User talk:Deor/Archive5

From Pagetools

I noticed that you are removing some of my history sections. I think those sections are relevant because they assist in organization and expansion of the topics- they also follow the structure that is on other pages- it's a matter of organization and consistancy, no. The page is better constructed...your thoughts?Pagetools(talk)18:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

All that I've been removing is unsourced or improperly sourced material.Deor(talk)18:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

How do you define improperly sourced materials?Pagetools(talk)18:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles (especially deleted ones) can't be used to source information in other Wikipedia articles, for example. I don't really want to discuss this any further at the moment; let's see how the sockpuppet investigation turns out.Deor(talk)18:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

But if an article is deleted just because of suspected sockpuppetry, that doesn't mean that the information, or the sourcing, within the the former article was ever invalid. It can still be a good source of vaild information or referencing, no?Pagetools(talk)19:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Deor, I have just found out, by a little research on line, that you are one of the adminstrators who has an agenda against Barbaro-family subject matter. Here is a link proving that: [[1]].

• I do not appreciate to be involved in your agenda of removing all Barbaro-family subject matter pertaing to the Albergo branch- and I would appreciate if you leave me alone from this point forward. I felt it was a wee bit suspicious that you took notice in me after I did some legitimate organization to the Barbaro-family page. If your behavior continues, Wikipedia will be notifed of your unprofessional behavior. Thank youPagetools(talk)23:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not a Wikipedia administrator, and I suggest that if you have any complaints about my behavior that you think require administrator intervention, you make them onWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.Deor(talk)23:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice catch

Thanks for spotting the Barbaro hoaxer this time. I have informed everyone that I informed the last time they were spotted and asked there and on your report for the variable IPs to be checked for more hidden socks.Edward321(talk)23:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep that in mind the next time the hoaxer tries it.Edward321(talk)01:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

This is made up, you are calling people hoaxers just for the fun of it.

Edward 321 is another person talked about in that link too. You are just trying to cover your own backsPagetools(talk)23:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

There isn't a single bit of Barbaro-family info that I edited today that doesn't have appropriate linkage and sourcing- and all of the material that was removed from Wikipedia before from the Barbaro family page, also had legit sourcing- I back tracked the Barbaro family page and checked- its all sourced.Pagetools(talk)00:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Pound photograph

Thanks for solving the situation. I instinctually felt the picture-issue would work itself out. Thanks for solving copyright-issues/amending caption with Coburn attribution. The Coburn picture is much better than the mug-shot don't you think? Good job you placed the latter somewhere in the article though. As a student of Pound, I feel the change is for the better. Cheers. P.S. I appreciate your Germanic mythological references.Mooret2(talk)23:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I never liked the use of the mug shot as the article's lead image, either, but the copyright status of the Coburn photo needed to be determined or else it would simply be deleted again. I didn't mean to sound antagonistic in my original message on your talk page; I was worried because the license tag you used for your upload was clearly inappropriate.Deor(talk)23:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that. I just sort of put a random thing to get the photo uploaded. No worries. Cheers.Mooret2(talk)23:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

apollo

a consensus has being gained on the discussion page 3 vs 1 in favour of roman names. we would like you to do the honours and put them on please. what a day for wikipedias decomracy and anti-bias projects—Precedingunsignedcomment added by86.43.170.108(talk)10:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Deor u wanted a consensus to be made and now it has. Now you undo the unfair changes u made with the roman names or are u a spoilt little child who angry cause he lost—Precedingunsignedcomment added by86.43.172.137(talk)10:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The Bewdley School and Sixth Form Centre

Hi Deor/Archive5! There appears to be a discrepancy between the information inThe Bewdley School and Sixth Form Centrearticle which you have contributed to or edited. TheNovember 2008 Ofsted reportand the article may not be referring to the same schools. Moreover, in an article aboutHeathfield School, Wolverleyit is claimed that it merged with Bewdley. However, a website exists for a Heathfield school in Wolverly about an independent school on which there exists very little verifiable online information. There is clearly some confusion concerning these two schools and their affiliation. If you can help with these issues please seeTalk:The Bewdley School and Sixth Form Centre,improve the article if you can, and leave any comments there.--Kudpung(talk)17:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Using Other Wikipedias as References

I saw that you reverted my edit toAmericasbecause I referenced otehr Wikipedias. Granted, while "America's" status as either a continent with subcontinents, two separate continents, or a double-continent with different regions (as is described by the German encyclopedia) is rather controversial, if the different Wikipedias are not providing the same content, there is a genuine conflict as far as the subject matter is concerned. I will be posting the issue toTalk:Americas. TheUnixGeek(talk)10:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Sacred Gin and Sipsmith

Greetings! I see you've opened (a second) AfD forSacred Gin.What's your take onSipsmith,also by the same original editor, and also on a similar micro-distillery? —C.Fred(talk)14:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we've been having a rash of articles plugging gins lately (see alsoWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxley gin). I'll have to do some research to decide about Sipsmith. At first glance, it looks as though there is more extensive coverage of that one than there is of Sacred Gin, but the depth of the coverage, as well as the apparent press-release-based nature of some of it, would need to be evaluated. For now, I think I'll see how the Sacred Gin AfD goes before thinking about nominating that one. If you want to nominateSipsmith,however, I'll certainly look into the matter and give my opinion in the AfD.Deor(talk)14:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

From Yourfriend1

I noticed that you are removing some of my scanned books from the external links "sources" with the statement that they are: "redundant with existing IA link". I think those scanned books are relevant as they allow users to instantly read RSL's works without having to take time to scan the "Inernet Archive" to become aqauinted with them. Besides they may click on your general listing at that site if they wish to do so. These took a long time to install and I feel that this option in no way compromises the site and may help to introduce more potential fans to RSL's work espicially if they are having trouble downloading the books form the general site. Thoughts. (Yourfriend1(talk)20:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

In general, external links should be kept to a minimum and should relate specifically to the topic of an article. (You may want to readWP:EL.) The external links inRobert Louis Stevensonshould supplement the information about theman,and it can be argued that there are already too many (somewhat redundant) links to online corpora of texts of his works. Certainly a long list of links to texts of individual works is overkill. The proper place to add those is in the articles about the works themselves, if they aren't already there.Deor(talk)13:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. (Yourfriend1(talk)20:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Barbaro hoaxer is back

Uisn an IP now.[2]Same old nonsense "sourced" by instapedia.Edward321(talk)05:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Frank and Mary's

Do you think that the building and Frank and Mary articles can be put together in their own artcle or the Pittsboro article? Sedna10387(talk)01:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Nonnotable content is nonnotable no matter where it's added, and content for which no reliable sources are cited can be removed at any time from any article.Deor(talk)01:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Guy Davenport

thanks for the support. of course, none of us want that to happen, but still... and i hope i never start to feel like i own an article. i LIKE the fact that articles are like water in a stream. you know, one can only step in a stream once, as its always a different stream on each encounter.Mercurywoodrose(talk)03:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Help Citing Source

I need help citing a source on theWilliam Goldingpage. According to the source he wrote an unpublished memoir to his wife to admit he tried to rape as girl or something. Thanks for you're help! (Zaxby(talk)14:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC))

More messages from Zaxby

Please stop abusingwarning or blocking templates.If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. (Zaxby(talk)23:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC))

I don't want to have a problem. Support of a bill doesn't belong in controversies. Maybe make a section called "Bills Roberton has Supported." (Zaxby(talk)23:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC))

Long time no see. ALO.

Special:Contributions/Albert_GonzalezJohnInDC(talk)12:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes - reported here:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AlexLevyOneJohnInDC(talk)12:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Good catch; I should have known he would show up whenInglourious Basterdswas released.Deor(talk)12:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

He's a little testier this time. Maybe they've been cracking down on him on French Wikipedia -JohnInDC(talk)12:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

What do you think?[3]A shifted subset of articles but edits are quite similar.JohnInDC(talk)14:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Blocked under the same name in French Wikipedia.JohnInDC(talk)14:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hah, thanks. It's probably unhealthy to reward a budding obsession, but I appreciate it. My first BS!JohnInDC(talk)14:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Will you keep an eye onBlack Desirefor a day or two while I'm out of town? The account has been blocked on:fr but has only two edits here. I'm 90% sure it's him but I don't want ever to be wrong about it. You can file the report if he gives us just the least bit more to go on - thanks!JohnInDC(talk)10:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm away from home - can you look after the latest described on my talk page? Tks -JohnInDC(talk)22:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Yup, I'll look into it.Deor(talk)22:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Well done.JohnInDC(talk)03:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

De nada.Deor(talk)13:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Capitalzation

United States Government Printing Office Style Manual clearly defines the rule for Biblical. Please read the talk page, and kindly do not revert my edit.R/T-รัก-ไทย(talk)15:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I read the talk page. Nevertheless, theChicago Manual of Styleand a number of other style guides recommend lowercasingbiblical,as does the Wikipedia Manual of Style (see the second bulleted item inWP:MOS#Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines, and their adherents). In addition, a number of the alterations you introduced with the same edit—such as changing "scriptures" to "SGriptures" and "Western" to "western" and "Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration" to "transmission, corruption, and restoration" (in the title of a book)—were incorrect. Please be more careful in the future; and don't assume that a lack of response to a talk-page post that's less than two days old indicates a lack of objection to your proposals.Deor(talk)16:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

biblical can be used either way. When it merely refers to books, it is not capitalzed, but when referring to the Bible, it is. (I have years of experience as a proofreader. What are your credentials? ) SGriptures was a typo error and was corrected before I read your rather sarcastical note--am I to assume you have never made one? Please leave my last edit intact until we reach a consensus. This issue affects many articles, and should be resolved by a consensus. Thank you R/T-รัก-ไทย (talk) 17:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)—Precedingunsignedcomment added byRak-Tai(talk•contribs)

Consensus already has established usage on this: seeWP:MOS#Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines, and their adherents,as linked above. (Incidentally, does this userreallyhave years of proofreading experience? If so the number of errors in his/her contributions is astonishing.)JamesBWatson(talk)12:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:MOSdiscourages much capitalization. Gospels is lower case in most articles. Good luck with changing all of them. You will need a lot of time. Regards fromR/T-รัก-ไทย(talk)04:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Apollo

what is your problem. a consencus was reached. thats how wikipedia works. what do you have against the romans.—Precedingunsignedcomment added byIreland1994(talk•contribs)21:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank youfor fi xing this!CTJF83Talk05:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Square Hebrew

Ididplace a tag onthe article.It was deleted.23:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)CharlesMartel

You placed a prod tag, not an AfD tag, on the article. It is permissible for another user to remove a prod tag if he/she contests the proposed deletion. If you want to nominate the article for AfD, follow the instructions atWP:AFD,as I said.Deor(talk)23:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Negative!

You know what's funny? You say all of these negative things about me when haven't you noticed I have successfull articles too. Here are some successful articles I've done:

North West Hendricks School Corporation, Connection Pointe Christian Church of Brownsburg, Mallie's Sports Grill & Bar, Dare County Schools, Hyde County Schools, Hendricks County Flyer. If it weren't for these articles there would be less articles on Wikipedia! Stop being negative! Sedna10387

Co-ordinates

Hi, just like to say thanks on behalf ofWikiProject Yorkshirefor adding co-ordinates to some of the many North Yorkshire articles that are labelled as requiring co-ordinates.Keith D(talk)21:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You're quite welcome.Deor(talk)21:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Celestial spheres

Hi. You may be interested in the total rewrite I've done toDynamics of the celestial spheres.It attempts to clear up some problems that have been there since (and even before) the article was created out ofCelestial spheres.--SteveMcCluskey(talk)02:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

O Canada

Yup. I'm on it. Depends onUser:The Anome,as 82.3.241.225 noted. But I'm working on an opening suggestion to him/her, which I hope will be taken up. --Tagishsimon(talk)20:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not Canadian, myself, but I think people are more likely to supply coordinates if they are faced with a less daunting mass of possibilities. And Canadians may want to focus on their own particular regions.Deor(talk)22:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm hoping the bot can recognise Foo in Ontario, and that the categories I've supplied to him will be sufficient for the job. There's no doubt that it needs to be broken down, for the reasons you allude to. Thanks for the push. --Tagishsimon(talk)23:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Cribbage box

• Dear friend Deor,
  All card game articles that I've been working on lately have a heading, followed by the content of the page and a box with a picture containing a brief description of the game in question, just like any other article like Charles de Gaulle Airport, CNN, White House, Eiffel Tower, FBI, CBS, Barack Obama, Taj Mahal, Wikipedia, Paramount Pictures, Titanic... All card game articles are now being standardised and protected, but if for any reason I made a mistaken as for the right position of the box according to some Wiki rule that until now I unfortunately ignore, I will gladly make the same move you made in every other article. Can you please point me the right direction pal?Krenakarore(talk)08:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean exactly, but it's standard for an article to begin with its lead section (seeWP:LEAD), with an infobox (if present) to the right of the lead and the table of contents following it. I looked at some of the articles you mentioned above, and that's how they are formatted. (I forgot to fix the forced positioning of the TOC inCribbage,but I've done that now.)Deor(talk)12:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear: You were correct in moving the headnote to precede the infobox; but your rearrangement caused the infobox to appearbelow,rather than alongside, the lead. It was the latter problem that I was attempting to correct.Deor(talk)12:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The infobox, in all card game articles, is now being changed so that the lead apears alongside according to the rules, as you explained. Thanks for the right direction. All the best from Prague.:)!Krenakarore(talk)14:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your efforts in protectingApollo,I award you this star.Law Lord(talk)17:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD

Please see:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Special creation.Borock(talk)07:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thought police

Hey, Deor, who are you to go removing my links. I feel like I'm being stalked - The Wiki Stalker! It's cowardly to hide behind a pseudonym. Get a life, buddy. JohnALambert(talk)19:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Derwent Edge

I personally have no problem with your edits except for the infobox title, which should correspond to the article title, other than that I don't really mind, although you also deleted some pictures which I thought was unneccessary.Highfields(talk,contribs)17:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

PS. I have now included a note in brackets after elevation and the co-ordinates to say they relate to Back TorHighfields(talk,contribs)17:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I removed only one picture, since there seemed to be no need for two of the Salt Cellar, and I added that of Back Tor. I still think that the infobox title should correspond to the particular location the infobox describes, and I still think that the layout of the images controverts WP guidelines. Perhaps I'll ask for athird opinionin a few days if I don't hear from Mr. Knapton.Deor(talk)18:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Tipu

Thanks for sorting out the article and explaining AfD, I was being lazy. I'll go through the proper AfD process in future.--Hj108(talk)21:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Barbaro family

I'd appreciate some more eyes on this page. I added 5 additional sources, including a recent Italian language history of the page. Jky52 blanked them all.[4]Edward321(talk)22:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Added another suspect who's only been editing the last few days, repeatedly inserting Vitus Barbaro intoVision Industries.Edward321(talk)13:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the explanation of chain lines and laid lines in laid paper. It takes quite a bit of effort to maintain their integrity while removing dirt and stains on this type of image. A pleasure to encounter an editor who appreciates it.:)Durova³³¹21:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

RFA spam

Thank you for participating inWP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing

—Kww(talk)18:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Geocoding

The main reason for giving up geocoding is that I'm bogged down IRL, need to concentrate on the day job. Throwing a hissy fit over some guy wanting to geocode a moving ship was more of a symptom than a cause. But thanks, and yes, I may return to it if work and I calm down. --Tagishsimon(talk)23:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Reference deskvandal

Just so you know, someone has even been reverting79.75.93.124's constructive edits on the ref desks on the grounds that he is an LC puppet on a new IP. —Akrabbim^talk13:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Deor- Thanks with the Signature thing. I was testing around, so I found a page I had signed and replaced it with a test. --15lsoucy(talk)21:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!

File:Halloween Hush Puppies.jpg

Photograph of my Halloween-themed Hush Puppies plush basset hounds in my bedroom.

As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough togive me a barnstar or smile at me,supportive enough toagree with me,etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk}23:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it.

This editsummaries one thing and does another, and the thing it does might seem useless. (It swaps two words in a comma separated list.)CpiralCpiral16:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The relative clause "that are less than five letters long" is supposed to specifically modify "prepositions", as the third bulleted item in the following list makes clear. It made no sense for the relative clause to follow "articles", since no English articles have five or more letters;a,an,andtheare all we've got. In other words, the meaning is "The first letter in the other words is also capitalized, except for (1) coordinating conjunctions, (2) articles, and (3) prepositions that are less than five letters long."Deor(talk)17:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It now seems like an excellent edit and edit summary. I get it. The reason for the confused tone in my inquiry, in all honesty, is that I misread the "difference" page (and more specifically the section title). Please accept my apology. Bye for now, Deor.CpiralCpiral18:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Typeface in "Poshlost"

Hi, Deor. I reverted your italicization of a transliterated Russian phrase inposhlost.Therelevant section of the MOSsays, "generally preserve bold and italics". I agree that the original would have been clearer with italics, but I don't think we should change quotations in accordance with our ideas of clarity unless there's an undeniable error. —JerryFriedman(Talk)16:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Since it's in square brackets, I was reading it as a clarification inserted by whoever added the quotation to the article, rather than a part of the quotation itself. On closer examination, it may well be an insertion by the Davydov who translated the Gogol work into English, in which case you would be right. I'm still unclear on the point, but it's admittedly a minor one.Deor(talk)16:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Definitely minor. I added the quotation from Davydov, and I'll try to make it clear that the brackets are his. —JerryFriedman(Talk)16:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Gustaf Nordenskiold

Rest assured violating copyrights is not my goal.

The material I included under "arrest and exoneration" was written by me, using letters from the US government and Swedish government. The article was published by Mesa Verde National Park at government expense. See in further reading.

How about this: I write a new paragraph or so using the governmental letters as source. This does not need to very long.—Precedingunsignedcomment added byIrvdiamond(talk•contribs)20:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

If the letters haven't been published, they can't be used as sources, since the information can't beverifiedby readers and other editors. Drawing information and conclusions from unpublished primary sources isoriginal research,which is not allowed in Wikipedia. The best course of action would be to leave a message on the article'stalk page,describing the material you want to add and thesourcesthat back it up, and wait for other editors to comment. Much of the work of building articles on Wikipedia takes place on the articles' talk pages.Deor(talk)20:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Nordenskiold

Can I quote a small segment of 3?, 4? lines or a complete telegram from a published book: "much trouble some expense no danger". This would help if I can't get around copyright issue.(I have made an inquiry on this)

May I submit the new attempt to you first?

Irv Irvdiamond(talk)21:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You can if you want to (though I'm going to be away from the computer for a while after I complete this response); but I still think that your best bet isTalk:Gustaf Nordenskiöld,since that's where others who have knowledge about the topic—of which I'm not one—will be able to see and respond to your "new attempt".Deor(talk)21:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Closing RfC at Celestial Spheres

Thanks for bringing the problem at Celestial Spheres to a Request for Comments. Since there's been no change for almost a week I think it may be time toclosethe RfC. As nominator, it seems to be your responsibility. A summary at the head covering the consensus would be appropriate. I see these points as relevant.

1. There was a consensus that the edit under discussion constituted original research.
2. Some users saw the passage as obscure, lengthy, lacking balance and proper citation of sources, and misusing sources.
3. The author of the text in question objected to the RfC, removing the RfC tag from the section several times, for which he was warned here andon his talk page.

Feel free to edit or ignore this. Thanks again,SteveMcCluskey(talk)13:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to get around to this later today. Frankly, I wasn't aware that the creator of an RFC is supposed to close it when a consensus is evident (an uninvolved editor or admin seems a better option), but according toWP:RFC#Ending RFCsyou appear to be correct.Deor(talk)14:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Logicus:Please do not close this RfC until I have commented on the various invalid claims made and attempt to reach agreement by discussion, the supposed purpose of an RfC. Will attempt to post comment this week. --Logicus(talk)18:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the purpose of an RfC is to invite the views of editors other than those who normally edit an article. It is curious that Logicus now objects to closing an RfC to which he most strenuously objected in the first place. Nevertheless, there is no harm keeping it open a bit longer to see if consensus changes. —Finell18:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Logicus to all here:As I understand dispute resolution policy, the purpose of an RfC is not to solicit votes to decide in favour of or against some disputant's opinion by means of some rule about the number or proportion of votes cast for/against it, but rather to solicit outside opinion and information to help the two parties reach agreement between themselves by rational discussion and possibly compromise.

I suggest the outcome so far of this illegitimate RfC with respect to the purpose of RfCs to promote the intended outcome of dispute resolution proceedings in agreement between the parties in dispute is as follows. If the aim of opinion gathered from this RfC is to promote dispute resolution between Deor and Logicus with respect to Deor's charge that the material in question is OR and also gives its topic undue weight in the article, then on the charge of OR, consensus has not been achieved by any agreement reached between the two disputing parties involved, Deor and Logicus, that the material in question is OR anywhere. But Logicus agrees that the material is of undue length as the article currently stands, albeit due to the failure to include additional material from the articleDynamics of the celestial spheresthat he proposed. Consequently Logicus will consider trying to reduce its length after agreement has been reached with Deor about what the maximum length should be for its topic, and also about whether it is unreasonable OR anywhere.

At this stage the reason why no agreement between Deor and Logicus can be reached about whether the material is OR is that Deor has never identified where and why the material is OR in his latest opinion, thus making discussion and agreement or disagreement about whether it is so and the possibility of building consensus on any revised compromise text, if necessary, absolutely impossible. In spite of being repeatedly invited to do so, it seems Deor refuses to discuss his complaint with Logicus. Thus Logicus does not know whether Deor's complaint is just a resurrection of the charge of OR he raised against that part of the material on impetus dynamics in July 2008, or whether it is a fresh complaint because he has now decided OR is committed somewhere else in the material. On his former complaint, it was perfectly Wiki-reasonable for Logicus to presume consensus had been achieved with Deor that the material was not OR given Deor's failure to challenge or change the material after Logicus's above challenge of 30 July 2008 for him to either substantiate his allegation or else desist from any further reversions of the material.

And indeed it was also reasonable for Logicus to presume consensus had been achieved with other editors such as McCluskey, for whom Deor appeared to be acting as a sockpuppet at that time. For Wikipedia consensus policy states: "If other editors accept your changes, then this silent acceptance is, itself, sufficient proof that your changes have consensus at this time. Edits that are neither changed nor removed are always presumed to have consensus until someone actually challenges them." Consequently Deor's current OR challenge to the 14 month consensus that it was not OR must surely be a fresh charge of OR in some other respect that he has never previously discussed with Logicus, whereby this RfC is illegitimate in breaching dispute resolution policy rule to discuss the disputed edit first to try and reach agreement before raising an RfC.

The next step in this dispute once sufficient outside opinion has been received is surely for Deor to specify where and why he thinks the material is OR in the light of this opinion, given he has apparently been previously unable to so. Presumably if he still thinks it is OR he must select at least one of any attempted demonstrations that it is such that have been received, if any, or else devise his own. So will Deor please kindly specify his OR charge for discussion as soon as possible.--Logicus(talk)16:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Logicus:Here for information I copy the text of Logicus's last challenge to Deor to either substantiate his previous allegation of OR against Logicus's account of the medieval impetus dynamics of the celestial spheres or else desist from deleting it, after which Deor neither substantiated his allegation nor deleted not changed the material thereafter, which thus achieved consensus for some 14 months thereafter, albeit unjustifiably relocated by Leadwind to become another article after some 10 months, until McCluskey imperiously entirely deleted it without any prior consultation for 3 different sets of invalid reasons.

"The Restoration:Logicus has courteously given Deor over three weeks to substantiate his unsubstantiated allegations that (i) the medieval impetus dynamics of the celestial spheres is not relevant to this article and (ii) Logicus's account of it constitutes Wiki Original Research. But he has done neither, in spite of Logicus having posted the text of his account on User talk:Deor with the following invitation:

"Logicus now invites Deor to either demonstrate his claim that the following text is 'in essence an original synthesis of material in primary sources' within 48 hours, or else desist from any further unagreed deletions of Logicus's contributions to the article on this topic."

Thus Logicus has added the text to the article, and trusts Deor will desist from any further deletion of it. --Logicus (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC) "

One of McCluskey's 3 sets of reasons given for deleting the material from theDynamics of the celestial spheresarticle on its Talk page in September was that it is of undue weight, as follows:

"The article focused on what the principal editor sees as" a major anomaly for Aristotelian dynamics, "which the article takes as the center of its discussion. Through this narrow focus, it granted excessive weight to the views of a few persons (especially John Philoponus and John Buridan) and viewed all other actors through their role in resolving this" anomaly "."

Insofar as this criticism makes any sense I disagree that it justifies entirely deleting the material from any Wikipedia article,pacemy conditional agreement about unduelengthI have given in my comment on the illegitimate RfC in 'Talk:Celestial spheres'.

Since Deor has never said why he thinks the material has undue weight, are McCluskey's reasons those he wishes to adopt and discuss with Logicus? If he wishes, Logicus would happily be prepared to explain to him why McCluskey's above charges are mistaken and misplaced. Or does Deor wish to give different reasons of his own? I appreciate that in this context Deor has evidentally been acting as one of McCluskey's sockpuppets to date, but he may wish to now step out of that role and provide an independent opinion for discussion towards possible agreement about the material's due weight.

I suggest we just let the 30 day bot close the RfC on 1 December without comment on the outcome, but which will be just that 9 or more editors gave opinions, which of course in itself settles nothing whatever in this Deor-Logicus dispute. But if this dispute is nothing more than a dispute between a McCluskey sockpuppet and Logicus, then I suggest the RfC just be closed now without comment. If McCluskey objects to the material, then he should raise and discuss his reasons with Logicus himself.

Finally I must note that contrary to the latest McCluskey posting characterising myself as claiming the material is not OR and not of Undue Weight, I have said neither. Rather I only say both of Deor's charges are unproven as yet, but worse than that, Deor has yet to say where and why the material is OR, thus making it impossible to agree or disagree with him. Yet another episode in the utterly absurd Whakkypedia madhouse? --Logicus(talk)15:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Deor, please specify where and why you claim the material is OR so that this dispute resolution process of discussion with you to reach agreement can begin. Do you wish to adopt any of the reasons provided in RfC comments so far, or do you have others of your own? If the former, please state it/them clearly in your own words. Or are you waiting 30 days to see what reasons come in before starting the dispute resolution discussion?--Logicus(talk)18:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood the purpose of the RfC. It is not for you and me to "reach agreement"; it is for a consensus to be achieved with regard to the questions raised in its opening post.Deor(talk)19:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Logicus has said what he has to say, everyone has had ample opportunity to comment, and consensus is clear. I suggest that you, as nominator, close the RFC. —Finell09:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

reyour undo

Hey there Deor, I just wanted to respond to your comment "please don't remove messages". The reason I removed those messages was because I wrote an actual response to the edits, instead of using a template. Seeing as it would be somewhat redundant to havetwomessages regarding the same edit, I decided to remove yours. No bad intentions, just wanted to make it less confusing for the editor in question. (If you want to reply, please do so at my talk page: my watch-list is abitoverloaded right now)Tim1357(talk)00:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Elizabeth hawes (author)

Hello, I tried to rewrite this. I prodded it as it does not convince me of notability. I've also admonished and soft blocked the creator because of the coi and business name. Cheers,Dlohcierekim23:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Eliel Fenwick Blackburn

It's all ready to go.:) --Moonriddengirl^(talk)13:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, MRG.Deor(talk)14:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

inreWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip R. Bjork

It has been an honest pleasure having discourse with you at this AfD, as it led me down a path of discovery and research that has been incredibly enlightening and educational. Thank you,Schmidt,^{MICHAEL Q.}21:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

AfDnomination ofList of male performers in gay porn films

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, fordeletion.The nominated article isList of male performers in gay porn films.We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see alsoWikipedia:Notabilityand "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments toWikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of male performers in gay porn films (5th nomination).Please be sure tosign your commentswith four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove thearticles for deletiontemplate from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note:This is an automatic notification by abot.I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot(talk)01:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

RfC closure

There might be remaining housekeeping with notices of the RfC. What it really seemed to need is archival and a statement by someone who's totally uninvolved. In case it arises during followup discussion, there have been at least three writeups inSignpostthis year about Wikipedia editors who made discoveries during their WP volunteer work that got published offsite in reliable venues.

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-11-09/News_and_notes
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-09-07/News and notes
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-02-16/News_and_notes

Once the discovery was made, update to WP content went on hold until offsite vetting was complete and a reliable source existed to support it. It can be useful to make people aware of this option. Some don't understand what a tertiary source is or that we are one, and they mistakenly think they're being suppressed. There have been occasions where disruptive editors have dropped acting disruptively after a polite explanation of how this works.Durova³⁷¹18:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

RFC/U Logicus 2 (Draft)

I am drafting aRequests for comment/User conductconcerning the conduct ofLogicus(talk·contribs·count·api·block log)since theabortive RfCof February 2007. Since you have been involved in the recent content RfC atTalk:Celestial spheres,I would appreciate it if you would look overthe draftand see whether it seems appropriate, what revisions you would propose, or what you could add.

At the moment, parts of the RfC are little more than outline points and the desired outcome is totally undefined, but with cooperation perhaps something can be put together that could make it through the process.

I had hoped that this RfC would not need to be posted, giventhe recent closureof a content RfC on Logicus's edits. However, Logicus'srecent commentssuggest that I may have been too optimistic.

Feel free to either edit the draft or submit comments onits talk page.--SteveMcCluskey(talk)21:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been following Logicus's adventures at articles other thanCelestial spheres,which for some reason landed on my watchlist some time ago; but it looks as though a user RfC is probably the right move at this point. If you want, I can certainly certify the RfC insofar as it deals with activities at that article. I'll also try to post my feeble thoughts about a possible acceptable outcome to the situation when the RfC goes live. Sorry to be so late in responding to your message.Deor(talk)16:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for offering to help. I recall that you were already involved with Celestial spheres long ago whenwe were arguingabout how the relation of the prime mover to the spheres related to the article. So much for sockpuppetry:-)

--SteveMcCluskey(talk)19:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Waste of time

I see you have removedevery single oneof the links tocommon conception,including ones in topics in philosophy. As a justification you state your belief that the links are irrelevant and that the article itself is unnecessary. I think that is anintemperateview of things.

I fully expect that given a term from the field of philosophy, that some linked links may be unlinked given that there is a popular belief that philosophy itself is completely irrelevant. This is a very unreflective view. People use Wikipedia in many and varied ways, which are not immediately obvious. I would like to help people make connections into the philosophical foundations of things, and making links to philosophical terminology where it is found is a good way to do that.

Removingevery single linkis counterproductive, and thoughtless. It does not appear that you entered into any evaluation of appropriateness on a case by case basis, but rather performed a blanket action. I will be adding at least some of them back in at some point. What a waste of time for both of us.Pontiff Greg Bard(talk)01:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, since you used AWB toaddthe links to every occurrence of the words "common conception" in Wikipedia articles, without regard to whether they were appropriate or not, I had no compunction about taking the time to manually revert them. If you can justify every one of the links, by all means do so on the individual articles' talk pages perWP:BRD.Deor(talk)01:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

As long aswe both understandyou have nocompunction.Jeez. You see the difference is that there are many and varied editors in differing fields who are capable of deciding what is appropriate on a more carefully considered basis for articles within their field of interest. If any of those link wasn't appropriate at all, then I can reasonably assume it would be removed and no harm to the others. You on the other hand have decided on behalf of everyone that there shall be no link. This consists in a loss of information, not a gain. It's a totally different issue. We don't need to err on the side of taking such things out because there is no harm in it being there. Deleting (and deletionism) however, is active destruction. Be well.Pontiff Greg Bard(talk)02:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) FYI, this isn't thefirst timewhen Greg has done somethinglike that.Pcapping02:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

So where's the OR in the RfC material?

In your recent anti-Logicus RfC comments which alleged the material in question is OR, unfortunately you never identified which of its claims are OR in your view. I would be most grateful if you would now do this so that I may consider how any such breaches of NOR policy, if any, may be remedied by some revision(s) should any of your criticisms be objectively valid.

If you can oblige me, I would be most grateful if you would start with the material in the smaller section entitled 'Impetus in the celestial spheres', at least since I imagine it would be less problematical for you on your particular understanding of medieval dynamics, as well as being smaller. So in the first instance, do you claim that particular material is OR anywhere?

And in case you ever thought Wilson's objections were valid, I would also be grateful to know whether you think they have now been overcome by my proposed revisions of the only four sentences he seemed to claim are OR because he claims they are OS.

Thanks in anticipation. --Logicus(talk)16:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:Logicus

Arequest for commentshas been filed concerning theconductofLogicus(talk·contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion atWikipedia:Requests for comment/Logicus 2.--SteveMcCluskey(talk)21:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Airport Coordinates

Just a quick thank you for your work on thelist of airports missing coordinates.-Canglesea(talk)17:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I probably won't be getting back to those before the end of the year, unfortunately.Deor(talk)18:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Please also accept my thanks for your excellent work on geocoding these articles. --The Anome(talk)21:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

:)

Hello Deor,Floquenbeam has smiled at you! Smiles promoteWikiLoveand hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread theWikiLoveby smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

[5].I once tried aCeci n'est pas une pipejoke, and no one acknowledged its existence. Thought I'd let you know at least one person liked it. --Floquenbeam(talk)23:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Atlantis page edit: NW Africa Location

Hello Deor, I don't understand why you removed my recent edit of the Atlantis page where I added the NW Africa proposed location. Could you please explain in more detail? Your comment indicated it belongs on the Location Hypotheses for Atlantis page which I intended to do, but in order to be consistent with the Atlantis page content it should also be briefly noted in the Location Hypothesis section of the Atlantis page. This is consistent with the other proposed locations where they are first referenced in the Atlantis page and then expanded upon in the Location Hypotheses for Atlantis page. --Greymackenzie(talk)19:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I've added a brief mention of the suggested region toAtlantisand have moved the material you added there toLocation hypotheses of Atlantis.As the hidden note at the beginning of the relevant section inAtlantismakes clear, that is not the place for supplying detailed explanations or advancing evidence.Deor(talk)22:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Deor. I now understand what you mean. FYI, Morocco is the distant northern shore of the proposed island, so this proposal should actually be a unique entry that encompasses all of NW Africa including Algeria and Tunisia. The proposed capitol is in Algeria which is closer to the Mediterranean, so I will ultimately adjust this entry to fit in the Mediterranean section instead, but I'll be sure to follow the guidance you've provided. Thank you for your input. 23:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll clarify the wording.Deor(talk)23:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't want to take up your time, so I can do it later on my own. Thanks again!

I've removed it after doing some research (I first noted the word 'scholarly' which we rarely use, and discovered that the author of the hypothesis has no degree). The web site has had hardly any hits - Alexa says only 0.000001 percent of Internet users have accessed it in the last 3 months, no serious discussion and virtually no discussion elsewhere. It's not our role to publicise or promote everything to do with Atlantis.Dougweller(talk)06:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help on the Logicus RfCs. The resulting AN has now beenclosed.--SteveMcCluskey(talk)21:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Bryn Hall / Bryn Hall Colliery / Crippin

I have removed your entry to the Bryn Hall Colliery article as it was wrong. The Three Sisters recreation area is now on the site of 'Garswood Hall' Colliery. Bryn Hall Colliery was located approx. half a mile north of there in close proximity to the 'new' Bryn Hall. The original (Gerards) Bryn Hall was located close to Garswood Hall Colliery (now Three Sisters site), but that had no connection to Crippins or Bryn Hall colliery. I know. I live there. And to read the strange stories, made up by people who have never been, are quite amusing.

JemmyH.—Precedingunsignedcomment added by92.239.71.235(talk)20:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

jemmy is a pompuss ass, ignore him—Precedingunsignedcomment added by90.206.27.254(talk)21:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

YOU may consider me to be a 'pompous ass' (see, I even have to show you the correct spelling of pompous, you clown!) but, at least, I know what I say is CORRECT. Why should someone enter information on a subject they know very little, or nothing, about? This is why Wikipedia is regarded as the 'Best Provider of Wrong Information'! 92.239.71.235(talk)20:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Since I wrote none of the text of that article—my sole contribution to which was adding the geographic coordinates—I'm not sure why you've chosen to hold me responsible for what you perceive as its deficiencies.Deor(talk)20:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• I mistakenly understood the 'Three Sisters' statement to have been entered by yourself. However, I can see now that it wasn't. My apologies!

Please remove this section from your talk page if you so wish.

Regards, JemmyH.92.239.71.235(talk)21:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)