User talk:Toa Nidhiki05/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Re: BOMT

WOW Thanks! You're amazing. :) - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 02:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

He certainly is. Malleus Fatuorum 02:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Is that sarcasm, Malleus? :P Toa Nidhiki05 12:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Toa Nidhiki05. You have new messages at Talk:Lacrymosa (song)/GA2.
Message added My love is love (talk) 22:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talk pages

Please don't delete message unless they are grossly inappropriate. See WP:Talk page guidelines, especially WP:TPO   Will Beback  talk  22:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Same message again.   Will Beback  talk  23:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Please see See WP:Talk page guidelines. A failure to follow your view of etiquette is not a good reason for deleting a comment. Also, I have to say that your view of "consensus" as expressed in this edit summary, is wrong. Seven votes out of eleven is a majority, but not a consensus. See WP:CONSENSUS.   Will Beback  talk  23:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

63% is not consensus. Please stop deleting the comment.   Will Beback  talk  23:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Words have meaning. If you'd like to alter the policy to say the 51% or 63% equal consensus then make a proposal. Meantime, please leave the comments by the IP alone. They're not disruptive and he has as much right to comment on the RFC as anyone.   Will Beback  talk  00:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for So Long Self

Allen3 ^talk 12:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Yank

From a European point of view, even a Tarheel, Volunteer or Palmetto-hugger is a "Yank." --165.189.32.4 (talk) 14:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Finally Home.PNG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Finally Home.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• I'm holding the DYK nomination in case you disagree with me. If you are fine with getting rid of the image, the nomination is good to go. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

"Enchanted"

I have started a discussion about the vandalism that has been going on regarding this song on the Speak Now talk page. I think all of us who edit on Taylor's stuff should discuss this and come up a consensus on what should be done about the vandalism. So please be sure to give your input. Thanks! JamesAlan1986 *^talk 10:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Finally Home

The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

GA nomination for Finally Home

I noticed that you nominated Finally Home for WP:GA while it was still listed as being Start-Class on the talk page. I was wondering if you've checked it against the B-Class criteria? If not, you might consider doing that (and updating the talk-page templates accordingly) - I'm not quite knowledgeable enough about music articles to do a GA-review myself, but I suspect a quick B-Class review will be helpful for the GA reviewers. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 13:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't see any reason why you can't, since we don't have a special process for it (and I've done it myself on articles I've been involved in editing). Of course, if someone thinks you aren't evaluating it neutrally, they can challenge or change it, but since that's a risk with any edit on Wikipedia, I wouldn't worry too much about it. :P --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 14:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Use of 'strike through' when you change your opinion

Hi. You made a proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism and then withdrew it. That's fine, but in order not to confuse everyone, it's important to strike through the text you want to withdraw. You do that by putting <s> and </s> tags before and after the relevant passage. It looks like this: WikiProject Conservatism is a group dedicated to improving Wikipedia's . . .. Hope that's clear. --Kleinzach 10:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Your DYK nom for All of Creation (song)

Hi Toa, I've reviewed your nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/All of Creation (song) and I noticed that it isn't a 5x expansion yet (you are 2241 characters short). Could you expand the article and let me know at the nomination page so that I can continue the review? Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I Can Only Imagine

I have no idea what happened, but somehow here you broke a few references. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Notice That I will Request That You Should Be Blocked

Dude, you are a disruptive contrarian. You're only purpose is to be a contrarian. You have demanded "consensus" when it is clear that you will never agree with anything. I have attempted many times to explain why an event should or should not be allowed, yet, you continue to insist on being a contrarian.67.169.25.132 (talk)

I'm not being contrarian, and your ideas have no support. I have done nothing to warrant a block, let alone a 'warning'. Toa Nidhiki05 22:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Providing "official" notification

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Toa Nidhiki05 Should Be Blocked. Thank you. Tonywalton ^Talk 23:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I requested the block and opened the thread on the incidents page. Here is further explanation of the situation. Tao never provides any explanation for his reverts, simply citing "no consensus," without any real explanation. I had attempted to add events to the list, with valid citations and reasonable support - only for Tao to insist that there was "no consensus" on whether those events should be considered memorable for NFL lore. Thus, I opened a thread to discuss the removal of events that I believed were not memorable. I stated that many of the events could be parceled out to other pages on team-lore or rivalries. I was trying to adapt to a stricter standard of "memorable" when previously I had been more open-minded. No one responded to the thread--so I went ahead to make the changes; only for Tao to reverse the edits because there was "no consensus." It became clear that Tao had no intellectual interest in the NFL lore and simply wanted to be disruptive, which I must add, he has a track record of doing. I had become clear to me that Tao is responsible for much of the bickering and disruption on the NFL lore page - as others have also engaged in abrasive language, such as Kainaw.67.169.25.132 (talk)67.169.25.132 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC).

DYK nomination of Come to the Well

Hello! Your submission of Come to the Well at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Lionratz (talk) 11:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Paradise

If they are sourced online then provide the source to the article otherwise these charts fail WP:BADCHARTS and will be removed accordingly. Yids2010 (talk) 20:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

"I Can Only Imagine"

Congratulations on the GA for "I Can Only Imagine", if you have enjoyed the experience consider providing a GA review for another candidate: as you know there's a long back log of entrants.

If you're going to work towards FA I suggest you get as many of the refs archived as possible, e.g. use WebCite or Wayback Machine or other. This will reduce the affect of link rot. Get the whole article checked by the Guild of Copy Editors. Check other FA articles in the genre. Best of luck.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your short note: I've adjusted the summary for the audio sample.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Rumour Has It.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Rumour Has It.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 03:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Come to the Well

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Great job! I enjoyed reading the article. Royalbroil 01:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Here with Me (MercyMe song)

The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Re:Out from Under

Thank you, Toa! I've been such a great reviewer, lately. Thanks again, you're awesome! :) - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 12:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Casting Crowns.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Casting Crowns.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please remove the tag.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jesse Viviano (talk) 23:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Rumour Has It.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Rumour Has It.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Rumour Has It

User: Cockiness is right. It is NOT a single. There is no reliable source citing that it is a single. There is no radio release date or purchasable date. Calvin • ^TalkThatTalk 22:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Garbage GAN

See if Absolute Garbage still needs more work to pass - and if so, warn me on the GA review page. igordebraga ≠ 23:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Congrats!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded for your significant contributions to "I Can Only Imagine". Congratulations on your first Good Article! – Lionel (talk) 08:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Coming Up to Breathe

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 08:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Can someone please check this out? User talk:RickyBryant45324 10:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

HYRM charts

I appreciate the thought of the reminder, though I did realize that. I just meant that I knew that particular, decade old song wasn't currently on the charts. But it could hypothetically happen, yes. Perhaps it wasn't the best edit summary of mine, but I've grown impatient with the user I reverted (Joseph201), as he is constantly causing trouble with his editing... Sergecross73 msg me 20:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert. I saw you left him a comment on his talk page too, at the same time I did. Thanks for that too. Sergecross73 msg me 21:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Conservatism's talk page. You can change your Comment to Support/Oppose or anything applicable.– Lionel ^(talk) 03:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Bon Jovi

How about we add next to Rock (See Musical Style/Genres) Would that be fine? Jamcad01 (talk) 01:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• Sigh* I just don't understand why there can't be a link to that section for more information. I bet some people go onto Bon Jovi, only to look at the genre. Jamcad01 (talk) 02:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes but it would still be helpful in case they didn't notice the section. Seriously I don't understand what you have against my idea. (Jamcad01 (talk) 05:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC))

Yeah but they might be too lazy to check and might just assume that Bon Jovi are a basic rock band. Like I said before, what the hell do you have against my idea? How about we discuss this on the talk page and see how many people agree with my idea? Jamcad01 (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean "moving it" I just meant adding a link next to it. Pure and simple. Jamcad01 (talk) 03:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Any way from now on let's take this to the talk page. Jamcad01 (talk) 03:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Great, can you support this change in the talk page? Jamcad01 (talk) 07:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Lionelt's talk page. Re: the WikiProject. You may want to ramp up the advertising to generate more interest. You may also want to start to consider starting off as a task force, and then converting to a project when it grows. – Lionel ^(talk) 01:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for The Worship Project

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 08:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Paradise

Don't get smart with me. NYSMtalk page 00:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and kid, maybe before you get smart with me, you should know what the **** you're talking about. I searched Just Like Heaven (song) up and down, and I can't find anything about the Adult album alternative chart, especially not located in the "Charts" section. (And in case you haven't noticed, I've reverted you're Paradise revision since it violates WP:Record charts) NYSMtalk page 00:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

No I am not. It still violates the Wikipedia guidelines listed at Wikipedia:Record charts. NYSMtalk page 02:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Speak Now

Dispute or Support the Charted Songs Section in Speak Now. I have posted this for a consensus to be agreed upon in whole instead of just by two people. RickyBryant45324*^talk 06:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree

I agree that CT's deserve zero mention in the 9/11 article...but maybe what Tom Harrison has in mind will be enough of a concession to get the fruits and nuts to shut up so we can resume getting the rest of the article in better shape. Sadly, the article is still simply too broad and needs to be trimmed down overall to maintain focus which should be almost exclusively about the event itself. I'm not asking you to reconsider, just wanted to let you know why I supported Tom's wording.MONGO 17:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk:You Reign/GA1

Sorry, but I failed the article. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 02:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Sandbox

Are you going to do anything with this sandbox? It looks ready to move into the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Word of God Speak

Orlady (talk) 05:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC) 16:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK question

Hi Toa, I've been working on Capital punishment in California and I think the info on the new senate bill to abolish the death penalty in California might make a good quote for the DYK. What do you think? Malke 2010 (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey Malke, I glanced at Capital and it's not a new article, and you haven't expanded it 5x, so I don't think it'll pass DYK. – Lionel ^(talk) 06:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

God with Us (song)

Hi Toa, I've reviewed your GA nomination at Talk:God with Us (song)/GA1 and put it on hold. It currently is less comprehensive than preferable. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

year-end charts

Thanks for adding the year-end charts. The only concern I have is that you're adding the heading of Peak position but there is only a Position to report. Could you please make the adjustment? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Toa Nidhiki05. You have new messages at Walter Görlitz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A barnstar for you!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		Thanks Toa Nidhiki05 for helping to promote So Long Self to Good Article status. Please accept this little sign of appreciation and goodwill from me, because you deserve it. Keep it up, and give some a pat on the back today. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 03:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Congratulations, Toa. "God with Us" has been passed as a good article! Cheers! Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

GA Reviews

Hi, I will be reviewing the following articles for GA status (links are to review pages):

• The Generous Mr. Lovewell
• Homesick (MercyMe song)
• Beautiful (MercyMe song)
• All of Creation (song)

I should have all four done by the end of the week. InTheAM 17:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Finally Home

The article Finally Home you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Finally Home for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Here with Me (MercyMe song)

The article Here with Me (MercyMe song) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Here with Me (MercyMe song) for things which need to be addressed. Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 17:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Did you complete MayhemMario's prose comments? If so, please notify me so I can re-read it and pass it. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 01:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't want a lot for Christmas...

There is just one thing I need... I don't care about the presents underneath the christmas three... Happy holidays, dear friend. I only wish you good things at this special season and time of the year. May God bless you and your family, I hope you have a really great time. Hugs and kisses from your Wiki-friend (and big fan) - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 23:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC).

Christmas

	Christmas
	Christmas Puffin Let's talk! 23:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

9/11 Articles

Hi Toa. I see from your user page that you make it quite clear that you are a Christian. Being associated with a particular faith can carry with it some degree of bias with regard to topics which have matters of religion involved. For this reason, I respectfully request that you exercise some restraint in making significant edits on 9/11 related articles. I would expect that anyone of the Christian faith might find it abhorrent to consider that there might have actually been Christians involved in the 9/11 attacks; this would be expected and understandable. Who exactly was behind the attacks is unknown at this time, because the 9/11 matter has not been properly and thoroughly investigated by a neutral party. For purposes of editing 9/11 articles in Wikipedia, an editor who has no association with either the Christian or Muslim faiths would tend to be able to present a more neutral and unbiased point of view. I am able to look at and document the 9/11 topic from this detached viewpoint, as I have no association with any religious faith. My interest in the topic is scientific. The assertion that there is a "consensus" among scientists on the topic is deceptive, as few scientists have looked into the matter to any significant degree; and the few who have frequently end up being skeptical that the story as given is complete and accurate. Thank you. Wildbear (talk) 02:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, accusations of bias are among the heaviest charges one can level against a fellow editor. Am I a Christian? Yep, and I openly state so - along with the rest of most of my beliefs and interests, as full disclosure to the community. Whatever biases I have, I leave them at the door on main space articles. Suggesting otherwise is quite frankly insulting to me.

My faith does not change my editing. Period. My faith is important, but irellevent to this encyclopedia. This is not a place for me to use a claim to faith to disrupt, nor for anyone of any belief - be it mine, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, or nontheism.

I also suggest you look at my userboxes noting my belief in creationism and skepticism of global warming, both issues in which scientific consensus disagrees with me. I have no belief in scientific consensus defining right, but one does in fact exist - 9/11 skepticism holds little to no credence in the scientific community.  ::::To me, it appears you are a skeptic - I'm not going to level charges, but I would advise you to not inject any personal bias into the subject. There are ArbCom cases that can result in bans for such a case. Please act with a level head, and avoid arguing your cause - instead, work with other editors and follow our sourcing policies. This is a mistake I made up until around my last block, which was back in April. :) Toa Nidhiki05 03:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, you appear to be misinformed about the nature of what my faith believes - the Bible never teaches Christians, or those professing as such, cannot do wrong. While some that share my religion may act as so, it simply isn't the case. The Bible teaches that Christians should try and act differently and resist evil, but we make mistakes too. An event such as 9/11 is shocking, regardless of who committs it. It wouldn't shock me if someone professing Christian faith does wrong - many claim a belief but in fact lack it. Toa Nidhiki05 03:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

What drew me to write here was the intensity with which I have seen you putting forward your position on the topic. While it might not be the case with yourself, religion often drives people to hold and project their views with much intensity. I was there myself when I was much younger, strongly driven by the religious indoctrination I was receiving; so I have immediate personal experience with what religion can do to an individual. I'm glad that I was able to break free of it, and dedicate myself to science without religious influence. All viewpoints should be welcome at Wikipedia, and yours is certainly welcome as well. I'm just suggesting that you make some allowance for the presence of viewpoints which may not conform to your own. "9/11 skepticism holds little to no credence in the scientific community" is a very strong statement, and not supported by what I've seen in my in-depth study of the topic over the past 10 years. Being skeptical is an important element in the scientific process of gaining knowledge and understanding. But skepticism is just a starting point, not the end conclusion. Where skepticism exists among scientifically minded persons, it's indicative that further study of the topic is needed. If you're skeptical about global warming, I respect that; as skepticism combined with an open-minded willingness to learn and give consideration to all reasonable possibilities is healthy. I don't agree that global warming isn't happening, as I am under the impression that the data indicates otherwise - not just that the planet is warming in general, but that human-generated greenhouse gases are trapping radiation which would otherwise radiate into space. Skepticism is good on this and any other topic, and I encourage you to pursue your skepticism with serious and open-minded studies, examining the full breadth of the topic (not just the anti-global warming side). Either one of us could be overlooking something and wrong in our assumptions about global warming. I would readily admit that my own views, which are in conformity with the majority of scientists on the global warming topic, could be wrong. The same uncertainty applies to 9/11. No one has independently tested and validated the hypotheses put forward by the US government; there has been no formal scientific peer review; so scientific uncertainty is integral to the topic, as it would be for any untested hypothesis. Wildbear (talk) 06:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree, religion - or lack of it - is divisive and is often intense. I also agree all viewpoints are welcome at Wikipedia - however, they have to be more than marginal to do such, per due weight. We don't grant Flat Earth theories the same scientific weight as that of the spherical Earth ones, nor do we do so with Moon landing hoax theories. Similarly, creationism/ID and global warming viewpoints are marginalized, for similar reasons. However, has anyone bothered to scientifically test the validity of the moon landing (not counting the MythBusters special)? No, but we still consider moon landing hoax theories as a marginal viewpoint. The lack of investigation does not prove the absence of consensus - rather, it may in fact prove the existence of such. I respect you're willingness to discuss this cordially, rather than in a confronting manner. Toa Nidhiki05 02:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

However, has anyone bothered to scientifically test the validity of the moon landing (not counting the MythBusters special)? Actually, yes; the validity of the moon landings has been tested by independent parties. For example, several observatories bounce lasers off of the mirrors placed on the moon by the Apollo missions. (reference) Per the reference, they do this several times per month. It doesn't constitute absolute proof of the moon landings, but something placed those mirrors there, in exactly the time and place which NASA specified. I don't have any doubts about the moon landings myself, because I lived through the 1960s and I watched how the whole country was heavily involved in making it happen. I watched how it was done methodically, step by step, over a period of a decade; with many tests being conducted and each step getting closer to the ultimate goal. I worked for a company which manufactured integrated circuits for use in the moon landings, where I was told of the meticulous attention to detail that NASA demanded for anything which was to be qualified for use on the moon missions. I have plenty of other reasons to support that there is no reason for doubt about the authenticity of the moon landings; I won't go into the details here. I wholly agree with characterizing the moon landing hoax theories as a marginal viewpoint; both the evidence and public opinion indicate them as such, as far as I am aware. Due weight within the moon landing context would be to mention that they exist and perhaps give a very brief overview, but nothing more than that.

The lack of investigation does not prove the absence of consensus - rather, it may in fact prove the existence of such. Maybe, but that's hypothetical; and probably incorrect. How many scientists and engineers know of the collapse of building 7, and have studied and agree with NIST's conclusions? Very few, I suspect. A "consensus" on this is likely illusory: it is more likely a uniform silence due to lack of awareness and/or the hazards of speaking out. Almost without exception, the few in the scientific community who have conducted serious independent research and spoken out on their findings have been persecuted for doing so; thus establishing a disincentive for others to do the same. It's a taboo topic for scientists and engineers who wish to avoid damage to their credentials. The only thing which is "safe" to do is mindlessly echo the official story as given, and keep the blinders on to contrary evidence. To shirk science, in other words.

I appreciate that you find my discussion cordial. I sincerely hope and intend to keep all of my communications that way. Wildbear (talk) 07:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy holidays

		Happy holidays.
		Best wishes for joy and happiness. Hope you have a great one! Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 00:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The Right Stuff: October 2011

October 2011

INTERVIEW

An Interview with Dank

By Lionelt

The Right Stuff caught up with Dank, the recently elected Lead Coordinator of WikiProject Military History. MILHIST is considered by many to be one of the most successful projects in the English Wikipedia.

Q: Tell us a little about yourself.
A: I'm Dan, a Wikipedian since 2007, from North Carolina. I started out with an interest in history, robotics, style guidelines, and copyediting. These days, I'm the lead coordinator for the Military History Project and a reviewer of Featured Article Candidates. I've been an administrator and maintained WP:Update, a summary of policy changes, since 2008.

Q: What is your experience with WikiProjects?
A: I guess I'm most familiar with WP:MILHIST and WP:SHIPS, and I'm trying to get up to speed at WP:AVIATION. I've probably talked with members of most of the wikiprojects at one time or another.

Q: What makes a WikiProject successful?
A: A lot of occasional contributors who think of the project as fun rather than work, a fair number of people willing to write or review articles, a small core of like-minded people who are dedicated to building and maintaining the project, and access to at least a few people who are familiar with reviewing standards and with Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

Q: Do you have any tips for increasing membership?
A: Aim for a consistent, helpful and professional image. Let people know what the project is doing and what they could be doing, but don't push.

If you've got a core group interested in building a wikiproject, it helps if they do more listening than talking at first ... find out what people are trying to do, and offer them help with whatever it is. Some wikiprojects build membership by helping people get articles through the review processes.

---

DISCUSSION REPORT

Abortion Case Plods Along

By Lionelt

The arbitration request submitted by Steven Zhang moved into its second month. The case, which evaluates user conduct, arose from contentious discussions regarding the naming of the Pro-life and Pro-choice articles, and a related issue pertaining to the inclusion of "death" in the lede of Abortion. A number of members are involved. On the Evidence page ArtifexMahem posted a table indicating that DMSBel made the most edits to the Abortion article. DMSBel has announced their semi-retirement. Fact finding regarding individual editor behavior has begun in earnest on theWorkshop page.

Last month it was decided that due to the success of the new Dispute Resolution Noticeboard the Content Noticeboard would be shut down. Wikiquette Assistance will remain active. The DRN is primarily intended to resolve content disputes.

---

PROJECT NEWS

Article Incubator Launched

By Lionelt

Was your article deleted in spite of your best efforts to save it? You should consider having a copy restored to the Incubator where project members can help improve it. Upon meeting content criteria, articles are graduated to mainspace. The Incubator is also ideal for collaborating on new article drafts. Star Parker is the first addition to the incubator. The article was deleted per WP:POLITICIAN.

WikiProject Conservatism is expanding. We now have a satellite on Commons. Any help in categorizing images or in getting the fledgling project off the ground is appreciated.

We have a few new members who joined the project in September. Please give a hearty welcome to Conservative Philosopher, Screwball23 and Regushee by showing them some Wikilove. Screwball23 has been on WikiPedia for five years and has made major improvements to Linda McMahon. Regushee is not one for idle chit chat: an amazing 93% of their edits are in article space.

Project

Portal

Join

Archives

Newsroom

Subscribe

Suggestions

The Right Stuff: November 2011

August 2018

PROJECT NEWS

WikiProject Conservatism faces the ultimate test

By Lionelt

On October 7, WikiProject Conservatism was nominated for deletion by member Binksternet. He based his rationale on what he described as an undefinable scope, stating that the project is "at its root undesirable". Of the 40 participants in the discussion, some agreed that the scope was problematic; however, they felt it did not justify deletion of the project. A number of participants suggested moving the project to "WikiProject American conservatism". The overwhelming sentiment was expressed by Guerillero who wrote: "A project is a group of people. This particular group does great work in their topic area[,] why prevent them from doing this[?]" In the end there was negligible opposition to the project and the result of the discussion was "Keep". The proceedings of the deletion discussion were picked up by The Signpost, calling the unfolding drama "the first MfD of its kind". The Signpost observed that attempting to delete an active project was unprecedented. The story itself became a source of controversy which played out at the Discuss This Story section, and also at the author's talk page.

Two days after the project was nominated, the Conservatism Portal was also nominated for deletion as "too US-biased". There was no support for deletion amongst the 10 participants, with one suggestion to rename the portal.

In other news, a new portal focusing on conservatism has been created at WikiSource. Wikisource is an online library of free content publications with 254,051 accessible texts. One highlight of the portal's content is Reflections on the Revolution in France by Edmund Burke.

October saw a 6.4% increase in new members, bringing the total membership to 58. Seven of the eight new members joined after October 12; the deletion discussions may have played a role in the membership spike. Mwhite148 is a member of the UK Conservative Party. Stating that he is not a conservative, Kleinzach noted his "lifetime interest in British, European and international politics." Let's all make an effort to welcome the new members with an outpouring of Wikilove.

Click here to keep up to date on all the happenings at WikiProject Conservatism.

---

DISCUSSION REPORT

Timeline of conservatism is moved

By Lionelt

Timeline of conservatism, a Top-importance list, was nominated for deletion on October 3. The nominator stated that since conservatism in an "ambiguous concept", the timeline suffers from original research. There were a number of "Delete", as well as "Keep" votes. The closing administrator reasoned that consensus dictated that the list be renamed. The current title is Timeline of modern American conservatism.

Project

Portal

Join

Archives

Newsroom

Subscribe

Suggestions

Magi: Lost Kings or Aliens w/ GPS

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.

Happy Holidays..--Buster Seven Talk 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

The Right Stuff: January 2012

January 2012

ARTICLE REPORT

Wikipedia's Newest Featured Portal: Conservatism

By Lionelt

On January 21, The Conservatism Portal was promoted to Featured Portal (FP) due largely to the contributions of Lionelt. This is the first Featured content produced by WikiProject Conservatism. The road to Featured class was rocky. An earlier nomination for FP failed, and in October the portal was "Kept" after being nominated for deletion.

Member Eisfbnore significantly contributed to the successful Good Article nomination of Norwegian journalist and newspaper editor Nils Vogt in December. Eisfbnore also created the article. In January another Project article was promoted to Featured Article. Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias, a president of Brazil, attained Featured class with significant effort by Lecen. The Article Incubator saw its first graduation in November. A collaboration spearheaded by Mzk1 and Trackerseal successfully developed Star Parker to pass the notability guideline.

---

PROJECT NEWS

Project Scope Debated

By Lionelt

Another discussion addressing the project scope began in December. Nine alternatives were presented in the contentious, sometimes heated discussion. Support was divided between keeping the exitsing scope, or adopting a scope with more specificity. Some opponents of the specific scope were concerned that it was too limiting and would adversely affect project size. About twenty editors participated in the discussion.

Inclusion of the article Ku Klux Klan (KKK) was debated. Supporters for inclusion cited sources describing the KKK as "conservative." The article was excluded with more than 10 editors participating.

Project membership continues to grow. There are currently 73 members. Member Goldblooded (pictured) volunteers for the UK Conservative Party and JohnChrysostom is a Christian Democrat. North8000 is interested in libertarianism. We won't tell WikiProject Libertarianism he's slumming. Let's stop by their talkpages and share some Wikilove.

Click here to keep up to date on all the happenings at WikiProject Conservatism.

DISCUSSION REPORT

Why is Everyone Talking About Rick Santorum?

By Lionelt

Articles about the GOP presidential candidate and staunch traditional marriage supporter have seen an explosion of discussion. On January 8 an RFC was opened (here) to determine if Dan Savage's website link should be included in Campaign for "santorum" neologism. The next day the Rick Santorum article itself was the subject of an RFC (here) to determine if including the Savage neologism was a violation of the BLP policy. Soon after a third was opened (here) at Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality. This RFC proposes merging the neologism article into the controversy article.

The Abortion case closed in November after 15 weeks of contentious arbitration. The remedies include semi-protection of all abortion articles (numbering 1,500), sanctions for some editors including members of this Project, and a provision for a discussion to determine the names of what are colloquially known as the pro-life and pro-choice articles. The Committee endorsed the "1 revert rule" for abortion articles.

Project

Portal

Join

Archives

Newsroom

Subscribe

Suggestions

Ichthus: January 2012

ICHTHUS

January 2012

In this issue...

• From the Editor
• What are You doing For Lent?
• Fun and Exciting Contest Launched
• Spotlight on WikiProject Catholicism

---

Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here

Your GA nomination of Word of God Speak

The article Word of God Speak you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Word of God Speak for things which need to be addressed. Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 03:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Coming Up to Breathe

The article Coming Up to Breathe you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Coming Up to Breathe for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 23:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

GAN Spoken For

Hi,

I have reviewed your nomination and made some comments at Talk:Spoken For/GA1. I've put the article on hold for seven days so the issues can be addressed.

Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 00:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Passed as GA. I made some edits so please check for accuracy.[1] Congratulations! and Happy New Year! Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 02:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Reichstag revert and Zeitgeist movie

The Zeitgeist movie is a reliable source about what is in the movie. I was only using the source to establish that the Reichstag fire is presented as a parallel event by 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Given that it is one of the most well-known 9/11 conspiracy films out there it seems apt to mention that movie to support including the Reichstag fire as a historical precedent popularly cited by conspiracy theorists. Articles on conspiracy theories are free to, and often do, cite conspiracist sources to verify material describing what conspiracists claim.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Toa Nidhiki05. You have new messages at The Devil's Advocate's talk page.
Message added 22:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Best wishes

You should be well aware by now that some editors here are supported by those that admire anyone who constantly preaches antiestablishment, disillusionment and anarchy. With that said, the old adage to keep your friends close and your "enemies" (I prefer "opposition") closer is a wise one here. If you're attacked by the hornets nest, I will then come out of my cave to defend you since, from what I have seen of you, you're both level headed and mature and this website has a great need for those qualities. Therefore, in accordance with my "powers" (which are zero!), I hereby award you.....

The incredible TEAM AMERICA EAGLESTAR...which I award to all well behaved members of my "CABAL"--MONGO 02:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Re:creation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Long Way Home (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Long Way Home (Steven Curtis Chapman song)

Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 16:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

"Move" GA Review

Hi, I have placed your nomination of Move on hold. Check it out. If you have any problems or disagreements, let me know. InTheAM 19:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar for you

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your excellent work on improving Contemporary Christian music articles. Keep it up. InTheAM 17:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2012 WikiCup

Hello, and welcome to the 2012 WikiCup! The competition officially began at the start of 2012 (UTC), and so you are free to claim any content from after that time. Your submission page, where you must note any content for which you wish to claim points, can be found here, and formatting instructions can be found in hidden comments on the page. A bot will then update the main table, which can be seen on the WikiCup page. The full rules for what will and will not be awarded points can be found at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. There's also a section on that page listing the changes that have been made to the rules this year, so that experienced participants can get up-to-date in a few seconds. One point of which we must remind everyone; you may only claim points for content upon which you have done significant work, and which you have nominated, in 2012. For instance, articles written or good article reviews started in 2011 are not eligible for points. This round will last until late February, and signups will remain open until the middle of February. If you know of anyone who may like to take part, please let them know about the comeptition; the more the merrier! At the end of this round, the top 64 scorers will progress to the next round, where their scores will reset, and they will be split into pools. Note that, by default, you have been added to our newsletter list; we will be in contact at the end of every month with news. You're welcome to remove yourself from this list if you do not wish to hear from us. Conversely, those interested in following the competition are more than welcome to add themselves to the list. Please direct any questions towards the judges, or on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn (talk) and The ed17 (talk) 03:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:MercyMe move.PNG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:MercyMe move.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

9/11 CT article

Your suggestion that other editors shun me is wildly inappropriate and uncivil. At least two other editors have agreed with my objection to the category, though they have been less vocal about it. Clearly it is a legitimate point of disagreement. I am thinking this may need to be taken to DRN or elsewhere given the contentious nature of the dispute and that discussion with other editors has proven fruitless so far.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Response to ARB talk page comment

That was getting a little off track so I am commenting here if you don't mind. I don't think you can say for certain whether they will stay away. Tom may very well get the topic ban lifted after some time editing elsewhere, presuming he chooses to appeal, and many editors come back from retirement once they get some time to ease their stress. However, blaming me for Mkat's decision is putting the blame in the wrong place. You, MONGO, and AQFK all went after him for the decision so if this issue was related to his decision then it was probably the result of that. Sometimes when people leave it is a combination of things that leave them disenchanted. I can think of some other incidents that were already causing stress for Mkat and AQFK with this situation only serving as the straw that broke the camel's back if you will. Now, would you let it rest? I doubt anyone is going to by sympathetic to your accusations if you keep going after the admins involved in the decision while trying to deflect blame on to me for a result that had the unequivocal backing of three admins.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Whatever action the admin took was ultimately sparked by his ruling, which many editors have expressed as excessive. You are the one who started the case, so don't push the blame for the fallout on me. You chose to pursue this path; the least you can do is accept the consequences, which I doubt anyone views as constructive to the community.

Further, I doubt many will be sympathetic to them, as a few questionable edits out of thousands of positive ones evidently equals an indefinite ban. Quite frankly, I don't give a rip. I'm not on here for a popularity contest, I'm here to build an accurate encyclopedia, as are MONGO, Tom, and AQFK. I would hope you put that goal over any personal bias you have. Toa Nidhiki05 04:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

You can't reasonably blame me for what you guys did to Mkat. Take some responsibility for heaven's sake. I tried to tell you to lay off Mkat, but you wouldn't.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Revelation (Third Day album)

The DYK project (nominate) 00:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Call My Name (Third Day song)

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikiquette assistance

I have brought up the ongoing issue stemming from Tom's case at WQA.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Toa...he has another request for Wikiquette assistance 2 sections above that one...seems he needs a lot of assistance. Sometimes it's best to not comment...but I think I have a stalker...who showed up in this unrelated thread and I have seen this sort of thing before...--MONGO 23:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I was looking at your contributions given all this hooplah, as I am sure many other people would, and saw you commenting to Jayjig. The matter interested me and so I said something there. My comments weren't directed at you and weren't uncivil.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

WQA doesn't get people banned, Toa, it gets people outside the dispute involved in questions of uncivil conduct to try and resolve the issue without sanctions. Sometimes that means persuading people to cool down, come up with agreeable compromises or other non-administrative actions to ease the tension.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I call it hounding...such behavior is vaguely familiar.--MONGO 00:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

There is more...facinating.--MONGO 02:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting... Toa Nidhiki05 02:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Lift Up Your Face

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)