User talk:Dreadlocke

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Sandbox for ND

A draft rewrite of the Natasha Demkina article.

[edit] Comment reversion in N.D.

No, it's not good to edit other's comments without good reason (typo, bad link, etc.), but I suspect his act was more a case of poor handling of an Help:edit conflict than malice. I'll fiddle with it. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 18:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation Case

You have indicated that you are willing to accept an assignment as a mediator. I have assigned this case to you. If you don't want to take the case on, just say so at the bottom of the request, delegate it to someone else and update the case list accordingly. Before your begin the mediation please read the suggestions for mediators. You can also review earlier mediation cases to get an understanding for possible procedures. --Fasten 09:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] leet

I think the primary issue is not with the current article, but with the article at the time we were arguing about it. In its present state, the article requires at least some major formatting and tightening up. The reason for this is I left as a result of my disagreement with Netoholic, whose only interest was to foil my attempts at adding a language or other template to it, rather than the maintenance of the article. ... aa:talk 01:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

Hi, Dreadlocke. You recently stated on Talk:Natasha Demkina that you are not prepared to reply directly to Andrew Skolnick. This may be so, but if it is the case, you might want to review the statement you made on your Request for Mediation, in which you offer yourself as mediator in the dispute. Since the function of mediator is to act an intermediary between the parties in conflict, you will find that difficult to do if you decline to speak to one of the parties involved. Regards, BillC 10:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I have read the Mediation Cabal page more thoroughly now, and it would appear that I was mistaken about the nature of the question asked there, interpreting Would you be willing to mediate yourself and accept an assignment as a mediator? as 'Would you be willing to mediate yourself and accept an assignment as a mediator in this case?'. If so, then I owe you an apology and withdraw my remark above.

As for Mr Skolnick's attitude, he has been falsely accused on Wikipedia of, amongst other things, fraud, 'ambush' and undergoing psychiatric treatment. Falsehoods like these take their toll on any individual's ability to remain civil. --BillC 16:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My userspace

Thanks. Didn't mean to be snarky, just wanted a nice clear unmissable request. I prefer my userspace to be about me, and the ND talk page to be about ND. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 17:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war on Demkina

Your input would be most useful on the Demkina page. They don't see that there is a dispute, and that the tag reflects this. -Lumière 22:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Rfc

There is a Rfc on me. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/-Lumière I am just an ordinary user that felt that a clearer policy will be useful when there are disputes. If I am left alone on this, I have no chance. -Lumière 18:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ND RFM

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Natasha Demkina, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

This mediation request was rejected because one of the disputing editors declined to participate.

[edit] dabs

Hi, usually I don't do dabs on people's userpages. It's irrelevant, as they're just sandboxes really. -- Earl Andrew - talk 22:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Nice to meet you too! Some people do dab on user pages, so it's up to you. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rfc on Lumière

There is a Rfc on me. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/-Lumière I am just an ordinary user that felt that a clearer policy will be useful when there are disputes. I will really appreciate your neutral comment on this Rfc. Their main argument is that the ratio of the number of my edits on the main space over the number of my edits on the policy talk pages is low. My answer is that it is low because I cannot work on the mainspace with the way the policy is currently applied. So, I should either give up Wikipedia or try to contribute to the understanding and the clarity of the policy. I do not disturb the policy talk pages. I just make thoughtful comments. I am respectuous of other people, etc. There is no policy that say that the ratio of ... edits on the main space over the ... edits on the policy should be large. So, I am not doing abything wrong. -Lumière 03:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] disambiguation 1

You wrote: Hi Mirv, I'm fixing Disambiguation links and you have an entry in the IPod Archive that links to the "Medium" disambiguation page. I wanted to get your permission to change it to an actual page such as Mass Media, which I think may have been your intended meaning. Thanks! - Dreadlocke 17:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

the link was in a passage quoted from the article, so I'm not sure what the intended target was. feel free to fix it however you think best. —Charles P._(Mirv) 12:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] simple links

Hello. You don't need to write [[Axis_of_rotation|axis]], since you can just write [[axis of rotation|axis]]. The former form sometimes makes newbies think it's necessary, and then they use it in actually visible links. Notice that I used a lower-case initial letter in "axis" for the same reason: newbies see the capital and then capitalize common nouns in the middle of a sentence just because they're in a link. Michael Hardy 20:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

... Hello again. Now you're doing the same thing with [[finite set|finite]]. Michael Hardy 01:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any reason I can't continue using the underscore, unless it's in a visible link. Dreadlocke 01:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the underscore, or with capitalization of the initial letter, is that it leads newbies to think that it's actually necessary, and then they write things like [[finite_set|finite set]] instead of just [[finite set]], or--even worse--they write [[finite_set]]. Michael Hardy 01:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I urge you to consider Michael's suggestions, and use lowercase links in the middle of a sentence. -lethe ^{talk +} 02:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. I do use the appropriate case letters in links. The capitalized portion of the link you pointed to is a non-viewable portion of the link - the piped portion is what is seen and is appropriately capitalized. Why would a non-viewable letter matter? - Dreadlocke 03:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

What I mean is writing [[Finite set|finite]] instead of [[finite set|finite]]. Michael explained why not to use capitalization and underscores in links, even though it's not visible in the rendered hyperlink. I urge you to consider Michael's suggestion. -lethe ^{talk +} 03:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I shouldn't capitalize even a non-viewable in case a newbie spots it and thinks the link word has to be capitalized all the time - like with the undescores... Forgive me, I'm dense. Thanks for the urging. Someone should probably add this information into the style guideline, just to be clear. - Dreadlocke 03:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem. As per your suggestion, I've added this issue to the manual of style. Thanks. -lethe ^{talk +} 03:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks for adding that to the manual of style! I feel like I really contributed to something today! (Even if only peripherally!) - Dreadlocke 03:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to see that you adopted Michael's suggestion. And thanks for prompting the addition to MoS. And also for doing the busywork of all that disambiguation bypassing. It is appreciated! -lethe ^{talk +} 02:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Demkina

He's gone. Get over it, please. Work with Mikka and Bill on how to improve the article without being obstreperous. Andrew was consistently a WP:DICK, but now he's gone, so now get to it. I'm going to clean up what's left and be on my way. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 16:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to say anything about those links, so work something out with Bill and Mikka and whoever else. Like I said, I'm not going to be involved with it anymore now that there is no longer this constantly-elevated dispute with a biased primary. I only ever got involved with ND because Andrew was crying Libel and invoking Siegenthaler and generaly being overreactive, alarmist, and curmudgeonly. Now you're up against more seasoned people who don't have an interest to push except that of the encyclopedia. I would focus on trying to get more sources rather than harp on a few favorites unless you can work out some kind of sensible defense or concession. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 23:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

No, Siqueira is not a citable reference. Find better ones. --BillC 23:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ND Draft

A draft rewrite of the Natasha Demkina article.
- Dreadlocke 01:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

You should be open about doing this on the ND talk page. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 17:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I just think you should indicate that you are working on a draft rewrite on the talk page. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 22:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid this falls far short of what would be acceptable. It is heavy with your POV: "The Discovery Channel CSICOP-CSMMH investigation claims to be science, but fails almost every test of good scientific practice"; you strongly criticise the American experiment, but offer not a word against the Japanese one, which wasn't even published; finally, you have given Siquero's and Victor Zammit's websites as a further reading items. Neither of these is at all suitable. --BillC 22:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on my first draft. The line you quote as an example of the article being "heavy" with my POV is not mine, it is a quote from the cited critique of Professor Josephson. I presented both sides of the issue as best I could.

Siqueira and Zammit's sites are not used as citable references, but only as links included in the Further Reading section, which does not appear to require the same level of WP:RS scrutiny as articles cited as References. From the way I (and others) read the Guideline, there is a distinct difference between Cited References and External Links/Further Reading. Further Reading provides space for "..links to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader, but which have not been used as sources for the article."

Feel free to improve on the article, such as adding criticism of the Japanese appearance. Everything I've written there I've provided sources for, so I'm unsure how it "falls short" of what would be acceptable. Dreadlocke 22:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

You have not attributed your quotes, or indeed even quoted them. For example, you write: "And the experiment provided no justification at all for Prof. Hyman to say as he did on the program...". What you fail to say is that this is a word for word copy of Josephson's evaluation of Hyman, coming as it does from the end of Josephson's webpage: "And the experiment provided no justification at all for Prof. Hyman to say as he did on the programme". As written, you have presented it as Wikipedia's evaluation. I see further unquoted and unattributed copying of text from that same webpage: "[Wiseman] goes on to suggest that perhaps Natasha cheated".

Natasha Demkina has already taken many, many more hours of my time that I would have ever wished and I am thoroughly weary of the subject. --BillC 23:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks BillC, I'll go through and attribute the quotes properly. I wasn't sure how much material I could actually take directly from another site, and in the "critique" section I didn't take the time to rewrite most of it as I did with the earlier material. I feel your weariness.. :) It's a first draft and I was looking for help and direction, so I really appreciate your comments and any help you can provide. - Dreadlocke 23:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I echo Bill's sentiments. Dreadlocke, after you've taken into consideration suggestions from Bill and myself et al, you may consider putting the draft up at WP:RFC. If you do so, be sure to mention this fact on the ND talk page. Now, I honestly don't know if RFC will do this (no reason in my mind why they wouldn't), but I think it's worth a shot. Be sure to explain that this is a draft rewrite of an article with a troubled history, and not a fork. It may take a while for a response from RFC and it may be modest, but it'll give the draft a slightly broader stamp. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 19:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to put it under WP:RFC. It's not a exactly a dispute at the moment, more of a "check this out to see if it's ok" sort of thing... - Dreadlocke

Meh, true. And WP:PR is not appropriate. Grr. Well, one could put it under RFC as a potential neutrality dispute. You could try WP:3O, but I'd prefer more eyes do the reviewing.

Hmm. Well, two ideas. One, bring it up again on Talk, and indicate that you plan to apply the draft unless there are still objections. The other is to just apply the draft anyway, and shield yourself from the possibility of sparks. After all, you gave fair warning that you had a rewrite ready, and you've gotten some feedback from Bill and me. I'd prefer that you got more, somehow, though. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 20:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, take a read at Wikipedia:Criticism and think about how and if to apply it to your draft. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 20:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Did you take a look at Wikipedia:Peer review/Natasha Demkina? It's old, but it might be helpful. I see RJH has given you some feedback recently. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 17:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think judging from the level of feedback I've seen so far that it's close to posting. Albeit the level of interest has waned, which is unfortunate, but I think if there were any remaining serious issues that red flags would be going off somewhere. All I ask is that you make sure you don't libel anyone. :) - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 18:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Was your expansion to the article the same content as the draft that you've been working on, inviting input into, getting feedback on from various editors, etc.? Also, I see there is a Wikiproject applicable to the article; I'd suggest drumming up advice on the Talk page there. Presumably those editors have had to struggle with NPOV conflicts in these matters before. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 19:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Can't use your own translation. WP:NOR I would say. Different translation(s) will be needed. I had found one (though -- argh -- it would definitely be a secondary source for a primary topic, so that's out I guess). I dunno. Refer to WP:NOR, I'm betting the topic of translation has come up. After all, WP:TIE advocates manual translation for whole freaking articles. You can't base a whole article on violating WP:NOR, can you? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 07:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] knowledge gap hypothesis

hello. This hypothesis isn't economics or finance-related article. It's about sociology and media studies. The template which relates this article to economics articles isn't appropriate.--Sa.vakilian 04:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Medium (spirituality)

Can you judge whether the edits by Keeton193 make any sense in the article? His previous few edits got reverted with some unflattery remark, he may be just trying. Pavel Vozenilek 01:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no though on it, except that it appeared on a watch list and smelt funny. Pavel Vozenilek 01:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User En Template

Hi, I reverted a change you made to the {{user en}} template, it added an extra space below the user box. Did you mean to add the space for some reason? The added space threw off the formatting of several userboxes on my user page. - Dreadlocke 18:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello! That space was just a side effect. The main change there was adding an interwiki link which now is added back by GrantNeufeld (thanks!). I didn't know the space would affect the layout; should have put only one "enter" as that is ignored. --Knakts 21:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

You're welcome. :-) I think there are just multiple ways of doing it. It used to be that the References section was always basically a bibliography, and was considered good enough. Then it became clear that people could introduce bogus stuff into the article, so citations began to be required. They are clearly not the same as references, though some new articles may have only these sorts of notes and not the old references section. I think most people now realized that both are need and they need separate heading. Thus you can cite Author (year) in the citation and not the whole ball of wax each time. Putting a Notes or Footnotes section right above the References or Sources or Bibliography section seems to be the best solution as it makes it easy to see the note and the reference at the same time. Not sure if any of the particular choices of headings is more correct than the others, but I usually use Notes and References... -999 22:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Natasha Demkina article

Hi Bob, I noticed your feedback on a peer review for the Natasha Demkina article. I've been working on a draft that expands the article to include more of her background history, her family, current events, and more on the debate concerning the CSICOP test. I'd appreciate it if you'd take a look at the draft and let me know what you think. Thanks! - Dreadlocke 01:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It's an improvement in terms of expanded content, but I seemed to find a number of instances of creeping non-neutrality in the text. I think that statements such as "molecular level in the deepest corners of a human body" need to be attributed, and couched in terms such as "they claimed that". The entire paragraph beginning "Despite the problems associated..." seems designed to guide the reader toward a particular opinion, and thus is non-neutral. Also there needs to be a counter to the assertion to the claims that the test was designed to make her fail. She is asserting a completely unproven ability, so the burden of proof should be pretty high. As Carl Sagan said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". This is equally true in other scientific fields, so there's no reason they should give her an easy pass. I'm pretty skeptical of the probability-based arguments, especially when there is a reasonable alternative explanation. (She is a good "guesser".) If fifty people come forward with claims of paranormal abilities and one of them (at random) passes a test with 50:1 odds, should I accept that as proof? Thanks. :-) — RJH (talk) 15:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

... As for your last question, no - you shouldn't accept it as proof, but surely the one who tests with a statistically significant level should be further investigated, and that's what the entire CSICOP test was meant to find out - if further investigation was warranted, not to provide proof of the claimed abilities. - Dreadlocke 17:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that most scientists wouldn't actively test for that sort of thing because they'd be staking their career on an implausible phenomenon. I can't really blame them, as they've spent a long time and a lot of work getting where they're at, and there are plenty of more plausible areas that are yielding readily repeatable results. So there's a natural conservativism there. Scientists had to work pretty hard just to get the existence of things like black holes widely accepted. — RJH (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Venus

Thanks! Worldtraveller has done the majority of the work, though. I wrote the Research with space probes and Venus in human culture sections, and some of the lead section. BillC 10:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] thanks for including me

in the Esther Hicks discussion. However, I am moving right now, the phone has been shut off here [old home] , though the internet connection still works. My new place will not have DHL, only dialup internet and I am not sure even if that will work. EH is dear to me and this business with Max is sort of what wikipedia is about. that is to say, resolving differences in a good way. I thought that we'd convinced Max to back off a bit, but I guess not. Carptrash 15:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

two thumbs up for you. Carptrash 21:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC) ps - i went on two Abe cruises, Mexico and Alaska, so . . ... who knows?

---

[edit] Editor analysis

The relevant policy for what you are talking about is WP:NOR. The keepers of that policy are very literal about it. I'm not so sure I agree with them (thank goodness for WP:IAR, within reason). In current form I'd say the case you bring up is borderline. In general, saying "no part of the website has this content" is OK, because that is a legitimate observation. Now, if the matter of whether or not that content IS there, because the qualifier of content is less than fundamentally objective, then you come up with a disputable issue.

When it comes down to it, if the site claims that a piece of content fits a certain purpose, then the NPOV position would be a la "The site presents a page (blah blah blah) for the purpose of (blah)."

Some people feel that words like "appear" and "seem" are OK. I've used these, but they're best used carefully and sparingly.

- Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 17:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Champ (legend)

I only happened to stumble upon the Champ page while making an edit to the Vermont Lake Monsters page. I really didn't expect to get into a tussle with someone, and then I certainly didn't expect it to turn out happily. Now, if all Wikipedia conflicts could be worked out that diplomatically. :) Nice working with you. -Skudrafan1 05:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] project paranormal

Sounds paranormal to me! And if it needs some work, all the more reason to get others involved! :) --InShaneee 20:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, no. As far as I've ever seen, Pravada.ru is simply a tabloid. --InShaneee 20:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

No, they are allowed in certain situations. However, I think there are other, better sources out there that can be used instead. If I'm wrong, I may be willing to rethink my vote. --InShaneee 20:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cosmo Wilson

Thanks for the nice comments! And I will think about the birthday change...

Cosmokazi 11:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus vote on sources for ND article

Per your comment on my talk page I'm changing my vote to weak support being the way you use that source is still sorta here nor there but I'm willing to look for another source and I'm on it! --Mahogany 19:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Quite predictably, Skolnick has objected to my tidying up the vote section. I am soliciting the opinion of other editors on this matter. Please express yours on the ND talk page. Rohirok 03:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation

Thanks a lot! I noticed that you were changing a load of my pages for that reason, and I apologize. I wasn't aware that it linked to that page, and will make sure to properly link all future pages. Thanks a lot for the notice! Jay 19:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meatpuppets and harrassment

Thanks for notifying me of others' attempts to counter the meatpuppetry on the Demkina article and the harrassment on my talk page. Now if only someone could figure out a way to return the Demkina discussion to some semblance of civility. I'm not sure I have the patience to pursue that goal. The atmosphere is absolutely noxious. Rohirok 14:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Security guard

• withdrawn

Indeed, I was barking up the wrong tree (he wasn't on the history either). Sorry, and thanks for the swift notice Fastifex 06:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HistoryLink

Sure, if you want. I sort of ran out of time. Basically, I've been reverting wherever their edit was the latest and they replaced descriptive linktext with their promotional text. Where the original link had no descriptive linktext, I've loaded the URL and used the essay title for the descriptive text. Beyond that, I do manual fixes (such as when theirs is not the most recent edit). In the end it turns out they took their ball and went home after their promotional attempts were flaunted. And it looked like they were an Role account anyway. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 19:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Music of South Florida

(copied from my talk page) I have seen the article. As Patience561 was responding to my advice, I didn't want to jump on the article. I'm not particular up on the South Florida music scene, so I wouldn't know what to look for in terms of content and references in various genres, but I am willing to help if someone else can supply info on important players in the South Florida music scene. I won't be much help for a few days, but will be more active late next week. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 23:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mysticism

I don't know what would be a good illustration of "Mysticism". It is similarly difficult to find a pictorial representation of the concept as for Atheism (which does very well without an image). Maybe a portrait of Meister Eckhart or Nicholas of Cusa? dab (ᛏ) 10:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My userpage

Thanks for the tweak, m8 :D E. Sn0 =31337= 22:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Skeptics

Thanks for catching my mistake. Cheers, -Will Beback 21:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting the Nitcentral article

Can you chime in with your vote? It's here.

[edit] Re: Your link-fix

No problem, thanks! I'm still pretty new to Wiki, and I (obviously) don't get all the formatting right. Icewolf34 13:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Wizard fix

You're welcome - I hope the explanation made some sense. And if it doesn't, feel free to ask questions anytime! Thanks for the userpage compliments, too. :)

I think the use of the main article link to "Wise old man" is okay. I'm not super familiar with its usage, and it would seem better to not be copied, but since the Wise old man article does contain a lot of other information in the examples and other links, there is at least more information at the main article.

I've looked up some information, take a look at Template:Main article and it's associated talk page. Per the characteristics section of the summary style guidelines, it seems like the "Main article" tag should be used when the information is too long to be summed up in one section of an article. This isn't really the case here, but I'm not sure how much it really matters. There's always Template:Details, which does pretty much the same thing but doesn't seem to have as many guidelines. I think it's up to you; whatever you decide to put/leave in, it should be okay. You could probably even take out the entire "Main article" link, and just wikilink the first use of the term. -- Natalya 03:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wizard article.

Thanks for the comment on my talk page. I was on vacation all last week, and was getting burnt out and depressed on the project. Best of luck at fixing it up; perhaps I'll head back shortly myself. SnowFire 15:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of Demkina's site as a source

You may have noticed that I used an automatic online translation of Demkina's website as a source for a paragraph about Demkina's rise to publicity in 2003. No one has thus far objected. Perhaps careful use of this source for further historical details will be deemed acceptable. Rohirok 23:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent! Dreadlocke ☥ 18:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talking at 6 months

I decided to reply here instead. Sorry for the LAME attempt to prove talking at 6 months. But I know there were others. I think Gregory Smith was talking at less than 1 years old. I think Bishonen and company are asking too much. What do they want? An official document from a pediatriacian indicating "This document officially certifies that this child was talking at the age of six months" ?!! Anyway keep up the good work. I'll try to see what I can come up with.--Jondel 06:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cross-over

Why not cross over to the Russian version and get the Russian contributers involved despite the language hurdle ? --Jondel 06:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Disambiguation Talk Request

This is a form message being sent to all WikiProject Disambiguation participants. I may have found your page based on your contributions or your link repair user box on your user page. If you are not a member, please consider including your name on the project page. I recently left a proposed banner idea on the WikiProject Disambiguation talk page and I would appreciate any input you could provide. Before it can be approved or denied, I would prefer a lot of feedback from multiple participants in the project. So if you have the time please join in the discussion to help improve the WikiProject. Keep up the good work in link repair and thanks for your time. Nehrams2020 22:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wizard (fantasy)

Because you have made comments on the Wizard (fantasy) talk page, I thought you might be interested to know of a Request for Comments: Talk:Wizard (fantasy)#Request for comment (assuming of course that your break ends before it's all wrapped up) Goldfritha 02:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

No need to mention names. I think anyone who's read the discussion knows who you mean. Goldfritha 15:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Music South Florida

Dreadlocke, thanks for your input. I have tried to add David to this article and I keep running into a block with Captaintruth. There is info out there that shows David grew up in that area and was part of the music scene. He however feels that since the infor does not include how long David was in Florida, he should not be included becasue he says that he only recorded an album there and lived there during the 80's. My arguement with that is, that just as Jimmy Buffett and David L Cook were both born in Pascagoula, MS, and moved away at early ages, does that discount them as both being notable people from that area? Of course not! Nor should it knock David out for being a contributor to the music contributions of South Florida? David was raised in that area and was one of the first mainstream Christian artists to make a splash in the field of Contemporary Christian music. I just don't like an editor taking so much charge and that is why I gave my warning after changing my deletion vote. Thank you so much. Junebug52 10:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no problems with that. The bottom line is going to be that Captaintruth is asking for larger sources that just are not going to be attainable. These celebrities do not promote where they live nor do they go into great depth about things of the past since their money and career has to be moving in a forward direction. There are several Christian artist that come from that area and one of the best churches for music comes from that area. Coarl Ridge Presb church has had many notable people who have made their connection to the music industry. I think it would work and is certainly a valid part of the music that makes the area. It bothers me that he has taken such a stern and un needed direction with an artist that has great notability and is known from coming from that area. Those are my thoughts LOL Junebug52 11:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speedster (comics)

Hi. Sorry to bother you, but it looks we might have an edit conflict at speedster (comics) between myself and Ace Class Shadow. If you could chime in with your opinion on that article’s talk page, so that we can achieve some sort of consensus, it would be appreciated. Thanks. Nightscream 11:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks, Dreadlocke, for looking in on the TM article, catching my unsigned comment, and fixing it. : ) TimidGuy 16:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Really appreciate your kind comments regarding my work on the TM article -- and my engagement with a very difficult editor. Thanks for noticing. : ) TimidGuy 15:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I need your help

I have just edited the Country Gospel article and it was a real mess. There is another article entitled Christian country music. I feel that the Country gospel article should be merged with the Christian country music article utilizing the laters name. The content of the articles are the same and the genre is the same. I contacted an admin and we have put a discussion on both articles to get feedback. I want to keep the Country Gospel article because I put a lot of work into it but I want to use the other articles name. Could you please review the article and maybe render an opinion on the merge issue. I would appreciate it. Junebug52 1:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Magician article

Good, then we can argue about the use of tertiary rather than secondary sources. :-) -999 (Talk) 17:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Nope, I never edit anonymously (at least, not on purpose). And there is no policy which requires discussion. WP:V and Jimmy Wales allow any editor to remove uncited material w/o discussion. The burden of providing a proper citation falls on the editor who wishes to insert the information. :-) -999 (Talk) 17:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, busy with other editing. You're right, I shouldn't be quite so abrupt. However, regardless of the citations, magic is supernatural but not irrational. There will be citations for that too, making the whole thing rather long and complex. What possible reason do you have for insisting to include it. Supernatural is fine. -999 (Talk) 17:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, sorry about that. I was just having one of those days yesterday. -999 (Talk) 19:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

My own fault, really. I should know better than to tangle with both Anthroposophists and Mormons at the same time. Eeep. -999 (Talk) 19:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)