list like this one on the banner instead of a checklist or whatever--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 21:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I've put it together at User:Phoenix-wiki/Workshop and one can now add country=whatever and it will put the article in a certain category for that country. Do you want me to add a notice saying that it's in a particular country to the banner itself?--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 21:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oh, right. That might take a while and, well, I'm still at school so it'll probably be saturday when I'm finished--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

For your comments at my user talk. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 21:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Does this look like a potential FA to you? I think its a fantastic article and a shining example of how articles on plants and animals should aspire to. What do you think? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 14:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes it would need a lot of work for an FA certainly but it is certainly a very good article to look at. If somebody bothered to address some of the issues I think it could be a future FA. What I am surprised at is that the species is only local -this is why I was impressed by a highly detailed article on it when we have whole genus articles which are still stubs. Its quite amazing how uneven this encyclopedia is isn't it ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 14:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

John any idea how I can restore the line under the title of the article? Before when I selected always render PNG under "Math" in my preferences the line would appear but now it isn't working. Perhaps it is the fundraising header thats stopping it? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 14:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have actually been generally using cologne blue for months and I have altered all the web settings so I have my own design and fonts etc. Occassionally I go back to monobook for a few days but I;ve tried altering the different settings back to normal and it still isn't appearing. Hopefully somebody at the help desk can figure it out. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 14:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, though I'm nowhere near there yet. Replied on my talk. Cirt (talk) 00:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC).Reply

• Actually I would need three more FAs. Though I do currently have one pending. Cirt (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC).Reply
  • I actually qualify for the Imperial at this point, but I think I want to wait on that one til I (hopefully) get a third FA under my belt. Best, Cirt (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC).Reply

Suffice to say, yes, i'm in a position to know. And I have no desire to publish the information because it would serve no useful or constructive purpose.

This all need to cool down, and that means the whitewash from the ignorant (uninformed) needs to stop as well. Lsi john (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

The fact is, if I were truly blindly self-serving, I would have taken her up on her offer to make a recent arbcom about her. I didn't. Rather, I invested countless hours in email conversations, trying to come to a resolution with her. And, failing resolution, it was not until the proper forum arrived that I became actively involved with others who had been treated in similar fashion. My opinion, however animated and emotional on the surface, was based in fact and reasoning. It was not about me, it was about Durova and the project. I'm sorry if you were unable to grasp that from the posts. Lsi john (talk) 01:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

And yet you see fit to criticize others for conduct which was possibly less "animated and emotional" than your own, and based on possibly, for all you know, based on equally valid reasoning. Rrright. John Carter (talk) 01:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't follow, but I suppose that's okay too. I have neither criticized nor attacked Durova since she resigned admin tools. In fact, ironically, I was criticized privately for appearing too mushy in my initial post to Durova subsequent to her resignation.

My criticism has been directed at those who have been claiming 'witch hunt' on her talkpage, which is a rather uncivil thing to say, and presumes bad faith on the part of those who made the claims against Durova. And using something Jimbo said as an excuse for the conduct is no less ill mannered. "Well jimbo said it, so we can too"?? To not speak out against that, and then complain about my replies to it, is absurd. My dispute with Durova was resolved de facto when she chose to resign her admin tools. She chose a noble path and did the right thing. That should have ended it... it did for her and I, if you'd bother to notice.. then again, perhaps the failing is on my part after all.. for not being more tolerant of those who need to cry 'injustice'.

I've removed her talkpage from my watch list so that I don't see any more of the nonsense and won't be tempted to respond.

Now how about we shake hands and let this drop? Lsi john (talk) 01:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Self-serving comments like "then again, perhaps the failing is on my part after all.. for not being more tolerant of those who need to cry 'injustice'.", when they admit being among the ones crying it, are kind of hard to really consider "neutral"? Again, I've been blocked once (by mistake) and raked over the coals a bit at the same time (by mistake), and yet somehow haven't reacted the way you did to a similar situation, and actually shrugged it off. I'm also considering trying to get the single most repulsive person I've ever met on wikipedia, whose comments regarding me and others have resulted in his being banned, reinstated, if necessary adopting him in the process. Or maybe it's a failing on my part that I don't cry as loud as others over mistakes. I can acknowledge that your objections might have a bit of a rational basis, although I think even you might acknowledge that your response was emotionally colored, and yet despite this you think yourself qualified to criticize others when their own conduct isn't necessarily any more emotional than you admitted your own is. Maybe you can understand when other people feel that saying something could be a "witch hunt" (like the McCarthyist one), particularly if they know the era a bit better than you might? I do think your own (in my eyes) probable overreaction to that phrase, and labelling someone as a "pet" (a truly insulting term, by the way) and continuing the ongoing unproductive discussion (which your actions didn't help end), is such that I think you can understand that I think your defenses of your actions, while not necessarily completely inaccurate, ring at least a bit false. But, again, I'm willing to drop it and try to work with others to try to make everything more "level" for all involved if others are. John Carter (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

John, some of your points are valid and others are off base. More than one of my posts were emotionally colored and were worded stronger than they needed to be. And that serveed to lessen their impact, not strengthen them. Overreaction? I'm not so sure. In the same way that you're sure I'm not familiar with McCarthyism, I seriously doubt you're aware of the full situation and its not really relevant at this point. To enlighten you would be to reopen or dredge up old news and would be viewed as beating a dead horse...which I prefer not to do, contrary to your opinion.

As to what I judged or didn't judge, I merely responded in equal and opposite measure to that which was being claimed. To the extent that it appeared I was actually still attacking Durova, I regret it. To the extent that it was merely a reflection in the mirror to those making the uncivil statements, well.. 'nuff said.

Perhaps you know more about me than I know myself.. I certainly would not presume to decide what you do or do not know about the McCarthyism era.

And, yes, I think the playing field is woefully unlevel here. Regardless of what anyone says, in a dispute between an admin and a non-admin, the admin almost always wins the dispute, and the fewer edits you have the more you're told "so-and-so is a well established and trusted admin.. blah blah blah". It is incredibly difficult for a new editor to obtain anything less than daunting dispute resolution and then the odds are stacked against the inexperienced editor. Sucking up and handing out BarnStars like candy, to curry favor, combined with making 1000's of minor edits to inflate an edit count, are the rules of the game here. (And i'm not referring to Durova, just to clarify that).

In my case, I don't happen to be a very politic animal. When something smells like shit, I say so. If a person doesn't want to hear that their house smells like shit, then they can either clean it up or stop inviting people inside. Personally, I'd much rather you tell me my house smells like shit, than to smile at me, and then tell everyone else but me.

If you care to, scan my posts.. I have never personally attacked Durova. I've never said she is a bad person. I have never questioned her motives or her intentions. My claims were very specifically about her actions, her judgment, and whether I felt she should have admin tools. We can debate whether or not I was too colorful, but I would take exception to any claim that I attacked her. Her actions? yes. Her personally? no.

As for labeling her a 'pet', again, that was not intended to be an insult to her, though in retrospect, I can certainly see why it would be taken as one. The fact is, he favors her and is partial to her, whether or not you equate that to being a 'pet'.

I wish you the very best and really do hope you are able to accomplish constructive changes here. Lsi john (talk) 03:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your quick response re: Pearl Buck. Her book jackets and serialized stories were illustrated by many artists. Yes, it makes sense that such information could be appropriate content for the entry on the book or story. As for your gracious offer, only leave similar contents on the bio talk page if you are comfortable doing so. 23:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)JNW (talk)

Hi Warlord. These [2], [3] are the latest in a recent spate of edits to my talk page. Though I want to let you know, since one responds to your note, my guess is that it has nothing to do with you or the Pearl Buck edits, or even Whistler, for that matter, but comes from someone who is upset over a previous editing issue. Cheers, JNW (talk) 22:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks again, for your thoughts re: Ms. Buck, and your attentiveness to ectoplasm. Best wishes, JNW (talk) 22:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Template:PPAP has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

It is really petty, but I have been waiting for that for a long time! Thank you. -- SECisek (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC) Reply

I had a long an tiring discussion with one editor on the Peer review page, Wikipedia:Peer review/Preity Zinta/archive1#Taran Adarsh

And now, there is a new forum Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#Critics' opinion in Bollywood related articles...

I would really appreciate your intervention. Please participate.... Regards .... Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've got the banner ready and it's saved in a text file on my computer. All I need now is the names appropriate categories and task force pages. Could you email them to me, by the way, as I seem to be having trrouble connecting to wikipedia and I might not be back for a while. If I can't get back I'll reply to you with the complete syntax and you can paste it into the africa template--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 00:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)Reply