User talk:AnonEMouse/Archive 15

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 10 ← Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18


Toyohara Kunichika

Would you be kind enough to check out this article again, please? --Clhowson 02:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Alice Bailey redux (sigh)

AnonEMouse,

First, thank you for the pep talk. I am just about ready to resume my user name. I will probably do so tomorrow. Your comments made a lot of sense and it is time to come out of my hole and start squeaking for myself again.

Second, the Alice Bailey page. Again.

It is maddening and if much more comes out of my keyboard, there will be an inquiry on my lack of civility towards James. I am asking your help, again. Please go look at today's editing history and the history of today's talk page discussions.

Imagine my extreme surprise when accessing the page after dinner -- to find that the Controversies section had been blanked!

I was responding to that shock when it suddenly re-appeared, now as a POV-pushing piece of OR that met no Wiki standards for citation, sourcing, verifiability, peer review, consensus, or group hugs.

My initial response was to ask James to explain his behaviour. No reply.

My next response, before going to bed for the night, was to re-revert it. And to shake my head. And to then meekly critique his revision on the Talk page. And finally, to ask for HELP.

I have come to the conclusion that this page is under seige by someone who is blatantly disregrding consensus discussions and has undertaken constant reversion and revision and revision and reversion -- all on one small SUB-section of an article that is not even the bulk of the biography. What do you think? Is there still hope for reconciliation, or must outside parties be called in now -- and if so, how does one do that and what form should the arbitration take -- third party comments, formal mediation, administrative oversight? I have no experience with the dispute resolution aspects of WP, so your advice and guidance is solicited.

Well, tomorrow my real name will be attached to my posts, if my old braincells can remember my password, so this is the last you will hear from a

Sincerely grateful

Nameless Date Stamp 04:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

AnonEMouse, In connection with Nameless's request, could you also take a look at Talk:Alice_Bailey#The controversies section? Its short. I think that Albion moonlight's suggestion that the argument over the controversies section go to arbitration is, at this point, logical. The editors are as far from agreement as ever. Compromise is not working, and I am willing to abide by an arbitrated decision. Kwork 12:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Please take a look at what is current on the talk page, discussing violation of agreement, accusations of hijacking the article, etc. Kwork 16:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • AnonEMouse, when you get an opportunity I would like to ask you again about using Hannah Newman's on-line book The Rainbow Swastika [1] as a source in the Alice Bailey article. I have found that her writing is listed on this academic site [2]
It seems to me that should qualify using her material as a source in the article. Thanks. Kwork 17:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
    • It looks like a chat forum. Participation in a chat forum does not qualify her as "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". That's the standard that needs to be met, from Wikipedia:Reliable sources. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for looking. Kwork 00:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that there is nothing to be done about it, but Jamesd1 just buried a direct question to him, about compromise, under a long discussion about Alice Bailey's supposed religious views (Bailey was not a Christian) that belong on a Bailey discussion forum, not on this article's talk page. Does not Wikipedia have some way to resolve editing situations in which editors refuse to compromise and end the arguing? Kwork 14:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

No, not really. There are harsh measures that can be taken if the article is being edited disruptively, or if editors are being outright rude to each other, but we can't force intelligent adults to either change their minds or stop arguing. We can only keep trying by persuasion. It does usually work, but one of the reasons it usually works is that people get tired. :-). See Wikipedia:Consensus. However the way to make it go faster is to emphasize the positive, work forward from the things that have been agreed on, and avoid personal attacks. There are whole books on this sort of thing, one of the most famous is called Getting to Yes.--AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
One more very important thing to remember: keeping this in perspective. If you ever feel you are getting ulcers from this, stop, and work on fairy tales or chocolate ice cream or something filled with sweetness and light, until you can come back with a lighter spirit. There are half a dozen editors working on Alice Bailey now, it will go on fine without any specific one of us. This is one section in one Start-class article among 2 million articles. Read some Wikipedia:Featured article candidates - they have some really good writing. Don't sweat the small stuff. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I have read a fair amount on the subject, but there are circumstances it does not work. For example, over the years negotiator after negotiator has tried to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict....all with no results. That is because if one, or both, parties in a dispute have God on their side, there is no possibility of negotiating away God's perceived intention. Unfortunately, a version of that configuration is playing out in the discussions of this article.
I am feeling virtually no stress from this dispute. I wish it would be over so I could go on to other things. But if it continues, there is much to be learned from this also. All life is a school. Kwork 14:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


No results? We're also in a noticeably better situation than the Arab-Israeli conflict, for at least one reason because we do have admin tools if the disagreement turns into a firefight. The fact that the article is not protected is at least a partial positive result; people are disagreeing, but civilly. If it gets uncivil, and people start editing without talking to each other, that will be worse ... then the article will be protected until it gets better. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Alice Bailey, For the Record

For the record, I never blanked any page and the forum is full of explanations for my edits. User:Jamesd1 14:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand. You are all well meaning editors. If only you believed that about each other. :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Question re: Archiving & RfC's

Heya AnonEMouse, how's the li'l mousette? :)

Hey, I know you're busy, but I need to ask someone more knowledgeable than myself (and at least this has nothing to do with NPA or NPOV!) ... tonite I'll be doing one of my fav things, learning something new; in this case, it's how to archive a talk page: archiving the astonishingly fecund Talk: Alice Bailey. I think I understand the 'move method', but there's a bit of a tick: there's two (2!) active RfC's on that page.... what happens to them? Is this going to involve changing some links somewhere else, too? And, if it is, can I just remove the link on the older RfC? It could hardly be considered active, even for 'Religion and Philosophy' lol... Ofc, I'd ask on the talk page 1st, but is there in fact a "proper" procedure for de-listing an RfC? (On a side note, is it just me or is it strange that the other, RfC/Kwork, has received no comments (at least, it hadn't yesterday)?) Ok, so three (3!) questions. Sorry. ;)

Anyways, please drop me a note what to do when archiving w/ a RfC? Thanks. :) Eaglizard 04:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you've found Help:Archiving a talk page already. I only see 1 RfC, the one at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy - but of course with that talk page, I wouldn't be surprised if you told me that I missed an animated picture of a dancing elephant halfway down the page. The RFC has basically been answered, I think, so we should probably close it. There's certainly a related debate, but the issues are at least somewhat different now. What's the other RFC, please? I think we need to be bold in archiving, unfortunately, just pick a point that may have to be relatively arbitrary, and archive everything before then, otherwise the talk page is too long to be readable. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with closing; how to do it? Have you done it? The second (more recent) RfC was on there somewhere, RfC/User: Kwork. LOL at the dancing elephant, btw. That is one of the most convoluted talk pages I've ever seen; nobody seems able to follow interlineated text and have a real discussion; always have to be re-raising points from scratch... sigh. Anyways, thanks for your comments, and I believe thanks for archiving the page, since I've been taking a "Wikibroke", myself (that's where you can't afford to pay your cable bill :). Eaglizard 21:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

FAC

If you have a moment, could you comment on Thoughts on the Education of Daughters at its FAC? It hasn't drawn a lot of interest, being a conduct book. Awadewit | talk 17:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Male Porno Articles. I need you help

I think I need your help and support. I got an e mail from an editor asking me to look at the List_of_gay_porn_stars section. These articles are riddled with POV, advertisement and spam. I tried to do a simple prod tag but oh my did I get the thrashing of my life! These subjects are the actual editors of their pages. So, when an editor goes in to try and edit the articles, they jump on them and remove any edits they do not like. The way the WP:PORNBIO is written, all these people have to do is to win an award or be able to write something about themselves in a web page and it can be entered into WP. When you click on the links for these pages, they take you to websites that you either have to agree to enter in on adult content or it takes you to their porno stores. Notability leads back to nothing more than the subjects web page. I feel this is not appropriate for WP standards. The only way to get around these people is to put them up for AfD. I need some help here. Do you think you would like to join forces with me to rid WP os some of this crap? Let me know. I certainly could use the support and help. I had one of my other editing buds refer me over to you because he said you were a pretty straight shooter as an admin. Junebug52 03:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It's not as much WP:PORNBIO as it is the main guideline, Wikipedia:Notability (people), plain ol' WP:BIO, that says "The person has received significant recognized awards or honors" and "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." You'd be surprised how many awards there are for piano competitions, for example. Writing a web page about themselves isn't enough, however. Let's see the articles mentioned on your talk page one at a time.
  1. Will Clark (porn star) - written like a puff piece. However, if accurate, he has won one GayVN Award and two Adult Erotic Gay Video Awards; while the gay genre isn't my area, there was a good, experienced, and prolific editor that vouched that those are significant recognized awards or honors in that field. We should clean up the article, but shouldn't delete it for lack of notability, he seems notable.
  2. Tory Mason - tougher call. Not as blatant puffery, and survived an AfD; on the other hand, half the problem with the AfD was that it was nominated before giving the article writer a decent chance to write the article.
  3. Brent Corrigan - Seems to have extensive coverage from an assortment of sources, meets Wikipedia:Notability. But wow, all guidelines aside, being enough of a star actor to murder over, that's pretty notable!
  4. Nate Christianson - Playgirl cover and man of the month. Again, I'm not an expert on the gay side, but being a Playboy Playmate is unquestionably a big deal. I also corresponded with Richard Pacheco once, and for him, Playgirl was more important than other awards.
  5. Michael Lucas (porn star) - successful actor, director, producer, a whole handful of GayVN Awards and Adult Erotic Gay Video Awards, clearly highly notable, and a relatively well documented article.
So out of those there are no obvious deletes, and a number of obvious keeps. I'm actually rather surprised, I know that even a half-hearted effort to find deletion-worthy candidates in other pornography fields generally finds some. Are there others you're concerned about? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I wanted to let you know that I went into here [[3]] this morning and drastically reduced the fluff and advertisement in this article. I have a feeling that this will be one of the editors that will jump at us for changing the content of the article. I feel that what I did was within the rules and cut the article down to the bare facts. I placed a cleanup tag and some cite tags as well. That article is riddled with tags and a current prod tag. Can you look at it and let me know what you think? Thanks bud Junebug52 13:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Your bot request

Hi AnonEMouse I wanted to let you know that Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AfdlBot is labeled as needing your comment. Please visit the above link to reply to the requests. Thanks! --BAGBotTalk 17:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The External link that dare not mention its name

Hi, AnonEMouse. There's a discussion going on at Talk:List of big-bust models and performers as to the appropriateness of a certain external link (take a wild guess which one). Your opinion (either way-- indeed, at this point, a coherent "no" opinion would be welcomed...) would be appreciated. Dekkappai 20:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Your kindness

Your kindness to Catherine Yronwode was exemplary and way beyond what a lot admins seem capable of, I had never heard of her but I was very impressed by your kindness, I have decided to stay in and increase my role in the Bailey discussion. I was not offended by JDL references or any of that silliness but it does seem clear that some of the Bailey bunch are driven by an agenda that rejects the very idea of even mentioning her antisemitism. I have been reading about Ms Bailey and the research that Catherine and Kwork has done. It seems clear to me that even formal mediation will prove unsuccessful in the long term and that only binding arbitration will present a lasting sollution.

I hope I am wrong about this but from what I have seen thus far some of the Bailey faction have shown a willingness to attack Kwork and try to get rid of of him in anyway they can. That resolve on their part is likely to be their undoing. Anyway I really appreciate the way you helped Catherine and the way you have helped out in general. Thank you very much. Albion moonlight 23:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes and I will stop calling them a faction as of now. I didn't know it was contentious or even mildly offensive. Albion moonlight 00:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The point is to focus on the content of the article. Arguing about an editor's personal affiliations is, even at best, not helping the article. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Problems from Perth

Blocked. More for a different edit than that one, observing that there is such a web site isn't nice, but isn't direct name calling. I left this on his IP's talk page, but he may not look there, putting it here as well in case he looks here.

Sorry, Frightner

Please don't call people names like [5] You're not on an equal footing here. 80% of your edits are fine, but the remaining 20% are enough to make up for it. That experiment we had some weeks ago which ended with you blatantly vandalizing articles and making very nasty personal attacks was enough to show that. Until you can get control of your temper, we will have to live without your useful contributions too. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm also semi-protecting the Nikola Karev article for a while to keep it from further edit warring from other Perth-based IPs. If he continues to be nasty (not just discussing, but attacking) on the talk page, post here, and I'll semi-protect it as well. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you honestly think there is any point in that? Frightner 17:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes and no. No, blocking your IPs has been shown to be ineffective. But I can and will semi-protect pages on which you engage in edit warring or personal attacks, and posting a link to your IP edit history helps me find those. Please be civil. You had a few days when you were really trying to be civil, and I stood up for you. Now it looks like you're not even trying any more. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I knew I would never be unblocked, plus, there's no point in being civil because you just know that you can never stop them Bulgaristanis from spreading propaganda (just look at Jingiby's image uploads; "Macedonians greet Bulgarians as liberators" blah blah blah, which, may I add, he has been blocked for [6]). I have come to realize why no one in their right mind would use Wikipedia as a primary sources, it's fun to contribute is all. P.S. You don't have to worry about me getting into anymore edit wars[7] "Jingiby... will dig his own grave without anyone else's help." Regards. Frightner 10:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
If I may suggest semiprotecting List of Macedonians (ethnic group) and extending the block of the IP? Thanks. Mr. Neutron 16:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
You mean for this edit? Eh.... look. Technically he should not edit war, absolutely. Unfortunately, in that particular edit, I agree with him. Just following the link to Ancient Macedonians says whether or not they were Greek is debated, so it's far clearer to just say that this link goes to "the people of Ancient Macedonia", not "the Greek people of Ancient Macedonia", the latter implies that we have a different article on the non-Greek people. We don't need the adjective, if we can make a clear link without it. So if you like, I can semi-protect the article ... but then I'd have to take over the edit conflict for him. :-). --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, agreed. Mr. Neutron 16:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

New project

Hi AnonEMouse. While on break, I came across a great resource which was a great help and inspiration in compiling a complete List of Nikkatsu Roman Porno films.I may be AFK for a couple weeks, decided to submit what's done. Advice/comments still welcome.Dekkappai 22:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC) I've put it in my user space to tinker around with the formatting a little before posting it. As always, I'd welcome and appreciate any pointers or suggestions from you or any of the other editors. Regards. Dekkappai 17:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

PD-RoM

You should look at all of the point on the template not just the last one, the template also says the image belonging to the republic of macedonia is in the public domain if it being used for "information purposes". Frightner 11:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree. The law permits usage of documents, photographs and other materials for educational and informational purposes. There was a normative act issued by the government of the Republic of Macedonia that even allowed citizens to make photocopies or photograph rare archive materials. Revizionist 15:41, 07 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy closing?

You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. Kevin Tumlinson after one day without mentioning anything about speedy deletion or giving reasons. Not that I'm objecting too much, but did you realize it was only one day? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, notability cannot be acquired in 4 days. That was my reasoning behind the early closure. However, if you still believe the closure was out of process, you can still refer to the deletion review. - FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
No, no, I was the nominator! Just wanted to make sure it wasn't done in error. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I was a bit surprised because i know you were the nominator ;) No, it wasn't done in error. - FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Bronchiolitis obliterans is being vandalized

Hello.

First, thanks for all your help with Alice Bailey. I am very appreciative of my share in the communcal Barnstar of Peace.

Now, i have another request to bring to you. The Bronchiolitis obliterans page is being semi-blanked and "editorially sanitized" (vandalized) by anon IP Block users (the major actor is IP 209.*). The page was looking good until 209 showed up, in the wake of the Popcorn Lung consumer case (currently in the news). Since then 209 and other anon IPs have been taking out data like crazy and insisting that "the Popcorn Lung people" get another page.

I am not going to come on all paranoid here, but i suspect that the vandal is a legal or public relations rep for the popcorn industry, which is facing some major lawsuits due to cases of Bronchiolitis obliterans caused by diacetyl, and has already caved in to the extent that some companies (e.g. Con Agra) are hastily eliminating diacetyl from their microwavable popcorn -- which information has been removed from the page twice now.

There is a user named User:Chrissy385 who seems to know that data well enough, but asked me to help with combatting the vandalism. I think semi-protection would be in order for the page. So here i am at your doorstep again, cap in hand, humbly begging for some help.

catherine Catherineyronwode 06:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for that AAB compromise, appreciated. As for this, though, deep waters. I'll need to look into this further, but at first glance, it looks like the IP believes BO is not quite the same thing as popcorn worker's lung, though they are related; perhaps one is a subset of the other or something like that. As I know nothing about either (though I do eat popcorn occasionally!) I'll have to actually read some sources and see if most doctors think they are the same or different. I'll weigh in once I've done that, probably a couple of days. Meanwhile, you can
  • find sources that say that, use them as references in the article, etc.
  • please don't be quite so free with accusations of vandalism. Wikipedia:Vandalism is a much more limited term than "edits I don't like", it's reserved for blatantly bad faith "Fred is gay" type defacement. This is probably a good faith content dispute.
  • if you really suspect company involvement, see if the WikiScanner will help. I've not used it yet, but this is what it is supposed to be for. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, thanks for that interesting link. WikiScanner helped me pinpoint the odd fact that two of the different anon IP alterers (removers of references to popcorn) on the bronchiolitis obliterans page have also edited the page on Jonathan Pollard, Israeli spy. Anyway. i did find the cites requested, and have continued to work on the page. It's just one of those weird things... cat Catherineyronwode 06:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I looked at it some more, there's room for compromise. It looks like, as the IP writes (by the way, 24... and 209... come from the same city in Alabama, so I suspect they're the same person), that BO is a rare disease caused when something damages your lungs. The diacetyl flavoring in fake-butter popcorn is just one of the possibilities for those somethings, that happens to have gotten some press lately; however someone suffering from BO from transplant rejection (as, say, this article from University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, as best I can tell) would be greatly surprised to be told they have Popcorn Worker's Lung. So while we should certainly document all the diacetyl and popcorn stuff, but we shouldn't say they're synonyms, we should say that PWL is a specific form of BO. If it looks like PWL is overweighing the article, we create a new article on PWL, and leave a summary section in BO. That's called Wikipedia:Summary style. But right now it does not seem to be overweighing the article, being less than a quarter of the total article length. Want me to write that on the article talk page, or do you think you have worked it out there? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_May_7#Image:Chess_bitboard.svg

Don't template the regulars, especially not with the rude sofixit template. I in fact decided to "fix" the faulty image by nominating it for deletion. -- Dissident (Talk) 12:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Whoo. A number of points; let's number.
  1. I am sorry for offending. Offense was not intended. Honest communication was.
  2. As for using the words I used, however, starting with an honest thanks for the concern, they expressed the sentiments I wished to express. The words are quite close to those I have expressed in other forms in similar cases. It's a volunteer project, the only way things get done is by people who want to do them, doing them. It also only works by a process of gradual and incremental improvements, not by demanding perfection or deletion. The chess board (or whatever - it's been a while, see below) was mostly correct, with a few disputable issues. If every article that was mostly good but had a few disputable issues was deleted rather than edited, we wouldn't have a single one of our articles left. This is an image, but it isn't an iconic image that can never be reproduced, it is an image that was composed, edited, can be relatively easily tweaked and fixed in nearly any easily available graphic program. It doesn't require professional certification and $500 of Adobe Photoshop, Microsoft Paint can handle it. In most respects this image is similar to an article in this way. Deletion is not fixing.
  3. The guideline you link to is a wonderful thing, but you may notice that it refers to user warning templates, not all templates. I believe it does not apply to any usage of any template anywhere. Not that that lessens the offense you personally felt of course.
  4. You are complaining in September about something in May? Again, not that this diminishes your feelings, but my personal memory of the event has flown, and I can only try to reconstruct them. I am sorry that a short remark caused you to feel such hurt that you kept it buried inside for four months until finally bursting forth this way; that was not my intent at all. I believe I had actually rather hoped that you would respond at the time, ideally by actually fixing the issues you had with the image, but at worst at responding at the time. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

E-mail...

...on its way to you. Videmus Omnia Talk 14:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Trinity Loren

the French page has been deleted and then restored. When I removed the IW, the page didn't exist anymore ;) --Bombastus 18:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Neutron's prolific edits on Macedonia-related articles

To give you just a little taste of Mr. Neutron's doing please check this diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Macedonians_%28ethnic_group%29&diff=156933450&oldid=156910477 . He adds the word 'allegedly' though one whole chapter of the book is dedicated to creating Macedonian literary language (the book is all over the web in english translation, the appropriate chapter is here). And he also adds a half truth that later Misirkov denied his claims, 'forgetting' to add that near the end of his life he went back to his original claim that Macedonians are ethnically different from Bulgarians.

If you look at the contrib history of Mr. Neutron you will find plenty of edits like this, and all of his 'contribs' are EXCLUSIVELY on articles dealing with Macedonia, and mostly pushing pro-bulgarian POV in subtle and not-so-subtle ways. I just thought you might want to know for future reference :) Capricornis 19:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand that there is a lot of controversy here, even between respected scholars. We need to document that disagreement in our articles, hopefully without attacking editors. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Capricornis, stop insinuating. And please refrain from various Ad hominem arguments, as they are falacies. Comment on contributions please. Mr. Neutron 20:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
You must have misunderstood something? I was commenting on your contributions, not on you as a person (please read the Ad Hominem article before you quote it). Also 'insinuations' are statements that cannot be proven, whereas my statements above can be proven by anyone who will take the time to look through your contrib history. have a great day Capricornis 22:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
You were already warned on your talkpage not to commit any more personal attacks, so dont do it. You have been consistently insinuating against other Wikipedia contributors and this is not at all nice going. Mr. Neutron 22:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
You are talking about the distant past. I retracted the unfortunate comments and they were accepted, including by you, at the end of this section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ilinden-Preobrazhenie_Uprising#Search_engines_tests . I do not intend to personally attack you at all, but I will attack your contributions and 'content' every time you try to 'slightly' swing the pendulum to your side - you will be reported. Capricornis 23:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh please! "Distant past" was only yesterday. Report whatever you want, with such consistent agenda against other contributors you only bring suspicion on yourself. Mr. Neutron 23:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
That was a misinformed suggestion by another ordinary user, just like you and me. I still maintain that there were no personal attacks in my words, but only good humored jibs. The statement about the exclusivity of your activity on Macedonia related articles stands and is easily verifiable. I suggest if you have something more to say, to do it on my talk page as there is no point continuing this tirade on AnonEMouse's page who seems to have quite enough work without it. -cheers Capricornis 02:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
And more personal attacks calling people misinformed... Mr. Neutron 02:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Misinformed/misguided are not insults in the English language. Maybe brush up on your English or use Websters? :) Capricornis 02:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, I'm so glad you two aren't insulting each other! --AnonEMouse (squeak) 12:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Joe Schmidlap

Who wrote the Joe Schmidlap article? I had a friend who referenced that name regularly, and was surprised to see it in print. Thanks for any info you can provide. Mandsford 22:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

User:ManualRivera791 was the proud author, but it's a common enough insert-name-here name, just ask Google. Joe Schmoe is another; John Q. Public; John Doe in legal cases; Joe Bloggs on standardized tests; Bubba... --AnonEMouse (squeak) 12:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Alice Bailey and original research

AnonEMouse, when you get a chance could you take a look at the material Jamesd1 has added to the article? My view is that much of it is nothing but original research....for instance, the section comparing Bailey's writing to Theosophical Society literature which is based on nothing but Bailey quotes and links that do not even mention Bailey, all held together by original research of Jamesd1. If you think I am wrong, I will not bother the others editors on this point. (thanks for making the spelling correction) Kwork 16:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems clear that Bailey stated her work was connected to Theosophy, so it's not really original research to say so. It is certainly preferable to use links that mention both Bailey and Theosophy, but once we have a solid footing for the statement "Bailey based her work on Theosophy", it's probably all right to write a bit about the beliefs that Theosophy has in common with Bailey, if it's not actively disputed, and hope to find sources that actually say that when needed. At most stick on a {{fact}} tag that will remind people that this statement likely is true, but really needs citation to a reliable source saying so to make sure. I think there is room here for keeping the material, just refining it and improving the sources. I haven't read the sources, mind (or I'd add the needed references myself), but I imagine there are people writing about the similarities bwtween Theosophy and Bailey.
As an editing rule here, it's better to add to people's edits, rephrase, rearrange, etc., rather than remove their changes wholesale. That way there is some back and forth, but in general a kind of incremental progress, and the article improves. Just reverting leads to deadlock, and should be avoided. Don't insist on perfection all at once. When you find something wrong, fix it, but don't just delete it unless there really is no other choice. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Since I asked and you answered, I will not argue. (Nevertheless, the Theosophical Society view is that Bailey misunderstood their teaching completely, and reject any relationship with the Bailey teaching.)

The massive use of Bailey quotes (compare with the Shakespeare article) is grotesque. The principle seems to that the more minor the author the more extensive the quotes; and is, perhaps, a corollary to the P. G. Wodehouse observation, on men's check suites, that "the smaller the man the larger the check". Thanks for looking. Kwork 19:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion?

Hiya Anon, you're becoming my go-to admin-type for questions like this; I do hope you don't mind too much. I recently came across a handful of articles (mostly by accident) that seem AfD's or needing something serious, and I'd love your opinion, if you don't mind.

In particular, have a look at Stevenage Sharks and tell me how a group that played one year of semi-pro minor league ice hockey in the UK is notable, lol... the article doesn't make that attempt, either. The two linked articles there look just as useless. Would these be speedy delete candidates? How about Unusual Ground Markings? I've never heard the term - admittedly, I'm no ufoologist but this sounds like a pure neologism someone used as an excuse to create an article. It could at least use, say, one citation, no?

Another matter altogether is UFO Phil - although the subject is clearly notable, this is just one of the finest bits of fluffery I've ever seen around these parts - unsurprisingly, written mostly by an "anonymous" IP. Or am I seeing it wrong? Your input, as always, is greatly appreciated. BTW, I'm not necessarily asking you to nom these for deletion, I'd be happy to learn how to do it myself. But then, if you would have anyways, feel free, it's not like I really care either way who does what. I do like to see things improve, tho. :) (Oh, and if you've never noticed it, have a look at a page that just screams 'edit war in progress' from the git-go: UFO - sad, no? And why is UFO Phil a see also? lol) Eaglizard 22:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks. I've somehow become the go-to-admin-type for a new age mystic author, a rare lung disease, a Macedonian-Bulgarian ethnic dispute, and now British minor league ice hockey and UFO-related phenomena. (And to think at my admin nomination people were worried that I would concentrate too much on one topic.) I guess I'm a true Renaissance mouse. Leonardo Da Vinci, eat your heart out. :-) I can only try to apply general principles. One at a time:
  • The Stevenage Sharks, Stevenage Strikers, and Stevenage Oilers were all created by Acharmingplace (talk · contribs) in March 13-18, and that's basically all that user did. They are the only articles referencing each other. I tried to dig through Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Ice_hockey and it makes distinctions based on how professional the league is. Category:Ice hockey in the United Kingdom is too complex for me, apparently there are more leagues than you can shake a curved stick at, and they go in and out of existence and change their names regularly. I'm not sure enough to speedy delete them. They were real teams, http://www.azhockey.com/St.htm has them (among hundreds of others). You can nominate the articles for deletion at WP:AFD and no one will laugh at you, but I think the best choice is to ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey; that seems an active WikiProject, and people there should understand that category and those standards better than I. They may well tell you to nominate them for AfD.
  • Unusual Ground Markings does seem to be a term used in the UFO community.[8][9][10] but I'm not sure which, if any, of those is considered to be reliable enough to add as a reference to the article. None of them are long enough to be more than a definition among lists of others, and it seems to be a self-explanatory term: markings on the ground that are unusual. It's close to a dictionary definition, but debatable, so again, I wouldn't speedy it. If it bothers you, you can nominate it at AfD, and it will probably be sourced or deleted in five days; it's been around for two years, so no rush.
  • UFO Phil seems to be a genuinely notable, if minor and self-parodying, celebrity. Appearing on thirty unrelated radio shows in different countries pretty clearly meets Wikipedia:Notability. Don't nominate that one.
  • UFO being an edit war in progress... well, yeah, what did you expect? :-) I can similarly, even without looking, tell you that Iraq War, George W. Bush, Abortion, and Scientology aren't going to be the most calm and peaceful articles either. It's the nature of the subject. I looked at it, and it wasn't actually as bad as it could have been, it has lots of information and references, and nice pictures, a few {{fact}} tags are not so bad. Linking to UFO Phil wouldn't be too appropriate if the UFO#See also section only had two or even five links, since he's fairly minor, but since it has fifty (!), he fits fine. And no, having 50 See also links is not the best idea, when you get to that level, that's what Categories are for... but there are two million articles on the Wikipedia, and this is not nearly as bad as some; we have to choose our battles. If you want to go in and improve it, good luck, but don't expect it to be calm. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Vicond

You are very fast AnonMouse!!Congratulations!! Vicond 18:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC) (talk)

Thank you very much for your recomendations. I will have it in counts. Vicond 20:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC) (talk)

I have my email address in my preferences

But I have not figured out how to access the email addresses of users who purportedly have them. Where is the icon ???--- Albion moonlight 20:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)Albion moonlight 20:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You can't access the email address, you can just send email through a web page form. Left hand side, "toolbox" box, "E-mail this user" link. If either of you don't have email set when you click on it, you won't even get a form to fill in. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

My OS is Linux does that make a difference ????...Albion moonlight 20:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't. Can you find the link? It should turn into something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Emailuser/AnonEMouse What happens when you click on it? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I have it working now and thanks for your help Albion moonlight 23:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Anon Mouse I need your help

The problem is that now my E-mail direccion appears in my history page.I don't know what can I do to delete compeletely of my user page.Please, can you help me? Vicond 21:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC) (talk)

Don't worry about it. I doubt many email harvesters will go digging in page histories, and don't know of any downstream sites that copy our histories, just our pages. Removing it from the page should be sufficient. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you recieve my email

If you did and already replied then their is a problem of some sort, Albion moonlight 22:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

My wiki mail option is working but I have to type in the following, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Emailuser/ plus the username to get it to do so. Anyway problem solved and please feel free to not respond to any of my messages today including the 2 I sent by email. And thanks for your help. ...Albion moonlight 00:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I received your 2 emails. I'm not sure I understood the second, but if it's taken care of, that's good too. :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

policy on hate/abusive talk

What is the policy when someone writes something like this ? Does their IP get banned and their comment purged from the talk page? Capricornis 23:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I left a warning on their talk page. Looks like others have already removed the offensive comment. Videmus Omnia Talk 00:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
They would be blocked, yes, but it looks like they haven't been repeating. IP addresses are usually not banned, because an IP is usually just a number handed out by a service provider, and will be given to a different person eventually; certainly when the person signs up with a new service provider, and sometimes even faster than that. Our acquaintaince from Perth editing on that subject has shown the ability to get a new IP number within minutes of the old one being blocked, sometimes several times a day; fortunately, however, this isn't him. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I see a similar address made a similar comment. [11] If it becomes a regular thing, tell me, and I will semi-protect the article talk page. That will stop all IP addresses without an account from editing there (apparently some do make non-abusive comments[12]) but if we have to, we will. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey Bud I need ya on this one

Hello, I did an edit on one of the porn stars pages and I have an editor who just joined wikipedia who is going onto the article and adding things at random. I removed the personal info like where he lives and the editor put it right back on. Then the editor made an edit and place a description as this [13]. COuld you please look at this? I did go onto theri talk page and explain about putting personal info and advertisement onto an article. I hope it helps. Thank you Junebug52 02:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You have the right idea; we certainly want confirmation before accusing someone of being an escort, which is usually a euphemism for being a prostitute. However, in this case, he's apparently a prizewinning escort. (Yes, I didn't know there was a prize for that either, but it seems there is ... live and learn. I'll be making an article for the International Escort Awards soon; it got coverage from the Village Voice, DNA Magazine, and even a bit from the New York Daily News.) Winning the prize is fairly clear confirmation that he does work as an escort. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 12:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I had no idea! I just reverted the edit because he stated that the subject was a close friend and wanted the info on the page. As you and I both know, there has to be more to the verification than just saying "The subject wants the info included" That is why I made the edit and then went to his talk page to advise him that we would need sourcing for that if he wanted the info to remain. I had no idea! LOL Well if I ever need another job, now I know where I can get one and get an award for doing it! LOL Thanks man Junebug52 13:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Arpad Miklos Image

Regarding Image:Arpad Miklos cropped.jpg on the above article, do you know if there was an OTRS ticket for images from hisxpress.com? I've seen several images from there, supposedly under GFDL, and remember the issue coming up at WP:PUI quite a while ago. But I can't find the source for the permission, and it's not copyleft on the source so far as I can tell. I'll start asking around with the uploaders if you don't know, but thought I would check with the all-knowing Renaissance Mouse first. If we do have a ticket the images should probably be moved out to the Commons. Videmus Omnia Talk 15:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid Wikipedia:OTRS is not one of my renaissance qualities. See, to get access you need to provide confirmation of your name, etc., while I'm, well ... AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC) :-)
Looks like the permission is here. I don't know if this is good enough for us anymore - especially since the signature is by Chidom (talk · contribs), who is a user that doesn't exist! Videmus Omnia Talk 15:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for finding that. Oh, I remember Chidom. He came in when Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography was sadly lacking a dedicated gay pornography editor, and did a very good job for a while. If it's an issue of editor creditability, that should be good enough; but I don't know it it is, we may well need the full email with headers, etc., archived at OTRS. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
The person who added this was apparently Rentaferret (talk · contribs). Not sure why s/he would forge a signature. Videmus Omnia Talk 15:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Aaah. Hold on a bit, let me dig ... --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
He changed his username, then two days later exercised his right to vanish entirely. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'll try to contact someone at New Millennium Video. If we can't get the permission confimed, the images may need to go. And there are quite a few of them. Videmus Omnia Talk 16:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I had an email address for him once, but he hasn't responded for a while. I'll send him a note about it, but can't guarantee anything. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey guys, what an issue. I do not think that is going to be sufficient since there is not a permission for rights. I ran into this with another image and lost the battle some time ago. Junebug52 16:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Do you think we should remove it until we get such permission? I think I would feel better about it that way. Junebug52 16:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd wait. I'm willing to believe Chidom actually got the permission email he wote he did, partly because of Wikipedia:Assume good faith, but mostly because he really was a dedicated editor. He may have already forwarded it to permissions at wikimedia dot org the same way most of the other emails on that page Videmus Omnia found were forwarded. If he didn't, he may still have it around, and may respond to my email to forward it there now, so we can get an OTRS ticket number that way. If not, HisXPress is likely to confirm giving the permission, and we can forward that to OTRS. Between all those possibilities, I think it most likely the image permission is fine, let's give it a couple of weeks. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I am down with that program! Sorry I have stirred this ant hill! But we need to get it right so that it will be easier for other editors in the future. I just hope that you guys don't think I am just being Rambo and busting through these articles. I really am doing research to find cites and sources. There are very few legit sources except for the subjects webpages or escort sites. Very frustrating! Junebug52 16:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at User:AnonEMouse/MouSearch. I made a Google Co-op customized search engine to help searching for sources as opposed to endless image galleries and forums. Maybe that will help somewhat. It doesn't include as many gay sources as it might, mostly because I don't know as much about that area, but there is no reason that can't be improved. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Oooooh, very nice. Videmus Omnia Talk 16:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
You guys are much too good to me! I hope after this experience kills me you guys will be pall barriers! And AnonEMouse can give my eulogy so that it is well referenced! You can do the powerpoint so that the images are well protected LOL Junebug52 16:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Permission response

Chidom replied; apparently hisxpress sent the permission to wikimedia directly, so they didn't send the number to Chidom, and he didn't know he was supposed to get a number. I wrote to permissions-en at wikimedia.org, and they wrote "The correspondence was indeed forwarded to us, under ticket number 2006072610000589." They also wrote "Please note that while the images are hosted on the hisxpress.com site, they may not be the actual copyright holders of all the works, and therefore may not be in a position to license the images further. It would be best if you could review each image on a case by case basis to determine the actual copyright holder and the validity of the GFDL licensing in this permission, instead of applying a boilerplate template to all of them." I'm not quite sure what that is supposed to mean. If the site claims they own the image, in general we need to take their word for it, unless we have evidence or at least claims to the contrary. But maybe it will become obvious if we look at some of the images and they have watermarks that say they are owned by someone other than HisXPress. I haven't looked at any beyond the Arpad Miklos image. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Good find! I don't mind helping to review and tag some of them, though gay porn is not really my thing (as you can probably tell from the images I usually get). And I don't know if I want to have those pics in my Commons upload log. :) Videmus Omnia Talk 17:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I forgot we have a bot to do Commons moves for trusted users now - I highly recommend you sign up for itNever mind, I see you're already an approved user. User:Betacommand/Commons. Videmus Omnia Talk 17:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I looked at {{OTRS ticket}} and it seems to need some sort of ticket id, as well as the ticket number. I asked permissions for that, and for clarification on how we are to determine "actual copyright holder" other than HisXPress. Let's see what they have to say. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Should be able to use {{PermissionOTRS-ID|2006072610000589}} (at least that's what I'm doing). I'm only tagging the ones that are obvious promo photos, and not DVD covers etc. that apparently have other copyright holders than New Millennium Video. Videmus Omnia Talk 17:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, I started on the images. (The Miklos image was one that I did.) Before moving out to Commons, the descriptions have to be fixed and the OTRS ticket number added. I'm listing the ones with other copyright holders at WP:PUI for probable deletion, as they're WP:NFCC#1 vios if they're not under free license. I'll keep working but would appreciate some help. The ticket number should probably be added in a note somewhere at WP:P* in case someone wants to use other images from that site. Videmus Omnia Talk 18:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Did that, also added the OTRS number and info to the Successful requests for permission post. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh nuts. Permissions wrote back. I have to quote almost the whole email, there is no way around it, given the content, I suspect they won't mind.

Dear Anon E. Mouse,

The copyright of the content remains with the original copyright holders: the respective studios and photographers. HisXpress.com and New Millennium Video appear to be video retailers and have produced no original content Wikipedia could use. The images they have on their site are most likely promotional material which can not be used by anyone for any purpose including unrestricted redistribution, commercial use, and modification, as is required for material in Wikimedia projects.

Any permissions that release images with a note such as "feel free to use any model photos found on our pages-no credit needed" are extremely dubious, especially when they supposedly come from someone who is making a business of the work. The permission received last year was never approved by anyone working with the permissions tickets. There have also been cases before where a misguided webmaster has first given permission for Wikipedia to use material from their site, and after a request for clarification agreed to the GFDL license without really understanding what such licensing entails. This seems to unfortunately be one of those cases, and can't be accepted without further proof from the copyright holders.

Permissions from third parties need to be crystal clear for Wikimedia projects to be able to distribute the content with a free license. I would recommend seeking other sources. Thank you for understanding.

I reverted my WP:P* note, and probably need to add clarification to the Successful requests. In a way, I'm glad Chidom isn't here any more, he would probably be tearing his hair out. :-(. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The good news for this particular image is that we have an editor claiming to be in touch with the article subject himself, so we can ask him if he would be willing to release a free image (hopefully clothed!). But it's pretty bad news for the other articles using HisXPress images. :-(. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, I added a note to the permissions page, referencing your post here, and all the images I could find have been nominated for deletion here. Videmus Omnia Talk 15:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Vicond

I see that you are in really a Veteran in the Wiki.I began yesterday. Thank you for your Help. Vicond 04:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC) (talk)

RFC

Thank you for comments on the RFC. I know I can sometimes be rude to other users and I intend to fix this, but do you think the nominations I have been making are inappropriate? I'd like to know so I can adjust my behavior, and your's is the only outside opinion I really trust on this. I do feel the List of big-bust models article is a mess, but I'll stay away from it due to the trouble it causes. Epbr123 15:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not ignoring you, it's just that you deserve a good answer that is proving hard to write. Please believe that I appreciate many of your contributions. If you want, you can read or re-read most of User_talk:AnonEMouse/Archive_9, where the earlier incidents came up - I think a third of that archive is directly or indirectly comments about you. :-) I'll write more here soon. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't know if this is going to be a good answer like you deserve, it seems sort of incoherent to me, and I'm writing it. But it feels better to write something. :-)
I think Joe Beaudoin Jr. made a good point when he wrote that it seems like you sometimes follow rules and guidelines to the letter, seemingly to the exclusion of their spirit. In the end, we are here to make a free encyclopedia, a substantial contribution to the dissemination of human knowledge. The rules and guidelines are all only here to help that. We could have the best rules imaginable, but if good editors couldn't get along with each other, we wouldn't have any content. The content is more important than the rules.
List of big-bust models and performers is a bit of a mess because it has confusing inclusion criteria. Is it a list of notable women known for modeling or performing in the big-bust adult entertainment genre, or is it a list of women who are notable for the size of their breasts, whether natural or surgically enhanced, or is it a list of women with a U.S. cup size of 'DD' or larger? They're not the same things: Dolly Parton is notable for the size of her breasts, but is not a performer in big-bust entertainment, and I can at least imagine a performer in any genre of entertainment that doesn't have DD breasts (for example from Asia, where breasts tend to be smaller, or, say, someone like Elvira, Mistress of the Dark, who makes excellent use of gym socks. :-)). I'd prefer listing performers in the genre ... but most of them are also DD or larger. I don't think throwing the baby out with the bathwater is a good thing. We should fix the criteria. But if we can't fix the criteria, that still isn't a deletion reason. It's better to have 90% of something good, than none of it.
Here is a fairly famous statement that Jimbo Wales wrote, that's been cited out of context as support for inclusionism in general. It's not quite as strong as it seems, when taken in the context of the post he was responding to, but it is still good to read.[14] The important point that I draw from it isn't that non-notable articles should be included, of course they shouldn't be; rather it's that making our fellow editors happy is also important.
So anyway, are your nominations out of line? Well... they do seem to come in waves, which does give that impression. Not to me as much, because I've seen your work, and know you do mean it from good intentions, but you can clearly see that it gives that impression to others. Slowing down is probably good.
You are also a multiple featured article writer. That's great, that's one of the best things about the Wikipedia, FAs are examples to others. However, there is a tendency among FA writers to a sort of arrogance; and I don't mean you specifically, I haven't watched your FAs, but I have watched others. The best of them: Geogre, Bishonen, Awadewit, DrKiernan, just to name a few I have watched, and respect highly ... tend to be unforgiving of imperfections of others. Once they can put out an FA in a couple of weeks of work, they tend to forget how important a single Start-class article can be to someone else. Once they have been acclaimed as genuinely doing really good work, they tend to be less accepting of criticism from their lessers, and tend to think that things like guidelines and rules don't or shouldn't apply to them. Others (let's not name names) go even farther, and there are several people whose FA list is rivaled in length only by their block log. :-)
There is a saying "the perfect is the enemy of the good". We need to place the good very high here. It's not worth it to make any given article a battleground; we have 2 million articles (!), if there is strong opposition from productive, experienced, well meaning editors to any specific point, surely there are other articles that can better use the same help. And think of yourself, surely one minor article isn't worth you pulling your hair out over. Even if you want to be selfless, think of all the deletable articles that will languish when you have to quit editing when you get ulcers! :-)
Anyway, that's the general answer. The specific answer, I guess, is to nominate fewer "bunches", when you can, try to improve them rather than delete them, and be nicer to people in general. Sorry for being incoherent, hope that helped a bit. -AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
That was coherent to me and it was the helpful advice I was hoping for. I will have a good think about it. Thank you so much for all your time and effort. Epbr123 21:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hispanic Americans in World War II

I have tried to add {{rs}} tags to many of the sources in this article (see diff), but Tony the Marine is removing them because he says you said the sources are okay. Do you actually think these flagged sources are reliable? They're all self-published by non-professional sources and amateurs. User:Calliopejen1 17:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Your edit comment is right that I didn't go through each and every one thoroughly, but I went through a number. And Tony's edit comment is also right; SandyGeorgia is a frighteningly proficient FA reviewer, and while I'm not at that level, I have reviewed a fair number, yes. And there more than just the three of us at that Featured Article candidacy. Anyway, the policy involved here is Wikipedia:Verifiability. Two important things to remember from it are
  1. the most controversial statements require the most sourcing; derogatory statements about living persons even being immediately deletable without good sources. And vice versa: "Paris is the capital of France" usually doesn't need a citation at all.
  2. that reliability of a source is relative to the fact it is being cited for - a scientific magazine is a fine source for a scientific fact, not so good for politics, and vice versa.
Keeping that in mind, let's take a look at a few of the ones from that diff, one by one.
  • American Veterans' Committee for Puerto Rico Self Determination - History - that's being cited for movements of the 295th and 65th infantry regiments in WWII. So, is it controversial? Not really. I haven't heard anyone seriously questioning where these regiments were sent, have you? Is the source good for history of US military troop movements? Well, per [15] that group seems to be led by a Major General in the Air Force with multiple medals, another veteran who served on multiple government veterans committees, and an honorary chairman (I guess he founded it?) who was an Admiral and US Ambassador to Spain. While that's not perfect (for example, they're air force and navy, not army, and they're retired, not current) it's pretty darn good. So unless they're saying something really controversial, I would tend to trust what they write about WWII troop movements, yes.
  • Next is COMMANDS by Colonel Gilberto Villahermosa. That's being cited for information on the 65th infantry actions or casualties or something. So, who is Colonel Gilberto Villahermosa? At the bottom, that page says:

Colonel Gilberto Villahermosa is the Chief of the Combined Joint Task Force Coordination Branch at NATO’s Regional Headquarters Allied Forces North, Brunssum, The Netherlands. His articles have appeared in a number of military publications and his history of the 65th Infantry Regiment in Korea is due to be published by the Army Center of Military History in 2003.

That's pretty darn good. The article itself, at the bottom cites a list of official references as long as my arm. That's downright great. Let's check further: Villahermosa seems to have articles in official Army publications: [16] and official NATO publications.[17] This seems to be a source I'd even trust for moderately controversial information; he's a current colonel, in the army, and a multiply published historian, and he does his research. It doesn't get much better than this. In fact, one of those Villahermosa Army articles seems to be directly on topic, I wonder if Tony has seen it? [18] Half our article could probably be cited to it.
  • Next is Bataan Memorial Death March - History - an unofficial recreation group, though with various National Guard, ROTC, and so forth sponsorships. Not a terrible source, but this is a featured article, which should be an example to others, and it's not a great source either. It's being used to source basic facts about the Bataan Death March, and that others died when their POW ships were sunk. These are fairly well known facts, but the BDM was an atrocity, so anything giving details about it might be considered controversial. We can find a better source, there have been lots written about the BDM. Here is one better source, a PBS documentary [19] and here is another fine source that covers the ships bit, National Museum of the United States Air Force: [20]
That's the first three, if they're representative, I see the pattern. In general the sources are fine. Some can be improved, but it shouldn't be hard, I found the BDM with a basic search. May I suggest working together with him to improve the sources? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • AnonEMouse, I received your message. User:Calliopejen1 made some improvements to the article. I was wonddring if you could be kind enough to replace any reference that you believe needs it. I'm asking you to please do me this favor because I have a tendency of messing up things before making them better. Tony the Marine 20:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Whoo. Tall order - check all 77 references? I checked three above, the first two were OK, the third could be improved, but wasn't absolutely horrible. Tell you what; ask me about the ones that you feel least certain about, and I'll try to help, but man, 77 is a lot. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

history

AnonEMouse, I have noticed today that there are many recent comments on the Alice Bailey talk page that do not show in "history". How can that happen? Kwork 14:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It can't, without Wikipedia:Oversight or some intensive work deleting specific revisions by an admin. Or at least I've never seen it happen, and I've been looking at page histories a long time. What specific comments are you referring to, please? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

There are several comments above my next to last comment that I don't see in the history, from Albion, Jamesd1, Itsmejudith...Kwork 15:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you're referring to: Albion, Jamesd1, Itsmejudith - in the history they look like:
  • (cur) (last) 03:39, September 14, 2007 Albion moonlight (Talk | contribs | block) (318,569 bytes) (→Original Research) (undo)
  • (cur) (last) 20:31, September 13, 2007 Itsmejudith (Talk | contribs | block) (318,212 bytes) (→Original Research) (undo)
  • (cur) (last) 20:20, September 13, 2007 Jamesd1 (Talk | contribs | block) (317,619 bytes) (→Original Research) (undo)
--AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


Kwork, It's because there was a slight diversion to another header discussion (for Legion fi's work). If you go up further (look at the edit summaries) you'll see the history from the others you mention.
AnonEMouse, we need help in understanding OR. Four of us agree a section Kwork put in was OR and some of us tried to explain why to him. Can you please help? --Renee 15:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
You mean this section? I agree with the critics, whether the issue is original research or undue weight. The main problem is that this is the Alice Bailey article, and the section isn't about Alice Bailey, it's about Channeling in general. We have a whole article on that (it seems to be called Mediumship), and that section would be better directed there. We can't put a long section critical of channeling in general in the article on every mystic, any more than we can put a long section critical of warfare in general in every article on a general, or a long section critical of abortion in general in every article on a feminist.--AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
They introduced the topic of channeling, not me. It is not necessary to discuss Alice Bailey, but if the subject is introduced, and emphasised, discussion is justified. Why don't they just take out all the mention of how the books were written, and just discuss what was written? It is unnecessary to the article. The analogy to mystics does not apply, because few mystics were channelers. Many religious traditions forbid it, so channeled literature is almost never found in the writing Jewish or Christian mystics. Kwork 15:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I'm not an expert, but in my feeble memory, lots of religions' prophets describe or are described as being possessed by the Holy Spirit, being in a trance, speaking in tongues, being visited by spirits, all of that stuff. Also, it doesn't seem the article focuses on channeling per se, rather the fruits thereof. It doesn't recommend that people go out and become channelers. It also mentions Bailey's suicide attempts, similarly we shouldn't stick in a whole section on how bad suicide is for you.--AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

RfB

I said one day because I only saw him a lot at RfA, but not so much at other departments, such as WP:CHU, and his interests didn't seem to be focused on that as much. Basically, I thought all he needed was experiance in other bureaucrat backlogs, and more time, and he would be fully qualifed.--U.S.A. (talk contribs) 18:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Heh, don't worry. I gather you just don't know about NYB yet. Brad is, for good reason, one of the most popular admins we have. You can see him on the short list at WP:200#Requests_for_adminship, but will have to look further to see that he not only had over 200 supports, but fewer opposes than anyone else on that list. He's a deep and careful thinker, and has never been known to write a word in anger, even though he does get involved in important and sometimes heated issues. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Jenna Haze

An anon has added persondata metadata giving her real name, citing this as a source. Good enough? (Seems kinda WP:SPS to me, but we need some latitude for porn articles.) Videmus Omnia Talk 01:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Well OC Weekly seems to be a legit mag. So I'd say keep it. Tabercil 02:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Seems to be some edit-warring happening there over the issue. Videmus Omnia Talk 14:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I've spotted it... Tabercil 15:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
        • I gave him a 3rr warning, will keep an eye on things as well. I'm neutral about the real name, will stay out of that part. Videmus Omnia Talk 16:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
          • It appears from a link on the talk page that the given source was using Wikipedia as a reference. I think Ouroboros must have posted the real name originally. Videmus Omnia Talk 22:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Alice Bailey article tampering

In the Controversies section, someone has removed the links to the articles written Monica Sjöö and Rabbi Yonassan Gershom, which now contain only the links the the Wikipedia articles about them. Kwork 17:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I restored the lost information, but it has been remove again. Could you explain to me what is necessary to have another RfC?, this time from the Biography Section. I really feel that more eyes on this article would be a big help, and certainly more unbiased views on the condition of the article would help too. Because, this argument has been going on so long it is becoming difficult to maintain perspective, and humor.... Kwork 22:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Just a note to second what Kwork said -- the Alice Bailey Edit War seems to be revving up for Game Three. The same persons are responsible. I have also done restorations. It is getting ugly. Sorry to be so needy, but the problem seems to be human, not informational. cat yronwode Catherineyronwode 23:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

AnonEMouse, it seems to me that the reference links in the section now called "Charges of racism and antisemitism" should go directly to the articles written by Monica Sjöö and Yonassan Gershom, which it does not now. But I hesitate to change it because I think that might make problems with the reference system in place. Is there a way to do that without making a general mess of things? Kwork 19:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The links are there, they're just small, at the beginning of the refs. The change seems to have been made September 6, by Catherine. I think it was done by mistake; Cat was trying to standardize ref style, and tripped. Let's see if I can fix it. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that was what Catherine wanted to do - if it wasn't, please correct further. However, I'm not sure why Charges of ... is its own section. It seems that Criticisms, Controversies and Charges are rather related sorts of sections, and should be subsections of a common section. No? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes. I may have caused that problem when I moved "Charges of racism and antisemitism" to a position above "Criticisms". (As I have said previously, in a more perfect world someone with my level of computer skills probably would not be allowed to use a computer.)
Do you have any ideas of how it might be possible to get more eyes on this article? I think that the views of more editors who are neither pro nor con Alice Bailey, but who just want to see a good Wikipedia article, would inject some sanity into a situation that is now pretty crazy. The situation, as it is now, is just two sides, completely polarized, that do not trust each other. It is not what could be called a healthy situation. Dysfunctional editing....I do not take any pride in being part of that. I think it would be a big help if there were more editors taking part who, like Itsmejudith, are really neutral and outside the argument. Kwork 20:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I won't stop you, of course, but hate to encourage that - the talk page already grows so quickly that I can't keep up with it, and don't even try. I can't imagine other editors helping that. New opinions also won't make it more civil. If there were only two editors, getting extra opinions would be good. As is, there are about 8 editors reasonably involved, including 2 administrators looking in when needed. That's already a lot.
I'm also not sure what your goal is in adding extra opinions. We've gotten off the main problem, where, for a long time, people were just fighting over one small section unproductively. Now the article is growing, that's all that can be asked for, that's the goal. If I saw it before me at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment, I'd upgrade it from Start-class to B-class without difficulty. It will never be perfect, there will always be tweaks that can be made, but we're (or, rather, since I'm not doing much, you're) getting it better and better. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
It is my experience that on Saturday and Sunday, when there are no administrators watching, things start to spin out of control. Just take a look at what was going on over the weekend, and how much more quiet it got on Monday. That is why I think extra eyes would help, not hurt. Kwork 11:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

New Thought Merging and Category change request for help

I am asking your assistance in helping the folks at the New Thought and New Thought Movement articles with some administrative technical magic. There is a mis-named category (New Thought movement) that needs to be fixed to New Thought (to be consistent with another cat, New Age), and there are folks wanting to vote on a merge proposal who do not know how to work the wiki-system to do this. I am only a writer/editor who found the article and its talk page today on one of my compulsive clean-up tours, and i have no technical knowledge at all. No squabbles are ongoing, and the ony discordant notes are the cries of a few lost sheep seeking a tech-shepherd. I will stick around the article(s) long enough to vote and thank you if you help them out. cat yronwode Catherineyronwode 23:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

An update to my own post. Over at the New Thought Movement page there has been an informal vote already taken, extending over one year. It is a low-trffic page -- but during that year 7 editors have voted in favour of merging the NTM page into the New Thought page, and no one has opposed the merge. Is this sufficent to get the merge underway? The pages contain a great deal of redundant (copied) text and i am going to select what i can from the NTM page that is differet and migrate it to the NT page in preparation for the blanking and redirection of the NTM page to the NT page.
That still leaves the issue of the NT category title change, which is far beyond my expertise.
Again, thanks for any help you can provide. catCatherineyronwode 01:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, usually there should formal wp:merge tags and stuff, as described at that link, but this seems to have been discussed long enough even without it! Merging doesn't require admin powers, just:
  1. edit the end result page (New Thought) until you're happy that everything useful from New Thought Movement has been integrated (put "merging from New Thought Movement" in your edit summary comments)
  2. delete all the text from New Thought Movement and replace with the text 
    #REDIRECT [[New Thought]] {{R from merge}}
Put "merging into New Thought" in your edit summary comment.
It looks like there won't be any double redirects, so you won't have to change any other pages. Good luck. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and for the rename, that probably needs to be listed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion for the classic 5 days. That page describes what you need to do. It probably won't be controversial, but it is a category with a fair number of entries, let's cross the ts and dot the is. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I have made the merge, but will leave the cat-rename for later. The article still has no sources, but that is not on my agenda and i will leave that task for others. All i did was pull the two pieces together into one coherent narrative, and left it for the New Thought folks to carry on from that point. cat Catherineyronwode 02:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I think therere may be peace

I think there may be peace on the Bailey article again. I also believe that a lot of this may depend on what Philip Lindsay has to say about it. Mr Lindsay is an antisemitic writer, blogger, occultist who has encouraged meat puppetry on the Bailey article via his blog. I do hope that he is happy with the latest compromise. If he isn't I will give him a taste of Saul Alinsky and discourage him from tampering with Wiki articles. I will also hope that Arb com will put its foot down and take a stronger stance on Meat Puppetry. I think they may feel forced to intervene. Let us hope that Mr Lindsay is capable of being reasoned with.

I have known about Mr Lindsay for quite some time and I think we have been very patient and reasonable with his Meat Puppets. I am bringing this issue up now because I think the time for negotiation will end when and if the Bailey Bunch start tampering with the Controversies section again .

Albion moonlight 23:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
AnonEMouse, the article as it is not goes NOT represent the work of its editors, but everything in it (except the criticism of Bailey's antisemitism) was written under the user name of Jamesd1, who I consider to be a single purpose meatpuppet. For comparison, this (which I believe was actually written by Jamesd1) [21] was the last edit he did in June, at which time he stopped editing until August. When I compare that, with the article as it is today, it is obvious to me that the the person who wrote the current version has a different writing style and ability, and a vastly superior knowledge of the Alice Bailey books. It is hard to say that an IP check would show what was done, because the drafts could have been passed along for Jamesd1 to submit. But the near certainty that this whole long article was written by a single purpose meatpuppet is disturbing. Kwork 13:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Please let's try to avoid focusing on the editors here, especially in a negative way. James added a lot to the article? Great, that's wonderful, that's what we're here for. James started to write better and read up more on the subject? Great, that's wonderful too. Writing improves with practice, that's the whole point of all those essays our English teachers made us write all the time in school; and there is nothing wrong with reading up on the subject in the process of writing their article. I have learned most of what I know about the articles I have written here as I was writing them, not before, and I wouldn't be surprised if edits I made a year and a half ago as I was starting here were considerably worse than edits I make today. In fact, I would worry if I hadn't improved! :-) James only edits one article? Well, that's a shame, we do like our editors to put the whole encyclopedia first, not just one article ... but it's not a hanging offense.
Remember our goal is to get a great encyclopedia, and that's one made up of great articles. A great article in this case isn't one that either builds Bailey up or tears her down, a great article is one that covers all aspects of a no doubt complex story (all humans are complex) and is pleasant and interesting to read. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
It seems like a great article? To me it looks like a promotional piece such as one might expect to find on the Lucis Trust site [22]. Not to say the Lucis Trust is bad, but they are promoting the Alice Bailey teaching. On Wikipedia things are supposed to be a little different, unless I am mistaken. Recently I have not been doing much to edit the article becaused Jamesd1 is still making so many changes and additions, and there is no point in shoveling while the snow is falling. (As for the charges of meatpuppet, I am quite sure that is true; and I think a checkuser would stand a good chance of proving it. But even it it did not, textural analysis of the changes in the article still seem to show it is true.) Kwork 15:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Meat Puppets and Mr Lindsay's followers.

I am not willing to allow Mr Lindsay to control the Bailey Article. I am willing to not go after his followers if they cease and desist from disrupting the Controversies section. I have read the section on Meat Puppets and I made a point of asking Jp Gordon if Meat Puppetry cases were ever resolved by Arb com. I am standing on very firm ground. Mr Gordons answer was yes. I do not back down from the likes of Mr Lindsay. Ok ?  : Albion moonlight 23:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC) Albion moonlight 01:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Whoah, whoah, whoah. I don't know what caused this, but calling someone names like that is not "not backing down", it's a personal attack. (Fortunately no one here claims to be Lindsay.) Please calm down and be specific what the issue is. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 23:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I admit I'm not really sure what you're talking about, maybe you could be more clear what the problem is? On the article talk page, I see Talk:Alice_Bailey#Isnt_Phillip_Lindsay_the_real_reaon._.3F which refers to a Yahoo group, in which Lindsay makes a post complaining about the Wikipedia article back in February. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EsotericWisdomTeachings/message/72 I don't see any other reference to Wikipedia in that Yahoo group. Is this what you mean? If so, well, I can imagine it might have caused someone to edit the article, but if you're talking about James, his first edit was in May, so I doubt that could have been the direct cause. Anyway, the reason why people showed up could be anything, the important thing is what people do when they get here. And this "control" thing - no one person controls much of anything here. Not even Jimbo. I've got a few extra shiny buttons, but you'll notice I do my best to avoid using them, when I can use words instead. This isn't a battleground, this is a bunch of volunteers trying to write articles together. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 00:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

I am and was very calm when I said what I said about Mr Lindsay. I used the terminology that I used knowing full well that no wikipedian was claiming to be him. I will change the wording none the less in order to demonstrate my williness to try and keep a lid on things.

I am merely stating the fact that I believe that a thorough investigatiom of what Catherine told me while she was still Timeless Date Stamp will prove to be reliable. I was not and am not yet asking you to investigate Meat Puppetry. I was and am making my position very clear to both Mr Lindsay and and his followers that I am willing to expose him if need be. I think that that is going to be enough to settle him and the others down. I do hope so . It seems to be working. Albion moonlight 01:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Not a Battleground ??????

The more I investigate the more I realize that the best explanation for the fact that James says one thing and the does another is that he is doing someone elses bidding . That someone else is more than likely Philip Lindsay. If you have a better explanation of Jame's behavior I am all ears .

The attack on Kwork via RFC. was and is little more than an attempt to intimidate Kwork. I could go down a long list of things that prove that Wikipedia is in fact a battleground for at least the Majority of Alice Bailey article editors. The true spirit of Wikipedia does exist in Eaglizard but that's about it as far as the "Alice Bailey never said an antisemetic thing in her entire life" group goes.

Please do what you can to see to it that James and the others stick to their agreements. Thanks. : Albion moonlight 22:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Bad image list

I had to have Image:Keeani Lei 6.jpg added to the naughty image list. I'm pretty much an anti-censorship type of guy, but I've already had second thoughts about uploading it. We'll see if there are any more problems with it. Videmus Omnia Talk 02:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

  • No objections from me. Look at point #3 of WP:P*#Structure, which would cover the Keeani Lei article: "Also note that images should not be explicit in nature. Pictures with the genitals, bust, or buttocks of the person exposed should not be posted, nor should there be pictures posted of the person engaging in sex acts" (emphasis original). Now, a different question: have you gotten any other explicit images which you've gotten from your email requests? If so, maybe they should be added to the list... Tabercil 02:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
That was the only one that can really be considered explicit. I've got some featuring nudity (see the Commons galleries for Kelly Madison, Tyler Faith, and Sinnamon Love, as well as another nude Keeani Lei photo), but that's pretty run-of-the-mill stuff compared to the one above. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Better add Julie Winchester and Felicia Fox to your watchlists, as they also provided nude photos yesterday. Videmus Omnia Talk 17:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Meh. The "questionable" pics pretty much seem to be a Playboy-level of nudity. About the only one I think might need to go on the Naughty list is #6 from Felicia Fox, and that's only because of the clothespins; take them out and I wouldn't have any problems with it. Tabercil 18:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Back scratching. :-)

The Pornography Barnstar
I hereby award this honor to you for the consistent, high quality work you've done in making Wikipedia a better resource. From leading the charge and tireless work on making the article on Jenna Jameson a Wikipedia Featured Article, continuing the work on the Pornstars project, encouraging your fellow editors, and a whole list of feats too numerous to write here. Definitely a class act, more worthy of this barnstar than I am. :-) -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 22:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


The Editor's O-Star
I, WilyD hereby award AnonEMouse The Editor's O-Star in recognition of his ability to brilliantly illuminate so many issues. WilyD 19:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

As above, WilyD 23:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you! I hope I can live up to that high praise. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you please help me create an article

An article on Phillip Lindsay.: If you were there to guide my words and make suggestions as how to keep it from becoming an attack article, it would help me remain objective. I will ask James to help us but since James is essentially a one purpose editor who may find himself being scrutinized by the arbitration committee, I doubt that he will be interested.

Is there a rule against exposing someone who attempted to unduly influence a wiki article. I don't think that such a rule exists exists. I am quite capable of doing this without your help but I thought you might be interested in keeping the article neutral from its onset. If I have to go it alone I will also have to wait until Vancouver civic strike is over so I can gain access to Lindsay's books.

Once again I am not interested in creating an attack article. I only want to create an article on a Writer who has written extensively on Alice Bailey and who purportedly has made antisemitic statement on his blog. I dont think the wiki communtity would back the speedy deletion of such an article but I do think such an article deserves to be written. You can help me make sure that it is balanced. Are you interested ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albion moonlight (talk • contribs) 23:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC) Albion moonlight 23:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It's worse than help or not help, I'm not sure Phillip Lindsay (Philip? One l or two?) meets our Wikipedia:Notability (people) criteria for articles. Read that, but basically multiple unrelated reliable sources need to have written non-trivial articles about him. There are other possibilities (winning a notable award), but non-trivial coverage is the main one. That means several works written about him, and not by him and not by his brother in law, and not phonebook-style coverage. Looking through that Google search I can't find those - I can find lots of mentions, but they're mostly by him, not about him. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I sort of figured that that would be the case and I certainly do not want to help him increase his book sales. I was one of the people who backed Nandesuka's speedy deletion of the Ward Churchill misconduct issue article. As you know it did not stay deleted. I may go ahead with the Lindsay article once our Library strike is over. I want to be on the record as attempting to discourage him from trying to send Meat puppets to wikipedia. I think that James may know him personally.

Meanwhile there is still no edit war at the Bailey article and both Kwork and I have alerted Jp Gorden as to the situation and assume he has put that article back on his watch list. Arb com does take on case involving Meat Puppetry and I have made sure that everyone who edits that page realizes that they will never be able to make a rightful claim to consensus. It is a dispute that may go indefinitely. ;Albion moonlight 07:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It's AnonEMouse Barnstar Day!

The Photographer's Barnstar
For outstanding work in obtaining many high-quality freely-licensed images to illustrate our articles. Great job! Videmus Omnia Talk 14:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Wow. From you that means a lot; my entire output is a slow month for you. :-) I also didn't put claw to camera myself, just did a lot of searching for other people's hard work. Thank you! --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

E vs e

Yeah, that's fine, I agree with you. I probably just copied the article title or something. :) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 20:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

If you have a moment in the next few weeks, would you mind peer-reviewing A Vindication of the Rights of Men? It is the last article on Mary Wollstonecraft's works that I have to get to FA status before I submit the featured topic I've been working on. Yeah! Awadewit | talk 10:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Free Flickr photos of porn stars

Here. However, many are not labeled with the performer's name, though some look familiar to me. I'm just not enough of an expert. Looks like Anetode has grabbed the easy ones, need someone else to look through to see if we should get any more. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Mo Foster, Andy Billups and The Hamsters ratings

Many thanks to taking the time to rate these pages, it's much appreciated. I've added a slew of references to the Mo Foster page and I'm in talks with him about getting a PD image (he needs to talk to the photographer first). Many thanks ---- WebHamster 01:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to impose on your valuable time, but as you did the first assessment on Mo Foster I thought it might be possible that you could re-assess the article? I've added much more info and a lot of references, though the free use photo still remains elusive. I think it stands a chance at a B rating now (though I won't argue at a GA heheheh). I wonder also could you give me some advice on what would be needed to get this article further up the ratings still? Eventually I would like to aim for an A, though I rather doubt I could manage an FA as although Mo is important in his field I rather doubt that he is in a worldwide/Wikipedia setting. Many thanks. ---- WebHamster 15:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
B it is, a few more comments on the Talk:Mo_Foster#Assessment section. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Once again many thanks. I've taken all the comments on board.---- WebHamster 20:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Linking to off-wiki harassment

Come help build the policy page-- it needs more "trusted brokers" like you to help it through its formative years. :). If looney libertarianistic ideologues like me write it, it'll come off all "Not Censored"y and won't be a true measure of consensus. --Alecmconroy 20:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Alice Bailey, archive problem

AnonEMouse, could you help me with a technical problem? I was trying to find a diff in Archive 3 of the Bailey article [23], and I see only two diffs out of what must be hundreds. Have they been lost? Kwork 17:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The archive only contains the final text, not each diff; the diffs are in the history of the talk page itself. [24] Another thing to note is that the timestamps on the posts may be off a bit from the timestamp on the diff, something to do with time zones, I imagine. Good luck! --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, and once again, thank you for being so helpful. Kwork 20:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Lilly Ann

Please watchlist this article, got a complaint from article subject about real name repeatedly being added (looks like by Picguy1013 (talk · contribs)). When she sent me the message, I didn't realize the name was in a hidden comment on the page. Shortly after I replied to her message, Darkasia (talk · contribs) removed the name from the page, I'm pretty sure that is her. I also redacted the info from the talk page, including a photobucket link to a high school yearbook scan included as "proof". Videmus Omnia Talk 18:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Watchlisted. We also need to watch Cooper City High School. Fortunately, Picguy10133 hasn't edited that article since June, and anything since August. The article also desperately needs cleanup, we can't list every magazine appearance - however, that wouldn't leave much. Google searching on "Lilly Ann" has the obvious problem that it's a fairly common name. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I also removed her from List of celebrities who have changed their name, along with another porn star. That list has the potential to be a BLP nightmare, nothing in it is sourced. I almost think it should be deleted. Videmus Omnia Talk 18:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
And List of pseudonyms, which probably needs a BLP scrub too. Videmus Omnia Talk 18:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Brent Corrigan

On this page, I was doing a cleanup of indef-protect pages, but otherwise am not very familiar with that page's history. If you don't hear back from Slim, and want to unprotect it that sounds ok to me, you might want to watchlist it though as SV's protection comment references WP:BLP. Thanks, — xaosflux Talk 12:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Watchlisted. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Socratic Barnstar

Thank you for the kind words!

(But I don't get much of a chance to write articles any more, unfortunately. I have a dozen on my to-do list that haven't been touched for months now. ;-) Kirill 17:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Nylon

Thanks for fixing my mistake. It sure makes me look dyslexic that I would have made that reversion. My eyes were fooling me. Thanks again. OfficeGirl 00:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

New checkanon case

You closed this case [25]

I am considering filing

{{Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/203.49.235.50}}

Based on these contributions and the uncivil comments here.

Mobile 01 still denies she is this disruptive anon. Bobblehead calls her edits "vandalism".

Do you think I should file this case? Travb (talk) 19:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

You can: the similarities are large, the contention has been going on for a long time, and the last edits should be recent enough. However, is it really going to help much? Neither Mobile 01 (talk · contribs) nor 203.49.235.50 (talk · contribs) is very active, the last fight either was in seems to have been weeks ago. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
True about how it will not help much. I was just a little frustrated by the users recent comments about me. I won't do anything with it now. Thanks Anon. Travb (talk) 00:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (people)

I love your boldness, and respect your views. However, there must be something you didn't object to in my edit! How about the fact that the refs links now work!!! OK. Big laugh. But, honestly, total reverts like yours can lead to edit wars and stuff because it "appears" as though you have rejected my edit without full consideration. I spent some time on the rewrite, would you be able to help out and pay attention to the edit, and pick out the things that you really don't like, and leave in the useful things. Would you be able to spend a few moments reading through the changes I've made. I suspect you've seen something you don't like, but haven't noticed other stuff in there. Regards SilkTork *SilkyTalk 18:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't like most of it, and I said as much on the attached talk page, which is generally considered the place to discuss changes to the page. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Your comment suggests you object to this statement: "Widespread and sustained coverage on the internet, resulting in demonstrable wide name recognition on several significant and notable internet forums and blogs independent of the subject themselves." The previous version had "The person has demonstrable wide name recognition." I admit this is one of the sections where I "interpreted" the available information, How do you feel this statement could be worded to be clearly and more helpful - or are you satisfied with it as it is? SilkTork *SilkyTalk 19:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:AnonEMouse/Archive_15"