User talk:Deconstructhis

Welcome to my talk page. Here are some tips to help you communicate with me:

• Please continue any conversation on the page where it was started.

Thus, if I have left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here. I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.

• Add or respond to an existing conversation under the existing heading.

• Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
• Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.

• To initiate a new conversation on this page click on this link.
• Please sign all comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~). All unsigned comments, or material I deem as harassing, will be removed at my discretion.

Archives

/Archive1

Hi Deconstucthis,

I too am interested in the small communities that once existed and thrived in Huron County in the late 1800s and early 1900s. I have found myself engrossed in researching these communities and what to document what I have dug up. I am starting with Saltford, the village in which I reside, but I plan to move on to some others in the vicinity such as Loyal, Carlow, Dunlop, Dungannon and Colborne.

Being a newbie to Wikipedia I would like to invite you to format (and contribute to) any of the works that I have created at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saltford,_Ontario

Thx, TekMason —Preceding unsigned comment added by TekMason (talk • contribs) 03:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, I'm glad to see someone is taking an interest working on those communities. I've got a fairly sizable list of links to online resources pertaining to local histories in that region, sometime tomorrow I'll pass those on to you via the talk page for the Saltford article if you like. Thanks for taking the time to work on the articles. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 06:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Deconstructhis,

I hear what you're saying about the biographical article. This being said, I think it is vital we mention Alexander Kalichuk in the context of Truscott's case.

Maybe - just a thought - we could create together a page on the Lynn Harper Murder instead of Truscott himself. Does that work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nautical78 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I watched the documentary "Kanehsatake: 270 Years of Resistance" the other day and according to the filmmaker, the Mohawk Warriors threw water-filled condoms at the army soldiers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vataguy 5 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's perfectly acceptable to use a documentary (as long as it's reliably sourced) as a reference in Wiki. Check the Internet Movie Database website for this one and grab the "bibliographical" details from its entry, enter those details in your citation and you'll probably be fine. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 00:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added contact information (her twitter account which she accepts news stories) for a reporter from a news station. Wouldn't that be the same as adding an address or e-mail? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billhandy (talk • contribs) 21:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No personal contact information is encouraged at all for inclusion in articles. See WP:NOTDIRECTORY. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that edit. I had a few drinks and made a careless edit. --DreamsAreMadeOf (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		In recognition of your much appreciated reviews of Native American history articles, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. --Conaughy  talk

Thank you! cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 14:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your tireless work countering vandalism on Space opera in Scientology scripture and other articles. It's much appreciated. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Deconstructhis Please can you respond to the long note I left for you some days ago on my talk page regarding ethnicity on St Helena. I do not know how else to communicate with you. Shirebooks (talk) 13:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Shirebooks[reply]

Please see the talk page of the article for a continuation of the discussion. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 14:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Deconstructhis Apologies for contacting you again on this Talk page, but I see no further comments being made on the St Helena discussion page and I am wondering where we go from here? I believe I have put up a number of strong challenges sourced from secondary sources to the existing Wikipedia ethnicity figures, of which perhaps the strongest is that those figures claim to be today’s ethnic split, whereas Ian Shine (from whom the CIA sourced the figures) said they relate to one to one and a half centuries before his 1970 book, ie to 1820-1850. As you know, I am personally certain Ian Shine’s figures are wrong anyway, but even he did not claim his figures related to the present day. Perhaps you would let me know. My own preference would be to state on the St Helena Wikipedia that today’s ethnic split is not known.

Shirebooks (talk) 16:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)Shirebooks[reply]

Please see article talk page for response. thanks Deconstructhis (talk) 17:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Deconstructhis Sorry to alert you on this page but I did not know if you would see it on the St Helena Talk Page. Please can you note that the ^ https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sh.html ethnicity link no longer works.

Shirebooks (talk) 15:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Shirebooks[reply]

Thanks for pointing out the problem Shirebooks. It appears to me that the website is undergoing maintenance of some sort, the St. Helena profile page is at present only one among many that are labelled "unavailable". I strongly suspect that the situation is a temporary one. If the current circumstances persist for more than a few days, just post a notification on the article's talk page and I'll re-establish a link to the information through the Internet archive. thanks again Deconstructhis (talk) 15:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Deconstructhis

I do not agree with your latest change to my comments on ethnicity at St Helena. Given that we have already had this debate without reaching agreement, I should be grateful if you would tell me how I go about requesting an adjudication on this at a higher level within Wikipedia. Thank you.

Shirebooks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shirebooks2 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Macdonell and the "river edge of the Redan", clarifying to say the "edge of the gorge, on which the Redan was situated" was fair enough. But you did take it a tad far in the edit summary in suggesting I said "river's edge". According to Malcolmson pg. 156 of "A Very Brilliant Affair, the actual quote from Wool was "drove us to the edge of the bank, when, with the greatest of exertions, we brought the troops to a stand".

Nonetheless, just trying to give Macdonell the profile he deserves. Certainly, the quote from Wool makes the inscription on the plaque of the trio of rocks at the back of the Redan more poignant. So near and yet so far.Natty10000 (talk) 16:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's our job to be "picky" isn't it? :) I'm glad to see that someone is taking the time to increase Macdonell's profile as it pertains to Queenston Heights in the encyclopedia. I reside an easy bicycle ride away from the battlefield, and often visit to soak up the atmosphere of the place. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re-reading the salient pages in "A Very Brilliant Affair", I was astonished that the location of that plaque to Macdonell jives with history. Not the failed, never-had-a-hope second "Avenge the General" charge as it's otherwise been characterised as. And an "Oh, FFS" to me for meaning to correct Malcolmson to Malcomson and getting it bass-ackwards. Especially annoying as the book was right here on my desk! Natty10000 (talk) 20:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I included Handsome Lake in the category of witch trials because he was heavily influenced by European and Christian thought, and according to the article, he became obsessed with witch hunting and even killed people who refused to confess. However, you are correct that witch hunting would probably a better category to put him into, and I have just created a category for that purpose. Asarelah (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I think that in the long run it will be potentially far less confusing to readers. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the return of the Universal Life ordination posting, I removed it as one of a myriad of spam posts made by the editor, who has been [User talk:CurranWhite warned repeatedly] on his talk page regarding the reliability and spam issues for that posting and many others. I won't revert you, but it is spam and hopefully no one will come along, see the post and add that to the article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although I can appreciate your concerns regarding the addition of material that appears to only consist of an attempt at overt promotion of a given organization, I'd suggest that in my opinion the circumstances can be somewhat different when it comes to "religious" bodies. The Universal Life Church article contains a fairly lengthy list of this groups legal dealings with both state and federal authorities regarding their claims pertaining to a number of issues, including referenced favourable legal precedents that support the churches claim to legitimacy. Because of that I'd be hesitant to label these postings as cases of straightforward "spam", in particular if they're simply additions to an article's talk page, claiming that a particular person is purportedly a member of the organization. I'd have the same difficulty labelling those examples as clearcut "spam", as I would if someone were to suggest on a talk page that any chosen celebrity was a member of a given religious body. If the group was in the least "controversial", I would solidly expect that the contention be supported by more than a single mention on the groups own website before the material was actually added to an article, however I'm less certain that I would immediately label any mention of it on a talk page as less than an instance of 'good faith' (sorry, couldn't resist). cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 00:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I posted a comment on Hunter Thompson, a few days ago. It was relating to his death. I had intended to add a link to the supporting evidence of the claim I made. However, I am not the most computer literate/savvy type, and I really couldnt understand the instructions on how to add the link to my written entry. So, without the link, I can see how my entry would be unacceptable. However, I do hope to make useful additions to wikipedia from time to time, and I'd be grateful if you could perhaps guide me through the basics of how to approach making an written addition to wiki, from the angle of - should I first discuss it in the "talk" section of a page, and/or simply make an entry (including a link to the reference)? Any help you can offer would be very much appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elgarenamel (talk • contribs) 10:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left my comment on the edit summary and I would ask you to respect my level of experiance here at Wikipedia and ask you not to leave template warnings on my talk page, I am here for discussion. (Off2riorob (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I also discussed it on the talk page.. here is my comment, [[1]] tag is not needed, make your additions, there is no dispute. What is your problem with that? (Off2riorob (talk) 18:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I can tell you your adding a warning template to my talk page has really annoyed me, and your summary of..Please do not remove this tag until the dispute is resolved which is arrived at through consensus with other editors, not single handedly by one person.Is also annoying, The template was added by one person.. you...(Off2riorob (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Where are you? How dare you plant a warning tag on my user page and then walk off. (Off2riorob (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Stephen A. Kent, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you.

I also notice you have a section here titled....Your use of warning templates... so I see you have had previous comments regarding your use of templates. (Off2riorob (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Hello, It's me, you just left me a warning template, level 2 on my talk page and I would like to talk to you about it. (Off2riorob (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I left my comment on the edit summary and I would ask you to respect my level of experiance here at Wikipedia and ask you not to leave template warnings on my talk page, I am here for discussion. (Off2riorob (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

As am I, which is precisely why I placed the original POV tag on the section a week ago and then replaced it when it was removed, rather than simply adding material directly to the article from the onset without prior consultation with other editors. I (apparently) foolishly believed that it would decrease the likely incidence of an 'edit war'. Live and learn. By placing the neutrality tag on the section in the first place, I hoped to alert a general reader of the article that in fact a dispute regarding the neutrality of the content actually exists, and that details of that dispute appear on the article's talk page, which in my understanding is exactly why POV tags exist and are utilized. As Pelle Smith properly assumed in their comments, I am experiencing a certain level of "frustration" in regard to this exchange, mostly centred on what seems to me to be a degree of heavy handedness and arbitrariness that appears to be occurring in the removal of tags placed in good faith by editors in an attempt at following accepted procedure. My intention is to wait a day or so for further comments regarding my proposal and barring serious objections, to add the material and references to the article. I apologise if my actions regarding your edit are perceived as personal in nature, they are not. Contextually, please take into consideration that my initial placement of the POV tag was contested and removed by an administrator, because I was alleged to have failed to provide specific references to substantiate it; a position I have yet to see spelled out explicitly in the policies that were cited to me, and then when I actually did provide references for my contention and reinstated the tag, I was informed that there actually wasn't a "dispute" at all and the tag was once again removed. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 19:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add the material...Or remove the tag,, Waiting a day or two .. for what.. there is no one else here... you must add the material now or remove the tag. (Off2riorob (talk) 19:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I am a little less angry..I appreciate your comments. To be clear, you are insisting on adding this tag... fair enough, but you can't just say..it's not neutral.. please add your balance cites and comments and remove the tag. Waiting for concensus and leaving it a couple of days is tripe, it's now or never. Well it's not really now or never...but what have you actually got?(Off2riorob (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I have the feeling I need to take responsibility for my actions here. I apologise for throwing my stress around your talk page. It was all my fault, I shouldn't have removed the neutrality tag, I don't know enough about the guy to have done that, I got overly involved in something I know nothing about. Sorry. I regret my actions and hope that you are not offended. (Off2riorob (talk) 11:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

No problem; I'd already let it go, but a sincere thank you for apologizing and taking responsibility, a rare and appreciated treat here on Wiki! :) cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 05:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Come on then, make your changes. Deconstructhis should add whatever material is relevant and remove the tag. (Off2riorob (talk) 18:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Please allow other editors an opportunity to comment on this matter on the article's talk page. See my comments above. Deconstructhis (talk) 19:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This I have found recently is a comment from people who have nothing, It is a delay tactic and a claim of wait for concensus..that never comes. (Off2riorob (talk) 19:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

As contrary to common sense as it appears to be on occasion, I prefer to allow for a benefit of the doubt most of the time. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are my web links not appropriate when the whole page is supported by 4 off topic references including a web link. It can hardly be called original content to say faalsee prophets make false prophesies. Whereis the logic to banning all other so called prophets but Christian, jews and muslims? How can a page on false prophets not include modern day false prophets? In the talk page I prove joe smith made false prophesies with the moma proof of the plates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BMcC333 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that Orange Mike is providing you with solid advice on this subject on your own talk page. I'd only emphasize that I believe it's very important for an editor in your situation to carefully read and understand what's being talked about in WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. I've encountered editors in the past, who, after they finally got a handle on what's required of editors in those policies, decided that perhaps Wikipedia editing wasn't something they wished to continue actively participating in. Our policy requirements are definitely not everyone's 'cup of tea'. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 01:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any orange on my page or false prophets, only Newportm (talk) 23:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems absurd for the whole page to be held up on the definition of false prophet when the words define themself. This is not my 1st wiki page to edit. I am not a noobie and do not need to be patronized. I am not going anywhere when 3 religions are being attacked by vandals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.60.137.141 (talk) 04:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the apologetics reference, but they are more valid than the others there now. I only use the mormons own book to prove he made false prophesies. Now if they stop vandalizing a simple definition in lieu of one attacking Christians, Jews and Muslimswe can make progress. The "threat" that it wil get ugly with the real definition is just a convenient excuse imo. They did not answer my post to give examples of Jesus, etc. as a false prophet. 65.60.137.141 (talk) 05:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)BMcC333[reply]

In the interest of progress, all reference from any Cnristian site has been deleted. It only took the mormon book to prove Joe Smithmde false prophesies. The story of the discovery of the missing papayri is major proof and the salt lake city newspaper is all that is needed to prove him. I left a common Koesh quote. 65.60.137.141 (talk) 05:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)BMcC333

I do not see how to edit the ref list. 65.60.137.141 (talk) 05:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)BMcC333[reply]

To help ensure that everyone is 'in the loop', please continue this discussion on the article's talk page. thanks Deconstructhis (talk) 05:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not all information requires citation as wikipedia would rapidly become an ilegable mess if this was a requisite. The addition of information regarding Akwesasne was done in good faith to bring some balance and perspective to the History section regarding the ongoing dispute in the area. Removal of the section of information would suggest that your motives are political in there nature. The article in its current state reads somewhat like propoganda. the area is far from peaceful. I am concerned from the contents of this page that you seem to commonly engage in edit wars with those who do not share your viewpoint. That is not wikipedia is for. You are censoring. - Gnarlyswine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.75.172.53 (talk) 17:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Reference now added for newspaper article 216.75.172.53 (talk) 18:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Gnarlyswine216.75.172.53 (talk) 18:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see your own talk page for my comments regarding this. This isn't about "politics", it's about a potential copyright violation. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 20:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough but it also seems you are continuing to remove any information that paints the residents of akwesasne or protestors in a less that favourable light and leaving behind spurious statements such as the "peaceful protest" statements, The CBSA were told to leave by Mohawk Security as they couldnt guarantee their safety, This article does not concur with factual reporting on incidents at the station. Gnarlyswine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.75.172.53 (talk) 13:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I'd like to remind you that making unsubstantiated personal accusations regarding the motivations of other editors is not acceptable according to Wiki's policies regarding maintaining "good faith". If you are serious about what you are alleging is a bias within that article; why not make the changes yourself and back them up with a reliable source? thanks Deconstructhis (talk) 14:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done - short summary of some conflicts with citations however noting that a number of previous cited references are to broken links so probably should remove those sections. - Gnarlyswine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.75.172.53 (talk) 14:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I merely tagged it as unreferenced. Good PROD on your part. Edison (talk) 04:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it seems appropriate. I added the notice to your talk page as a courtesy, because I noticed that you had "visited" the article earlier today. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 05:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a post from an IP user on the Editors assistance request page (not something typical IP vandals would bother with) and replied there. If it's possible this person is editing in good faith, would it be useful to remove just the final warning you placed on that user's talk page? I placed there a welcoming committee-type template including links which explain how to participate, so we may see useful contributions proceed. Newportm (talk) 11:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your courteous enquiry and your willingness to extend good faith toward new editors who may not be 'up to speed' on our policies. However, the problem with the material that this editor is adding is not one of "vandalism" or a lack of good faith on their part, as the warning templates that I've personally added to their talk page reflects, this is a case of adding information that fails to provide a source for the material being offered; despite its "conjectural" nature. Doing so violates our policies against both WP:OR and WP:SOURCE, all material added to the encyclopedia must be able to be supported by a reliable previously published source. I've taken note via the link that you've provided, that apparently even the editor in question freely concedes that they have no source for this material beyond personal recollections and that the claims being made are in fact based on unsourced conjectural personal interpretation, despite the fact that the material they're offering is indeed very well composed, its addition in my opinion is contrary to the policies of the encyclopedia. In terms of your request for removing the "final warning" template that I applied, I'd suggest that contextually, the previous warnings regarding these sorts of edits were applied appropriately (and sequentially) over a one week period. Surely this is ample opportunity for an individual to take them to heart by reading the information that their links provide. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no question that the warning templates were inappropriate. The warning templates were totally appropriate. (Note to self--stay away from double negatives when possible) Unfortunately it was not until your placement of the final warning that the editor sought clarification at WP:EAR. The possibility exists to avoid escalating this to an admin-assistance-required scenario by ratcheting back just one notch, leaving the first three warnings intact. Those warnings served a purpose. Providing last chance leeway to this new, apparently educated non-vandal editor might also serve the project. As you note, the editor sought out peer comment on the WP:EAR page and stated there he recognizes the problem. He received two clear, unequivocal, helpful replies.

Given this editor's effort to communicate and seek feedback, is keeping the editor on that doorstep of being blocked still the best option for the project? If this editor makes just one more edit--for instance, saves an entry, intending to then add a citation in the subsequent editing step--that edit could very likely be reverted and, since he's already received that fourth warning, reported (by a rollbacker with Huggle, for instance), before giving the editor opportunity to complete the intended edit. It's true that this editor could appeal a block, but it seems to me in this situation there might be the opportunity to possibly save some admin overhead, and provide this editor that final chance. Since you placed the warnings after careful, manual evaluation of the edits, I thought I would follow this up with you. Newportm (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from what contextually appears to be a typo in your first sentence; I believe we can reach agreement on this.:) Perhaps I'm being naive in the ways of how admins handle taking a serious step like blocking an editor. I hope that they actually take more care than what's implied in your message; blocking someone based on a couple of glances, in this context, seems more draconian than what I've grown to believe is the case for the average competent administrator. As an act of good faith I'll agree to removing that final template, however I believe strongly that the onus is now on the editor in question to demonstrate likewise and provide reliable sourcing if re-adding the material. I want to make clear that I have no objection whatsoever to the material itself, any of it, it's well written. But surely an editor with this kind of superior skill, is also more than capable of realizing that without a previously published source available to the reader; anyone with those selfsame skills could readily conjure all of it out of whole cloth. I'll remove that template and thank you once again for your courteous approach. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that; perhaps it will pay off; if not, the editor is clearly on notice. Newportm (talk) 20:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the wrong link, it has a long description about Ali Soilih's time and I assumed it mentioned the cannabis legalization (one of the most colorful features of his tenure) as well. But you are right, for some reason it doesn't mention it. I have restored the text with references I have checked, for the legalization of cannabis in 1975-1978 is a striking fact of Comorian history and its effects are still felt in some places of the country. Xufanc (talk) 01:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing those references. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 03:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Deconstructhis,

Sorry if this is a kind of "reply" regarding the talk message you left me a while ago, but all I've done is adding to the article "Legality of Cannabis by country" informations about this subject regarding Brazil. After all, I am a Brazilian citizen, and I know precisely what are the drug enforce laws in my own country. Here the drug policy do no stipulate the right amount of drug which can be considered for own consumption or drug dealing, the 20g amount is what usually policemen consider (after a long conversation and social engineering) to be not enough to arrest someone. It's a Brazil's reality, not something to be written on a Law Code.

Anyway, I'll re-edit the article with minimum information possible.

Thanks,

Tty666 (talk) 18:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I glance at this periodically to remind me what a classic case of 'personal knowledge trumps silly references' approach to editing really looks like. :) cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 18:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I received the following message, which I thought I would share with you, as you had a small part in recent editing on this article. Care to reply ?

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 18:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to Andy Kim's Biography and Year of Birth: Corrections that have been made by myself are per the LIVING ARTIST Andy Kim. If anyone has a discrepancy, please contact Andy Kim and he will confirm all data. As to the various birth years... you will find from 1932 through 1952 listed in many different websites. I, for one, see no reason to get in a fizzle over a birth year... I personally feel an artist has no need to give a birth year in a biography at all. But since this is the subject, the correct year is 1952... any discussions I have seen here are assumed and not factual. Until one knows the facts about another's life, assumptions are meaningless.

Please feel free to email Andy Kim with any questions: andy@andykimmusic.com He will be happy to answer. On a side note: Andy Kim is getting a bit annoyed with the irresponsible changes to his information on Wikipedia, especially due to some coming close to libelous. If entries can not be controlled then Wikipedia will be asked to remove the Andy Kim page and any other pages connected to the name Andy Kim. (Betbytes (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Betbytes) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Betbytes (talk • contribs)

See Andy Kim talk page. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 19:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found a number of concerns which you can see at Talk:Pauline Johnson/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great to see someone with your level of communication skills here on WIKI

The Canadian Content Award Awarded for his contributions to Canadian articles

No problem ...thanks for info on Old Crow Flats. You are right much debate still on "Oldest" site in Canada...as i can now see!!!

I think leaving the ^[discuss] is best to let people see this discussion...I have much reading to do on this as i see that the books i have our not complete on there info.Geological methods for archaeology

Buzzzsherman (talk) 06:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, thank you for the kind words. As a very interesting and fairly current popular archaeological overview on the subject of human origins in the western hemisphere I'd recommend [2]. Like any popular general introduction to a subject, it has its issues; but overall, in my opinion it's a good read and occasionally fairly thought provoking as well. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 18:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello my friend ..........I and a few others have re-worded things on Aboriginal peoples in Canada...Pls take a look. I came a Cross a Book About a DNA study...a mitochondrial DNA study concluded stating that the initial founders of the Americas emerged from a single source ancestral population. Buzzzsherman (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Just a FYI, I was cleaning up Category:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, so I needed to re-categorize your userpage to the member's category. Hope I didn't scare you! :) --Funandtrvl (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for the 'fix'! cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 20:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is written on Karel Soucek's page is the truth. My name is Joe MacDonald and I was there on both occasions; Niagara Falls and the Houston Astrodome. I was a crew member and personal friend of Karl's. You may contact me for further information or to talk about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by No1stuntman (talk • contribs) 18:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joe, first of all thank you very much for your attempt to improve our encyclopedia in good faith, I hope you'll stick around and help put a good article together for Mr. Soucek, he deserves one in my opinion. Actually, on one occasion I visited his grave in Drummond Hill Cemetery. My reversion of your additions to the article is nothing personal, it has to do with Wikipedia's policy regarding what is considered reliably sourced information for material to be included in the encyclopedia. See WP:RELY for details on this policy. The long and the short of it is that all information added to Wikipedia has to be sourced from previously published reliable sources, our own personal recollections can't be used as a source. The problem is that even though someone like your self is offering valid information based on their own first hand knowledge, others would simply make up content and try to pass it off as real, without reliable referencing, if you think about it I'm sure you'll agree that Wikipedia would quickly become unusable; no one would be able to determine what material was 'real' and what was bogus. Mr. Soucek received a fair amount of press coverage, especially in newspapers, as long as the name and date of the publication appear, newspaper stories are perfectly acceptable as a reference in Wiki. I also noticed that he is frequently discussed in many of the more recent falls 'daredevil' books, another potential source of information. Ultimately, the best source would be if people like yourself, who have intimate first hand knowledge of the subject, decided to write and publish details themselves. If you check out the top of the article, you'll see a template in place that points out that at the moment, the article has no sources at all for the information it contains. Although it has two external links, one contains only images and the other is very 'thin' on supporting what's being claimed in the article itself. The problem only increases if even more unsourced material is added over time, which is why I'm removing your material. I hope you'll take the time to help build a well referenced article for this man, if you need bibliographical leads for locating newspaper stories, just let me know. If you reside in the Niagara Falls Ontario area, I'd strongly suggest visiting the local history collection reference desk at the main branch of their library, they maintain a large newspaper clipping collection on this subject. As I said, if you need help on this just let me know. In closing, I'd like to remind you of one more important thing when you're considering adding extensively to an article. Wikipedia articles should be written from a "neutral point of view", it might be a good idea to carefully read the following policy regarding how to do this at:WP:NPV. I'll copy and paste this to the article's talk page, so that we can stay in touch. The best place to discuss these sorts of issues is there. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 20:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

StevieY19 (talk) 05:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, how can I get a license for this picture? The guy has given his permission for the picture to be used, it was his work, but has asked for someone to upload it for him... How can I stay up, or how would I need to label it to allow it to be used?

Thanks for your kind commendation. Check out all my other photos in Renfrew County and northern Ontario articles. Maybe you could consider awarding a {{The Photographer's Barnstar}}??? -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have one already?? I'm going to remedy that shortly, it's past due. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 19:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you kindly! -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 03:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. You're really offering a tremendous boost to those 'tiny community articles'. It's very much noted and appreciated. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have the wrong user. I've never even been on the Belmont Ontario page, I'm viewing World Cup Qualifiers. 64.56.227.255 (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you're referring to is likely a result of a warning template that I added last May because someone with exactly the same ISP number as you vandalized the Belmont, Ontario article.[3]. Something that you should keep in mind when you're using Wikipedia is the fact that anyone who is using the same Internet service provider as you shares your ISP number. The only way to avoid getting these sorts of "false" warnings is to get your own separate account on Wiki, which is very easy to do.[4] cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 17:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see, thank youABH031 (talk) 18:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. If I can be of any help give me a shout here. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 18:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was trying to post an article on some research as well as patent on gin. I believed that i was following the correct method by filling in the information on the wikipedia template. I received a note from you that this was vandalism and it had been reverted. If in error I did something wrong I apologize. Could you tell me how to post something? I still have it as an un reviewed article, link below. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Template_messages&oldid=317140119 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Derekmgreer (talk • contribs) 16:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page that you were attempting to add information to is for reference use only and has nothing to do with adding new information to an individual article. Actually, I'm somewhat surprised that the page isn't "locked" so that it can't be accidentally altered. If you want to add information to the encyclopedia, I'd strongly suggest that you do some basic reading first guiding you on how to properly submit new material. A good start might be [5].If you have any questions, after you've read the introduction, give me a shout here on my talk page. happy editing. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 17:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that I should advise you of right away, but neglected to do so earlier, is that no copyrighted materials can be added to Wikipedia without the consent of the legal copyright holder. I Google sampled a section of the material on gin that you were trying to add back in September, and it appears to be copied and pasted from [6]. That material is copyrighted by the American Chemical Society 2008 and so can not be included in the encyclopedia without the full consent of that organization. I forgot to apologise for applying the wrong user warning for the edit that you made. I tagged it as "vandalism" rather than what it should have been , a "test". cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 18:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting the award for alma, means alot, happy editing!Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome, it's well deserved; I only wish that more editors would show your dedication to furthering the preservation of the memory of their own local versions of "Alma". thank you Deconstructhis (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I put the link for this movie here so people would be aware of it - and in the movie - it shows the blatant racism the Cdn. Gov't has towards native people.

So if you want to prevent this awareness, you have your reasons of keeping this page the way "you" want.

Nia:wen —Preceding unsigned comment added by WetFlame (talk • contribs) 16:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iah tetkaie:ri', you are making assumptions about my motivations by guessing and without any evidence beyond what you choose to see. Tell me truthfully, who does that remind you of? tha'tesato:tat Deconstructhis (talk) 16:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I noticed that you moved {{Inline}} from the "References" section to the top of article at Foymount, Ontario, citing "policy". Could you let me know what policy that is? I've always been confused as to whether whether it should go at the top or in the refs section, and it'd be nice to know what the actual rule is. Note that I don't disagree with your edit, I'm just policy-curious. Thanks, -M.Nelson (talk) 17:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. In the second sentence of WP:TC, we're informed that [...] "Unless otherwise noted, they should be placed at the top of the article—before other templates, images, or infoboxes" [...]. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 17:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism4 was given to Mike2756180 for two more cases of vandalism,Buzzzsherman (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Buzzzsherman. If they show up again today or tomorrow and I happen to miss it; enter their name on [7] and be sure to mention that it appears to be a "vandalism only account". thanks again cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 20:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

10-4 will do :) Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that discussion at the Ghostbusters franchise page clearly shows that the article was merged before, split as a "birthday present" to another editor (entirely inappropriate), and that the discussions there show clear consensus to remerge same as Slimer, Vigo, etc. I have also left a note on the films project page to confirm that this is appropriate. No valid content was lost in the merge, BTW, only unsourced stuff. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My concern here is that regardless of the motivation behind why the article was split initially, the fact remains; it is (or at least was) freestanding and a proposed merger discussion was underway on the article's talk page that wasn't closed prior to your edit. Your contention in the the edit summary that "#'s" don't equal consensus is correct, insofar as it's not a straight counting of "votes", but I'd suggest that numbers do indicate the tendencies of the opinions held by other editors, a potentially important factor in trying to determine if "consensus" has in fact been reached. In this case, those opinions appeared to me to be decidedly in favour of a freestanding article rather than a merger, a result which you appear to have dismissed based on what you regard as a lack of "strength" in their arguments, a singlehanded conclusion that you appear to feel outweighs all other positions. I'd also like to mention that regardless of what previous proposed (re)merge discussions have occurred, "consensus" is not locked in stone. One final point, in terms of your contention of a lack of "notability". My own addition to the proposed merge discussion consisted of a cursory search through Lexus which indicated that the subject received nearly two hundred separate mentions in major news sources all over the world in the past twenty five years, in my opinion in most cases this would constitute a more than adequate demonstration of basic acceptability according to our policies; why not in this one? When it comes down to it, my basic question is, if this is a decision arrived at through any form of consensus, why wasn't the discussion declared closed and the result posted as "merge"? It doesn't make any sense to me that a discussion is requested, contributed to, and then later simply brushed aside. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 16:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "discussion" really isn't one - its 5 years of people randomly going "no" without actually discussing it. That is why it was not closed, because it really wasn't a discussion there. There are discussions elsewhere, as noted above. Also, cursory searches through Lexis or any other search does not demonstrate notability. Notability != # of mentions, but actual, significant coverage of the character itself. Obviously the character has been mentioned in many news sources, its in the film in a key role and Ghostbusters is a long time franchise. Did you look through every last one of those to see if it was actually significant coverage, or one of many reports noting the character was in the film or the television series or the game? If you didn't actually find significant coverage, analyzing and discussing the character in-depth, it does not meet GNG. Unless and until such coverage can actually be demonstrably shown, not just leaving the article for 2+ years under some claim that "coverage is there", there is no valid reason not to have it merged. Again, no valid content was lost, so it is not as if it affects anything. It just redirects to the bigger context of the franchise, to the direct section on Stay Puft.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I have neither the strength nor the inclination to put forward a cogent argument in defence of an independent 'Stay Puft Marshmallow Man' article. You've indicated that you believe that the character appears in the film in a "key role" and that Ghostbusters itself "is a long time franchise", both of which it seems to me, are indicative of at least some merit in the notion of including a free standing article regarding the character. Like it or no, we're both involved in editing an encyclopedia where it is at least tacitly deemed appropriate to create independent and rather lengthy articles for the likes of "George Costanza" and "Anakin Skywalker", neither of which is likely, in my opinion, to be the subject of in depth reportage in the 'literature', but alas, apparently the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man is of a different calibre. I'm somewhat resentful of your comment that an actual "discussion" was not underway regarding a proposed merge. Acting in good faith (and clicking on a link contextually oddly titled "discuss") I offered my perspective on the subject, only now to discover that in fact there was in "reality" no such process underway. Silly me. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Decon, I left a few comments on my user page re the Michael Shackleford article. I also noticed [this] article today, which has similar issues to the Shackleford one. Actually I think it's worse, it appears the article has been entirely written by Scott himself (via anonymous IDs). I cleaned it up a little today but it needs a lot of work. With the exception of the black-jack coverage and a good result in one poker tournament, the article reads like Scott's personal reflections. Please have a gander when you get a chance. Regards Hazir (talk) 23:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

for for cleaning up around me at Cyrus Teed. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 03:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the past week i have made 4 edits to talk pages, all of which have been true and all of which have been deleted as vandalism. I am going to go round the pages I had edited and revert them to how i edited them, and i trust you will not break Wikipedia:Etiquette#How_to_avoid_abuse_of_talk_pages again, and i hope you realise how rude deleting a talk page comment is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugarh (talk • contribs) 16:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you're patrolling recent changes in articles, as I sometimes enjoy doing, and you're trying to decide whether or not a particular change represents a joke or test edit, there's sometimes a certain amount of guess work going on, but I try to apply a set of criteria based mostly on context. For instance, when I came across this unsigned edit of yours [8], it seemed rather outside of the scope of the talk page of an article with a type of algae as its only topic; call me a stickler if you want to; but it looks like a "joke" or test edit and I deleted it. As is a common practice when patrolling for vandalism, I then checked out other edits that you'd made as well as the contents of your user page at the time: [9] to gain context. I noticed that you did submit a useful contribution back in March of 2008 in the form of a base article for Holbeche House which is appreciated, but in short, it is very difficult for other editors to take any of your edits seriously when they consist of this sort of material:[10],that was added to my talk page again, unsigned. I took note that the current version of your talk page[11] indicates that you eventually hope to become an "administrator". If you are in fact serious about that and want to make a good start toward that goal, I'd like to suggest that you spend some more time reviewing Wiki's policies regarding how to contribute to the encyclopedia, in terms of things like how to properly reference your contributions WP:CITE when you add them and perhaps just as importantly, how to properly interact with other editors WP:AGF. If you have any questions please contact me here on my talk page. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 23:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about any trouble you have experienced. My school's I.P. is blocked due to vandalism, and when i logged in on friday my friend must of seen me entering my password, and has proceeded to vandalise pages. i am sorry. We do, however know someone called Tom Lavers, and he IS related to William Perry. it's just a little outside of the pages topic. i will change my password and do my best to cover my keyboard when entering it.--Hugarh (talk) 14:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to consider reinstating the warnings applied to your talk page regarding this incident and adding the explanation you've provided above at the bottom. Please keep in mind that warnings are regarded as "delivered" and applicable even if they've been deleted from the page. Other editors might regard their deletion as an indication of obfuscation on your part, in my opinion you're better off leaving them in place with an explanation; it's your call. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you bother to compare the new with the old, or just see that I didn't give a reason and revert it? Anyway, point taken; from now on I will point out any obvious grammar and spelling errors that I am fixing so legitimate fixes don't get reverted for not being "constructive". If I did something wrong on accident then please be more specific, otherwise if you feel the urge to revert random stuff then don't bother sending me a message, just do it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.189.8 (talk • contribs)

I'm afraid you're going to have to be more specific regarding the particular edit you're referring to. The only interaction that I'm aware of between the two of us before today occurred on November 23, when another editor reverted one of your edits and I added a warning template to your talk page for what was in my opinion the unwarranted removal of a citation request from the Andy Kaufman article [12] without providing an edit summary[13]. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 04:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my issue: How do you site video game content? I see my attempt was reverted. There is simply not very much official content in summarizing the content of a video game. Can't the request for citation just be removed? Why would a citation even be requested in the last bit of information in the section and not the first? Not to mention there was an actual in-game screen shot at the link.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.189.8 (talk • contribs)

Please remember to sign your posts by adding four consecutive 'tildes'("~") to the end, it may seem trivial to you, but I guarantee 95% of responsible editors take a signed post much more seriously than an unsigned one. Now to your question. The answer, is there probably is no relatively easy way to cite references in support of claims about specific elements found in video games. Not unless you can track down something that will stand up to the requirements found in Wiki policy regarding "reliable sources" WP:RELY. If you can't provide a reliable reference for something, policy tends to say that it shouldn't be in the encyclopedia in the first place. It may seem "unfair", but how else can users actually trust what they're reading? Without references from reliable sources for verification WP:VERIFY, some sort of indication of "proof" of the veracity of what's being claimed in an article, Wikipedia would be potentially useless as a source of little else but rumours and "facts" that people just make up for fun. My question to you is: how can you say with any degree of certainty that the "Kaufman Cabs" in the game *actually* is named for Andy? You point to the screen capture, which probably demonstrates that "Kaufman Cabs" is an element actually found in the game; but how do you *know* that it's named for Andy Kaufman? "Kaufman" isn't all that uncommon as a surname, especially in some parts of the U.S.. How do you know that "Kaufman" and "cabs" weren't simply chosen because they sound good together? You don't need an academic paper as a reference to support this stuff, a citation in a specific issue of a mainstream gamers magazine that backed it up might do. The gamers Wiki that you tried to use as a reference won't cut it, take note that even there it's not backed up by a reference. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 03:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:0XQ&diff=cur#re:_Adding_.27original_research.27_to_UFO_religion_article

Our addition to The "UFO religion" contained no "original research", merely the statement of the well-known and and universal-accepted fact that all major mainline religions are in fact "UFO religions" as much as, and in the same sense, are the minor cults mentioned in your article. Every single major religion in the world has as main article of faith that God (or Gods) live in the sky, usually on planets or around stars; and that such God (or Gods) visit our planet periodically in some sort of vehicle -- this is true for Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. etc.

As is well-known, the minor cults which likewise accept this premise, do so simply in imitation of the major world-religions. (If there may be any fault in doing so, it is primarily the fault of the major world-religions.) This is a subject worthy of some discussion here, rather than arbitrary immediate deletion of any open mention of it.0XQ (talk) 19:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to leave the final call on this to a consensus of opinion amongst a number of editors, which would probably be best served by discussing this on the article's talk page. I am strongly contesting your claim that there is an established "well-known and and universal-accepted fact that all major mainline religions are in fact "UFO religions""; I hold that this claim is patently unsupported conjecture and "original research" on your part. Regardless, this doesn't alter the status of the material you actually added to the article, which in my opinion, again, consists solely of a theoretical position that is based on personal interpretations of primary materials by the editor posting it; which is pretty close to the definition of "original research" itself. See WP:NOR. Before posting this kind of controversial material it's usually considered a good idea to discuss it first on the article's talk page, I'm hoping that's where you choose to go with this before re-adding it to the article. I'd be more than happy to discuss this issue with other editors in that forum. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smkolins (talk) 12:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Smkolins, please begin this discussion on the the talk page of the Maitreya article itself rather than here, in order to maximize the opportunity for other interested editors to comment on this matter and hopefully to arrive at a consensus. Personally, my opinion is that although the specific topic of the article is the concept of Maitreya in general, the material you have been adding is contextually a claim regarding the purported growth of the Baha'i Faith specifically in Vietnam and would thus be more properly included in an article regarding the history of that religion in that country. As a self identified member of the faith, again in my opinion, I believe that you should try to be wary of appearing "non-neutral" or utilizing undue weight regarding the topic when editing material that relates to it. Again, please open a discussion on the Maitreya article talk page itself regarding the appropriateness of the inclusion of this material before re-adding it to the article. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the only article he fact tagged when there were already references. 71.81.41.89 (talk · contribs) is a sock of Marburg72 (talk · contribs), who retired after Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Marburg72 and an outburst on his talk page which led to a block. He's fringe of fringe. I'm taking the IP to SPI I think. Dougweller (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem Doug. I also took note of the rather 'cranky' (in more ways than one) rhetoric on their talk page regarding, I'm assuming, you and Wright. I'm thinking that this is the same individual that I engaged in a rather protracted 'debate' session with last autumn regarding these articles, that lead absolutely nowhere. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like it. I've withdrawn the SPI and Marburg72's deleted talk page was undeleted as he'd been given the right to vanish, but lost that by editing as an IP. Dougweller (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Selwyn Dewdney for more further discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.36.249 (talk) 02:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting my edit at Space opera in Scientology scripture‎ - I had looked and seen it was from the Hubble website and assumed it was an actual image, sorry for the mixup. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. I didn't even notice there was issue until the IP editor wisely pointed it out. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did find your comment helpful and I do need to diversify. I'm trying to find where I can help out, something simple but can't seem to find where. Something maintenance perhaps.

Did you see my attempt to research Sherurcij's "Finland Girl"? The Soviets probably did have female partisans but she looks more like a civilian casualty. According to this Soviet partisans mostly targeted civilian women, children and elderly inside Finland. I'm still trying to figure out if Seitajärvellä is a feminine form of Seitajärvi. Why can't they just talk English in Finland (humour). Slightsmile (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Slightsmile[reply]

I have not added any personal commentary to the article. Please understand the situation and allow the acticle to develop correctly. I have removed the honorific "Paramahamsa", which is most appropriate under the situation.  Tharikrish  20:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reverts in talk page. This against Wikipedia policy. I will be force to escalate the dispute. Tharikrish  20:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you are adamant. Let us take it in the legal way. Tharikrish  20:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this instance, I would appreciate it very much if you would "escalate" the situation immediately. You *cannot* imply, infer or deliberately apply (as you did in this case) terms like " sexually deviant" or "charlatan" to someone in Wikipedia; it's defamatory. Please go the talk page of the article and read the material there; there was a consensus reached several days ago regarding this matter. Please take your issues to that forum; continuing to add material of the nature that you are posting, will in all likelihood cause you to be blocked from editing. thank you Deconstructhis (talk) 20:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charlatan - a person who pretends or claims to have more knowledge or skill than he or she possesses; quack. I never used the term "sexually deviant", did I? You have made an wrong acquisition. This itself is an POV evidence against you. My comments on the talk page are being reverted! What more could one ask! Escalation is what that has to be done. Tharikrish  20:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think even if you have even a quick look at core Wikipedia policies like WP:BLP you'll see that what you're trying to post to that article is well outside what is allowed. Here in Wikipedia, we try to do things by consensus. That means, if a subject is potentially very controversial (as this one is) we put material for articles together by first discussing the proposed content on the article's talk page. This is occasionally a long drawn out process, so patience is required. Trying to circumvent that process by "being bold", deliberately posting controversial material without consultation on the talk page with other editors, is in all likelihood only going to prolong the process. The talk pages of articles (particularly those of living persons) is not a "safe zone" for making defamatory or slanderous comments about the subject of the article, if material constitutes a legal slur in the main article, chances are, it's use is also not permitted on the talk page and will be removed. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to remove the phrase Paramahansa from the article. This not equivalent of posting controversial material. Tharikrish  19:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the content I'm referring to in the above post; take note that I'm also in support of removing the honorific "Paramahamsa" from the title of this article. Honorifics are often discouraged for use in the title of an article about a person, except when being used to differentiate them from someone else; which I believe is the case here with the proposed use of Swami and the geographic suffix. I do however, support "Paramahansa"'s inclusion in the first line of the article as an honorific, if it can be demonstrated through reliable sources that the title is regularly applied to this person by an existing religious organization; a practice which I believe is fairly standard in Wikipedia. The statements that I'm referring to in my above posting are specifically those which were posted by you to the talk page of the article and were subsequently deemed potentially defamatory or provocative in nature and removed. See [14]. Please, from this point forward, let's communicate with each other on the talk page of the relevant article, in the context of improving it in a neutral fashion after a consensus is reached. Rehashing old problems here that have already been dealt with through consensus and the application of existing policy serves very little purpose in my mind. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 20:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That has been his name on the article for some time it was altered today and I have changed it back to the long term name, there is a discussion going on and the name should not be changed untill it is over.Off2riorob (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'quranist' is the term most quran alone muslims like to call themselves

thats why i'd prefer if you dropped the 'quran alone' tag from the page

thanksJigglyfidders (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me Jigglyfidders, it's appreciated. The difficulty in what you're suggesting, is that the article itself is named "Qur'an alone". It would surely be quite confusing to the average reader when they glance down from the title to the first line of the article and see that the term used in the title itself doesn't appear in the first sentence in definition form; including that definition is a standard practice here in Wikipedia. I'd be more than willing to re-examine the title itself as being inappropriate in this context, but I'd suggest that that change might prove controversial and should be properly discussed on the article's talk page in an attempt at forming consensus. As I mentioned in my edit summary, "Quranist" appears to be used a fair bit, but "Quran alone" also commonly appears as well in searches. In my opinion, our discussion should properly shift to the articles talk page so that other editors opinions can be included as well. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Quran claims evidence of it's divinity is that nobody can imitate even a single chapter or surah of the Qur'an. ^{[Quran 2:23]} However, there seems nothing extraordinary for example about chapter Al-Kafirun.

i have brought a reference for this article you deleted http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Incoherence/index.html

i will now re-edit, tell me if you see something wrong

Jigglyfidders (talk) 08:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Jigglyfidders, rather than posting here, it would be much more helpful to you to make inquiry regarding these sorts of edits, in the form of specific questions on the talk page of your adopter "Airplaneman" [15]. I'm developing a concern that if you continue on your present editing path, you may risk being blocked from editing the encyclopedia. My advice to you is to immediately stop actually adding content to potentially controversial articles and seek guidance from your adopter; ask him specific questions regarding these matters. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it's my pleasure.  :-) leevclarke (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously another "Jumbophile". Thanks again. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Khalifa Expedition - Desert Guide - Egypt

This organization is the most important guide in all the Western Egyptian Desert. Main point of reference for archeological researchers. The only one mentioned also in Lonely Planet Guide and other egyptian Guides (that are not advertising Books).

Khalifa Expedition is also the founder and member of Bahariya Oasis NGO.

This is an institution.

This only to underline you this matter.

Best Regards.

Nik —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.16.37.114 (talk) 15:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The company may be "important", in the sense that they provide a valuable service that is highly regarded, but they are a commercial touring operation and as such are not permitted to advertise in the external links section of Wikipedia articles. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 15:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit here reverted my edit here. I trust it was an error on your part, as your edit summary did not mention that part of the change. I don't have a view on whether a mosque image should be in the section or not. But if you disagree that foreign immigration is redundant please say so. Thank you. Daicaregos (talk) 17:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. You guessed correctly that my replacement of the word "foreign" was made in error in the process of restoring the image of the mosque to the article. Again apologies. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 00:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and thanks for restoring. Best, Daicaregos (talk) 08:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an abrahamic religion, so why shouldn't it be mentioned. it has enough followers, with some figures as high as 8 million. they are widespread and are the 2nd fastest growing religion in the world, with indications it will take over Judaism as the worlds 6th largest religion by the 2030s. http://fastestgrowingreligion.com/numbers.html There is no undue weight whatsoever as you are suggesting in my opinion, and im not even a Baha'i.Jigglyfidders (talk) 18:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before making changes in an article,please take more time to read *all* of the material and the history of an article, so that you can develop a better idea of the context that your edits are occurring in when working on it. The final sentence in the first section of the Abrahamic religions article has contained a referenced mention of the Baha'i Faith arrived at by consensus for several weeks now, indicating that "some have asserted" it's appropriateness for inclusion in this category. The phrasing alone should suggest that this issue is far from settled in a real sense; in particular in the way that you appear to be asserting it; that the Baha'i Faith should be added directly and on an equal footing as the fourth religion alongside the historically established triad of Christianity, Judaism and Islam in a listing of Abrahamic religious traditions. In my opinion, this constitutes an extraordinary claim on your part and represents the offering of a novel theory offered without supporting references, or any authority beyond your own personal opinion. thank you Deconstructhis (talk) 01:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not claiming Baha'i Faith should be on an equal footing as the 3 basic Abrahamic religions, but it should definitely be up there and could be mentiuoned in the following way; "the world's three primary monotheistic faiths traditionally consist of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, but according to recent sources, the Baha'i Faith also shares common origins and values."

When you look at recently published religion books Baha'i is always mentioned among one of the classical faiths as is also acknowledged by adherents.com as well as other major religious data compilers. this is a list of twelve classical major world religions;

http://www.adherents.com/adh_branches.html    * Baha'i faith    * Buddhism    * Confucianism    * Christianity    * Hinduism    * Islam    * Jainism    * Judaism    * Shinto    * Sikhism    * Taoism    * Zoroastrianism  

This is not an extraordinary claim on my part, but rather Baha'i is one of the major organized religions on Earth with their central texts and holy places. Baha'is have died for refusing to give up their faith and have been endlessly persecuted for even suggesting there should be another revelation after Islam. Thanks for reading.Jigglyfidders (talk) 09:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jigglyfidders, you might want to see this discussion. Can you provide more than one (say, four or five) reliable sources to back up your claims? I'm not saying you're wrong or right, but some reliable sources need to be put forth. Airplaneman ✈ 16:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jigglyfidders, you'll have to forgive me if I feel that your statement that you're "[...] not claiming Baha'i Faith should be on an equal footing as the 3 basic Abrahamic religions" is somewhat disingenuous, when considering this edit of yours from the other day [16] in this article. Are other editors perhaps to assume you are once again "testing your limits"? [17] In my opinion, it would be foolish to completely dismiss the notion that the Baha'i religion is broadly speaking within the Abrahamic "tradition", however that being said, I believe that claiming that it should currently be categorized as holding an equal position with the other three religions is misleading, unsupported and in my opinion betrays a certain lack of "neutrality" on the subject. Jigglyfidders, I have now lost count of the number of times that other editors have tried various tacts in attempting to curtail some of your more controversial editing practices; in my opinion, despite the fact that some of your edits are fine; it seems to me that you are showing signs of actually trying to "game" the system (see WP:GAME) in order to be able to buy time in an attempt at continuing to carry on a pattern of some of your less than desirable editing habits. Many editors will consider this activity highly disruptive (I happen to be one of them) and that perhaps the only solution may be in beginning to utilize incrementally increasing blocks against your account. These blocks are not punitive in a strict sense, they are an attempt at protecting the project against "harm". I sincerely believe you are continuing to receive good advice from several quarters on these issues; however, for the most part you appear to me to be deliberately ignoring it. Once you brazenly imply to the community, as you did the other day, that you may or may not be acting in "good faith" on any given edit, I believe a line has been drawn and in truth, I can no longer extend the same in your direction. thanks Deconstructhis (talk) 21:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you have real skills deconstructhis - every time i see you write i feel as if im speaking to a computer. Is there really a human being on the other side or are you programmed to speak perfectly? if you are human, this is a compliment by the way beacuse of your charasmatic lettered competent and prolific professionalism *wink*Jigglyfidders (talk) 20:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Back on topic Jigglyfidders; I totally agree with Deconstructhis on this one. What will you do to address this issue? Airplaneman ✈ 00:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I started a topic in the discussion on this article. You deleted my citation of the Crown of Serpents novel which is the same as the Dan Brown citation. Same genres. Same use in a novel. In fact, Crown of Serpents trumped Brown's usage of the cipher since it was published in May 2009, well before Brown's Sept. 2009 date. I would ask that the reference to Crown of Serpents be allowed back in under your guidelines.

JakeTununda (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Pigpen cipher for my reply. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning this up. You and I both made the exact same edit at the same time just now, LOL. I know the article needs work to be more balanced maybe but this new editor (only working on this one article ATM0 is a real squirrel of sorts, and obviously is either heavily involved in Avatar or works for Palmer personally. Sorry, I do not assume good faith in cases like this. But I'd be open to them learning the rules and then playing by them. In the meantime, can we warn the user or have someone locl the article for a while? Venus Copernicus (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless things change dramatically, don't worry too much about locking the article; this appears to be a single purpose account doing the editing on one article. In my opinion we should simply apply the appropriate level user warnings and then proceed to AIV if it's required. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 18:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Hope I didn't go overboard with the MASTADON, LOL. It's hard to be objective when you see people caught up in such things and dumping their cognitive dissonance and rationalizations on WP. I'm really glad you're here to be more objective and smooth things out better than I have. Peace, Venus Copernicus (talk) 21:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your work to clean up the efforts of User:151.200.149.16 to retaliate for my reversion at Rachel Carson.--Hjal (talk) 05:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; you're welcome. I added them to AIV a few moments ago as well. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 05:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not affiliated with KTUL-TV Tulsa, or any places or subjects included in the article on the station. Nor am I affiliated with any television station in the entire United States. Any information I add to a article, whether it is television or not, is either pure personal knowledge or information that I have obtained from other sources. (Tvtonightokc (talk) 04:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you for your response. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 05:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there been some time its me Buzz!! I have added a few refs to the Indian question on the Aboriginal page ...you think they explain the falling out of use of the term Indian ?? [18] [19] ...just wanted to make sure your ok with this as you are the person i have always turned to about this!! ...your old friend Buzzz now -->Moxy (talk) 16:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw yuor last edit ...did you read the ref?? The term "Indian" is considered outdated by many people, and there is much debate over whether to continue using this term. The Department, following popular usage, typically uses the term "First Nation" instead of "Indian," except in the following cases:

   * in direct quotations    * when citing titles of books, works of art, etc.    * in discussions of history where necessary for clarity and accuracy    * in discussions of some legal/constitutional matters requiring precision in terminology    * in discussions of rights and benefits provided on the basis of "Indian" status    * in statistical information collected using these categories (e.g., the Census). 

Moxy (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I suspect that they will be back again. If either Bearcat (talk · contribs) or I am around let us know and we can block and revert again. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 17:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the process of contacting Bearcat, when I checked back for the correct spelling of the sock's name and saw that you had already dealt with the situation. Thanks again, I'll try and keep an eye out for this. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 18:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Georgian Bluffs, Ontario One London Place T-Online Nottawasaga Bay Alison Jolly Wandel Sea Heinz Vollmar Woco Group Masonville Place C. E. Gaines Center Forest City Velodrome Manfred Zielonka Kasha Terry Gerhard Strack Khamis Mushait Gulf of Sidra East Siberian Sea Brantford City Council List of cities and towns in Saudi Arabia

Cleanup German Union Wasaga Beach, Ontario English country music Merge Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier Laval East Cologne Cable Car Add Sources Gulf of Cádiz Alboran Sea Bay of Biscay Wikify Europe and the People Without History Expense Ratio Opus (play) Expand Jean-Claude Van Damme Ernst Benda Turin

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 06:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't agree here. It's not illegal when you may buy it and smoke it in socalled "Cannabis coffeshops". Yes, the article about the drug policy in the Netherlands ALSO says this. I think you can give up your things here! Konstruktiv II (talk) 14:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see your own talk page for my response. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to consult you seeing you are familiar with Qur'an alone. There is currently a user User:Abd r Raheem al Haq who is editing this page beyond comprehension. for example

• removal of external links here
• Undue weight and bad layouts here.
• His talk page suggests there is a conflict of interet too as his reasoning for deletion of external links was to minimize 'Rishad Khalifa' POV. Either way, there is no evidence that the external links are Rashad Khalifa or United Submitters websites.
• here he is also adding a website called Free Minds to the list of sub-sects
• Then we have the most outrageous claim that Quranists face towards Jerusalem rather than Mecca here and make pilrimage there. Then goes on to say that "Quranists often outright reject beliefs that are fundamental to orthodoxy." without reference.
• The very definition of "Quran alone" means without hadith, but in this edit summary he says that Quranists DO follow hadith.
• He also added "it is not uncommon for Quranists to derive their own personal approaches to prayer" which is untrue and without reference.

He has also added many unreferenced passages and obviously doesn't know anything about Quranists. I have left some warnings on his page but am currently considering calling an administrator now that he doesn't seem to learn and is unwilling to read wikipedia policy guidelines, for blocking or page protection. Thanks for reading. Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Everyone was ok with my edit of WMAQ until you. It has been that way for nearly a year without any changes. Many users have complemented me on how thorough and accurate it was. It had answered several users' questions about former on-air personalities. Please revert back to the way it was because no one else seemed to have a problem with it before you did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.95.42 (talk) 07:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see current ongoing discussion regarding this issue at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Lists of non-notable "past employees" of television stations? cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 17:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please take this discussion to WP:TVS, WP:ANI or another page and establish consensus there. At present, consensus has been established for these lists to be on Wikipedia. What you are doing is against consensus and in cases of reverting, edit warring. I ask that you stop editing these pages, establish consensus and then move on from there. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 17:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Neutralhomer; I want to make it clear that I will cease these edits immediately and will not be reverting any of your edits until I gain a clearer understanding of the situation. I'd also like to apologise to any editors who were caused distress by my edits; they were not intended as a negative comment on any of the time or good faith they extended in compiling and checking the information in the first place. However; I'm in a bit of a quandary as to how to apply WP:NLIST in these instances and how to deal with the stringencies of BLP material being offered up without references as well. I've been attempting to track down past instances of consensus on specifically exempting these lists from WP:NLIST and BLP requirements and I'm not having much luck. I've found analogous examples mentioning similar circumstances in general in other categories, but so far, nothing specifically exempting "lists of past employees of television stations". I'd appreciate it if anyone could help me out there. I'm going to be fairly busy over the next 24 hrs. or so; but I'll definitely be posting an inquiry regarding this issue to both of the venues you mentioned Neutralhomer as soon as I get a chance. As I mentioned before, I will not be engaging in editing any of the articles you reverted today, until I can obtain clarification in the form of an expression of current consensus from the wider community. Thank you for your time. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Neutralhomer, I apologise in advance for the prolonged delay in posting a proper response regarding this issue; however it's provided me with the opportunity to check the archives once again and rethink the situation. Despite your assertion that a "consensus has been established" in regard to allowing the addition of unreferenced lists of non-notable former employees to television station articles, I have only been able to locate two examples regarding this specific type of list material that approximate a consensus, both of which appear to draw the opposite conclusion of your own. The first, from March of this year,[20] which included you in the discussion, resulted in the labelling and removal of this type of list as an unreferenced "laundry list" of non-notable entries and appears to exclude these lists on the basis that the required notability and verifiability of the entries have not been established, either through the addition of reliable referencing in support of their inclusion; or the prior existence of articles in the encyclopedia demonstrating verifiability and the individuals notability. In my opinion, both of these stipulations appear to satisfy the requirements of WP:NLIST; the advice put forward in "Uw-badlistentry" [21] and also potentially offer the protection demanded when dealing with BLP type material. The second instance of consensus that I was able to locate that centred on the addition of this specific type of list, occurred within the past couple of weeks [22] where the inclusion of this type of material was rejected by other editors (I was personally involved in this discussion) for similar reasons and was subsequently removed. In this instance, at least one editor was eventually short term blocked for "repeated addition of unsourced content"; when they persistently attempted to re-add this specific type of list to several Chicago area television station articles.[23] I've taken note that your own attempt in this instance to re-add this type of unreferenced list to an article on June 30th was subsequently reverted by an administrator; a decision that was supported by several other editors at the time as well.[24]. For these reasons, I now intend to act "boldly" and once again remove this type of material from the circa twenty five articles that you mass reverted on June 30th, utilizing Twinkle, and request that until you can justify the presence of this type of material in articles according to our existing policies and guidelines or establish that consensus has in fact changed WP:CCC, that you do not revert it again. My intention is to once again only include unreferenced entries that are at least "verified" by having a previously existing article in Wikipedia. I've taken note of your continued valuable contributions to our maddening beauty of an encyclopedia and continue to maintain that you are attempting to act in what you think are in the best interests of Wiki; however, I hold the sincere belief that both policy and consensus are running against you in these circumstances. Should you continue to believe otherwise; I openly invite you to take this matter to task on an appropriate noticeboard. If you do decide to do that, please keep me informed of any such posting(s) in order to provide me with an opportunity to offer up a defence of my position. I'd appreciate it if you would inform me here on my own talk page if you decide to do that. I'm going to post this to your talk page as well so that you can be informed as to what's going on. Feel free to respond either here or on your own page, which I'll put on watch. If I'm just plain wrong in all this, I'm prepared to take my "lumps" and will of course abide by any consensus. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Due to ongoing pain associated with dental surgery I had on Friday (7/2), I just don't have the energy to fight you on this. As such, I ask you remove the "former personalities" sections from all television station pages, not just some (to be complete in the work). I personally feel the consensus is there, but again, the energy isn't there to argue the point or find the information to do so. I will, though, be available for any questions you have, but give me more than normal time in responding as I am moving quite slowly. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to see this list (and the links that follow) for easier finding of the many (MANY) television stations in the United States. Also, you can view this template for all the state pages and providence pages in Canada where television station pages are listed. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 15:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Neutralhomer; I hope your recovery from dental surgery is progressing well. The CIA Factbook indicates that there are approximately 2,366 television stations in the U.S. and Canada as of 2006-2007; a sizable number to be sure, but if the numbers of these unreferenced lists containing BLP material continue on a percentage basis as at present; "only" about one in three contain the type of extensive unsupported lists of past employees that I'm trying to focus on. I meander geographically from time to time, because I've been noticing editing patterns; it appears that some editors, more than others, are attentive to the addition and maintenance of this kind of material and so occasionally I simply look at their edit histories to locate relevant articles. Neutralhomer, I've noticed that both here on my talk page and also in the discussion which you were involved in March on this issue,(which is linked above) you seem to be inclined toward arguing for the inclusion of this material based on the simple fact alone that so much of it already exists in Wikipedia. You seem to me to be implying that because that is the case, that no attempt to work at remedying that situation is warranted. I'm not quite sure what to make of that; could you perhaps help me to understand what you mean? You also appear to me to be suggesting that it's a case of "everything or nothing" ie that unless all of this material is dealt with simultaneously, that somehow it's removal piece by piece is "illegitimate" in some sense. In my mind, the opposite of "everything" in this regard isn't "nothing"; it's "a little at a time", until the material meets the requirements of our policies and guidelines. Setting aside those two potential problems for a moment; I'd like to ask you a direct question. Personally, I'm of the opinion that this type of material has several associated problems barring its inclusion in Wiki, but I'd like to get a response from you pertaining to one specific policy. Why do you feel that these lists are inherently excluded from having to comply with WP:NLIST? cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 20:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel, since these lists are actively updated for several users, across many stations and states, the information isn't just "throw up there" and left, but is updated and kept up-to-date. So removing it would be something that would be bad for the project not good. I think though if part of it were to be deleted, it will just pile back on, so the whole section should be deleted to prevent more "non-notable" (as people say) reporters/anchors/etc. from being added. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to explain what you mean. I'm sorry, up the rest, that are former staff. There are some that were on the list, if you look at it, that said that they're still presently there. I'll take those people up. But, the other people need to be up there, who were former staff. For now, I'm adding one more person to your notable staff list for now, until the other one is fixed. Just wanted to let you know that the staff list that was up there, needs to be put back up, once it's fixed. I'll have the old one in my sandbox, if you'd like to fix it to how you think it should be. (JoeCool950 (talk) 05:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Look at my sandbox and let me know what was wrong with this, so that I can fix it. Explanation didn't make since as to why you took these people off. There ones on the list, that said that they're still presently there, I took them off. What's in my sandbox is an updated former staff list for KGET-TV. Let me know why this can't be up? I think it should. If you don't see anything wrong with this, I'm putting what's in my sandbox back up. I did for now add someone to your notable staff list that you fixed up, if there's a good reason for the other one. Just need to know. Thought it wasn't right to take off what you add fixed, but added one person to your list. But, do give me an explanation please. If not, I'm fixing what's in my sandbox a little bit more and putting it back up. (JoeCool950 (talk) 06:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I'm getting sick and tired of you changing what was on there, so you need to not take off the names. I will be asking the WP:TVS. If they say it's o.k. then I will report you for vandalism. (JoeCool950 (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

With just the two names, that needs to be taken off, until you stop changing KGET-TV. (JoeCool950 (talk) 20:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I'm sorry that you feel that way JoeCool950; my intention isn't to disrupt the encyclopedia; it's an attempt at improving it, although you might have a difficult time seeing it that way at the moment. I'd like to gently suggest that you take a careful look at the discussion between Neutralhomer and myself on this issue above. Check out the links that I've provided to them regarding my reasoning for making these changes and let me know what you think. It's was my intention to respond directly to you later on this evening on these matters; but I think it would be a good idea if you carefully read what I've posted above first, so that you have a better idea of my intentions and reasoning. If, after doing that, you still feel there's a need to post an inquiry to WP:TVS, please do so. I had already decided that for clarity sake it would probably be good to do that anyway, as well as a couple of other noticeboards as well; in an attempt at further measuring existing consensus. I apologise for delaying my response to you directly but I wanted to spend a little time thinking it through. Also, please always remember that it's always a good idea to extend "good faith" when interacting with other editors. Hopefully we are all hoping to improve the encyclopedia; each in our own way. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 20:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and posted it on WP:TVS, just because the issue needs to be brought up. Nothing against you, just need to know. There's another station that I might fix up how you did KGET-TV, just in case they don't like the one in my sandbox, or think the one in my sandbox is appropriate. You can give your input to on that. The more, the merrier. By the way, I didn't want to just take off what you had on KGET-TV, or that could be vandalism, I would think. Thanks for responding back on the issue. (JoeCool950 (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I fixed up KERO-TV kind of how you have KGET-TV because it was the same thing, until the issue gets resolved. Just wanted you to know, and left the comment on why I changed it that way. Just wanted to update you. (JoeCool950 (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks very much for your courtesy JoeCool950, it's genuinely appreciated. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 05:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can you please point me to the consensus rejecting unsourced lists of former television station personnel? Thanks. JTRH (talk) 16:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm specifically asking because of your large-scale deletion at WCNC-TV of a lot of material which I contributed. Thanks. JTRH (talk) 16:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I restored the material you deleted and tagged the section as unreferenced. This gives me and other editors a chance to locate sources and make some editorial decisions rather than having almost the entire list deleted as unreferenced and apparently non-notable. Thanks JTRH (talk) 16:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I might, if I can, do the same thing with KGET-TV and KERO-TV (tag the secion as unreferenced). I can see what sources I can locate for the past former staff, that should be notable on the sight, and the ones that I can't find, won't be on there. I put each list in my sandbox and work on them, then that way, KERO-TV and KGET-TV has a good list of notable people on there. I'll work on KGET-TV, so if you see the reference tag, means I'm working on it. I'll put the updated one, once I get it done, up on KGET-TV and KERO-TV. (JoeCool950 (talk) 15:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

JTRH message begins below, not related to the anon posting immediately above this line

I found my way to the Village Pump discussion on June 20. It seems that there were seven people agreeing with your suggestion that these lists should be deleted or significantly scaled back, and only one in favor of keeping them (not counting the blocked user/sockpuppet TVFAN24). I'm not sure seven people qualifies as a "consensus" when there are far more people (including myself) who've worked on those articles and were not made aware of the discussion. I'm not claiming ownership of anything, and I'm not unilaterally opposing deletion of anything; when I created the Former Personnel list at the WCNC-TV article that I mentioned above, it was limited to those whose whereabouts and professional notability I could verify. Someone (who apparently used to work at the station and knows many of these people personally) came through afterwards and added a larger number of names whose stated current whereabouts are neither verifiable nor notable ("Now an NBC News anchor" is one thing, "lives in Centerville, OH" is quite another). Again without claiming ownership, I would also suggest that someone who has contributed to these pages is more familiar with the subject matter, and thus potentially a better judge of an individual listee's notability, than someone who's never worked on the page, is not familiar with the station in question, and whose only criteria for judging notability is whether the person has his or her own Wikipedia article. So I'd like to encourage past editors to participate and use some editorial judgment rather than subjecting everything to a wholesale and somewhat arbitrary weed-whacking.

Your contributions list shows me that you've greatly trimmed down these lists for quite a few stations. May I suggest the following: Could you please suspend your trimming-down work until you've posted your concerns on the articles' talk pages, created a more accessible forum for this discussion, and made other interested editors aware of it? I had no way of knowing about the Village Pump discussion, and would have participated if I had known about it. Someone on the Village Pump page suggested an RFA; that's fine with me, but I'd like to see if we can work this out ourselves. Thanks for indulging a rather long-winded rant on my part. JTRH (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again JTRH, no need to apologise for a "rant"; the more information that we both have in regard to these matters, the more likely we'll have a positive outcome. I do apologise for any "miscommunication" that may have occurred as a result of me failing to repost a link to the circa June 20th discussion thread that occurred at the Village Pump surrounding this issue. I posted one earlier here on this page in conversation with Neutralhomer and made the false assumption that you'd likely spot it in that context. I'd like to suggest that it might be "profitable" if you have a read of anything on this page appearing below the section titled "WJLA, et. al."; as it all contains information directly related to what we're discussing. In particular, you might find my comments, links and 'food for thought' in response to Bband11th useful, which I posted earlier this evening in the section below titled "July 2010". Rather than re-invent "The Wheel" (sorry, I couldn't resist :)) each time I post, I believe that a review of previously posted material here may aid you in understanding exactly where I'm coming from and forestall boring you with constant repetition. I believe that the basic heart of my argument can be found therein. The hour is growing late here, so I will attempt to be as succinct as possible; with apologies in advance if I sound rather "blunt"; it's not intended that way. The answer that I'm truly looking for here is the following: why is it that you believe that lists of former employees of television stations should be exempt in some way, from the requirements imposed by the policies and guidelines outlined in my response to Bband11th below? If you could perhaps provide me with a specific reply in regard to each of them, I'm sure it would greatly help me to understand your reasoning. It might also be useful for you to make inquiry with the small group of editors and administrators who have also recently turned 'thumbs down' on the proper inclusion of these types of lists as well. Two or three administrators during the past several weeks have actually followed through and actively blocked editors for persistently re-adding these unreferenced lists to articles. Perhaps you might find it useful if you were to inquire with them regarding the reasoning behind that. As a sign of good faith, I will agree to cease expanding the number of articles in which I'm engaging in the "trimming down" of these lists at present; however, be advised that my intention is to continue to reject and appropriately warn when unreferenced material derived from original research is re-added to these lists found within articles that I have already worked on. Until I am instructed not to do so by an administrator, or obviously a new consensus has been formed, it is my intention to continue the practice. As I mentioned to Bband11th below, there has been a discussion initiated at [25] in regard to this issue and I'd like to invite you to contribute your ideas. I can readily understand why this issue has the potential to eventually end up in some form of arbitration; but like you, I believe there may be a way to avoid that through negotiation. Contrary to my own advice to others, I am currently editing while exhausted and so shall call it a night for now. Please feel free to contact me regarding any questions you might have on this matter. Apart from brief periodic 'vandalism checks'; real world commitments may curtail my responses until perhaps Monday. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 06:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughtful and constructive reply, and your invitation to participate in the linked discussion above. I'm certainly not insisting on an exemption from WP standards for these lists, and I certainly agree that many of the names on those lists fail to meet standards of either verifiability, notability, or both. I'm just asking for a "stay of execution" until a wider group of people has had a chance to participate in the discussion. Might I ask that you post a link to the discussion on the talk pages of those stations where you've edited the lists, so that people whose work is being undone can understand your reasoning and have a place to respond? Thanks. JTRH (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: What I'd like to eliminate as unverifiable trivia is the sections on many station pages listing which channels they appear on on cable systems in the market, and the cable/satellite availability of the station outside the market. Can we add that to the discussion? TYA. JTRH (talk) 18:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I had my suspicions that user was a sock of TVFAN24, but wasn't sure. I also didn't want to accuse someone of something they weren't. You might want to keep a close eye on the Chicago television station pages. TVFAN24 has a high interest in those pages. Again, sorry, I should have caught that. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry Neutralhomer; I had my suspicions regarding that editor beginning on Wednesday evening myself, but was in the same position as you, "suspicions" but no hard evidence without the ability to check. It appears that there are several of us with the Chicago stations on our watch lists and I'm reasonably sure each and every one of us in the back of our heads fully expects this person to show up again...shortly. Hope your recovery is continuing to progress well. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 04:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Chicago stations are out of my perview, but I was watching the user's contribs and when I seen that and the posts here, that is when it struck me. But I agree, they will be back sooner or later (perferably MUCH later), but it is good to know people are watching the pages, so the vandalism and disruption will be minimal at best.

Healing is going quite well actually. Pain is down considerably. Seen my dentist today for my one week follow-up and he was quite pleased with how things were progressed. So much so, he took out all the stitches and will let everything heal on its own without the help of stitches and didn't see the need for a second follow-up, so I am done with that doctor and move on to getting dentures. That will come in August. The dentist and I both agreed that gives everything more time to heal before plunking a plate down on it. Thanks for checking up on me, I apperciate that. :) Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: In general, a person or organization added to a list, as on KCBS-TV, should have a pre-existing article to establish notability. If you wish to create such an article, please confirm that your subject is notable according to Wikipedia's notability policy. Thank you. Deconstructhis (talk) 01:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you remove the ones on KABC-TV, for example? Let's be consistent. There are tons of subjects not following the "notability policy" and not cited. Besides notability is very subjective. In this case, Mark Coogan spent 43 years in the market. Bband11th (talk) 02:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that individuals on these lists have to be "notable"--they certainly don't need to have an existing article. It depends on what makes the station article more encyclopedic: WP:N#Notability_guidelines_do_not_directly_limit_article_content, WP:BIO#Lists_of_people. I think that a list of every anchor for the evening news on a notable TV station makes sense, just as a list of headmasters at a public school does. For most such people, a brief annotation on such a list is better than a separate article, even if there are verifiable, reliable sources for them. I'm not sure that adding all of the reporters and engineers makes sense.--Hjal (talk) 04:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bband11th, I absolutely agree that our policies should be evenly applied, what's "good" for KCBS should be utilized in regard to the KABC article as well. After 43 years in the market, I'm somewhat surprised that Mr. Coogan doesn't already have his own article here in Wikipedia; I would think that it would be relatively easy to compile a reliably sourced one; after that amount of time he probably received any number of awards and mentions in the local print media. You might want to give it a try yourself. At the moment, the whole issue of whether or not unreferenced lists of "former employees of television stations" should be included in station articles is being debated by the community. In my opinion, there are potential problems here that go beyond only determining the "notability" of an individual in these circumstances. Our ability to "verify" WP:VERIFY the information that's being added to the encyclopedia every day is critical; in fact, the premise itself is one of our core policies. Lists of people (especially lists of "living persons" WP:BLP) are not exempt from the same policies and guidelines that are applied to other information found in an article; for information on that, please see WP:NLIST and WP:Source list). The issue of verification also arises when it comes to how the information being added to an article is derived in the first place. If the information itself is being obtained only through "private" sources; ie "personal knowledge", "word of mouth" or "station lore"; rather than reliably documented sources that can be cited; the problem of "no original research" WP:OR also becomes relevant. Many of these lists are quite long; because of how potentially problematic it might become to provide several references for each "unlinked" individual entry to satisfy the demands of the policies I've mentioned above; a "compromise" has been proposed by several editors and administrators. In keeping with "Uw-badlistentry" [26], it's been proposed that entries in lists of former employees of television stations should be restricted to contain only those individuals who have demonstrated basic notability and inherent verifiability through already being the subject of an existing article in the encyclopedia. I'd be happy to try and answer any questions you might have regarding this. I'd also like to encourage you to participate in this process by perhaps contributing to a current discussion that's been started on this topic at [27]. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 04:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is meant for MuZemike, as I did not edit the SPI but he did. Perhaps was this meant for him? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. lol I meant this edit [28]. thanks again, cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 22:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, just making sure. :) I had just woke up when I seen that so I was a little "stern" in my post. I will show MuZemike that other user who is already editing the Chicago television stations. Probably another sock. Might need a range block on that one if it is. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They may want to have a look at these kinds of edits[29] where it appears that as the first account begins to accumulate user warnings and drawing attention to itself and such, they appear to begin to 'tag team' by bringing in a new account. With no way of checking it's difficult to be definitive, but given previous patterns; I'd suggest it's worth a look. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 23:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I figured MuZemike has all the Chicago stations on his watchlist, so he is probably seeing that, long before I posted probably. :) I wouldn't doubt they are one in the same and there will probably be another SPI. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]