This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Your input is needed at the Parapsychology talk discussion concerning my new draft. Tell me if you have any other objections to it. Add them on the talk page. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I've been meaning to do that for a while but not had the time. My home PC is dead and I don't have a lot of time to go to another and do all the stuff I'd like to. But I'll get there eventually. Cheers. ~ Switch ( ✉ ✍ ☺) 06:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, you were looking at a mainspace article first time round, but not second time around. Cheers! Deb 11:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is - Conservapedia tends to be 'very moreish' in finding seemingly strange articles to make comments on (g).

Could you put a redirect from my comment to 'Your Archives; in the article on The National Archives - and an appropriate entry/link on the 'List of Wikis' (as 'some people' will be interested)

J.

Looks like I'm your girl, Van Tucky! :) I'll do my very best to make the best out of your userpage, I swear! Your instructions give me a solid base to get started; just one last q, tho: any preferences regarding colors, or layout? If you simply don't have any, I'll try and let my creative spirit fly ;) Oh, and one last thing, sweetie: I'm so sorry I couldn't take part in the discussion you pointed me to; I was utterly busy that particular week, and it was almost impossible for me to do anything on wiki, I swear. Is that debate still live? I still have less time than I'd like, but by all means I'll take care of your request. Just give me a few days, will you, please? Have a beautiful weekend! Love, Phaedriel - 22:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

(Both relevant users are receiving a copy of this.) On July 5, at Mike Godwin you both, 141.156.160.19 ( talk · contribs) and VanTucky ( talk · contribs), way-violated the Three-revert rule, which can get you blocked (for a period). No one else seems to have noticed, so I guess a block isn't imminent, but next time a more conducive strategy, if an edit war arises, would be going to Requests for page protection to have the article temporarily edit-protected until the dispute is hashed out on the talk page.  :-) — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the invitation. I think what I'm going to do at this point, though, is let some other editors jump in with their concerns and hopefully come up with something that everyone can agree to. I personally feel that I could write a kick ass neutral intro, but we're looking for stability. To achieve that I think everyone will need to participate at least a little. It's the weekend, so people are probably busy. I'm just going to lurk over the next few days to a week and let others chime in. The rest of the sections seem to be coming along well, so the intro can simmer for now I think. -- Nealparr ^{( talk to me)} 00:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not too stiff, and it's more neutral than the WDM draft so that's a bonus. It's possibe the other editors may accept it. I guess we'll have to wait and see. -- Nealparr ^{( talk to me)} 04:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Just my view, but I suggest you not use that red X (or for that matter the green check) next to your opinion at afd. A bold face keep or delete is perfectly clear, and doesnt give the impression that one persons opinion is particularly important. DGG ( talk) 01:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Not everyone, you & one or two others were doing it--since you continue to think it is appropriate, i will comment elsewhere as you suggest. DGG ( talk) 04:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I was making my points based on the Post article, not the Register one, and while I personally don't find the Post very reliable, it certainly meets WP:RS. That said, I still think that that event was so isolated and minor that it could go without really losing anything important (less'n someone can dig up some more reports of this kind of thing going on). Chubbles 05:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I looked on the talk page to see if the debate had played out already, couldn't find it. Could you give me a citation that resolved the issue? Speciate 23:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

After a trip to the library just now, I have determined that Guinea pigs are now considered rodents, but the book Mammal Species of the World is not the best citation for that piece of information. Speciate 00:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It'll be interesting to see if somebody removes your PROD on this page... I'm the original creator and believe that an argument can be made for the groups. (The size of the organization is MUCH larger than most martial arts organizations---martial arts systems with 100+ schools simply is unheard of unless you are dealing with Tae Kwon Do.) But frankly, I don't like where the page has gone and it isn't a fight I intend to get invovled with ;-) Balloonman 07:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey

I saw what u wrote ubout speedy deletion at Deb...but i dont know where to put the hangon as there is no article.

Jimbo

You are fine. Note SECOND paragraph of treats section: "However, if treats are allowed, carrots and compressed hay pellets are common, nutritious, and generally not harmful. Apples are also acceptable, though it is best if they are first cut into slices. Horse "cookies" are often specially manufactured out of ordinary grains and some added molasses. They generally will not cause nutritional problems when fed in small quantities." Carrots, in small quantities, are perfectly OK, though horses not used to them sometimes try to eat them whole and that isn't a good thing...cut them off or make her bite them off in sections (watch your fingers if you do that!). I wouldn't feed her a whole bucket or a five pound bag of them per day, because that would be a drastic change in diet that could upset her gut flora, but a few won't hurt. (A few, as in start with less than 10, though if it's too late for that you can probably give her more over time but maybe taper her off before her owner gets back!) (grin). Montanabw 05:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and the article received Good article status, so the wiki gods apparently thought it stayed on this side of a how-to. (grin) As for the Guinness, we COULD start an article on "Historic Horse Nutrition" or "Folk remedies for horses." Guiness is probably pretty high in B vitamins, so I suppose it could be a pretty decent calming supplement! My grandpa used to give his horses two raw eggs a day for a shiny coat, lots of protein! I know someone who swears by Apple Cider Vinegar as a supplement. But speaking of alcoholic beverages, I believe the Mongols made a pretty wicked brew of fermented mare's milk! Want some? Yum!  :-P (LOL). Montanabw 05:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI, liked the way you did your signature, so swiped the format. Any idea where to find a color chart for the magic color numbers? Montanabw ^(talk) 05:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

- WarthogDemon 05:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Some random wikilove though I wouldnt' be surprised if we have edited close by before. I've spent way too much time on Wikipedia this week. =) - WarthogDemon 06:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You wrote: If those links are sources, they needed to be in the proper section (References). External links is only for links to content not suitable for the article. If someone had gotten this right the first time, we probably wouldn't have had to do this useless AFD to begin with. Please be aware that a) AFD gets many articles that were "not done properly", it isn't for us to judge the work but the notability of the topic; b) AFD gets many articles that were done before proper referencing became a widespread expectation for a solid article. There are literally thousands of slapdash articles & stubs on Wikipedia that fit your description. Cleanup is a valid recommendation for an article (even though often it is never actually taken up). I'm not saying you're wrong here, just that a comment like that is sort of tangential to the AFD. -- Dhartung | Talk 07:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 28	9 July 2007	About the Signpost

Seven administrators request promotion to bureaucrat status	Board election series: Elections closed, results pending
Wikimedia Foundation hires consultant, general counsel	Newspaper obituary plagiarizes Japanese Wikipedia
WikiWorld comic: "Ann Coulter"	News and notes: FA stats, top information site, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

At first I liked the use of but really it's distracting in AfDs and more appropriately used in other types of discussions. Canuckle 17:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I have had other users say they personally dislike me using icons. I'll tell you what I told the others. Trying to dictate to individual users what they should and should not do stylistically, based on your personal notions and not guideline is not going to get you anywhere. I use icons for a specific purpose, not just for fun. If you disagree with the usage of icons in AFDs, bring it up on a relevant discussion page and get some policy made. But nagging every user you see use them isn't going to get anything changed. VanTucky ^(talk) 19:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Right. I added a straw poll to each version that wasn't self-rejected. You can add a support, not-support, or comment. Like I'll probably add a comment to WDM's verision to add the parapsychology today summary statement. Comments should be short here with longer comments in the above part. I think : ) -- Nealparr ^{( talk to me)} 04:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The Shakespeare Wikiproject is starting another collaboration to bring Romeo and Juliet to GA status. Our last collaboration on William Shakespeare is still in progress, but in the copyedit stage. If you have strong copyedit skills, you may wish to continue the work on that article. Members with skills in other areas are now moving on. Improving Romeo and Juliet article will set a standard for all other Shakespeare plays, so we look forward to seeing everyone there. Thanks for all your help with the project. Wrad 20:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

"A beagle retrieving rabbit" should be a "A Beagle retrieving a rabbit", but that aside "retrieving" presupposes that the animal hasn't made the kill, which given the Beagle's penchant for rabbit isn't a reasonable supposition. Yomangani ^talk 00:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Please don't delete other people's comments on Talk pages. Corvus cornix 02:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Your edit summary was a repeat of the heading - "What a sham". Corvus cornix 02:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Not a prob. Corvus cornix 02:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe you misinterpreted my comments. I did not denigrate all "keep" comments; rather there were some that needed rebuke. Your indignation is misplaced. And the "no consensus" outcome essentially has the "keep" outcome, so I do not know why you came to be in some sort of fury. — Kurykh 03:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh I see. Perhaps I should either be more clear or refrain from doing the same again in the future. Thanks for pointing that out. — Kurykh 03:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi! You voted for deletion of the article Estophobia. Are not the same arguments applicable to Russophobia as well?-- Mbuk 07:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi VanTucky. I know that this account has a low number of edits, but don't let that fool you. Please be specific about which BLP policy (the specific section and sentence) it is violating because right now I see none. Just claiming BLP violations is empty. Be specific and cite specifically what you are talking about. I am very familiar with Wikipedia policy. -- CGM1980 20:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Warning, you have made 3 reverts to the article in the past 24 hours. Be aware of the 3RR rule. While BLP violations are excluded from 3RR, your reverts do not fall under this rule as you have only made non-specific claims, and I see no violation. Bring this up with the BLP noticeboard as I think they will be more impartial. -- CGM1980 20:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Checkmarks and the like are incredibly annoying in debates and I will continue to remove them on sight if I see them. Sorry. --- RockMFR 21:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Just adding that so will I. I also find it worrying that you've ignored multiple suggestions by other users to stop. — Xezbeth 21:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, just some feedback about a review. I was reading over your comments on the gelding GAC review and I'm a little disturbed that you objected to images of a surgical procedure on the grounds of "taste". This is I recognise entirely subjective, but if you are reading an article on these procedures you shouldn't be be surprised if there is an image of what is involved. Indeed, good, clear images that illustrate a topic are highly-encouraged in Good Articles. Consequently, I really do not agree with your review on this point. However, as I say, this is an entirely subjective matter, but as such I don't think it should form part of an objective review.

P.S. Please don't see this as any sort of attack, I'm just trying to express my own point of view on this. All the best, Tim Vickers 19:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

hello! One thing I used to do sometimes, back when I was a GA reviewer, was to tell editors of a failed article that was almost ready that they ccould renominate the article when it was ready, then contact me immediately so I could take a look and (probably) immediately pass it... No worries! Ling.Nut 16:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

No worries! Ling.Nut

Hey, so today at Talk:Veganism I saw that you had questioned whether Criticism sections were actually "illegal" or not, and yes, in fact, they are. Per the manual of style (direct link to section here), separating positive and negative information is bad practice and should not be done.-- daniel folsom 22:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I saw you at the AfD for KFC. What are you doing away from guinea pig?!? Sometimes wiki is a small world, eh? the_undertow ^talk 23:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the article reference. There is a responsibility for an encyclopedia article on a lifestyle to publish risks associated with those lifestyles, given, of course that the references are of good quality, verifiable, and can be assessed by the reader. The Manual of Style objects to a "ghetto of criticism" and urges editors to interleave controversal points of view: "Vegans are motivated to design healthy diets that avoid, as far as is possible and practical, all forms of animal exploitation (CITES) However, many healthcare professionals have expressed concerns whether a comprehensively nutritional plan can be devised under the prohibitions that the vegan lifestyle calls for (CITES), which recent news reports seem to bear out (NEWS CITES)" You write; you know what this is: point, counterpoint. There's this, but watch out for that. In the hands of a mechanical writer, this can lead to maddeningly sing-song prose. Which is why, sometimes, Manual of Style fundamentalists have to be told that style guides are guides; the central aim remains simple and direct prose.

I've got some of a draft of my review in place; maybe I'm half a day away from finishing it. I think Veganism is a good article, but not entirely balanced. There's regional imbalance; I'm not sure that the full scope of this lifestyle as been expressed here; nutritional controversies dominate. I'm not a big fan of Bold-Revert-Discuss cycles because people who just would like to use the encyclopedia, thank you, find passages that inform one day, but are confused and muddled the next. Readers deserve a little peace; writers should hack out the drafts on talk subpages and change the article when consensus is in place. Take care — Gosgood 01:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Good work finding the image. It fits the section well. Later! Ling.Nut 11:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! :) Tim Vickers 22:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

While I disagree and believe thoroughly that pop-culture articles are inherently encyclopedic, I agree that the article doesn't stand a chance. We should pick the best of the best, get some ISBN's (I can help with that) and integrate them into the "as pets" section. Chubbles 23:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

However we do it, I'd like it to be in such a way that it won't just get deleted when the emphasis shifts from hunting down the stand-alone animal to poaching them from articles. They'll need to be fully integrated. Maybe we should come up with a list of the good ones at Talk:CGRP. Chubbles 00:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm making a prose version of an addition as we speak in my User:VanTucky/sandbox. feel free to list some ones you want in for sure on the talk. VanTucky ^(talk) 00:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll dig them up later. Chubbles 01:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

		The Paranormal Barnstar
		This Barnstar is hereby awarded for your assistance in bringing the parapsychology article to Good Article status. Nealparr 04:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Good is great! Still needs some work (referring to your comment on Annalisa's page), but it's definitely making progress to FA status. -- Nealparr ^{( talk to me)} 18:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Having just joined, it's quite pleasant to have someone welcome me. Especially after I looked at your personal page and saw what a good egg you are. I'm just poking around right now, getting my bearings, so to speak. But I agree with one of your points whole-heartedly. The free and relatively unfettered distribution of knowledge is a blessed thing. What little I have, I hope to bring here. JiggeryPokery 18:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 29	16 July 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Filling in with a new feature
Möller, Walsh retain seats; Brioschi elected	British agency cites Wikipedia in denying F1 trademark
Two new bureaucrats promoted	Wikipedian bloggers launch "article rescue" effort
Book review: The Cult of the Amateur	WikiWorld comic: "Charles Lane"
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 20:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Since you cast your vote in this AfD more articles have been added, you may wish to look at the added articles and check that your vote still matches the expanded AfD. The additional articles were added as they were similar to the article you voted on, however you may not agree and may wish to change your vote to match the expanded list. Darrenhusted 13:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I should have clarifed, I added three more articles and I wanted to be sure you have checked the added articles and still feel that your delete vote now applies to all four, not just the first one. I didn't want my additions to appear to be taking your delete vote and just using it to delete another three articles without your knowledge. Darrenhusted 17:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Any book/media reviews would probably need to be Wikipedia-related, as this week's review was; however, if you see a Wikipedia-related book, documentary, play, etc., it'd be great to have it reviewed. Just let me know when you find something to cover, so that Thespian and other contributors don't duplicate the review. Thanks for your interest. Ral315 » 20:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Dude, you look exactly like a certain ethnically-White thug in a 1977 Bruce Li movie, called the Fists of Bruce Lee. Lol. Bruce Li of course being the imitator of Bruce Lee. I hate to break it to you, but the other you totally got choked out in the end, despite being a bad-ass assassin. Hah.

Oh yeah, and I reverted Balthazarduju's edit in the intro to the Tang Dynasty. Hopefully he will refrain from reverting that (he's usually reasonable). If he does revert it, then we'll have a problem.-- PericlesofAthens 10:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

So, is there anything else with the Tang article that I need to do? It's kind of silent over there, and I'm twiddling my thumbs wondering what else I could possibly do to improve it and get it up to GA status.-- PericlesofAthens 20:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha. I've been away from my computer for a bit, and now I'm going to eat dinner. I will expand upon Chinese literature in a moment. In the meantime, there is already info on Chinese literature below the poetry part. Right below the info on the pharmaceutical materia medica published under Emperor Gaozong, I added info on building codes and technical treatises on architectural matters.-- PericlesofAthens 22:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been on my computer all day, doing more important things, but I noticed you haven't left any new messages on the GA review for Tang Dynasty. Is there still a reason that it's on hold? Let me know so I can get to work on whatever needs fixin.-- PericlesofAthens 19:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)