User talk:Bradeos Graphon/archive 2

IP you recently blocked

Back to its old habits. Enigma ^msg! 21:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

heh, I notice you don't fill in the specific length of the block. Personal preference? Enigma ^msg! 23:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I made a biographical article about a student at Virginia Tech which you deleted on the grounds of relevance.Is there any branch of wikipedia where in i can create articles that are significant to a few number of people(viz.students at my college) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slipknotshukla (talk • contribs) 02:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Thank you.Can you please help me remove the image aparkervthokie.jpeg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slipknotshukla (talk • contribs) 02:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bullshido

An article that you have been involved in editing, Bullshido, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido. Thank you. Horrorshowj (talk) 22:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

RfA - Discospinster

Thank you so much for your support in my RfA, which was successful with a final count of 70/1/1! ... discospinster _talk 23:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocks

I saw you indef blocked Gayboy12222. I believe he is also 118.67.222.72. They were both editing Donovan The King when you deleted it and the IP has done nothing but vandalism as well. KnightLago (talk) 02:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

And it looks like you got it shortly before this message. Thanks. KnightLago (talk) 02:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Breathtaker

He won't quite... even after all the trouble you went through with him he still went in under a new IP and made this edit. User:east718 blocked the entire 87.122. node for a week on March 1st. Ever since the block expiered, Breathtaker has relentlessly edited every few hours ( I can provide further evidence of this if you like). Perhaps a new,longer blockon the node is in oreder.--Dr who1975 (talk) 03:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• still active--Dr who1975 (talk) 13:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Hitman047

Does this edit even make sense? JFD (talk) 23:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this might be Hitman047 as well. JFD (talk) 00:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

---

This is hitman047 here. I apologize for editing this entry since I don't really know how to add a new message.

The reason I edited a post in Shaolin Monastery was because of the following line: " ethnic Indian peoples (who are part of the "South Asian" sub-group of the larger European race, according to anthropological genealogy"

There is no evidence to claim that Indians are a sub-group of Europeans. The so-called "Aryan invasion theory" has often been debunked and there exists no evidence for that. Until the debate of Aryan race is resolved, it would be unfair and biased to use that as a fact. Moreover, the whole thing has nothing to do with Bodhidharma or Shaolin or Kung Fu. I request you to edit that line out.

Also, shouldn't there be a "first warning" before "second warning"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hitman047 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Invasion theory

Thank you for editing the article. It is much cleaner now.

As for the invasion theory goes, I have read all the available articles related to that issue on Wikipedia. I am certainly aware of the Out of India theory. The thing is, there are too many brains working on that issue, turning it into a platform for propoganda. The invasion theory follows the lines of Nazi ideology of supremacy. To believe in the invasion theory would be like justifying Nazi view of the "World Order". Nonetheless, you are free to form your opinion. Hitman047 talk

---

Here's something that you were probably unaware of, causing you to fall prey to the propoganda:

• Take a look at this article on Mehrgarh that talks about the modern-day archaeological evidence which dates the existence of a civilization in the subcontinent back to 7000 BC–5500 BC. It clearly mentions that "Mehrgarh is now seen as a precursor to the Indus Valley Civilization".

The so-called invasion occured around 1700BC - 1300BC, as documented in this article Indo-Aryan migration.

Having known that, does the invasion theory still make any sense to you given that archaeological evidence proves the existence of Indians in the Indus Valley BEFORE the invasion?

Please sign your contributions

When you post something or block someone [1], please sign your contribution. If you use the templates at [[WP:WARN], by clicking on the template you see a page including an automatic signature. Please keep up the good vandalsmacking efforts! Thanks. Edison (talk) 04:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Feedback

I've been working on the stub for Broadcast Journalism. I'd appreciate any feedback you have as well as any suggestions for further expansion on the article. Tmac9986 (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

User:JacquesNguyen

Would you please help watch Template:History of Burma? User:JacquesNguyen changes it several times a day, accusing me of vandalism in the edit summary (I wrote the template, I am not vandalizing it, I assure you), and has never once justified his slander or changes. I see you have also had dealings with him, and would appreciate your help. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, it seems from his contributions that User:96.229.179.106, User:69.234.176.24, and User:69.234.199.254 are also both JacquesNguyen (the former having made a great number of damaging edits); perhaps you could check it out (though I've done so already) and add them to the two other blocked IPs beginning with "9." Best, Badagnani (talk) 01:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

How did this happen?

Please see contribs for 96.229.126.4. Badagnani (talk) 23:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Please help. Badagnani (talk) 23:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Please help. Badagnani (talk) 23:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much; the editor seems knowledgeable but again and again (after block after block) returns to blanking, changing dates without sources, adding huge chunks of text copied directly from English-language books, moving pages without consensus, failing to take into consideration of the community of editors working on Vietnam-related articles, attacking other editors, evading blocks by using multiple accounts, etc. I wish he would come around to following our community norms, but it seems hopeless. Badagnani (talk) 00:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

How did the anon unblock himself? Badagnani (talk) 06:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I'm sorry to bother you, but somehow the editor appears to have managed to register under a new username, User:Doremon360. How was that possible? Badagnani (talk) 20:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

We're now having a bit of a problem. Badagnani (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

And again, same M.O. as all the previous blocked editors (or, more properly, "editor"). Badagnani (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

And again. Badagnani (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It appears that JacquesNguyen has begun editing yet again, under a new username, User:Mamenchisaurus (as yet no vandalism per se, but the pattern of editing is the same). How is this possible to happen again and again if the IPs are blocked? Badagnani (talk) 03:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Proof

(Note identical closing "Thank" (without the word "you" after it):

• Diff 1
• Diff 2

Badagnani (talk) 03:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete?

I'm thinking this might be in violation of WP:NOT. Not a good Wiktionary transwiki candidate, but maybe merge in to relaxation? VanTucky 02:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

NP, I was on the fence about whether to delete or merge with that one. VanTucky 00:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Criteria

A general question that applies across all taiji styles: what are the criteria by which one judges a move to be correct? Can one always trust that there is an underlying foundation that is based on self-defence applications, the martial theory of traditional Tai Chi, together with a focus on the traditional energy concept of qi? Consider the rather precise way moves are carried out. There must be a consistent frame of reference that may be re-used over and over. Correct? --VanBurenen (talk) 20:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

NATV Native American Television

Please see the situation at NATV Native American Television, where you have contributed in the past. Badagnani (talk) 04:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

banned sockpuppet Mamenchisaurus

I have a feeling, based on shared articles, and registration dates that either of or both of the following 2 IDs may be linked with Mamenchisaurus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Neutrino555

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jhltaka

Sennen goroshi (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you had an opportunity to take a look at the above? especially the Neutrino555 account?

Neutrino555 seems to have taken up the work of Mamechsaurus and the account was created just after the Mame.... account was blocked. Same article, same edits...seems pretty conclusive to me Sennen goroshi (talk) 05:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

thank spam

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral. Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers, Anthony and Acalamari for their nominations. Thank you again, VanTucky

RS

Do you think this is spam? One editor deleted it calling it "spam" [2]. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Rfa thanks

Thanks for supporting my recent request for adminship which was successful with 89 supports, 0 opposes, and 2 neutrals. Unfortunately all I can offer is this lame text thanks rather than some fancy-smancy thank-you spam template thingy. I was very pleased to receive such strong support and to hear so many nice comments from editors whom I respect. I’ll do my best with the tools, and if you ever see me going astray don’t hesitate to drop a note on my talk page. Thanks again for your support!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I bring to your attention

Guang Ping Yang Tai Chi Chuan and Kuo Lien Ying. I've proposed the deletion of the style page, as neither of Kuo's two published books are guides to his supposed style (it's really just a slight variation on Yang, not a distinct style). The guy did publish a couple book still in circulation though, so I think it's fair to say the bio meets WP:V. VanTucky 00:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

This definitely needs to go as well. VanTucky 00:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Subpage code

Hi, can you move your user/user talk subpages (and those of User:Fire Star) to include the forward slash ("/"), for instance User talk:Fire Star/Archive 1? Recently, many such pages have been deleted. Just a heads-up. Regards, --RFBailey (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. --RFBailey (talk) 21:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - Nossa Senhora

Missed the vandalism there. Thanks for correcting! joshschr (Talk | contribs) 19:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you from Horologium

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed unanimously with the support of 100 editors. Your kindness is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Wizardman, Black Falcon and jc37 for nominating me. — Horologium

Thank you for the barnstar

So great to get those. Didn't know you were watching (-: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Seconded - it is nice when everything works out for the best. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 06:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

New tai chi pictures

This year at RecentChangesCamp I had a Wikimedia Commons nut take some pictures of me doing the 24 form. Some of them are total crap because I didn't warm up at all and my elbow/shoulders aren't relaxed properly, but a few might be useful. You can find it at Category:Tai Chi Chuan Demo. I've tried to go through and name all the postures on the image description page, let me know if I missed any or they are confusing. VanTucky 18:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Expansion

Message in xiuzhen, comments?ACHKC (talk) 04:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Any comments to the Revised Intro for Taoism? 202.82.204.157 (talk) 09:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Tsangpa Gyare - neutrality

I now added a leader which explains some of the mystical aspects of Tibetan biographies. Do you think this enough. Also been "wikify-ing" the article. Have I passed an accesptable standard yet? GavinErickson (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Template:Bbblock

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:Bbblock. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The DRV closed as a restore without prejudice for relisting, and this as now been relisted at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_June_5. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 04:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The userpage guy

Thanks for blocking him, that was painful to watch. Did he have a script or something to do that? Darkspots (talk) 01:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No doubt about that. Darkspots (talk) 01:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Crediton

Thanks! Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it. I'm 99.9% sure it is a hoax, but don't yet have the proof. Initially quite a good "joke", but going a little sour now I think. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

"I'm sure Crediton is lovely" This clearly proves that neither of you have ever set foot in Crediton. In recent times several people have been stabbed (to death) in the high street, and saturday night is notorious for drunken violance, and not one month ago someone tried to blow themselves up outside Lloyds bank after dowsing themselves in petrol. http://www.thisisexeter.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=137015&command=displayContent&sourceNode=136999&contentPK=20528605&moduleName=InternalSearch&formname=sidebarsearch Yea Crediton is just lovely... ps: The NWA GIG at the Liberal Club is not a hoax. Please just check the references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.170.240.10 (talk) 13:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Undeletion request

Hi, could I please ask you to undelete Israelinsider? I've been mentoring a new user, and encouraging him to create stubs. That was his first start, and it got deleted within one minute of creation. Can we please give him more time to flesh it out? Thanks, Elonka 16:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.  :) Also, don't get me wrong, I do appreciate the great work that you're doing on CSD. However, sometimes it seems like stubs are getting deleted way too fast. In this case, the user created his first stub, it was tagged within 60 seconds, and then deleted that same minute. That didn't even give him a chance to post a {{hangon}} tag.  :/ I do agree that some new pages are so egregiously bad, they just have to be zapped on the spot. But for others, I think it would be better if we remembered WP:BITE, and gave things at least a few hours or a day to flesh out, especially when it's a stub that is being linked to by multiple other articles, so is obviously "needed". In this case, it might have been better to decline the speedy, and recommend a prod. But I agree that it's a grey area. --Elonka 16:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Tai chi chuan#Family trees

Hi, I recently converted the family trees at Tai chi chuan#Family trees. I hope they look better now. A friend of mine would like to help get the article to Good article and eventually Featured article status soon, so hopefully more collaboration will take place on that article :) Anyways, feel free to let me know what you think of the family trees or if anything is wrong with them. Cheers. Gary King (talk) 01:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well actually, User:Susan K is the one that wants to help out. She's new to Wikipedia but is willing to add content, find references and such. I don't know much about Tai Chi beyond what the article tells me and what she tells me, but I'm willing to help out with non-content-related stuff :) Also, I've got a feeling that I'm in the same area as you because the weather here is experiencing the same situation ;) (north-east United States) Gary King (talk) 01:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added some {{pn}}s to the article. If you've got a chance, please add page numbers to book references that don't have page numbers listed. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 02:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Lee style T'ai Chi Ch'uan

The article on Lee style T'ai Chi Ch'uan was written with citations and references to several sources which were not published by the Lee style but by a reputable well known publishing house ie HarperCollins. They have been in circulation for over thirty years, were published by several reputable publishing houses, and have been translated into several languages including French (distributed in Canada, France, Belgium, Switzerland, Portugal), German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese (Brazilian), Polish and Indonesian and have been International bestsellers published in many countries around the world. We have used these sources because they are the recognized authoritative sources regarding information on this style. Chuangzu (talk) 07:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah hi Firestar, or Bradeos if you prefer now, I felt that Chuanzu's argument about the source was valid- i.e. it does not classify as a self-published source. The primary sources criterion is not valid imo as it relates to original research- that is to say it says "articles should not include analysis of a primary source" that isn't the same as e.g. a quote or direct synthesis of one. "anyone without specialist knowledge who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source;" this is not research- anyone who reads the sources will see that the article is just a summary of them. Chee Soo was a teacher of t'ai chi. This is what he taught. This style of t'ai chi is now taught by different people.

"In general, the most reliable sources are....and books published by respected publishing houses"

So we've used a most reliable source according to WP. And it is not self-published. I do not see the foundation of your argument. Try not to conflate notions of verifiability that were written with scientific/theoretic concepts in mind with those that apply to e.g. an article about a type of t'ai chi which is in many ways an article summarising the content of various books on the subject. What exactly would you expect from such an article? I'm sorry if you find this heated, I get frustrated by...people being more obstructive than not. Instead of trying to find a way to improve & include, they inhibit and remove. N'est-ce pas? --Kyle Dantarin (talk) 12:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Never meant to suggest you were singling anyone out Brad. I just think sometimes you don't phrase things in a suitably...flexible tone. Quite a stretch from "strongly establish notability" (i.e. not necessary but would be a great improvement for WP-status) to "isn't enough for a WP article." We're on the same team here! Can you give me some resources for tai chi articles- I can trawl through to try and find references; the net's all I have here alas. 14:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to be dense, but where exactly is that written? Show me your logic from the guidelines into what you said. Or is the view that primary sources "aren't enough" even though the article is mostly a synthese thereof and there are a variety of such sources to draw from more of a fashionable admin position on WP? Because I looked over the WP:NOR section which I believe you're referring to and I don't really see how you've gotten there. I think you forget that to people immersed in wikimania there is a lot more...preferences that aren't necessarily based in the guidelines. I'll check the sources your recommend. Kyle Dantarin (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

What I'm "trying to do here" is get an article on Wikipedia that explains about the t'ai chi I studied so people who are interested can read about it. In the process it is a necessity to deal with more experienced wikipedians yes? They have common practice which is probably more internally shared than that which is externally facing. Consensus will have been reached in their experience, particularly I would have assumed (note this is opinion and OR obviously, but seems logical) between admins about the interpretation of W:Policy. This makes it a question of working to understand what their motivations and rules of thumb are so you can get them on board. Let me assure you that if I wanted to belittle you I would not do so subtly, I don't believe in veiled insults- I don't find you negative, just not necessarily constructive in this instance, I'm sure that in general you're a great contributor- you weren't made admin for nothing is my assumption. Nor are you a bitch as far as I can tell (no sources :)); it's more of a general opinion on users of this site- as I said on my talk page, endless debates like this are why I dont use WP. Too many people arguing pointless crap. However since this article has some value to me and I appreciate how other people have worked to improve it, I'm keen not to have it removed. I think that if you find these statements "insulting" you're being overly sensitive. You're the one extending a point I made about editors in general who are more deletionist than not, including yourself in that group and then taking offense. Is that meant to be my fault? It's "no personal attacks" not "no [category] dislikes." Similarly you're misinterpreting my point about administrator knowledge, which was meant in an entirely different vein, albeit with a slightly resigned tone and implying that I'm accusing you of being what? (If you read the last few lines of the next paragraph this may make more sense to you). Since you've now changed the focus, I can say that I'm unimpressed that you're making this personal- forcing me to waste a great deal of my time explaining how you've gotten the wrong end of the stick. I hope you don't feel that's "belittling" you- I just don't entirely approve- in many ways that's neither here nor there.

On a more important note- Are templates or the WP:GUIDELINES (NOR/Verifiability) superior in terms of policy? It was my assumption that the template you reference was a shortcut to the actual guidance which explains that while "...are generally not sufficient" is not a universal statement. It's a general statement. I don't think it applies in this case. You could equally say that a book summarising a harry potter novel needs more than a primary source. But it doesn't really does it? Or does it? I think you are misinterpreting me- it is me asking you, being more experienced, to explain to me how I am wrong. I am trying to interpret the guidelines. You are an admin. I assume you have knowledge to which I am not privy. This is what I meant about fashionable admin positions- it may be that you have reached consensus elsewhere and in many ways this is common practice that has yet to be included in the guidelines. I, being but a casual user, would be unaware of this. Thus the idea that it is "fashionable." Which is admittedly not a positive light to cast on it- but then I think the guidance should stand on its own, I also understand that as with law, it is the putting into practice of it that makes the law (this is like common law right? I'm sure you understand; as an admin you are like judges to common law, you make it by individual case decisions). I hope this has cleared up our misunderstanding and we can now focus on improving this article? If you still feel I "have to stop" belittling you, or anyone, please just tell me and I'll try and explain. Now I have to go back to work. :P Kyle Dantarin (talk) 11:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see below my attempt to interpret the guidance as applies to primary sources:

Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[TRUE/ N/A]

For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source [TRUE].

Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.[We need to check this is the case here]

To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:

   * only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and [TRUE]
   * make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source. [NEED TO CHECK THIS]

I'm not disputing your point about 3rd party articles to increase evidence of notability though, I just haven't had a chance to look yet. Kyle Dantarin (talk) 11:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I've been away a bit also. It's all good. We shall track it all down! Kyle Dantarin (talk) 09:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)09:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)~

Was wondering if you'd confirm my interpret. that Chee Soo's books could be viewed as original philosophical theses and as such are fine as primary sources- as long as we describe and not interpret what he wrote then it's fine for an article. If/when we want to expand the article to discuss the style in general we can find 3rd party sources. I'm certainly in the process of looking, but google has no answers for me. I realise this isnt' a standard approach to an article on a tai chi system, but it's difficult (from here) to find good evidence. --Kyle Dantarin (talk) 12:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Random side point

Don't you think Graphone would be a more accurate englification of the Greek characters? I was reading it as Grafon (short o) when of course it is ze omega. Just occurred to me. This isn't meant offensively just showing interest :( --Kyle Dantarin (talk) 13:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)13:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes I only meant that, in ancient Greek, omikron is sounded "short" as in "dog", while omega is long as in "bone." That would suggest that, in English, you'd need the e on the end of Graphon(e) to lengthen the o appropriately. You're right about the sigma on the end though (as you know). Shrug. --Kyle Dantarin (talk) 09:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Taekwondo edit war etc.

There's an ANI thread here and I wondered if you would put your 2 cents (or more) inm as one of the few Admins who practice Martial arts I've come across. Thanks in advance --Nate1481(^t/_c) 15:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

to Bradeos Graphon. but we really sick and tired by JJL's stuborness for 7 months.(yes! 7 months!) cleary, curent version is a pretty neutral WP:NPOV Version. and pretty fair. however, JJL try to break this compromise text. and try to pushing his Japanese/Karate POV. i agree Bradeos Graphon's opinion, "and we don't draw conclusions at thst article". Yeah, (except JJL) We do, too.

even other user(Huwmanbeing) says, "JJL has been essentially alone".

i think only way for solve this problem is....... give "indefinite topic banned"(banned to TKD relation edit) to JJL. Manacpowers (talk) 15:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

proposed merge of Seichim into Reiki

As someone who contributed to the Seichim article, I'd very much appreciate your views here Talk:Reiki#Merger_proposal_for_Seichim_into_here. Sticky Parkin 01:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Tigereyes92

I saw your recent note. That user has been on my list for several months now. I've almost left you a note three times about her... but I just couldn't be sure, and the account wasn't doing much in the education-related articles that I watch. Perhaps next time I'll trust my instincts more and head for checkuser sooner. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Valley Stream 30 Union Free School District

As a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools, I had Valley Stream 30 Union Free School District on my watchlist and planned to improve it. I see that it has been deleted because it was created by a banned user. Since the information it contained should be valid, would it be possible to resurrect the deleted article and put it somewhere so that I might improve it? Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand your response. How do I restore the deleted article? I don't have access to it. What I ultimately would like to do is to have a reasonable article about this school district similar to other districts in New York State. Rather than write a completely new article, I would like to start with the bare bones info in the article that was deleted, and then add information (properly ref'ed, of course). Could you please explain how I get the deleted text back? Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 00:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the article's text. I'll work on making it into a reasonable article and should have at least a stub ready to go in a few days. Thanks again. Truthanado (talk) 03:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Deletion of Aslan119 account

Greetings,

You deleted the below account as a "temporary" account used to deal with blocks, but that was not the case. It was in fact an alternate account and was unrelated to the issues of blocking. Can you reverse your action below?

19:56, 16 December 2007 Bradeos Graphon (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:Aslan119" ‎ (CAT:TEMP: Temporary userpage deletion: content was: ' {| class="messagebox standard-talk plainlinks" style="padding:5px; width:auto;" | 40px | This user has been blocked indefinitely from)

Ryoung122 05:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

could you undelete User_talk:Rbj?

i may be indeffed blocked (for completely unjust reasons, at least one based on a total falsehood) and, for the moment, ArbCom is not doing anything about it. but that may change someday. there's always hope. 71.254.13.254 (talk) 02:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC) (a.k.a. User:Rbj)

Talk:Sawtooth wave

Why did you revert this edit? It does not obviously breach Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Richard Pinch (talk) 06:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I thought there must be some less obvious reason. Thanks. Richard Pinch (talk) 15:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Samurai blogging problem

Hello Bradeos, I could use some assistance dealing with an anon editor here. After watching the talk page deteriorate for the past several months, I decided to archive it to start with a clean slate and get tough with User:98.176.40.77 regarding talk page guidelines. I wrote a very polite and patient explanation on his talk page, which he appears to have ignored, after which I followed with the {{uw-chat3}} warning. His activity could best be described as using the talk page as a blog, or at least as a dump for his research on the article topic. In any event, he's spamming my talk page now with the same stuff, and I could use a second opinion on whether he's really crossing a line, policy-wise, as well as any help you can give in resolving this in most appropriate way possible, whether that be blocking him or just trying to reason with him. Thanks for your help, Bradford44 (talk) 20:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Some sort of note should be placed on the talk page so that people do not use flawed research by historians such as Hurst. I think this is just a case of sour grapes here. I have seen user Bradford44 promote a point of view put forth by Hurst on the Samurai and Bushido page which contradicts well known anecdotal and historical evidence. Using admin powers to suppress material which makes the article more accurate should not be tolerated.

Your note on the samurai page states:

This article needs additional citations for verification.

Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2008)

I am placing material on the talk page for review, before it is incorporated in the article. this is done as a courtesy to others instead of just making the changes with no debate. A list of samurai related links was listed so that people can educate themselves before making changes to the article which contradict real history.

some "expert" on the samurai talk page introduced himself as "doctoral candidate of japanese history" with "fluency in classical japanese" then proceeded to cite Hurst's flawed 1990 articleDeath, Honor, and Loyalty: The Bushido Ideal as the basis for his arguments. This "expert" then proceeds to tell me how there was no ideal of "Bun Bu Ryo Do" (pen and sword in accord) in indigenous Japanese literature. If this "expert" was fluent in Japanese, why did he not know that The word Bushi (pronounced "samurai or bushi") itself is composed of the letters for Bun and Bu and signifies a balanced state. what a moron. i do not need "expert" help like this.

Not only did the person not know Japanese history, he falsified his credentials! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.176.40.77 (talk) 05:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know who this guy thinks I am, but I'm pretty sure that I have never actually edited either the Samurai or Bushido articles. Strange... Anyway, I was just hoping you could look into the page history and help keep this guy from completely overrunning the talk page, in one way or another. He's still posting his research on the talk page, but everyone else who used to work on that article seems to have been run off, so he's basically just talking to himself. I wish he'd just edit the article and leave the talk page alone until there's a dispute. Thanks again. Bradford44 (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Bradford44, you don't remember encouraging people to alter the bushido page to make it less accurate?

(excerpt from bushido talk page)

Bushido is an invented tradition

This article represents a laughably uncritical, wholesale acceptance of the way Bushido was characterized by Nitobe in Bushido: The Soul of Japan. Rather than representing any truly ancient tradition, Bushido as we know it today was almost entirely invented in the recent past by Edo-period and especially Meiji-period ideologues such as Nitobe, and as such was always prescriptive rather than descriptive. This is another classic example of Wikipedia buying into "Nihonjinron."—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Kapur (talk • contribs)

   I agree that a more balanced viewpoint is needed here, do you have sources? Bradford44 (talk) 12:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC) 

The person above made this allegation despite the fact that the Bushido page is based entirely on pre-Tokugawa era (1600 AD) material and represents the real Bushido of the samurai who died in battle. You agreed with the writer who said it contains post-Tokugawa influences. You are now removing important data from the Samurai pages which would reduce user errors when they edit the page. They can now read real historical sources online before making bonehead entries such as " seppuku is rare, shameful, caused people to lose their estate and people had to be forced to do it", "a ronin is someone who has foresaken honor and failed to commit seppuku" or "samurai were generally illiterate before the edo period" Someone actually removed the Japanese dictionary definition of bushido which states that it developed in the muromachi era so that they could claim it was developed in the Edo period.

The latest entry which you erased documented a well known historian (Hurst) omitting The main and opening paragraph of the Chikubasho (1383AD) written by Shiba Yoshimasa because he knew it would contradict his earlier writings which stated that samurai did not emphasize a reckless death or honor, duty and loyalty to master before the Tokugawa period. If we leave the material, people less knowledgeable about the history of samurai and crooked historians won't try to claim otherwise. In his book "Japanese Culture" (2000), H. Paul Varley credited Yamaga Soko with inventing Bushido! (Japanese historians called his code "shido" which was less radical). No wonder Americans have such a distorted view of the warriors.

• I will be contacting the diploma mill universities issuing credentials to these "historians", Their publishers, and the organizations which accredit the universities. Let's see how long the trend continues. Bradeos, basically what we have is a group of people who claim they are fans of Japanese culture and what they really are in ethnocentric people in disguise. I have seen the pattern over and over again. Some 15 year old in a foreign country takes karate for a year or two and suddenly becomes an expert on Samurai and Bushido (martial arts and Japanese feudalism are not related).

As far as the historians go, Hurst, i am sure has some sort of grudge to pick. If you dig deep enough you will find the reason. Also, these essays came at a time when Japan was peaking economically in the 1980's and 1990's, so there was a hysteria of sorts that Asians were taking over the west coast of the USA etc. What surprises me is the level of incompetence and the level to which they don't bother to check sources. I see other historians quote Hurst without even questioning the material. Undoubtedly he has contributed much in english to help understanding Japanese culture, but he seeks to minimize accomplishments and omits anything which would distinguish them from another culture's warrior class.

Koov

Hello Bradeos. Is it all right if I restore Koov's user talk? He is an ongoing problem, and most of his socks are found behaviorally, so we need to keep his data around. I need to find a sock template I can use in the future that doesn't put any pages into CAT:TEMP. EdJohnston (talk) 03:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Bradeos Graphon. I would like to thank you for your support in my RfA and the confidence expressed thereby. It is very much appreciated. :) The RfA was closed as successful with 73 supports, 3 opposes and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank WBOSITG for nominating me. Best wishes and thanks again, —αἰτίας •discussion• 23:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

124.158.17.69

hey Bradeos Graphon

err on this IP address' talk page (124.158.17.69), you claim that I've been vandalising... the thing is I've never edited a wiki page in my life ._.

I've just looked at this IP address' contribution page (didn't even know there was such thing until you messaged me) and found that it had records of me editing things I've never heard of... o_o" maybe someone else had this IP address before...? dunno, i'm not a computer person.

I'm sorry if I sound confronting, I don't mean to be offensive at all.

124.158.17.69 (talk) 13:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for reverting the vandalism on my page. La Pianista ^{(T•C•S•R)} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Cheers to you!

—La Pianista ^{(T•C•S•R)} 02:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

About Compass

Is there any way the block on the IP address [[3]] can be further extended due to a series of vandal edits to the compass article today? See history [[4]].--AssegaiAli (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Problem with meatpuppets on the Belzebuub article

Hello, there is an issue with an article you had some involvement with. I am a bit disappointed to have to bring to your attention the following users: Peaceful soul, SillyChicken1970, Anton H, IP Address: 203.9.185.136, IP Address: 122.104.30.233, IP Address: 85.148.224.115, and IP Address: 94.210.201.182.

These meatpuppets have been attempting to discredit and disparage the subject of this biography of a living person Belzebuub. In one of the links to a forum that the user Anton H has posted on the page, I have found another forum topic on a website (Gnostic Teachings - http://www.gnosticteachings.org/) where together the lot of them were plotting ways of undermining and attacking the subject of the article, ranging from blanking the page, posting defamatory and unreferenced material, to playing what they call ‘the wikipedia game’ to get their personal attacks through the system [5] – starting at post #12). I came across this after following a link to a ‘source’ they added from the above website, which was merely a public forum post with disparaging comments about the subject of the article and the organization he founded. As evidenced by their discussion of the edits they had planned and carried out, their names on this forum are freedom is blessing, SillyChicken, Tenrai, Paul G, Nik, and the moderator: Son of Man.

All the above users have posted in the forum, which was also addressed by one of the moderators of the site, who has encouraged them to continue their personal attacks and to attempt to ‘play by the wikipedia’ rules so that the wikipedia community does not catch on.

I have removed their edits from the article, but wanted to bring this to your attention so that it is known what they are up to. Thank you. Matt reltub (talk) 00:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

About Shi Mei Lin

Shi Mei Lin is the adopted daughter of Wu Yin Hua and Ma Yueh Liang, not (just) a disciple. See the reference below. As their children are referenced on the Wu Style Tai Chi Chuan page I was including her. Wu Ying Hua, Ma Yueh Liang, Shi Mei Lin (1991). Wu Style Tai Chi Fast Form. Shanghai Book Co Ltd, Hong Kong. ISBN 962-2391060. See also (February 2003). "Shi Mei Lin on Balance and a quiet heart T’AI CHI The International Magazine of T’ai Chi Ch’uan 2003 No. 1". Wayfarer Publications. ISSN 0730-1049. Zhongdian (talk) 10:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Can I use this image?

I found an image on photobucket that I would like to use for an article, but I am unsure of it's license. The image itself has permanent links for sharing the photo in emails, layout pages, blogs, and forums. This open sharing seems like it might be permissible. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Fallout from old page move vandalism

You may not remember this, but in your efforts to clean up the page move vandalism of Ipo3 in November 2005, by deleting the moved pages instead of moving them back, you unwittingly caused some strange history oddities. For example, the first four years of the page history of the Klingon article was at Angela Merkel (disambiguation). I found the oddity while checking page histories for languages, and thinking of checking Klingon language which was OK, and then I checked the Klingon article whose page history wasn't OK at all. I found this so hilarious that I added it to my notes on page history but later thought better of it once I realised what was going on. I know page move vandalism reversion was harder in those days, but I was wondering if you'd mind me placing that entry on the Wikipedia:Village stocks. Of course if there was any other page history mayhem from those days, either point it out to me or try to correct it yourself. Happy editing! Graham87 14:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Too many warnings

I have been warned 3 times for something I did not do. I usually do not in fact edit pages just read them. Someone is doing this to me or the wikipedia system. Please resolve it - once again I did not edit anything for at least 90 days. Thank you. 68.223.244.249 (talk) 00:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC) ps. oh yeah I'm also banned now. Please correct this situation. Thank you.

You are getting warned because someone who shares your IP address, which may be shared by hundreds or thousands of users, is vandalising Wikipedia. You can stop these warnings appearing by creating an account and logging in. Curiously, Bradeos Graphon never edited the talk page of your IP address, so perhaps you are using a dynamic address that changes often. Graham87 12:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Fdguiofdufdugf

Thanks for your quick and thorough action on this. Some other admins have had a very puzzling attitude about this banned user. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Jian

Please help edit the Jian article again, I believe it needs your touch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.54.222 (talk) 00:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)