User talk:DJ Clayworth

All New: 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Orphaned: 500 1001 1501

Old talk moved to:

• User talk:DJ Clayworth/Archive.
• User talk:DJ Clayworth/Archive2.
• User talk:DJ Clayworth/Archive3.
• User talk:DJ Clayworth/Archive4.

Please add comments at the bottom of the page, not at the top. Thank you.

From Talk: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

This may have been discussed somewhere else, in which case feel free to direct me there, but do LDS members consider themselves to be a monotheistic religion? If they do, how is it squared with the statement that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are entirely separate and yet all God? DJ Clayworth 15:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a difficult question to answer because it depends often on definitions, and the Church itself has no "theology" in the traditional sense - only the scriptures and the statements/talks given by the prophets and apostles. Some members then try to develop a theology based on those statements but the theology itself has no endorsement of the Church. However, members, and I think the Church itself, feel it is monothestic - because there is only one being that should/could/is/needs to be worshipped. I also feel that, in general, members are even more strict in focusing their worship on Heavenly Father than others because they identify and focus on only Heavenly Father as the being to whom prayers are addressed and they look at the substitute of material goods/power/stature/etc. for God as a violation of the first commandment (and by extension a violation of monothesim). Indeed, the monothesim I believe where Christ intercedes on my behalf before the Father to save me from my sins is clear from the scriptures: "There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."1 Timothy 2:5 Or as Brigham Young said, "We believe in one God, one Mediator and one Holy Ghost." (Discourses of Brigham Young, p 23). So although they are seperate beings, I feel it is clearly a monotheistic religion since there is only one being that is worshipped.

Additionally, a search on the internet for some cites for you gave me plenty of links where others try to claim that I (Mormons) believe in a polythestic religion because of the King Follett Discourse (and related teachings); however, that imposes an interpretation that is not warranted as Members are strictly admonished to only worship the Father ("When we begin to learn this way, we begin to learn the only true God, and what kind of a being we have got to worship." from the King Follett Discourse). In other words, the view that there may be other gods doesn't change the fact that there is only one being, the Father, whom I worship, and to whom I owe all, and one Christ to whom I owe my salvation (and hopefully, to use LDS terminology, my exaltation). Trödel 18:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is very interesting, but seems to be contradicted by my experience with LDS evangelists. It also seems to contradict the Wikipedia article on the subject. The Wikipedia article gives lots of doctrines of the LDS churches. The evangelists who came to my door gave a very definite theology - that the Trinity was wrong, and that there were two Gods, Yahweh and Elohim. Jesus seemed to be identified with Yahweh.

As I understand your statements though, if there is no definite theology then LDS members are free to believe in one God, three Gods, or as many as they feel like. If there are in fact many Gods, then what is the basis for not worshipping all of them. And how do members get round the very clear statements in scrupture that there is only one God (not just that we should only worship only one, but that there is only one)? DJ Clayworth 18:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is more a result my "failure to communicate" than a contradiction. Because of the influence of Bushman through a talk he gave theology has come to have a specific meaning(1) to me and I forget the general definition. Bushman argued that Latter-day Saints have shown little interest in what other Christian traditions call "systematic theology," but, instead, have focused on stories from the past that teach both doctrine and proper conduct. When I used the term theology, I meant a discovering of God, his nature, and truth in general through "reasoned discourse." In this sense the LDS Church doesn't have a "theology," however, we do have set doctrines that could also be called a theology, which are the primary teachings of the Church.

I think of things this way.(2) There are some key doctrines that describe the nature of god and truth - starting with the Articles of Faith. And as you suppose, there is much latitude in what individual members may believe - although there is a set of beliefs that are consdidered essential to membership, which (in my mind) is a subset of the essential things we must know and follow (the doctrines), and then there are beliefs that members in general believe that I would call the orthodoxy (belived by most to be doctrine but not necessarily doctrine), and then some that are consistent with the teachings and believed by some and not by others (not doctrine).

For example, the following are the minimum requirements to be baptized:

1. Believe that Heavenly Father exists
2. Believe that Jesus is the Savior and Christ
3. Covenant with God to 1) take upon oneself the name of Jesus, 2) always remember Him, and 2) keep His commandments in return for a forgiveness of one's sins and the companionship of His spirit
4. Repent of one's past sins(3)
5. Believe that Joseph Smith is a prophet
6. Believe that Gordon Hinckley (the current earthly leader of the Church) is a prophet

That is about it - so all of those things would be in my mind "doctrine". For example I know an active (temple going) member who does not believe that there was a flood - unorthodox belief - but he lives his life in harmony with the doctrines and strives to be a true follower of Christ - and doesn't teach(4) that belief to anyone. So his personal belief about the flood has no bearing on his membership.

Of course there are more doctrines of the church than those listed above. I think the main difference is that, in general, members of the Church of Jesus Christ acquire knowledge about God/Truth not through theology (i.e. through reasoned discourse) but instead through prayerful study - by which I mean logical thinking while reading the scriptures (study) coupled with prayer and personal revelation (my definition of prayer includes a two way communication with God - i.e. a prayer to Heavenly Father and listening to the inspiration - that quickening of mind and thought - the inner peace that something is right).

Notes: (1) Terms like theology, salvation, exaltation - they mean something very specific to me that is compatible with some but not all of the dictionary definitions of the words

(2) I realize, ironically, that this view of things probably fits under the unorthodox or not doctrine baskets :)

(3) generally this is between the person and God through prayer, but certain more serious sins need to be confessed and discussed - for example a person on probation for a felony [in the US] can't be baptised by the missionaries because waiting out the time is considered part of the repentence process - there can be exceptions

(4) This is key - not teaching others - since those that believe unorthodox views and try to teach them to others claiming they are doctrine can be excommunicated - see September Six

Trödel 21:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I would agree with "logical thinking while reading the scriptures coupled with prayer and personal revelation", and I would include that as theology. In fact I would take in form of inquiry into the nature and character of God as theology. The only additional way to acquire knowledge of God that I would want to add would be to listen to the opinons and teachings of others and to weigh them. I presume that the LDS church has something similar, and the recognised teachers preach sermons and produce study aids in order to aid our own investigations. DJ Clayworth 22:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool - personal theology would be a great term for that. As for listening to opinions/teachings of others -of course that is part of LDS culture - a very big part since our relationships with others are a key part of our experience hre on earth. In LDS traditions there is a certain heirarchy to recognized teachers: General Authorities, Local Priesthood leaders, sunday school teachers, Seminary and Institute teachers, etc. The main difference being that doctrine is authoritatively explained /established/introduced by the First Presidency, Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and the Quorums of the Seventy that make up the General Authorities. And of course there is always http://www.ldscatalog.com for official books and http://www.deseretbooks.com, http://www.seagullbooks.com, & http://farms.byu.edu/ for LDS themed books and professional papers Trödel 22:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you were one of the most active editors working to repair the epidemic of vandalism to this article. Could you tell me more about how this situation came to your attention and any aspects of your response not clear from the edit history? Did you enlist collaborators, and if so, how? Did you come to any general conclusions about protecting Wikipedia from anonymous POV-pushers in the future? I'm giving a short talk at Wikimania about the Congressional edits, the "Swiftboating" edit war, and similar mass-arrivals of new edits. User_Talk:Betsythedevine betsythedevine 03:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters by position on political issue: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users." Please keep this in mind while editing. Thanks. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  23:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What part of my post did you think was a personal attack? DJ Clayworth 13:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HI you deleted my article on Pure Magic Bar. I am not associated with the bar I am a magician living and working and Manchester and felt it would have been of interested to other magicians if not anyone visiting the Printworks. It was a reworded version of an article that appeared in Magicweek magazine who gave me permission to to post it as long as the wording was changed. If you feel if it was a little bias then that was purely my enhthusiasm coming across and not an alterior motive. Could you reword it so it is a little less bias and put it back up? I noticed the other venues have links as does the magic castle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magic_Castle A magic bar opening in the UK is a landmark event and made it on to the regional news. Not sure what else to say to justify the article being there but thanks for you time. Anthony.

Hi Anthony. Articles are deleted usually by consensus of Wikipedia editors. A frequent reason for deletion is that the subject it 'not notable'. There are many thousands of pubs, bars and clubs in the world, and hundreds of new ones opening every day. We are not in a position to write articles about them all. The Magic Castle is a Hollywood institution and gets and article for that reason; the Rose and Crown on the High Street doesn't, in much the same way that Microsoft gets and article while Sid's Software Sales doesn't. I deleted your article because I thought it was almost certain that the article would be deleted if it were put up for debate, since it is basicly just a club and not yet open. If you really think that the institution deserves an article you can try re-recreating it. What will probably happen is that it will be nominated for deletion, and almost certainly deleted. DJ Clayworth 14:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for your reply. I'm not sure that you understand the significance of this bar opening within magic world. If it was put up for debate I don't think others outside the magic community would either but just because it aonly significant to a relatively small group of people does that mean it shouldn't be included?

Hi. About a year ago, you made some grumpy statements (with cause) about the unsourced state of Poverty in Africa. I've been working recently on fixing that, and wondered if you might be interested in helping.--Pastafarian Nights 21:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I started a discussion on this on this attached to the article but in light of you editing my Pure Magic Bar article I thought i would enquire if you had a problem with drinking establishments in general? Also I wanted to know why as you live in Ontario you feel you know what information people from Denton or indeed Manchester would like to see? (contributed by User:Schnizzle)

Hi Schnizzle. Before I get started, could you please sign all your talk page contributions, so we know who is writing things. You can do that by adding four tildes at the end of your contributions, like this ~~~~.

Now, to the article. Wikipedia has a lot of articles that are of minority interest. What we do is try to judge ho important something really is in general. The Pure Magic Bar has an immediate issue here, because it has only just opened. How can we judge if something is important this early? If we write an article and the bar closes after a month then we look pretty silly. With a new venture we also get lots of people trying to write Wikipedia articles in the hope of generating interest - basicly using Wikipedia as advertising. I'm not saying you are doing that, but it is something we have to be careful of.

The next way of judging if something is important is looking at the amount of press and web coverage it is getting. You can help this, by providing references to any press coverage about this bar. A mainstream, national, newspaper story would go a long way towards convincing us that something was important. In the absence of this a lot of Wikipedia editors use google as a measure. Pure Magic Bar gets only thirty google hits, which is very, very low. my old local gets more hits than that. DJ Clayworth 13:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been in the boundary house. Good mixed grill. You say a national newspaper would be a convincer. Surely the Manchester Evening News is good enough? It has a readership higher than a a lot of the national ones. I'm genuinely not involved with the bar but it has come up on every magic forum around the world and been included in Magicweek, The MEN as I mentioned and on North West tonight on TV. Thats pretty important. Schnizzle 14:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, a few national newspaper stories would help. Plenty of newspaper articles are about things that are completely unimportant a week later. Plus the MEN isn't really national and one article isn't very many. You are welcome to try this if you like. If you re-create the article I will make sure it is not speedy deleted. However I virtually guarantee that it will be nominated for deletion, and I will be astonished if the consensus isn't to delete. What I recommend is waiting for a few months and seeing how the bar goes. Once the article has been voted for deletion there is a total ban on re-creating it. However if you wait until it becomes actually popular then there is more chance the article will stay. DJ Clayworth 14:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I agree it would probably get deleted if I put it up again but I still disagree with the reasoning. I doubt even after wating it won't still get deleted. This is dissapointing though as other bars in The Printworks have articles mainly because they are part of a bigger chain. Anyway I will take your advice and wait before reposting. I ahve started a discussion on a seperate issue http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Denton%2C_Greater_Manchester. was going to put a list up but checked the history first, quite some time ago you deleted a list of pubs in Denton from the article. Shall we continue that discussion on that page? Schnizzle 14:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On WP the fictional characters are treated as if they were real people and in such ways that all their bio will reflect and look like real people's bio. I do not know Palpatine but it seems to me that the way the article was written sounds like he is real person and such reflects his fictional appearance in such sections as Abilities, Portrayal and some subsections of the bio. Lincher 16:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I'm saying is wrong. The article reads like "Palpatine did this, then he did that, then the other". To give the reader a complete picture it should read something like: "In A New Hope Palpatine did this and that; in the novel Somenovel he is recorded as then going to Someplanet and doing something else." That would make Palpatine's progress as a literary character much clearer. DJ Clayworth 16:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, DJ Clayworth. I noticed that you're an administrator and a very active contributor to Wikipedia. I was curious to know, though, why you don't routinely use edit summaries. I find they're very helpful when reviewing page histories, but it seems like you routinely omit them. I know it's a common criteria used in WP:RFA discussions, so just curious to know if you felt differently. Cheers, Lbbzman 23:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a really good question. I thought I usually did, but having just looked at my recent contributions, maybe I don't. I should probably make more effort. Thanks for the mention. DJ Clayworth 13:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I was mainly curious, as I found it unusual that such an active contributor wouldn't be filling them out routinely. Thanks for the reply! Lbbzman 13:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DJ Clayworth, i understand that people writing about themselves should put that on their user page, however, tom black is not my name, and is a username to support the tom black riddle page, could you please move my page back to its original position and not as a user page? thank you very much.

Reply at User talk:Tom.Black. DJ Clayworth 15:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Troll commment removed [1])

I seem to think that you are currently blocked from editing Wikipedia, which makes this post a violation of rules. I suggest that you abide by the block and stop worrying about what other people are doing. DJ Clayworth 21:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been semi-protected to prevent edits from new and unregistered users. I'll keep it on for a few days, unless you request its removal. JDoorjam Talk 21:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let it run a little. I'll take the protection off myself when it seems safe to do so. DJ Clayworth 21:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not revert edits without stating a reason in the articles talk page, as you did with Adolf Hitler. I am reverting until a reason is stated.

See reply at User talk:Quantum73. DJ Clayworth 14:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok, I just re-reverted the page though, if you could 'unrevert' that would be great thanks. Quantum73 14:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. DJ Clayworth 14:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Say, are you a PWOT fan? I see the article got deleted, what was the story on that? Is the VfD page still up? Why was there so much vandalism on it? Quantum73 14:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know what PWOT stands for, so I guess no. VfD pages are always kept, called "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME" so you should be able to find it if you want. Incidentally, it's good policy to add comments at the bottom of the talk page, not the top. DJ Clayworth 14:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you haven't kept abrest of the situation... I'm not 'emotionally involved' with the article, I'm upset because I wrote a nonbiased truthful and informative article that conformed to all mandatory rules and it has been repeatedly deleted. I think anybody in a similar position would be [justifiably] upset too. The article was not a promotion in any way, and so far nobody has disputed any fact that was in it. As a Canadian, you are not necesarily in the best position to judge what bands are important on the New Jersey music scene. All I'm asking is that everyone stop trying to edit something that they know nothing about. Anonterm 15:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. - I consider your comments to me to be a violation of Wikipedia's NO PERSONAL ATTACKS Rule (i.e. it's mandatory... not like guidelines)

Since you added the same comment at User talk:Anonterm I will reply there. DJ Clayworth 15:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you replied to my message at User talk:Anonterm, I have replied to your reply there. Anonterm 15:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although we extend every sympathy to Mr Dietz' family, it seems that the subjects only claim to notability is that he was killed in action. In the past this has not been enough to qualify for a Wikipedia article, but I thought we'd give the community it's chance to have an opinion. DJ Clayworth 18:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You obviously have no appreciation for US Special Forces and the contributions they make for you to have the ability to type on your computer freely everyday. Other areas of importance are the one year anniversary of his death next week, Operation Red Wing being the biggest loss of Navy Seals since their incarnation by President JFK in 1954, or how this man embodies what an American hero is. All the information is facts, cited with sources. How exactly isn't that grounds to take part in an encyclopedia?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hog44 (talk • contribs) .

I have a huge apprecition for special forces from all nations who allow me the freedom to type this. Many thousands of them, and many millions of ordinary soldiers have been killed in this cause in the last hundred years. I believe that they can be honoured in better places than in Wikipedia. DJ Clayworth 19:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I just got around to reading my talk page again. I noticed that you had left me a note at the end of March about Felicia Culotta. Are you sure I deleted that article? It looks to me as if that article was created three months *after* I had returned to being a regular user (i.e. not an admin). I'm confused. SWAdair 08:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the record: you did delete this article, but you did it 02:22, 26 March 2005, almost exactly a year before I left you the message. I must have been looking at really ancient history. Anyway, don't worry about it. DJ Clayworth 13:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That explains it. Thank you. SWAdair 03:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--152.163.100.13 15:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to complain as u deleted my article on OMGTGAIWF a wreeslting federation; the facts given were totally correct and true and did not infringe on any of ur copyright laws, please may you or I re-add the article on OMGTGAIWF. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Icehulk (talk • contribs) .

Reply at User talk:Icehulk. DJ Clayworth 13:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hello thankyou for your help with my entry for bbh being new to this i must admit to getting a little lost. a couple of things if possible, the company is actually reffered to as BBH the bartle bogle hegarty part was it's old name so ideally the page should be called BBH. i had a problem finding the page in the search option it seemed to jump to another company that use BBH is it possible to change this so both BBH's appear as 100%. also now you have changed the page name do other pages in wiki that i linked to this page no longer link?

would love the opportunity to ask more advice if possible could we talk on email pete.rogers@bbh.co.uk

rgds

Hi. I prefer not to cummunicate by email regarding Wikipedia. However we can talk via talk pages - mine or yours - or on the bartle bogle hegarty talk page. DJ Clayworth 13:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok here will do i guess, i have to admit to not really knowing what i'm doing. i have thre problems i could really do with your help on ... 1. the logo has been taken off, are they not allowed? 2. the company is called BBH now but was bartle, bogle and hegarty how do i correct that and 3. it still does'nt come up in a genreal search for bbh or bartle bogle hegarty ... what am i doing wrong

The June 2006 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. Kirill Lokshin 06:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reg: Tomas Shatner. The article is not fictitious, and in saskatchewan Tomas Shatner has had a sort of resurgence recently, becoming more popular as old newspaper clippings have resurfaced. He is not perhaps as popular as i indicated in the article, but in Saskatchewan and in Swift Current at least, Shatner lore is very well known. How can I resubmit the article? thanks! (unsigned by User:Simplyjacket)

Reply at User talk:Simplyjacket. DJ Clayworth 18:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey budy, you set a copyright problem at Walkthru topic page... but I work with WalkThru in Brazil and writed this article in english... how do I do to make it right?

Thank U.

Samuel Supimpa

Reply at User talk:S3supimpa. DJ Clayworth 15:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me mr clayworth, but there are alot of aricles on qwrestliong federations on this website and further more OMGTGAIWF is well known enough locally in some parts of England therefore your argument that no one has ever heard of is no true! just becuae uve never heard of it doesnt mean its not worthy, you should get out more

(unsigned by User:Icehulk)

Reply at User talk:Icehulk. DJ Clayworth 15:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

im so sorry i dont know how to acsess someones talk page. This is ridiculous, its not fair that i can't post an article on something people will find interesting, its not fair that EVEN WIKIPEDIA HAS BECOME SO cencsored, i am also very offended by your first comment, you called me work "random useless crap". Thanks for that Mr. Clayworth, itake it your not a wrestling fan which could indicate to the fact you wanting to censor OMGTGAIWF from Wikipedia? (unsigned by User:Icehulk) moved from user page by AnnH ♫ 22:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was just about to put that User:Icehulk message on your talk page, having removed it from your user page, but you got there first. Your talk page is awfully long, by the way. Not a problem for me, as I've just got a new computer and have a very good internet connection, but I wonder is it time to archive? Also, I thought you might be interested in this. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 15:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It probably is time to archive. DJ Clayworth 16:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see the anon 195... has done a lot of image adding and editing. I don't know what is supposed to be retained, but it may be useful to compare today's version with something a few days ago to deal with all his changes. --Habap 21:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free. DJ Clayworth 21:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Typo - I've fixed it. Dlyons493 Talk 19:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. That explains it. DJ Clayworth 19:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reason for this edit[2]? "reverted" is not informative as to your reasoning. The event is already on that page, and there is no source for that being an historical date, but rather only sources for that being the traditional date of observance, which is where the event is listed. Why are you re-inserting unsourced, inaccurate information? KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The entry doesn't say it's a historical date, it says it's a traditional date. We're not saying anything inaccurate. However if the event is listed elsewhere on the page I'm happy to let it go. DJ Clayworth 18:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the "observances" section only mentions the holiday of Christmas and how the nativity of Jesus is celebrated on that day. Nowhere on the December 25 page is there a listing of Jesus' birth being traditionally observed on December 25, and we are doing nothing wrong by citing it as a traditional date, DJ. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(IN)`SANE<sup>`} 18:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the issue - all other religious observances are listed under observances but a couple of editors are insisting on double-listing it by putting it under "births" which would indicate some kind of sourcing for that. There is none, because no one actually knows the date. It is correctly listed under observances with the information that it is the traditional date to observe, or celebrate, Jesus' birth. Thanks much for the reply - and please try to use more helpful edit summaries in the future. Thanks! KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

The content of the page Classical guitar related websites was before at the end of the article Classical guitar. I think that the content of this page is very useful and that it’s better to make a new article than to write all those links at the end of the main article about classical guitar. I hope that it will not be deleted.

User talk:Grégory Leclair

I understand how you feel. However there is a specific and long-standing policy concerning pages which consist mainly of external links, and the policy is that they are forbidden. The logic is that they should not really be part of an encyclopedia. They also have a tendency to take over pages if not checked. There are plenty of webrings and web directories out there. What I would suggest is that you move the links to the pages they are most relevant to, trying to move as many of them as possible to pages other than Classical guitar. Once you've got the number down to a reasonable level move the remainder back to Classical guitar. Twenty or so links is a reasonable number to have on a 'main' page like that. DJ Clayworth 20:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cancelled some commercials links. Do you still think that we should merge this page with Classical guitar? User talk:Grégory Leclair

Yes I do. Pages that consist only of links tend to get deleted quickly. Plus they become magnets for anyone to come and add any link they think is relevant and it tends to grow uncontrollably. DJ Clayworth 14:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks for the reply DJ, not sure I understand everything about this interweb thingumy stuff whatsname, but there you go. I really don't know what I can do to convince you that Trev's real, you certainly have a bee in your proverbial. I guess there's none so blind as those who won't see. Anyway, thanks again for the info, but you are 100% wrong about La Trev. Totally.--Paul Ebbs 20:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to your beliefs. Good luck. DJ Clayworth 20:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor insists, to me, unfortunately in pencil (I suppose I could scan it) and post it, but that wouldn't really 'prove' anything that he will shortly be 're'-publishing his books [I put re in inverted commas as I can't honestly claim to have seen full texts of these somewhat psychadelic items]. What I want to ask is:- if at some future point the books were in print (however rubbish) would that justify a wikipedia slot even if Trevor himself vanity published them? Because it seems to me that that's tantamount to saying if Trevor 'buys fame' that's fime, but if a third party however, er, somewhat oddly enthusiastic puts Trevor up before Trevor's blown his savings down the printers it isn't, but the latter case is the one in which 'some one' aside from Trevor himself genuinely likes his work, and thinks it notable. Simon Bucher-Jones 23:03 UK

Frankly, no. Wikipedia only wants articles about notable authors, and that almost never means self-published authors. Even authors with one or two professionally published novels are not usually considered notable. So 'Trevor' has no chance of buying a Wikipedia entry. If we were to follow the guidelines established at Wikipedia:Music then Treveor would have to get himself on a bestseller list to qualify.

Look, please tell your friends or whoever that this joke has gone on far enough. It may be fun for you to see whether you can get an obscure (or non-existant) author onto Wikipedia, but for those of us trying to write an encyclopedia it's frankly a little tedious. DJ Clayworth 22:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave my username alone. I do not want to make satan get you. Wifeofsatan 21:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC) HAIL SATAN!!!![reply]

Threatening users, however stupidly, is only going to make your case worse. DJ Clayworth 22:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is that going to make things worse? Ouijalover 17:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. DJ Clayworth, i am hoping to write an article about my up and coming band - we are soon to beocme nationalised throughout the united kingdom - i thought it would be best to ask you whether or not i can post a factual (non advertisment) on WIKIPEDIA, as i see many other lesser known bands have done this. I would like to have confirmation that whatever effots i spew onto this article will not be deleted purly becuase the band isnt well known enough, however if you find the article to be infringing on any copyright or legal matters by all means do your duty in removing the future article - I really think having a wikipedia article will help improve our fan base and would also generate hits to the site for those who are searching my band.

Yours Sincerly

JonnyUnderdogg

Reply at User talk:Jonnyunderdogg. DJ Clayworth 16:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just wanted to say thanks - I have been editing for a while on here but did not know how to approach people who are reverting, or making bad faith edits. I know we assume good faith and send them the nice note (like you did). Thanks for stepping in there. NickBurns 22:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It can be irritating when someone behaving like a jerk, but it costs nothing to be polite the first time. It's also possible that th editor was actually associated with the subject somehow. DJ Clayworth 17:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They were unblocked today and have made several nasty comments on my Talk Page. I'm going to take a step back, because I don't want to be in a revert war......I believe you could be right, h/she was probably a fan of the actor and of his show (As The World Turns) and means well. NickBurns 02:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently working with the alumni association at STCL to add notable alumni, and the ones I've added have had their blessing. Pls let me know your definition of notable alumni? Also I follow the definition of Random House on alumni - where a student graduated from or was a student of the school, ie., Dan Rather.

I confirmed with Gail Fox, Director of Development and Alumni Relations at South Texas College of Law, that Madyln Murray O'Hair was a 1952 graduate, which is why I corrected that. (66.6.80.48)

Sorry about Madyln Murray O'Hair. Sometimes anonymous users simply change dates to see if Wikipedia is really editable. If you leave a comment on the talk page that usually removes the problem. I would strongly recommend creating an account if you intend to stay here, as that also reduces problems like this.

As for the notability criteria, I would simply say that anyone who deserves a Wikipedia article deserves to be mentioned as a notable alumnus. You can find criteria on the notability of people at Wikipedia:Biography. I have no opinion onwhether students who don't graduate count as alumni. Incidentally I didn't revert the additions of alumni as such - I reverted bacause there was a broken template in the article. DJ Clayworth 20:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I reverted it back. Out of respect to your research, I even put in 1949 for O'Hair. Even though the Alumni director told me 1952. I should correct that, but it seems when you do that, people get offended and revert changes. Your solution is a good one, I should get an account so I don't look like a vandal. I am a graduate of South Texas College of Law and know the school very well. Thanks for your watchfulness.

I've put O'Hair's graduation date to 1952. I don't know where the original date came from, but I'll assume you know what you are talking about. Incidentally, it's a good idea to sign your posts on talk pages. You can do it by putting four tildes like this ~~~~. DJ Clayworth 20:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The July 2006 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.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot.

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 11!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 18:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, you added the "blocked indefinitely" tag on his userpage but never blocked him? I assumed you just forgot, or never got round to blocking, but I'm just asking here to check :) Thanks, — FireFox ^(talk) _{17:14, 27 July '06}

Thanks. Done. DJ Clayworth 18:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what happened that time, but your block wasn't in the block log and he wasn't in the ip block list, as his one week block had expired. So just as a precaution to stop him from editing if he tries, I have blocked him indefinitely for you (and accidentally used the wrong block summary – nevermind). Thanks, — FireFox ^(talk) _{10:19, 28 July '06}

That wasn't a first offence. You didn't read his contributions, or see the images he uploaded (which I deleted). DS 22:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it wasn't a first offence, why weren't there more warnings? It is usual for an escalating series of blocks to be applied, from 24hrs up to indefinite in three or four stages. DJ Clayworth 22:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing the FLORA ACT page. I should have done so from the beginning. A. Kolsrud

No problem. DJ Clayworth 13:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask why you deleted the article as 'not notable'? There are a number of us trying to get together to create the article and if one of the Manchester United message boards can have an article, why not us?

We are one of the best known football message boards in England and whilst I appreciate that say, if you're American, you might not even have heard of Sunderland, it is a sizeable and famous football club by English standards. May I suggest you hold a vote rather than just delete the item. I can rally many together to support it's creation. For now, I have put the item back.

I agree, not-notable to you does not mean it's the same to others, there are many Wikipedia articles about people/organisations that I and probably no-one I know have either heard or care about but this does not mean they should be deleted. Saying that the article is poorly presented and would do with a cleanup. Standardelephant 23:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My article is not "nonsense". Gongo the Complaining Monkey is a series of short stories at a site called www.Creambox.net. The site is down at the moment, but the series is real. Every "episode" is a short story. Please do not delete my article again.

The article said it was a TV series, which it clearly isn't, and included a huge amount of crap such as it being directed by Steven Spielberg. Nonsense will be deleted on Wikipedia wherever it is found. DJ Clayworth 11:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So if I delete all that crap, and re-write the article. Will you still delete it ? If I wrote it was a TV-series, then I'm sorry. It's not a TV series, and the Steven Spielberg-thing was "nonsense" indeed. I will re-write the article. Gongo the Complaining Monkey is a series of short-stories in Norway. They can be found on the Creambox.net.

What you first have to do is look at the Wikipedia:Notability guidelines. If the stories are considered notable then they will stay. Frankly the chances of a set of stories whose only publication is on a website being considered notable is very small. Also please sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this by adding four tildes like this ~~~~DJ Clayworth 17:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I can just weigh in here, I've been reverting these damned "Gongo the Complaining Monkey" edits (by an anon IP and lately by User:Insiderman) from the GONGO article for several months, and as you say, it looks like blatant nonsense and vandalism - the Lost (TV series) article and episode guide with the names replaced and claims about Steven Spielberg, etc. - that Creambox site User:Insiderman claims hosts what appears now to be a "series of short stories"(!) has not been active for some time as I checked when it was first mentioned. I've left a message on User talk:Insiderman warning them against adding the material again. --Canley 06:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. User:Insiderman has basicly blown all his credibility by submitting these stupid edits. I've already done a web search and discovered that "Gongo the Complaining Monkey" has no web presence, apart from a posting on a scandanavian-language website that is probably Insiderman. I'm taking the view here that I'm teaching him what needs to be done to get an article accepted. The chances that "Gongo the Complaining Monkey" will be accepted is virtually zero, and I for one will be reverting and deleting anything not backed up with impeccable references. However let's give him a chance. Maybe he will see the error of his ways. DJ Clayworth 13:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a lot of internet research to back those claims. Obviously you have not and are simply destroying Wikipedia's quest for knowledge. I have discussed quite a bit with people in India during 1984 and they have all stated that it is highly likely that Beant Singh was a scapegoat. On the day of her assassination, Indira's daughter-in-law said that she couldn't find her mother-in-law's bullet-proof vest. Also, if someone wanted to kill her, surely they would fire at her head as it is also a fatal place to be shot. Why would someone shoot her in her chest unless they knew? Also, there were many witnesses to support Beant Singh, but the courts wouldn't allow them to speak. It is known that most cases of such high importance would take longer so that all evidence could be compiled. Surely, only 4 days is a government cover-up. I hope that before you change articles you actually check to see whether or not the "verting" is just to preserve the accepted or the uncovered truth. HockeyRocksMySocks 01:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have really done a lot of research you will have no trouble providing reliable sources to back up these claims. If you provide reliable sources then what you say can stand. DJ Clayworth 12:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will select seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of eleven candidates. Please vote here by August 26!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 11:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the deletion Wikipedia is not paper. I typed in "Wikipedia is not paper" and Wikipedia is not paper was the first result.[3] I am redirecting it to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not which has Wikipedia_is_not_made_of_paper#Wikipedia_is_not_a_paper_encyclopedia which has not been deleted. Was it agreed not to have a redirect, or was it agreed not to have this article? Can you give me the AfD link? IMHO, a simple redirect is harmless. Thanks for your dilgence and hard work. Odessaukrain 21:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was agreed not to have a redirect. Here is a link to the discussion. DJ Clayworth 21:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I completly disagree, but power to you. Delete away, I won't restore it. Odessaukrain 21:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's good because it wasn't my decision. I'm just doing what the Wikipedia community wants. DJ Clayworth 22:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Clayworth! I'm in Brazil, and I'm having difficulty with the process you indicate me... I think it's gonna be easier to talk to the WalkThru USA guys to make another text, and they see what they want or not put in Wikipedia, there is already some articles talking about Walk Thru there, but not an specific one. Well... thank you anyway. If you come to Brazil we would be very glad to have you at a seminary too.

I'm sending this to you as you've edited the Iglesia ni Cristo article substantially. As coverage of INC at Wikipedia continues to grow, and the need to make sure related articles are held at a high standard of Wikipedia article quality, I've proposed a new WikiProject dedicated to INC. If you're interested, go to Wikipedia:WikiProject/List_of_proposed_projects#WikiProject_Iglesia_ni_Cristo and sign your name. A temporary example of what the project page will look like is at my userspace. --LBMixPro ^{<Speak|on|it!>} 09:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Just noticed the changes you made to the article. I think Indonesians may take exception to the statement "The declaration did not immediately result in actual independence". I guess it's a question of semantics, but everybody seems to acknowledge that the United States achieved independence in 1776, although the British did not recognise it for some years after, so why not Indonesia? I didn't make any changes, but you might get some feedback from Indonesians... Regards, Davidelit 14:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I'll make a slight change to try and convey the same thing. DJ Clayworth 14:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

following your example with No 617 I have removed the same from other squadrons. If it was required it should have been done as a nav box template.GraemeLeggett 14:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once upon a time, you expressed some concerns about copyvio problems at Walk Thru the Bible, and commented to one of the article's editors. Don't know if you still have interest in that article, but wanted to let you know that I've rewritten and expanded it with non-copyvio text (ie, my writing), with an attempt to maintain NPOV. If you have any commets/critiques/flaming objects, feel free to hurl them my way. Akradecki 23:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. DJ Clayworth 13:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Akradecki 18:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Clayworth, Regarding the article of Brig. Hari Singh; This article was created as Brig. Hari Singh played a vital role in Indo_Pakistani War of 1965. In that article, there are pictures taken by him during the war when he was in command of 18th Cavalry of Indian Army. He was there during the time of Barkee and Ichhogil Canal capture near Lahore in Pakistan. This article was created to cite from the Indo-Pak War Article. He fought all the major wars for India and was awarded A.V.S.M (ATI VISHISHT SEVA MEDAL, an honour for a distinguished service of the exceptional order in Indian Army) for his gallentry in Bangladesh operation. This article was thus very important for citation from other articles. Please look into this matter. Looking forward for your help... Thanks and Regards - Abhinay

Response at User talk:Abhinayrathore. DJ Clayworth 19:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the information in the Indo_Pakistani War of 1965 is not taken directly from the Indian Army records and therefore most of the information is missing there. He was also awarded Mention-in-Despatch for gallantry during these operations. If you see the first picture where he is standing in front of Police Station in Barkee, it is the only photographic proof even with 18th Cavalry that they captured Barkee. This picture was recently given by my mother to 18th Cavalry (now stationed in Hissar, India) where it hangs in their Quarter Guards. Except this article, no where on the internet these valuable photographic evidence are published (not even on Indian Army websites). All the information in the "Short Biography" section was hand written by Brig. Hari Singh. The A.V.S.M section is the exact note of the speech given before A.V.S.M was awarded to him by President of India. I earnestly request you to please consider this article of importance in regard to Indo_Pakistani War of 1965 article. Thanks.

--- The moment we let British-Canadians decide what is significant is the same moment Wikipedia becomes insignificant. (unsigned by User:Roncey).

DJ Clayworth,

You mentioned that the notability for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_Wolf_Real_Estate_Technologies wasn't good enough. Please review this article again as I have added more outside sources to reference the company. Also how do I add a logo and make it look like other corporate profiles?

Thanks so much for your help.

--Jsethi 13:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jsethi, notability isn't the same as verifiability. We believe that the company exists; the question is whether enough people have heard of it to make it worth an article. DJ Clayworth 13:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

Why did you delete the gang destroying army page?

Because it appeared to be about an unnotable group of people who play games. Do you have other information? DJ Clayworth 02:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have pages upon pages of work on the GDA but I can't say everything on it because it would nopt meet the GDA rules of seceretcy. Colbyson 00:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why exactly was the lyrics deleted from the article, im not sure what copyvio means...

The August 2006 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.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 12:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Copyvio

Oh, thank you; I didn't know lyrics were protected. Does this mean that all articles (such as Uncle Fucka and any other that mention song lyrics) should have lyrics removed? And can excerpts of songs be used (I saw little of lyrics on the page you linked me to).

Thanks for clearing that up -Alegoo92 20:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excerts are usually OK, provided they are a small fraction of the song length. Everything else - yes, they should be removed. DJ Clayworth 20:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]