User talk:Webbbbbbber

Webbbbbbber I think the interesting (and bad) part about the Self Replicating Machines F-Unit section is the fact that the inventor/only source of information is also the editor causing all of the trouble and whenever anyone points out this problem or the inherent conflict of interest he indicates that they are part of a vast Wikipedia/GNU conspiracy. I think I am going to suggest a short paragraph long replacement based on the patent and if that doesn't fly, request arbitration. Would you do something similar or would you try something different.

I agree that rules laywering can and does cause problems, but I think this is a clear cut case of a total lack of verifiability combined with a user that has severe COI. Bobprime (talk) 03:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think part of the problem is that the author is a bit weird and paranoid and partly that everybody treated him badly. Once he noticed that I was treating him and his idea with respect he started being much more cooprative. So much infact that I think we can clear up both the length and verifiability issues. I guess all of the advice to be nice to other users is actually good advice. I avoided making a new article because I feared that the section lacked sufficient WP:Notability. I tend to think that if google turns up no results then the thing in question is often not very notable.

Thanks again for your help and here is to us both gaining useful editing experience. Bobprime (talk) 07:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Do you carry all of your threads in one talk page, or do you bounce between them like this?

What do I need to do to keep my edits to Heavy Metal Umlaut? I'm new to Wikipedia; please advise. Webbbbbbber (talk) 17:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The edits you made to the page heavy metal umlaut were off-topic. The page is about the (superfluous) use of the umlaut diaeresis in rock music. Publications such as the New Yorker do not relate to the use of diaereses in rock music. A discussion of such use might be relevant to the article diaeresis, where there should be a discussion of the mark's being deprecated in the English language. However, they do not belong in the heavy metal umlaut article.

If you have any more questions please let me know. - Revolving Bugbear 17:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Webbbbbbber, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Phyesalis (talk) 22:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note on my talkpage. For starters on feminist theology, I'd check out Simone Weil, Mary Daly, Rosemary Ruether, and Elaine Pagels for Christianity. I know a bit about it in Islam: Riffat Hassan, another good link for an overview/starting point is this. This is a cool source on FT and post-colonial thought.

If you're interested in this kind of subject matter, you might want to contact User:Grrrlriot. She's putting together Portal:Feminism and a taskforce for feminism articles. You've actually reinvigorated my interest in this subject, so if you have any more questions, please feel free to ask. --Phyesalis (talk) 22:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good! I'm glad I could be of service. Here's a general collection of (mostly, I say because I didn't check them all, but the ones I did looked solid) reliable sources. There's several Jewish and Buddhist sources that looked interesting.

As for adding yourself to a user category, you might want to check out Help:Categories. I've added the code below - all you need to do is copy it onto the bottom of your user page. If you click on it, it will bring you to a list of other editors (it might be small right now since it's a new category. You also might be interested in User:The Transhumanist/Award Center, I've posted award requests for new bios on non-Christian feminist theologians. (If you'd like to learn about writing new articles, just click on the red link for Hassan above and follow the blue links.) Again, if you have any questions, please feel free to ask me or User:Grrrlriot. As for your essay on changing the title, it doesn't have to be a major work - a paragraph and a couple of links would be a great start. Much of the discussion will likely center around WP policy, which WP:NAME is more common, and if there is a difference in scope. Glad to see you involved! --Phyesalis (talk) 19:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well done - you were WP:BOLD. Allow me to offer some constructive criticism? First, you essentially change a title by moving it - this is done by clicking the "+" tab at the top of the article (check out Help:Moving pages). Secondly, there is a previous discussion of changing the title on the talk page, and one user, User:Shirahadashahas voiced objections. In the future, you might want to consider starting the discussion first and waiting until others have responded before taking (this type of) action. It's not a huge deal, the article isn't really currently being edited and you didn't do anything that can't be undone. You might consider leaving a note on Shirahadasha's talk page. Anyway, you provided a well-reasoned argument for the move, and I support it. Good job! --Phyesalis (talk) 22:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Phyesalis! I didn't know about moving articles...but now I do! I will leave a note on User:Shirahadasha's talk page. Webbbbbbber (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about interrupting you on Phyesalis talkpage, but I'm just letting you know that I replied to your post on her talk page about how to add your userpage to the category. If you want, I can add your userpage to the category myself. --Grrrlriot (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to 10,000 BC (film). Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your reference to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Thank you. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the citation! :) As for adding non-free images, that kind of business is tricky with film articles. Non-free images need to be directly related to the content at hand. The cited passage only says that similarities are noted, but there's no specific commentary on either character from both films. It needs to be more specific -- see Fight Club (film) for how I think non-free images can be used correctly. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the biggest challenge for articles on recent films is to make sure that there is content that the images support. I'm going to go through my Google Alerts and a citation dump to see if we can't add more content and see what images can go with them. I think this approach would work better because it's hard to choose from one of the many available images and then follow it up with content. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm obsessed with upcoming films, so I've set up Google Alerts to capture film headlines that have certain keywords (like 10,000 bc "roland emmerich") and get e-mailed to a Gmail account. I can go there, go through the alerts, and copy and paste the headlines. However, it's only weekly, so there are probably some headlines that are out there now that haven't been picked up yet in a Google Alert. :) Feel free to use the headlines, but I've usually been hands-off of a film article until I see the film and like it. I worked a lot on Spider-Man 3 before it came out, and I felt disappointed that my effort was for a lousy film. :-P —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Ten thousand B.C.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a prehistoric fantasy film article would need to be a broad article first and foremost. I have a feeling that there are resources out there in which this could be accomplished. Remember that each article of a specific prehistoric fantasy film will have its own specific criticisms, whether positive or negative. If you're going to write an article about the genre, it would need to be focused more on the big picture and touch on examples. Since the topic is more abstract, I think it would depend on the content. For example, I think that if you had a passage discussing the inaccuracy of humans and dinosaurs living in the same time period, a screen cap of both of them would be a good visual representation of that passage. Here are some resources:

• Prehistoric Humans in Film and Television
• Starring T. rex!: Dinosaur Mythology and Popular Culture
• The Dinosaur Films of Ray Harryhausen

I'm sure that the advent of 10,000 BC will have provided some coverage about prehistoric fantasy films in general, so you could look in recent headlines. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had to remove certain info to prevent Wikipedia being sued. Controversial info about living people needs very reliable sources. Epbr123 (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few reliable sources can be found here. Epbr123 (talk) 23:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Mathis, Mark. Please use the {{hangon}} template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion. Thank you. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An important component to a Wikipedia article is showing that the person has been mentioned in reliable sources. As written in the notability guidelines:

The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability. Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence, as do published peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines.

I did not see that in the article you had written about Mark Mathis. All that was provided was a link to a YouTube video, which establishes that he exists, but not that he is notable. Perhaps you could provide a link to a newspaper or magazine article about him? ... discospinster _talk 19:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vanalize articles as you did with Settled insanity. You stuck a place holder image in the middle of a serious article. Thank you. –Mattisse (Talk) 02:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for apologizing via edit summary. Regards, –Mattisse (Talk) 04:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I suggest reading WP:TRIVIA and a few other links in that page. The Wizard (magazine) article should be about the magazine, or, at best, the company (Wizard Entertainment). The Top 100 Villains itself is a mere article in one issue of Wizard, if we let it stay, other people will add other Top 10s and Top 100s and the page will become cluttered with useless factoids that tell us nothing about Wizard itself. Besides, there's nothing that defines that Top 100 as deserving of credit other than "it's what Wizard says". Some other publication may create an entirely different Top 100 Villains list and claim it is as valid as Wizard's. --Pc13 (talk) 17:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, the only actual article that linked to it was Pinhead (Hellraiser). It was one line so I removed it. Other links come from the deletion vote and from user talk pages. --Pc13 (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the left of the screen, there's a link wit the words "what links here". That'll tell you which pages are linked to the one you're one. --Pc13 (talk) 21:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When correcting spellings etc, please watch out for those which are included in quoted text and need to be left alone. The two "accoustic"s here are transcribed from eccentrically-spelled text on the sleeve notes. I find the same problem when clearing up "would of": some of them are in song titles etc. PamD (talk) 08:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I've seen you around Wikipedia and I've noticed that you joined my category "Wikipedians interested in feminism". I just wanted to let you know that you might be interested in this. Hope to see you around more and happy editing! :) --Grrrlriot (talk) 20:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article The Cat Who Came for Christmas, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

no indication that this book is notable.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. RadioFan (talk) 03:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should add some more to the page and add as many references as you can...especially to the New York Times Best Seller reference. If you need help, please let me know. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 14, 2009 @ 04:19

It seems to me you are attempting to POV-push meads point of view instead of a neutral point of view. Please discuss changes like this in the talk page before changing the article. A consensus should be strived for. You asked for help with the issue, and I responded. Unfortunately for you, I don't agree with your arguments and edits. I will be watching this article, and if you change things without consensus of the other editors, I will move to have the article protected.D^rew S^mith 10:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Feminism Task Force Member! Please accept this invitation to join a discussion on creating a full-fledged WikiProject Feminism. If you support this idea, please register your support here. All feedback is appreciated! Thanks!

Hi. Actually the merger was discussed quite extensively on the Historicity of Jesus talk page. There is also a merger discussion on the talk page of the "quest...." article with SlRubenstein suggesting a merger. He was the one who suggested this at the Historicity of Jesus article's talk page. The discussions are in the talk archives of the HoJ article.-Civilizededucation^talk 16:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually SlRubenstein opposed the merger: "I think this article should be built up, and not deleted or merged!" Also, there had been no discussion on the Quest... page for more than a year at the time of the merger. I didn't see any discussion on the HoJ page--I'll look for it--but shouldn't there be a banner placed on both pages if a merger is being considered?

Webbbbbbber (talk) 16:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um... I think I like the way we are doing it now. I respond to you on your talk page, and you respond to me on my talk page. Please indicate if you prefer otherwise. In that case, we can keep the conversation in one place, either here or on my talk page. Coming on to the merger thing, Slr had suggested this merger in a thread called "Merger-Christ Myth Theory and Historicity of Jesus". It should be in archive 27/28. It's not a short discussion though!!!!! Then there is another thread called "First Merge". Besides these two, there are numerous other threads which deal with merger in general and this issue spilled into some unrelated threads too. We were having a virtual riot at the talk page!!! And all of us were quite frustrated because despite extensive discussions, there was no concrete result. Then, this merge was the only one that actually got accomplished, and I had supported it because the quest material is helpful in getting an understanding of the HoJ topic. I think we did not discuss it at the Quest talk page because it was mostly inactive. Anyway, as a community, all of us have a right to all articles, not just the editors involved with it. Surely we would have sought the opinions of the editors involved there if the talk page had been active. We had a thorough discussion and even reached a near consensus on merging the HoJ and the Jesus myth theory article, but the editors at the JMT article showed a mixed response, so we did not go through it. So you see,....-Civilizededucation^talk 19:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article length should not be much of a concern given that it is a controversial and complex topic. If we cannot have an intelligent discussion of a topic in a short space, longer article length is justified.

I can understand the confusion on the Quest.... book with the Quest.... article, but the article was not on the book. It was on studies of the HJ. If there is chance of confusion, we should create a disamiguation page.

The quest material is relevant in the HoJ article because all the quests have suffered from problems in the scholarship and it's inability to deal with the HJ in an unbiased manner. The reader should know this. Otherwise the reader might take this article to be based on normal scholarly material in which scholars have no COI or theological interests.-Civilizededucation^talk 09:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the articles you refer to used to be part of the Jesus article. As they got too long they were spun off into new articles, but this was done unilaterally and with no discussion.

Certainly, there is too much material to go in one article. My point is we never had a thorough discussion about how the articles should be organized. You can understand why an article on Jesus would have a section on the historical and cultural context for his life ... as a separate article it looks funny.

I think we should have one article for purely theological views of Jesus (e.g. Christology).

I think we should have one article on the debates among historians, theologians, within and without the Church, about the historicity of Jesus and perhaps that article should focus on those debates. I think it is important to show how current views that are agnostic about or bracket any beliefs about Jesus's supernatural abilities or nature grew out of research at Seminaries is important.

I think we should have one article on the "life of Jesus" movement, which was very much a Christian movement but which focused on the life of a more human Jesus.

I think we should have one article (CMT) that emphasizes those who reject the existence of a historical Jesus or the value of reconstructing his life.

I think we should have one article on debates over the history (not historicity, not historical accuracy, but rather when they were composed and critical approaches to the texts, which are about the texts and their authrios and readers and not really about Jesus) of the principle sources.

Finally, I think we should have one article on major reconstructions of Jesus' human (i.e. bracketing any beliefs about the supernatural) life. This would include what is currently Cultural and historical background of Jesus and some material from other articles.

Thesre are six articles but in my view they are the best way to organize all the material in many articles where there is often duplication or POV forks.

I am not getting involved in any of this right now but feel free to share my views if you like.

Best, Slrubenstein | Talk 12:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I wanted to let you know that we have created an IRC channel for "countering systemic bias one new editor at a time", aka closing the gender gap! Come hang out at #wikimedia-gendergap. We hope this channel can serve as a safe haven to hang out, talk about Wiki, brainstorming, women in Wikimedia, article alerts and foster friendships. I hope you join us! (And if you need any IRC help, just let me know!) See you there! SarahStierch (talk) 02:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]