User talk:Edison/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Edison/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 21:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Citation templates Jimmy Wales: "Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so." quoted at talk page for Marilyn vos Savant.

• Useful articles:

Village pump (policy) Special:Log/delete Disruptive editing Wikipedia:Etiquette fringe original research Wikipedia:Civility requests for comment dispute resolution Wikipedia:Verifiability Wikipedia:Ownership of articles reliable sources. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."

• Useful site: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~leon/stats/wikicharts/?wiki=enwiki Edison 15:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Formatting

Hi there, Edison! I noticed that you left a question at Talk:List of years in television and apologized that your question showed up in a box. I have fixed the formatting. The "secret" is quite simple—if you insert a leading space before text, it will be enboxed. Remove the space—the box goes away too. Like this (see source for exact formatting):

This is in a box.

This is not.

Hope this helps. Please let me know if you need further assistance—I'll be only happy to provide it.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 12:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for help regarding System Accident

Edison, thank you for your very commonsensical defense of my article on System Accident. It made me feel good to have a reasonable person standing up and defending it. And I really liked the part where you said you would keep it in a Deleteopedia if necessary. But, please don't get in trouble on my behalf. Although much (most!) of the criticism is overblown and inaccurate, some of it is valid. My piece did become an essay. A factually based essay, a well-written essay, but an essay none the less. I just kept adding and adding to it. I kind of felt on a roll. And I'm not always that good a writer. And I'm not always that logical, certainly not!

Feel free to use the references and theories as you see best. Perhaps my favorite is that organizations shave uncomfortable truths. Now, I don't think I'm the first person to observe that, but I'm not citing sources, so I guess it is kind of original research. Perhaps I should have kept that in the discussion section and kept the whole piece much shorter. Perhaps. But I'm not real keen on rewriting it at this point.

And I really liked where you said that the conventional approach has been to blame the last person who touches something. Oh, how true!

Take care,

Cool Nerd

Your questions

We don't normally insert notes in the text (such as in your Smith example), although if you do so, it would be better than nothing and eventually someone will fix it for you. To do the things properly, you best starting point would be WP:CITE, which is a Wikipedia style guide that explains when and how to cite sources, and what kinds of sources are acceptable. The footnotes system is explained in detail at Wikipedia:Footnotes; you can use it if you like it, but there are also other acceptable citation methods. For an example of an article with footnotes (so you can see how the formatting works in practice) see Flag of Australia—it's as good of an article as any. All other featured articles are also extensively sourced, so you can use them as examples as well. And, of course, you can add the page numbers in the footnotes if you need to—that's perfectly acceptable.

If you are really unsure about how to add and/or format the sources you used, you can always dump your side file to the article's talk page or in the article's "References" section. This way you wouldn't have to keep them locally, and if someone has a question about sources used they can always see them on the talk page.

As for the copyrights, please see WP:COPY—it's an official policy that should answer your question. If it doesn't, you can ask a question on that policy's talk page, so people who are more knowledgeable in these matters could answer it.

All in all, as long as you provide references in some form (any form), it is better than having no references at all. Also, do try to format your contributions, but don't bother too much about fine formatting details while you are still new around here—it's the content that matters. There are plenty of volunteers who will fix formatting for you, and you will get it all after a while. Rome wasn't built in one day :)

Lastly, if you need a place to experiment, use the communal sandbox, or you can always create your own sandbox in your userspace (e.g., at User:Edison/Sandbox).

Hopefully I was able to help. Please don't hesitate to contact me again if something is still unclear. Happy editing!—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 14:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Footnote EVERYTHING

We have both edited the Skull and Bones article recently, and now the AP article on the 1918 letter has a number with a link to Common Dreams, but another listing as a reference. I am very new to Wiki editing, but I wonder if you agree that there should be a reference to what work and what page a fact comes from. If I find something in an old book which lacks an index, the reader or subsequent editor can't be expected to read through 500 pages to see where the fact is. Even worse, most articles just have some clickable links at the end with no indication of which fact is backed up by which link, On top of that the links may go dead or may change over time. So far I have kept notes offline as to what backup I have for what assertion, but that would require that I actively monitor each article I edit to jump in and defend any disputed edit. In controversial topics, that makes it likely that the truth will be edited back out. Thoughts?Edison 14:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I am incredibly big into footnoting things, usually I would footnote the commondreams (acutally AP) article with the <ref> tags, but I was lazy. For examples of some of the articles which I have wrote or contributed heavily too, see Plan Colombia (43 footnotes), the Lodge committee(50 footnotes), or Business Plot (23 footnotes). I find that footnotes are the best way to avoid an edit war, especially since my views are very far left liberal and unpopular with most Americans. In an edit war I always win by out reference people.

I am very new to Wiki editing, but I wonder if you agree that there should be a reference to what work and what page a fact comes from. Absolutly, in fact on any edit, notice the verifiable in any edit you make. Everything that we write as wikipedians should be referenced.

Please see my user page. You are welcome to add this items to your page.

I always attempt first though to verify something myself. Through google print, amazon print,and my JSTOR/lexis nexis accout through my school.

If I can't find it there, I will add {{fact}} to the sentences which are unreferenced. {{unref}} for an entire section. If people object and attempt to erase the {{fact}} . I will remind them about verifiable.

I will then cut and paste the sentence/paragraph and explain on the talk page that if the sentence or paragraph is not referenced, I will erase it in one week. If no one verifies the information within a week, I erase it.

"On top of that the links may go dead or may change over time." The {{cite web}} found on my user page and Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles allows a person to add an access date. If the link is dead, cut and paste the link and go to archives.org and paste the link. If the link is not on archive.org, delete the link and add a {{fact}}.

anyway, I could write more, but this is probably more than you asked for, any questions or comments, let me know. Most wikipedians--the majority are lazy and never add references. This should be required, and I am glad that you are doing this yourself.Travb 15:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey Edison, the converstaion at Business Plot has gone pretty cold, just to let you know if no one responds to you. Travb (talk) 01:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Citation needed

Just a note, instead of adding Citation needed to articles, add {{Citation needed}}. (using {{ }} calls upon a template) Thanks, AndyZ 01:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Henry and Lowe

Thank you very much for your note on Henry's article. This edit was done when I was first writing for wikipedia, and my exuberance did find me overwriting articles. There's obviously something more to Prof. Henry than his electrical work. He seemed to be a highly revered man of science with great influence around Washington. For the fact that he became very involved with Lowe prior to and during the war is of great significance, especially if he is an electrical scientist working with a gasman like Lowe. His letter to Cameron is of particular interest because he is a man of science and not just an "electrician." (I say with tongue in cheek.) He had a similar letter written to Capt Whipple of the Topographical Engineers, Lowe's first assignment, digging into the nuts and bolts of ballooning with the intent of influencing him to retain Lowe's services. He had the whole of the scientific community interested in Lowe's projects. But I am not so married to the article that I can't see the section edited. So feel free to truncate it.

By the way! Prof. Lowe was extremely proficient working around the volatile gas. Hydrogen has a rise rate of 400 feet per second, so with the envelope well over his head, he was not wafting around in a cloud of hydrogen gas where a telegraph spark might do a Hindenburg on him. He used to go up in the dark using his oxyhydrogen lamps to light his inflation procedures. That's alot of hydrogen gas, but Lowe's safety record was impeccable.

Thanks again! Magi Media 03:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)Magi Media

Moses Gerrish Farmer

I want to somehow create links so that when one searches for "Moses Farmer" or "Moses G. Farmer" they will see this article, currently titled "Moses Gerrish Farmer." I would like to change the article title to "Moses G. Farmer" since I have seen many references to him where the middle name was not spelled out. He was not like Thomas Alva Edison or Franklin Delano Roosevelt in that sense. The man's middle name is in the title, and it was seldom used and little known, so searches for "Moses Farmer" just give articles mentioning "Moses" and/or "farmers". Likewise, a search for "Farmer, Moses" does not lead to the article. This is a general problem with article titles in Wikipedia.

Thanks! Edison 20:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I am in the process of making the changes that you requested. For future reference, if you wish to move a page, click Move at the top of the page that you wish to be moved. This will bring you to a screen where you woill enter the new name of the page and why you are omoving it. This will automatically create a redirect link on the old page to autpomatically bing you to the new page when you try to go to the old one. I am also removing the helpme from your page. Contact me if you have any more questions. --No1lakersfan 20:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Redirects. create a moses farmer page with the text #REDIRECT [[Moses Gerrish Farmer]]. Also, hit up the Moses (disambiguation) disambig and put in a reference too. -- ∞Wirelain 20:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Need assistance

I created a new article, Frederick De Cordova. But when doing TV he always used the name "Fred De Cordova". I need a search for either name to lead to the article "Frederick De Cordova" but I do not want to move or rename the article. How do I make the additional title lead to the article? ThanksEdison 18:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

You should always name the articles after the most common name that the person goes by. If he is creditted as "Frederick De Cordova" then the article should use that name. If he is creditted as "Fred De Cordova" then you can move the article to that name, and the old name will redirect to the new one. Ryūlóng 19:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

As you can see, IMDb uses Frederick De Cordova for his page, and you may want to link that name by using the {{imdb-name}} template. Ryūlóng 19:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

There's an easier way to avoid moving the article. Just go to Fred De Cordova and type #REDIRECT [[Frederick De Cordova]]. That should fix it. Ryūlóng 19:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• At some point he switched from "Frederick" to "Fred", but then went back to "Frederick" for his final movie circa 1966.Edison 00:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Listcruft

You can find info on listcruft here. It is a term employed quite often in the Articles for Deletion section of Wikipedia. In this particular case, I nominated the article because it was originally nothing more than a random list of songs. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 15:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

One Finger Salute

Hey Edison, what would you think of moving that video to a separate section. It isnt a speech, and under the right section, I dont see any issue with the video itself. AuburnPilot 23:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the category would be, but the other videos you are referring to are all speeches. I guess I'm not too worried about it; I'll just leave it as it is. Thanks! AuburnPilot 00:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Like you say, to amend it to read "Speeches and other videos" would open up the section to videos covering anything. That would only make the situation worse. As far as a section labeled "Other Videos", that could work but the article is already fairly long. I say we just leave it as is. AuburnPilot 00:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Your accusation returned

I wish to answer the accusation you made against me in your post on my talk page. How about the ordination of women??? This is a patent violation of the mandate and institution of Christ. It casts in doubt the sacraments dispensed in the ELCA. As to the LCMS's faithfulness, well, with our present liberal administration that is withering away. You are "holier than thou" with less reason in the posture.--Drboisclair 15:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

We may have more common ground than you think

You raise important points. I wonder, though, that the ELCA concerns itself with Lutheranism. They should embrace generic Protestantism to make them more in line with the Episcopal Church. Why bother with Lutheranism anyway? Although, it does not further dialogue to declare that the ELCA is not Lutheran. I concur with your deploring the factionalism of those who think that Wisconsin and the CLC are not pure enough. As to women's ordination, those who oppose it as I do stand on the Scriptures (1 Cor. 14:34 and 1 Tim. 2:12). Just because it is not mentioned in the Lutheran Confessions does not mean that it is an adiaphoron (indifferent thing). The confessors were blessed that in their day and age they were not burdened with the error of women's ordination. Then, there is that horrible concordat that the ELCA made with the Reformed. This compromises the confessional Lutheran and biblical stance on the Sacramental Union. That having been said. I think that you raise some other good points about authoritarianism. The LCMS has problems with that. It is not a bright world for Christianity in our day and age.--Drboisclair 18:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

RfC Comair Flight 5191

I just wanted to say that there has been a RfC. regarding Comair Flight 5191 Since you have been a contributor to the article, I encourage you to add to the debate and to contribute to the article, in the future. Mytwocents 05:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

SmackBot

I am looking at the book 'Edison a Biography' referenced in the Thomas Edison article. Smackbot says the ISBN is wrong, but I am looking right at the book, and it is correct. Please turn off this demented bot, or perhaps rename it "Vandalbot" because that appears to be a better description. Thanks Edison 21:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

ISBNs are 10 digits long, that one only has 9 digits hence the bot is flagging it. Since the date of that book predates the adoption of ISBNs, it is quite likely an SBN. An SBN can be converted to an ISBN by prefixing it with a zero. So a search like this one with the zero added to the front works, without the zero it doesn't. --pgk 21:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I can't claim to be an expert but my understanding is that ISBNs have 10 digits, SBNs had 9. If something has changed or the book has a printing error (which is certainly not unheard of) I can't say with any degree of certainty. But on a basic level the reason for quoting the ISBN is so that people can find it, if the ISBN as listed in the book is not the one under which it is listed in a search by ISBN, then it's not much use. This is I guess why they are being tagged so that we do double check them. --pgk 21:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

According to Amazon it is 0-7033-0468-2 Looks like a typo, possibly the person filing the 1 or 2 off the impression number koncked a digit off the ISBN? Rgds, Rich Farmbrough, 22:17 8 September 2006 (GMT).

Incidentally you might be better off quoting a more recent ISBN Carbon microphone, Telephone and Invention of the telephone all cite Edison: A Biography, 1992, Wiley, ISBN 0-471-54806-5.

It is very unusual to find the number on the book is wrong, EdJohnston has so far found about 4, plus this one makes 5 on WP. This is out of many many thousands on WP. The use of ISBN's is debateable. They really stand out when either a book has one edition, or is old and has one hardback edition that can be obtained from libraries. (For example I once ordered and bought a book called "The book of the Dun Cow" - it wasn't what I wanted at all - had I had an ISBN, that couldn't have happened) Still there are sites that will give you all the ISBNs of a book, given one ISBN, and I suppose this might be built into other engines. And I have been trying to make sure as many ISBNs are useful as possible, especially as they will be changing soon, and we will not be able to use all the internal checks if we convert them to the new format. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 22:30 8 September 2006 (GMT).

Pgk/Edison, the 0-07-033046-8 number that pgk found is probably the correct one. Reasons:

1. The layout is consistent with the book
2. (Most importantly) 0-07- is McGraw Hill's publisher ID
3. The checksum is correct

I suspect that somewhere someone added a number on the end (as I did), and the data got "borged" - after all the purpose of ISBN searches is to enable people to find a book, so it makes sense to allow as many possible variants.

Good detective work pgk! Rich Farmbrough, 08:40 9 September 2006 (GMT).

Your reply to my question about Sinusitis

Thanks for the quick and efficient reply to my question at the Reference Desk. I've talked to my physician about it; a few years ago I went to a specialist and they couldn't find anything wrong, except for my adnoids, which were removed. That didn't help and I was reexamined when the problem continued, but they can't really figure it out; they think it may be a bad case of hay fever that keeps leading into more and more complications. Anyway, thank you for your time! :) Srose (talk) 22:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Run-on or sentence frag on AAR network, you have my blessing

Please edit, remove if you feel it now reads like a silly piece of tripe now that 9/15/2006 came and went. I didn't want to remove silly rumors before 9/15 for fear of being called a censor but I believe that it should not have been in the article in the first place. I just wanted to move the ball a little... and not offend otters editors :( Chivista 13:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Citations

Hi, I just noticed you experimenting with citations in the sandbox. The proper way to do them is use cite templates such as {{cite news}} or {{cite web}} in between your <ref> tags. See Steve Irwin for examples. Cheers,  Netsnipe  ►  17:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

sneaky uses

I think it's the first one, but I'll check to make sure. Ilikefood 18:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It's the first one. Ilikefood 00:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi,

In Reply to your response:

Thanks for your correction to the Emmanuel Milingo article. My edit of 19:58, 1 October 2006 changed the photo caption to say he was an archbishop rather than the previous caption which said he was a priest, and my previous edit had said he was a retired archbishop rather than an ex-archbishop. But in the edit summary I left out "not" and reversed the intent of my edit.

That is correct. Thanks for your thanks! ;-)

I understand that Roman Catholic canon law says a sacrament cannot be revomed by excommunication, so if he ordains someone a priest or bishop, the ordination is effective, and all that the penalty of excommunication can do is prevent them from serving a parish or diocese, and similarly excommunicate anyone who receives sacraments from them.

It prevents them from serving the Church and from being part of the Church, but it does not automatically excommunicate others receiving the Sacraments from them. Only those receiving episcopal ordination from these excommunicated, are excommunicated definitely. Laymen can receive their sacraments if the excommunicated are not declared "vitandus" ("to be avoided"), e.g. in case of heresies.

The Roman Catholic Pope was excommunicated by the eastern church in 1054, and his successors have gotten along nicely since then, and contrariwise for the eastern church. The Pope in the late 18th century claimed that Anglican bishop ordinations were not valid because some forms were omitted, but the Anglican bishops responded that the Popes predecessors had not usede those forms either, so that would make him not a bishop either.

The Anglican case is complex, but the Anglican response to Apostolicae Curae is wholly insufficient. The ancient rites they refer to, clearly express a high priesthood, an offering priesthood, offering a sacrifice and ordaining clergy. Those references lack in the 1547 until 1979 anglican ordination rituals. Presently the question is debated, as new rites were introduced by the Anglicans and Old Catholic bishops co-consecrated with the Anglicans. But as a ROman Catholic I agree with Pope Leo XIII's Apostolicae Curae of course. Kind regards,Smith2006 22:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Tesla

The whole thing is beginning to get pathetic, but here goes... Tesla was not a Serbian-American, as "Serbian" refers to people from Serbia, regardless of whether they are Serbs, Hungarians etc. Serb-American may sound wrong to your ears, but I don't see how it's any different from Greek-American, for example. I'll change it back, and if you feel strongly about it we can continue the discussion while having your formulation as the temporary solution. --estavisti 03:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Just noticed you didn't change it. Still recovering from the shock of someone showing a willingness to discuss something on WP being editing. --estavisti 03:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Perfectly aware that he was born in the Military Frontier, and not in Serbia. So Serbian is not correct, and Serb is - which was my point. It is confusing, I know. --estavisti 04:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

"Would that make him "an Austro-Hungarian-American Serb"?" Maybe you see know why I'm of the opinion that the whole thing should be shunted out of the intro? --estavisti 04:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Eisenhower

Hello! As long as the addition is verifiable, NPOV, sourced, and adheres to our policies, of course I would have no objections. :-) If people feel that the section needs to be modified, then we can go from there, but as long as all policies are followed, go ahead and be bold. Thanks for asking! Flcelloguy (A note?) 14:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Notability of ministers and churches

• CommentPlease note that I have started a discussion topic at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) to create a standard for notability of religious leaders. Some should have articles, if, for instance they are an official of their denomination churchwide, or they started some important movement, wrote widely used hymns, or were notable in ways special to religion. They probably should not have an article if they were just a typical priest, rabbi, or mullah serving a local group. We have such standards for Porn actors and sports figures, and it would save a lot of argumentation. Edison 23:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• CommentPlease note that I have started a discussion topic at Wikipedia talk:Notability to create a standard for notability of churches. I have also started a discussion for standards of notability for individual churches, We have a standard for schools, so why not for churches. Edison 23:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• The following discussion copied from WP:N is preserved here as an interim position on notability of churches:

Churches, mosques, synagogues, etc

Every day many articles are started about individual churches and every day there are AFD discussions. I do not want to see all churches included, and I do not want to see all chrch articles deleted. I would appreciate some criteria for the sake of consistency and to reduce repetitious arguing.. The first criterion people cite is size. Megachurches with thousands of members are probably noteworthy but the biggest churches are not necessarily the most encyclopedic, any more than the largest colleges are. I am looking for criteria which would allow other churches to be included, just as smaller colleges have articles Princeton University. A church might be historic Old North Church or have a place in the civil rights struggle, or be the site where gospel music was first sung, or be the place where a President of the U.S. taught Sunday School. But how does one specify how historically important it must be? It could be architecturally or artistically important (designed by Frank Lloyd Wright, or with murals by Chagall). What are the criteria for such cultural importance? It might be religiously important (Here the doctrine of blah blah was first enunciated by Rev xxx in 1815, so it the birthplace of the xyz denomination). It could be a small church but still a noteworthy and notable one. How can this last categroy be delineated? Newspaper and magazine articles? Awards or recognition from the denomination or from nondenominational bodies? Distinguishing the building from the denomination, how large or important does a religious denomination have to be to merit an article?Edison 07:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that anything out of the ordinary would be interesting. Most churches don't have anything out of the ordinary about them. The key is for it to be reported independently by a reliable source. This means that we don't have to push our own point of view about notability - the independent sources have decided that it is notable. Stephen B Streater 08:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I think any Church with a congregation of a certain size or higher, is notable. Any church that has X number of viewers, subscribers, etc.. is notable. Any church that has spent X dollars on political actions, notable. Any church who's Minister is notable, is notable. I would use similar criteria for any company, but with different numbers. Mathiastck 17:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

This is arbitrary, and there's no reasonable way to decide what X should be. —Centrx→talk • 17:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Meaningful news coverage as always is the threshold, to determine whether or not we could actually write a useful article. A piece about the history of the church, it's role in the community and so on is a good start. Stuff announcing services or a wedding or whatever isn't. It's actually relatively rare that anything beyond an official church history is written by a member, and a few passing mentions are made in the paper about a new minister, a program the church offers, etc. Nothing that really makes an encyclopedia article. When there are actually real news articles being written about the church, that's a strong sign it's "notable" enough for an article. --W.marsh 20:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this position. What I look for before putting Churches (or pretty much anything else) up for AfD is two sources that look like they pass WP:RS and are either apparently independent of one another or are about different things. For instance, a newspaper article about the Church history and the inclusion of the Church in a book about Church architecture would be fine if you ask me. Erechtheus 00:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Unless there are clear references affirming notability, I'd say to merge churches to their local community article, per WP:LOCAL. --Elonka 02:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

These guidelines do seem quite cogent and reasonable. However, perhaps they could be made more concrete, somehow? Erechtheus's 'two sources' threshold is good. However, I would tend to limit things a bit further. For example, a couple of mentions (or even one) in books on architecture/history may definitely warrant inclusion. A 'denomination birthplace' is surely only notable if the denomination itself is notable — in other words, not 'Little Church on the Prairie is where spirit-filled Pastor Joe came up with his Redemptionist Post-Evangelical Reformed Baptist theology'. But if dealing with a modern church where the only claim to notability is size of congregation or presence in a community, then I think a little more than newspaper articles are required, surely? Pretty much every community newspaper will have something on the local church every week, and even large (city-wide) newspapers may have church-related articles that are not truly notable. But what about if the 'newspaper' criterion is extended to nationwide news (in whatever country?). Similarly, size should not be a criterion at all, unless it is verifiably 'the biggest' or 'the smallest' or the 'the tallest' (and even then, I loathe that tendency in modern man to obsess over such things — what about 'the most beautiful' or 'the architecturally most advanced'?).

Edison, why not create a new policy/guideline page (like there are for books, websites, etc.) and put something up there? That way it can start being referred to in AfDs, which in turn will draw more people to the guideline to add their thoughts on the matter. There seems to be enough material, esp. if it has a nice preface and is spaced out with bullet points and things ;-) The Crying Orc 18:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with The Crying Orc. Now that church deletions seem to be a hot topic, I think a policy discussion would be a great idea. I don't want to get into a long discussion here, if we are goign to have a policy page, save to say that I agree with the assertion that size should be irrelevant, except in exceptional cases (being the largest church in a country may confer notability, for example). I'd lean towards national rather than local media coverage being a criterion for notability too. That's all I've got to say, as i do think we need to have a decited page in Wikipedia space to discuss this. church is important to many people, and the tendency to think that "important to me" equals "should be in wikipedia" is widespread. There will alwys be people wishing to add their church to wikipedia, just as there are people who want their school included. Lurker ^oi! 13:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm starting on a first draft in my user space. You can find the article here if you'd like to contribute. Once it looks halfway presentable, I shall move it to Wikipedia:Notability space (and paste this discussion into the talk page) One question immediately presents itself: should this be churches or all places of worship? Lurker ^oi! 11:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I've decide to move it to Wikipedia space already Wikipedia:Notability (local churches and other religious congregations) Lurker ^oi! 11:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Pastor Don

Hey Edision!!!! This is in reply to the talk.... What I got was an article from my friend which he got from a magzine......probably some personal sites too can be found as you had put it on. Will that won't be enough. And one more thing can we update our own sites( personal)???thanks for your care...God bless you....rencin24

Edison I do have the article in a jpg format if you want I can send you the link...... it is in this link what I found some of his life and I also got a CD recently where people share about his life. So I thinking since there is a link to this article I went ahead and created. To be honest I have never even seen him in person, all I know is that he was different......I'am from India where as he is in USA...think about it how can I have a connetion with???? Anyways here is the link Pastor Don here you have even his snaps too when I tried uploading the same snap what I had there was some issue in right kind of tag...Thanks a lot Bro...rencin24

Afrika paprika

I'm afraid that you cannot convince him. He strongly belives that the Serbo-Croatian languages have two dialects "Serbian" and "Croatian" - whereas one should (I even suggest to you) check out dialect, he/she will see (East Herzegovinian, Zeta-Kosovar, etc..); the political linguistical map has absolutly nothing to do with linguistics, but strictly with politics and nationalism. I for instance, speak the East-Herzegovinian language. --PaxEquilibrium 15:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not "believe", I know. Refer to the "Serbo-Croat language" page and Croatian and Serbian languages pages and you will see that everything I talk is true. "Serbo-Croatian" is a diasystem...not a language. afrika Paprika 16:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

---

In my understanding Croatian and Serbian languages are Slav. When the Croats and Serbs came to the Balkan region they picked up this local Slav language and a new Religion. Like anywhere people speak slang..dialect...look at the English speaking American, Australian and Kiwi differences..do Americans say G'Day Mate? The correct term would be Serbo-Croatian like English is for America etc...Does anyone say i speak American? In reality neither side likes the united language so they call it two different languages. Bit silly as i can speak Croatian and perfectly understand Serbian (90% of it). I also speak English but can only understand a Scotish or Irish guy at 80% at best. Jagoda 1 23:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Poor Nathan

Thanks for telling me about Nathan. Sure was one special man. I WISH he was Croatian hahaha Jagoda 1 23:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC) PS Croatian people have been around a long time, sad thing is many are called eg. Italian (Polo) and eg Austrian(Haydn). Once the the media knows them as eg Italian it is very hard to prove otherwise, no matter how much proof you come up with. A real shame when it's so obvious - eg. my granfather was called Austrian but in fact he was Croatian...see what i mean ...little uneducated mistakes by people who don't know much about that part of the world. Also Croatia was ruled by Venice and by Austria Hungary over time etc...the people were called Venetian and Austrian in record books.- Good thing is that Polo and Haydn did leave some information which can be used to prove Croatian origin eg in Sibenik and Korcula for Polo and an interesting Croatian surname in Austraia Hajdin. When the puzzle fits it might be time to change history.

God Speed Jagoda 1 23:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

K.A.Paul

Hi Edison I did do some edits like adding some info into it. I also did create one portion for Criticism but I deleted it because I did not want to do it without your permission. I do know some of his details. I can even give you more details if you give me some time cause I know people who work in his organization. Probably I can get it from them. He comes from a state in India known as Andhra Pradesh. rencin24

Yes infact he is from Andhra which means he is a from that languge speaking state. Listen I have friend who's uncle was working with him due to some problem he left that organization critics say that his organization is not a good one. ....some say its a Cult...lets see if you give me permission I can go ahead and create and as well as edit a portion only for Criticism....wat do you say...thanks. rencin24

Edision I did get it finally the details of his birth and the place too. If you can just have a look and edit it in the way it should be....I hope I was of some help to you. Thanks for allowing me to join this project.rencin24 rencin24 13:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Edison, just in case if you did not notice it...that I have put the link at the bottom under External Links. rencin24 rencin24 06:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA violation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jill Pike (second nomination)

Please do not make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jill Pike (second nomination). Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. --Aaron 20:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

A statement about Wikipedia policy, as I made in support of my vote, cannot be reasonably taken as a personal attack, so it was inappropriate for the nominator to leave a warning on my talk page.

User Aaron, who placed the warning here, had said in his nomination "I originally tagged this as a db-bio after noticing that some of the article content (which I have since removed) was intentionally misleading in an attempt to give the subject some desperately needed notability oomph. " Thus he himself attacked other editors for "intentionally misleading" because of their "desperation."

My comment which garnered the warning was:

"Keep- Notable as national radio show host. Disagreeing with the political position of a radio show is not grounds for deletion and protection from recreation of an article. Edison 20:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)"

Edison 21:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Edison - if I were in Aaron's shoes, I wouldn't have posted the warning; your comment was fairly polite. Nevertheless, I think you should review it. You said: Disagreeing with the political position of a radio show is not grounds for deletion and protection from recreation of an article. Or, if I'm reading this correctly, you said Aaron, I think you're making this nomination because of your political opinions, and you shouldn't do that. Such statements, even if 100% true, can start fights, because they can easily be taken as a personal attack.

It's certainly frustrating to see an editor do something for what seems improper reasons, and then not say something about it, yourself. The reason NOT to say something (other than WP:AGF - you could be wrong) is that shifting the discussion to motives can easily derail it. Or, to put it differently: it's better to trust the process, and to assume that rational arguments will suffice if in fact you're on the correct side of the debate. In my experience, one (usually) doesn't need to (try to) damage the credibility of those on the other side in order to get the outcome to be a reasoned one.

As far as removing this warning - I wouldn't, since it doesn't seem clearcut vandalism or the work of someone who is clearly deranged (you may disagree). I do note, however, that there is no wikipedia policy that definitively bans removing warnings, or specifies penalties. (Which isn't to say that there aren't a lot of administrators who take umbrage at someone - usually someone warned about vandalism or sock puppetry or other seriously problematical behavior - if they remove a warning posted by that admin.)

Finally, another option is to archive this section, if you'd prefer not staring at it for the next few months. John Broughton | Talk 00:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Rowing World Records

Unfortunately, I know nothing about it either; I was just adding diacritics to a couple of Polish words. Biruitorul 20:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Bev Harris

A-ha. I thought she seemed too notable for speedy. Excellent call. Luna Santin 21:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Capacitance VS. Voltage

What's better for a capacitor if I want to create a coilgun? High Capacitance or High Voltage? Thanks. Ilikefood 22:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

First, CAUTION! Don't work with electricity or stored energy devices, or projectile devices unless you are qualified to do so, and understand and observe all applicable safety rules and precautions and laws. Large amounts of stored energy in any form is inherently dangerous. Electricity from capacitors can cause burns, or even electrocution. Caps can explode if reverse polarized, overcharged subject to excess high voltage, or discharged at too high a rate. High speed projectiles are as dangerous as a bullet. Even the energy in a photoflash can be lethal, since it is at a high voltage (way higher than the battery powering the device) and of sufficinet quantity to stop your heart, just as the "paddles" on ER shows are used to stop or defibrillate hearts.

I would expect a goal would be to achieve the rapid transfer of a large amount of energy from the caps to the coils. Energy of projectile=1/2* m* (v squared) in Joules = integral of current timesvoltage from stored energy, allowing for losses and efficiency. Not all caps are built for high current discharge and they all certainly have voltage limits which must be observed with a large safety factor. From Capacitor Energy stored = 1/2* capacitance*(voltage squared). Twice the capacitance at the same voltage stores twice the energy. It would cost about twice as much, since two caps in parallel doubles the capacitance. Twice the voltage in the same capacitance stores 4 times the energy. But it is more expensive to buy a higher voltage capacitor of the same Farad rating. If a device needs a certain amount of energy delivered in a given (short) time, you can price out the higher cost of better insulation for high voltage and the price of the high voltage capacitors, versus the high cost of more low voltage capacitors. Caps in series to get a higher voltage rating doesn't work well because the voltage divides unevenly according to the internal dc resistance of the caps. It's an engineering exercise. I'm not sure how you would easily measure the internal resistance of a cap to see its max discharge rate, or where the allowable safe discharge rate is specified. I doubt that caps made for general purposes like electronics or motor starting or power factor correction would work well. Again be cautious.Edison 22:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Don't worry, I'm not going to try and use very high voltage, or anything like that. I was just curious. Maybe I could wait until I'm (a lot) older and I could try to get qualifications, although by then stuff like coilguns will probably be outdated. P.S. I tried to build one with a coil of wire and a 9 volt battery and it only made a screw go about 3 inches so it would probably take a lot more to do anything, and I am just an amateur so I probably can't make anything as complicated as a coilgun yet. Ilikefood 22:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Alix Rosenthal

I added some references to Alix Rosenthal to help establish notability. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alix Rosenthal (second nomination) --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Blood Alchohol

A little while back you stated that endogenous ethanol inebriation had "the same credibility as girls who get pregnant from a swimming pool." in this[1] discussion. I thought you might be interested in this [2] article, which lays out the etiology in lay speak. Tuckerekcut 15:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

CU article in my namespace

Left you a reply there. Basically, go for it. Crockspot 17:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for WP:RPP

Thanks for requesting semi-protection on Thomas Edison. I need to do that more often when warranted. Gotyear 18:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

bogus 3rr warnings

Please cease from issuing 3RR warnings to members of the Living People Patrol who are executing the consensus of the patrol in removing defamatory material. Such edits are exempt from 3RR, and the reinsertion of such defamatory material is a blockable offence, per WP:BLP on both issues. Crockspot 16:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I was going to stay out of this one, but this is a bit much. An agreement between a couple self-appointed members of the BLP does not mean that this so-called consensus applies across all of Wikipedia nor are they exempt from a 3RR violation block for removing properly sourced material. Note that the text of the 3RR policy page states: "However, it can be easy to confuse removing potentially libellous material with an edit war over neutrality issues, which are conentious edits. Err on the side of caution: do not repeatedly remove material you consider defamatory unless it is blatant, and seek intervention from others early at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard." While the edit war over this issue was unfortunate, Tbeatty has done the right thing by stopping at three reverts. Edison has acted properly and does not deserve this warning dervived from an incorrect interpretation of policy. Gamaliel 17:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Gam, please STFU and read before you pipe in. I am referring to this specific information on this specific article. As much as you may deny it, there IS consensus within the BLPP (which you have yet to officially volunteer for), that this particular information violates the spirit of WP:BLP, and should not be in the article. TBeatty's edits were marked "per BLP" in the edit summaries. (And since there was no 4th edit, why would any kind of warning be needed? It's not like Tbeatty is unaware of 3RR policy.) If you don't like how those of us who have chosen to volunteer enforce WP:BLP, then start an RfC, or take some other resolutive action. I'm getting tired of being contradicted by you. If you want to be helpful, go bother Joegoodfriend, who has inserted this libellous material no less than five times today. - Crockspot 17:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Because I don't add my name to a list and get a little userbox badge, I can't participate in BLP issues? What's the point of that aside? I'm sorry I contradicted you, but adding your name to a BLP list does not give BLP members blanket 3RR immunity, and there is no consensus that this violated BLP as there are numerous editors who disagree and feel that the incusion of a properly sourced news story is not a BLP violation. I would not have said anything had you not given this user incorrect policy information. Gamaliel 17:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for your note. I imagine that Crockspot, et al., don't mean to suggest that participants in the BLPP are specially exempt from 3RR, but, instead, that any editor acting, pursuant to BLP to remove inappropriate content, need not to comport his editing with 3RR, which suggestion is codified at WP:3RR#Reverting potentially libellous material. I am concerned, though, that those who partake frequently of living people patrol seem to intimate that their understandings of BLP are more sound that those of others (which concern I expressed prospectively when first the propriety of LPP was discussed), and I think your judgments vis-à-vis LPP to be cogent and wholly correct. Should the edit war continue, a content RfC might well be appropriate, as might, at some point, a user conduct RfC. In the meanwhile, perhaps cooler heads will prevail. Btw, your sectional retitling was well done; I suggested such retitling in my talk page note (I wasn't particularly sure for what title a consensus might exist), but you addressed the problem moments before. Good on ya! Joe 18:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to BLPP

I see that you signed up, and if you are truly sincere, I welcome you, as we really need the help. With the elections coming up, we've been getting hammered heavily with partisan crap on just about every candidate's biography. I would recommend reading WP:BLP, WP:RS (which is about to be scrapped and replaced by WP:ATT, so read that too), and put WP:BLPN on your watchlist. There is a tool on the WP:BLPP page that shows you recent changes to articles in the "Living people" category. (Lots of other suggestions at that page too.) However, there are tons of living bios that do not have the category added, so keep an eye out when browsing for bios that are missing the category, and add it, so that it gets picked up by the tool. I find several bios every day that are not categorized, just by clicking on "random article". {{WPBiography|living=yes}} should also be added to the top of the talk page of these articles. My own personal philosophy on doing this work is to learn the policies inside and out, edit with confidence, and project an air of authority. If you show weakness, you'll get eaten alive. (If you're uncertain about something, figure it out and be certain before you jump into the middle of fighting dogs.) Don't be afraid to ask for help from other volunteers if you get cornered and hammered by people who don't appreciate the need for what we are doing. Some people want Wikipedia to be anarchy, and will fight you tooth and nail all the way. Good luck, and again, welcome. - Crockspot 19:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Image: K A Paul

Hi Edison, I was thinking whether you could upload an image for Mr. K A Paul. If you could do it then it would be nice. Would really give an highlight to the article. Think about it and if you feel so then you can go ahead.rencin24

Joe Scarborough

Hi - thanks for the question. My view is (a) I haven't changed my mind from the AfD, and (b) I try to pick my fights (spend time where I think I can do the most good), and the Scarborough article isn't where I'm going to invest any energy. I don't think I would contribute anything useful unless I spent a lot of time analyzing people's positions, looking for common ground, and quite possibly I'd find no common ground, or be drowned out in the partisan fighting even if I did. It's easy to comment in an AfD vote and exit (or observe), with one's opinion preserved for others to view; in an edit war, you either wade in or you're unlikely to make a difference. (I believe the classic case here is editing the anarchism article - there are folks who watch that article for changes who care way, way more about every phrase in it than you and I ever will about most major matters in life, probably.)

If there were some major issue at stake (for example, I have strong feelings about deleting articles on House of Representative candidates who are in competitive races but strictly speaking fail current notability criteria), I might act differently. But the reality (as I see it) is that as long as there are links in the Scarborough article to sources about the staffer's death, it doesn't really make that much difference if her name is mentioned, or whether it's a whole paragraph or just a sentence or two. John Broughton | Talk 14:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Walter Andrew Stephenson

Please see [3]. Thank you. BenBurch 02:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Jeff Rense

I added references from the AfD to the article. Those are some flimsy references. I am partly regretting changing my mind to a keep. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for helping me at the humanities reference desk. I asked the S.M.O.M. question, and your help, as well as that of the others, was appreciated. Thank you! | AndonicO Talk 19:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Civil War

Hi, Edison. You don't tell us where you're from, and I'm curious about which "Civil War" you're interested in. Cheers JackofOz 00:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

re: Elizabeth Austin

The sections were removed because they cited an online community web site "FaithfulDemocrats.com", which is generally not used as a reliable source-- even if it is the author writing about herself. Further, in biographies about individuals, neither ethnicity nor religion are appropriate for emphasis, unless they are specifically relevant to the subject's notability. See: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies). In this case, Ms. Austin is not notable for being an Episcopalian; she's notable for being a writer. Similarly, apart from perhaps Mormon writers and Jewish writers, you won't find religious affiliations listed for other biographies of authors. Finally, not all edits require use of talk pages. Remember, editors should be prepared to have any article to which they've contributed to be edited mercilessly. Regards, --Leflyman^Talk 07:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Again, her being an Episcopalian has no bearing on her notability; if that's the basis of the article, I would likely consider it a candidate for AfD.--Leflyman^Talk 07:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion continued at Talk:Elizabeth Austin--Leflyman^Talk 16:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Edison, thank you for your helpful comments on my talk page re my recommendation to delete Elizabeth Austin's article. I've got lots to learn  :-) Roaming27 00:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Elizabeth Austin (and Heresy)

Thanks for your comment. I guess that the biggest problem that I have with the comment is that it's not clear she was speaking humorously, it actually makes her sound rather dour and stern. Of course, if I knew what to do with the comment, I'd have done it myself already! Not being familiar with her work, I'm somewhat hesitant to go carving that part of the article apart.

Cheers,

Lankiveil 05:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC).

Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia

{{helpme}}The Wikipedia article for the "Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia" was apparently speedily deleted in the last day or so. Does anyone know where I can find discussion related to that deletion, or where I can obtain a copy of the deleted article? Thanks. Edison 07:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Edison, thanks for asking. The article was a sub-stub consisting only of the rather tautological statement "The Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia (LTSP) is a Lutheran Theological Seminary in in Philadelphia, PA", plus an external link to its website [4]. Somebody had placed a (perhaps not strictly necessary, but procedurally correct) deletion tag on it for "failing to claim notability", whereupon the creator flew into a rage and went on a personal-attacks rampage. By the time I came to the article, I saw no other way of cleaning up but to block him and delete the article. He later went on that WP:POINT spree of creating mock AfD's for all the other seminaries, vandalised various people's userpages, etc. (see 2similar (talk · contribs).

Well, upshot of this long account is, you are of course more than welcome to create a proper article, it just needs to contain a tiny little bit more substance. The same would of course have applied to the original creator, had he only listened to what people were telling him... Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Was going to reply, but Future Perfect summed up the whole mess pretty well. I've certainly nothing against the article, but during newpage patrol one runs across all sorts of non-notable/blank/etc. etc. articles. (By the way, I was the one that placed the "not strictly necessary" tag. :) ) I offered multiple times to help the old author write up the article with sources and the like, and was...shall we say, not taken up on that. It's looking very good now! Seraphimblade 11:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Colin James (journalist)

There's a very good reason it's short; I deleted most of the article's text last night because of copyvio problems. It can easily be reconstructed, using the individual's web page a source (which is where the copyvio was from). -- SCZenz 18:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Reconsider vote for Dr.S. Hussain Zaheer Memorial High School

I would like to ask you to reconsider your creation of the AfD for Dr.S. Hussain Zaheer Memorial High School. With a little bit of research, it is clear that the school is indeed notable, and the additional information has been added to the article with material from the school's web site and several references from The Hindu, India's main national newspaper. With its management and operation by the Indian Institute of Chemical Technology, the school has a unique science program that allows students to learn from India's top scientists, and to have heard from several recent Nobel Prize in Chemistry laureates. The school competes in, and has won, at the top levels of sport in the state. I strongly suggest that all those who previously voted to Delete should re-read the article and reconsider their vote. Alansohn 16:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Elvira Arellano

Thanks for the sources. I moved them to the talk page. It would be great if we could integrate them as sources into the article. --evrik ^(talk) 20:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• There is no hard and fast rule about references and inline cites. I think it made the article look sloppy, and right now that's not what is needed. I will make a note about this. --evrik ^(talk) 20:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Social Security Death Index

I noticed you mentioned in the AfD for Robert Craun that you based his non-notability (and likely non-existence) partly on the fact that he wasn't listed in the SSDI. I agree with you about Craun, but the SSDI isn't perfect enough to rely upon. For one thing, if a family member is still getting benefits from Social Security in respect of the deceased, the deceased won't show up on the index. 38 years is a long time for a widow to claim benefits but not unrealistically so. Also, more individuals (especially military) have fallen through the cracks with respect to the SSDI than most of us would like to think. JFK Jr. and Jackie Kennedy, for instance, aren't in the SSDI. (All presidents and first ladies, with the exception of Jackie Kennedy, who have died since 1965 are in the SSDI, so I'm not sure that it's a privacy matter.) --Charlene 20:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Your comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of U.S. ticker symbols (2nd Nomination)

Thanks for your comment on this proposed article deletion! I am actively trying to reach a rough consensus on this article, and I need your help! This is the second time the article has been nominated and the first time no consensus was reached because of lack of debate. If you could comment it would be greatly appreciated. :) Flying Hamster 20:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Your edits on WP:RD/H

Could you maybe leave the message about signing posts on their userpages? It's cluttering up the reference desk, and having it in every section is a bit excessive. Thanks. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 06:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

AfD Notification on College Tonight

Hi there. In an earlier AfD vote on the article College Tonight you voted Delete. This is a notification that due to procedural issues, the article is up for deletion again. Note, this is not a request to vote Delete again (though I'd personally prefer to see it gone!), just a notification that re-vote is taking place. Thanks! --Arvedui 05:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!!!

Welcome, Edison, to Esperanza! As you might know, all the Esperanzians share one important goal: the success of this encyclopedia. Within that, we then attempt to strengthen the community bonds, and be the "approachable" side of the project. All of our ideals are held in the Charter, the governing document of the association.

Now that you are a member you should read the guide to what to do now or you may be interested in some of our programs. A quite important program is Stressbusters, which seeks to support editors who have encountered any stress from their Wikipedia events, and are seeking to leave the project. So far, Esperanza can be credited with the support and retention of several users. We will send you newsletters to keep you up to date. Also, we have a calendar of special events, member birthdays, and other holidays that you can add to and follow.

In addition to these projects, several more missions of Esperanza are in development, and are currently being created at Esperanza/Proposals.

If you have any other questions, concerns, comments, or general ideas, Esperanzian or otherwise, know that you can always contact our administrator general Natalya by email or talk page. Consider introducing yourself at the Esperanza talk page! Alternatively, you could communicate with fellow users via our IRC channel, #wikipedia-esperanza (which is also good for a fun chat or two :). If you're new to IRC, you may find help at an IRC tutorial. I thank you for joining Esperanza, and look forward to working with you in making Wikipedia a better place to work!

Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Golf Mill Shopping Centre

I've responded to your concerns about one of my deletions at my talk page. Thanks. theProject 19:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the page now, to a user subpage at User:Edison/Golf Mill Shopping Center. I will not be opposed to recreation if some proof of notability is given, but in its current form, I regret I will not be undeleting the article back to mainspace as of yet. Thanks, and I hope the process did not inconvenience you too much. theProject 04:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Elonka's Edits

Hello - I just wanted to clarify why I support sanctions against Elonka's deletion nominations. I would not normally support this sort of thing and I would always assume good faith. However, I've consistently seen her nominate or suggest articles for deletion simply because they have no references - that's not usually a reason for immediate deletion unless it's blatant spam - she has suggested, for example, quite a few railway stations for deletion simply because, she says, "I think they aren't notable". The same seems to be happening with the shopping centres. If Elonka's assertions were true, then half of Wikipedia's articles would have to be deleted - but all some of them need is a small check to make sure that they are notable. I'm happy for her to delete the truly non-notable shopping centres, and there are quite a few of them, but I would prefer that she did the research to make sure it was truly not notable, or slapped a references tag on the article and left it for a couple of months. To simply ask for speedy deletion and then an AfD is not the way to do things. JROBBO 01:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Texas State Highway Loop 256

Hey there. The references section has been added to this article. When I'm typing up these articles, I will tend to forget a section here or there. All the Texas highway articles should have a link to the TXDOT database, which shows the official designations. If you have any other questions, or notice any Texas articles missing references, let us know. Thanks! 25or6to4 04:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Absent_referent

Hi, I have vastly improved the article Absent referent to address the concerns of you and others. The ghits should now include the expression "absent|missing referent|antecedent". I will include redirects for these variations if needed upon closure of AfD. Please consider changing your vote to KEEP. Thanks for your comments! I feel the article is much stronger now, and I have learned much in this process both about the concept and WP in general. --Bhuston 13:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Absent referent#God

Regarding your edits to the "God" subheading... please see Talk:Absent referent. PS Thanks for the switch to Keep!!! --Bhuston 01:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Farewell

Hey all, Its really a great joy for me to be a part of you all and to work with you all. Well I really do not know what to say. I was almost in tears when I got to know this. A big thanks to all of my friends. I am gonna miss you. I really hope you go and see.rencin24

Happy Thanksgiving!

Happy Thanksgiving Edison! This method of wishing someone a happy thanksgiving has been stolen (with permission) from Randfan (talk · contribs). | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 01:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC) I wish you a happy Thanksgiving! I hope you and your family have a magnificent day! So, what are you thankful for? | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 01:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy Turkey Day from AndonicO! Enjoy!

Mega Society

I have summarized my arguments for including an article on the Mega Society in Wikipedia here:

Talk:Mega_Society

Response on shopping centers

WP:CORP is a centralized discussion on corporations in general. If there were a shopping center out there which were not a corporate interest, I'd be tremendously surprised-so while it doesn't cover shopping centers in specific (any more than it covers a given McDonald's in specific), it does cover them in general. Seraphimblade 15:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Mark Foley Scandal

Please note that I have just nominated Mark Foley Scandal for Featured Article status. You can find comments about its nomination here. I am leaving this message because you have significantly contributed to the article. Thesmothete 02:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

AfD

Greetings. You may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of North Carolina Tower Chapel Hill, which I have just listed. I would appreciate your input. --Descendall 09:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I have just suggested on that page that you add some references to other's comments on his work, and, by all means, add a main article for the GRW theory, preferably written so non-physics types can understand. ;).DGG 04:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Clarification of ref desk comment

"You have no free speech rights here?" Be prepared to be assimilated into the Wiki. Resistance is futile. Edison 16:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Um... Take a look at WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an anarchy. There is no right to unregulated free speech on Wikipedia. We have a lot of free speech, because it's good for the encyclopedia. However, when people want to post things on inappropriate pages, those contributions can be (and are) removed—which is what that conversation on the ref desk talk page was about. If you have further concerns, feel free to contact me. -- SCZenz 16:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored to avoid objectionable content. However, its talk pages may certainly have items removed in order that they serve their intended purpose; see Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#How_to_use_article_talk_pages, the point entitled "Keep on topic," which concludes: "Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." -- SCZenz 17:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I just re-read your comment on my talk page, and I'm still trying to make sense of it. Of course, Wikipedia has room for discussion of differing views on issues relevant to building the encyclopedia—we have lots and lots of it, and it's how we get work done! Nobody is required to have "NPOV views," though—we only have to write NPOV articles! ;-) So I guess I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.. -- SCZenz 18:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sure; we're in complete agreement on the dangers of removing comments from talk pages—and the care, discretion, and thought that are therefore required before doing it. You may rest assured that while editing I always try to do what's right in terms of the goals and policies of Wikipedia, regardless of my personal feelings on any issue. -- SCZenz 18:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

New proposal for shopping mall notability guidelines

I followed your advice and submitted a guideline proposal, WP:MALL, based on your suggestion. I thought you might be interested. As you told me, having a separate standard will hopefully be of great service. Please feel free to alter, modify, comment or however you feel appropriate. Thanks a lot.--Msr69er 01:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Block needed

Whoooops, I thought I already had. Thanks for reminding me, that's taken care of. Luna Santin 04:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject on malls

On the talk page for WP:CORP, Rossami suggested starting a WikiProject for malls that may help in getting the highest quality articles on individual malls written, approved and kept. Does this sound like a good idea?--Msr69er 16:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Masts for deletion

Hello. As the closing admin, I'm notifying the most active contributors to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of North Carolina Tower Chapel Hill, which has now been closed, in case they want to take any action about it. Best, Sandstein 12:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

"the Civil War"

Which one is it that you're interested in? The American one? --Dweller 10:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment requested on User:light current's one week block

I, and User:Gandalf61, and others, feel that the action of User:Friday in blocking User:light current for a week was unwarranted and excessive: [5]. We would appreciate your comments in this matter. Thanks. StuRat 10:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Rules for deletion

Would you care to comment on my proposed Ref Desk Rules for Deletion: [6] ? I would like to build a consensus on which rules should be followed. StuRat 07:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup tags

Hi, best not to subst these. See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 11:38 8 December 2006 (GMT).

Point Taken

I'll basically reproduce here the response I sent off to THB reagrding my remarks on the RefDesk, as you both seem to be making essentially the same valid point:

Thanks for your comments on my talk page. I fully agree that the RefDesk was not the proper forum for the comments I directed towards Clio, and I apologize for that. I hope, though, that my enormous respect for Wikipedia generally comes through in my posts. I do my best to answer questions with as much accuracy and civility as I'm capable of. Yet, in my defense, it's not the obnoxious and condescending nature of Clio's posts that are my main concern. Yes, it can be incredibly irritating, but, and I hope you understand my sincerity in saying this, it's the quality and integrity of the RefDesk itself that is my greatest concern.

People come to the RefDesk with questions, and deserve accurate and valid responses. Unfortunately, Clio's responses, though very ably disguised as being authoritative, are far more often than not no more than utter fiction. Yes, we all, yours truly included, make our share of factual errors. But these errors are unintentional, and we all regret when we make them. Yet I've come to realize that for reasons I cannot comprehend, many of Clio's posts almost seem to display some sort of pathological intent to mislead. Worst of all, she happens to possess unusually impressive skills in writing and articulation. In my opinion, these two factors put together have the potential to do a great disservice to both the questioners, as well as the integrity of the RefDesk, and Wikipedia in general. This type of thing simply cannot be tolerated, if the RefDesk and Wikipedia are to maintain the reputation of having the highest of standards.

Once again, I apologize for my lapse in judgement and breach of RefDesk decorum. I only hope that you understand though, that in doing so, I was doing what I felt had to be done, though admittedly not in the proper forum. I'll post a copy of the preceding at the RefDesk talk page as well.

Thanks for your comments, they were well received. Loomis 17:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Edison. You will find a concluding statement from me on this wretched business in the RD talk page under the relevant heading. Thank you for maintaining a dispassionate view in the matter, and for pointing out things to which others have been blind. Best wishes. Clio the Muse 08:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Rules for Ref Desk opinions ?

Would you care to comment on rules for Ref Desk opinions: Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Next_item_for_consensus_discussion:_Opinion ? StuRat 17:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Opinions on Ref Desk template removal ?

Sorry to bother you again, but would you care to comment on: Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Opinions_on_template_removal ? StuRat 21:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Humanities desk

Hi Edison.

I certainly apologise if I've upset you. Never my intention to do that to anyone, let alone such a diligent Wikipidean. I'll explain my rationale, which might mollify you somewhat, though it's not an attempt to diminish the fact that I'm sorry for causing affront.

I posted there, as I felt that you'd taken the responses down a single track that was unhelpful to the questioner, by implying that a photo would be no help. However, perhaps I could have worded things better, or, as you say, posted to your talk page.

Best, Dweller 17:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Thought I had. Anyway, I've amended my post on the Ref Desk. --Dweller 20:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

ref desk removal

No problem - I think we're all a bit on edge at the moment. Cheers, Sam Clark 18:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Please vote on attempt to delete new Ref Desk rules

Vote here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Reference desk/rules. StuRat 01:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Input

In regards to the comment you made on this AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Kim_(timeline_of_death). Could you also stop by and give your opinion here Talk:James_Kim#Timeline.3F as we're having a consensus issue.--Crossmr 19:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Reference desk

I disagree with the removal and put a note mentioning so although I won't be reinserting the comments. As mentioned there, I don't regret or apologise for my comments. Personally, I don't think there was a timely nature in this case, given that the user asked for a response by e-mail, however what you do is up to you. Also, I agree, it would have been better if you had asked me to modify them. Obviously, there was nothing wrong with posting a response, as you did, to try and avoid offense to the question asker. Really, I don't think there is grounds to remove another user's comments unless they are off-topic, violate NPA or extremely offensive (e.g. saying all niggers should die). If you disagree with comments, post a response. People coming to wikipedia are going to have to learn that if they say something so stupid that it sounds like they're trolling, some people will respond accordingly. If it wasn't trolling but a mistake, they've really no one to blame but themselves. This is especially true in the reference desk. Nil Einne 00:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyway if you just asked, I might have removed my comments just to be nice, even though, as I've stated I don't think they were/are inappropriate. I say 'might' because if I had read User:Dweller's comments to my talkpage I might not have removed them, simply provided a clarification, something like (Sorry if I have offended anyone but I still feel...) to my question. Not to make a point but simply because I see no reason to go out of my way to be nice when other editors chose to deal with matters in a way I don't regard as particularly nice. I'm not particular interested in debating this matter further, but if you wish to, I will read what you have to say. P.S. If you're wondering why I think it's trolling, well I just find it very hard to believe someone would mistake paintings for photographs. It's very rare that a painting looks anything like a photograph. Of course perhaps the user knew it wasn't a photograph but was just using the word inaccurately. This is possible but I'm doubtful. As stated, the user clearly has a resonably good level of English. Nil Einne 00:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikilogos

I've noticed you're quite involved here, you might be interested in my proposal for Wikipedia use logo variations created by members of the wiki community to mark national and international awareness days, Remembrance Days, notable anniversaries, and observance days. Please comment on Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Logo Variations and on my talk page. Thanks! frummer 03:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Gladys

		The Original Gladys Holiday Greeting
		For your hard work, insighful opinions and overall contribution to Gladys the Swiss Dairy Cow, I hereby award you this Thank You, along with my sincere hope that you have a wonderful holiday season. james.lebinski 18:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk page

You left a comment on my talk page. Can you tell me exactly what you're referring to ("personality or motivations of other editors") if you remember? As far as my USER PAGE, there can't be a "personal attack," if you're not talking about a particular person. Certain types of admins and editors are a threat to the project. Not sure what can be done about that, but I think identifying the criteria that makes someone a threat is a good idea. In any case, you're right that the focus is supposed to be on improving the articles, not personal disagreements. Thanks Tragic romance 19:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right, that kind of talk doesn't exactly make a pleasant atmosphere here. I didn't think about that til I read what you wrote and then re-read my essay. Thanks. Tragic romance 13:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Tykonicer article title

In determining the most defensible title for the article, I examined the styles given in the three authoritative sources currently available:

• Crafton: Joseph Tycocinski-Tykociner
• Moone: Joseph Tykocinski Tykociner
• Łotysz: Joseph Tykociński–Tykociner

The accented "n" is clearly the most proper orthography, and the dash predominates. Łotysz, after giving the full name in the article title as I've noted, then refers to Joseph T. Tykociner (as you refer to) in the text of the piece. That strikes me as a sensible approach: to give the full version of the name as the article title, and then to indicate the most common usage in the text. The alternative is equally acceptable: to give the common usage as the title, and spell it out fully in the first sentence of the text. Your call. Best, Dan—DCGeist 22:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Edison. I would note that it's good practice to strikeout rather than delete comments made on AfD discussions, even if you later realize your comments were misguided or have come across new information which makes them obsolete. This is especially true if you have invited another editor to respond to such comments. If you do delete such comments, please make clear what you are doing in your edit summary. Once you press the magic save button, it's out there. Deizio talk 18:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Refers to our exchange at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Baker's Dozen. Deizio talk 18:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. With the press coverage thing, I tend to be fairly direct on my interpretation - being the subject or integral part of a serious article in a reliable source = good. Mentioned = below the bar. I've been mentioned in various reliable sources, written articles in notable publications and been an expert panelist on BBC Radio, but I don't begin to think I pass WP:BIO. Deizio talk 18:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iraq diaspora

Take a peek at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iraq diaspora and let me know if I have become obnoxious in my defense of the article. Turn on your email too. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

No one gets to see your email addy, only the people you choose to respond to. If you sign up for google mail, they are supposed to allow you to have multiple email accounts from the same interface, but I haven't tried multiple ones yet. You can also read your yahoo and hotmail accounts from within google mail. Where in the US are you? Staying in touch by email is more private, as the prying eyes of your Wikipedia enemies can't peer into your thoughts. I cant figure out the beer either! --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

So why doesn't August Schell have a decent sized biography? What online resources do you have access to? I have the New York Times archive and ancestry.com. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Mistake ?

I notice you've endorsed this view which is highly critical of my actions: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/StuRat#Outside_view_by_Rick_Block.

If that's what you meant to do, that's OK, but you also endorsed other quite favorable views, so I thought this might possibly have been a mistake.

Thanks, StuRat 16:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Neen art

I've rewritten the deletion nomination of the article Neen art. Frigo 09:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Church

If you check the history, you will see that (1) the page was not deleted, and (2) whatever was done to it wasn't done by me. >Radiant< 10:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy Holidays !

You may want to consider endorsing this petition: User_talk:Friday#Petition_to_recall_User:Friday_from_the_position_of_admin. StuRat 12:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays Edison! | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 01:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

May you and your family have a Merry Christmas, as well as any other Holiday you may celebrate. I hope that warmth, good cheer, and love surround you during these special days. May God bless you during the Holidays. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 01:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

File:Julekort.jpg

.

Lionel Bryer - AFD

You might want to revisit the discussion and reconsider your delete-vote for the AfD at Lionel Bryer. It seems like the nominator shot from the hip and missed. --Kevin Murray 07:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

They huffed, and puffed, . . .

Thank you for offering your opinion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard (2nd mfd). Look forward to seeing you around in 2007 at Conspiracy Central! For a little fun, check out Brad Greux's video blog at The Most Brilliant and Flawlessly Executed Plan, Ever, Ever. Good cheer from The Mad Dog, Morton devonshire 20:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marija Pavlović

I would ask that you return to the article Marija Pavlović, and then do a simple google on the name without diacritics "Marija Pavolivic" there are over 15,000 ghits in English alone, and even more than that it you use her married name and look in other languages. So, I think we have reached much more than the required WP:BIO for this article. I did, by the way, add to it a bit, fixed the links, and will work on the redlinks therein in the next couple of days. SkierRMH 06:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)