EronMain

Hi, I just saw you re added the persons list on the Quadriplegia article. Are you perhaps planning on sourcing them? Since I put the verify tag on there a long time ago (and forgot it for the rest) no one sourced them in that time. Which is kind of important, especially with living persons, see WP:BLP. I am not that interested in this article to source them myself (and have too slow internet access currently to do it anyway). If they stay unsourced, they have to go. Garion96 (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Many of those names are blue-linked and the articles they link to make it clear that the person is a quadriplegic. I'm not sure that it is necessary to provide a citation for their disability in the quadriplegia article if it is well referenced in the individual's main article. For some of these individuals, their disability is the reason for their notability. - Eron ^Talk 23:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

According to WP:LIST#References_for_list_Items it is necessary. Especially for living persons. A list is not dependent on the actual article. See also List of HIV-positive people where every entry is sourced. Garion96 (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

How about this Talk:Quadriplegia#Famous_persons. This way if an editor wants to source those entries it's easy to find. Garion96 (talk) 02:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

To clarify, what I was trying to point out on the talk page was that we have sufficient proof simply with the Nazi's own confessions. Playing "proof" games is usually fruitless, as revisionists usually either evade specifying what adequate proof consists of, or place the burden so high that they cannot find another historical event that could meet such proof. I'm writing here as the section editing is cutting off the end of the discussion, and loading the whole page is crashing my browser. As an aside, do you feel the compromise edit offered by richwales is adequately neutral? I commented on it, but no one else has, and I'm not sure if silence should be construed as "consensus", even though Igor seemed to think so. Cantankrus 16:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

This is making my head ache. I personally don't think the deniers are going to be satisfied with anything short of an article that simply regurgitates the IHR/Zundel line with no critical commentary. Of course, I have no interest in satisfying them. I personally think "debunk" is a perfect word. No one objects to its use in the James Randi article. He debunks pseudo-psychics; in the same way, Nizkor debunks pseudo-historians.

Still, I think there's a way to avoid using that word while still making it clear that this is what Nizkor does. Richwales proposed "a third group, typified by the Nizkor Project, responds by confronting Holocaust denial head-on, countering the arguments and claims made by Holocaust denial groups." I'd like to see something a bit stronger. Nizkor doesn't just "confront" Holocaust deniers; they point out the factual errors, inaccuracies, and misrepresentations in the claims that deniers make. Still, I think it is something that I can live with. - Eron ^Talk 21:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello, EronMain. As a prominent contributor to World War II, you may want to be aware that a request for comments has been filed about it. The RFC can be found by the article's name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found on Talk:World War II, in case you wish to participate. Thank you for your contributions. -- Krellis 01:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

As you have asked what it means, it means your help on the Reference Desks are appreciated. You are contributing to the sum of all human knowledge. I would have awarded you a barnstar, but I felt you might like the image better. :) --Parker007 15:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I do indeed like the image. Thanks. - Eron ^Talk 15:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

How the fuck do you know if it is or isnt biotch my stuff is helpful—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Twinkie09 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC). Sure ill keep it cool just tell me how u get to decide if its helpful or notReply

Well, let's see what you added to Power Soccer: "All teams from Indiana are awesome ( Sudden Impact, Circle City Rollers and Indy Storm)!! Kool-aid is an awesome playa ; ) and #14 is the best golie eva." What is the problem with it? Well, it isn't the sort of thing one expects to see in a encyclopedia. It isn't referenced. It seems to be a personal opinion. And it is ungrammatical. If you are serious about contributing, please see this, this, this, and this. - Eron ^Talk 21:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

well um #14 did win the best golie award so fact not opinion and Indiana is awesome because they've won everything you could ask everyone in Power Soccer reference powersoccerusa.com

Hi, I noticed you took a break for a while, and missed your good editing on Holocaust-related articles. I'm glad you're back. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 22:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Had to take a wikibreak due to some unfortunate personal circumstances, but you know how it is... you just can't stay away. - Eron ^Talk 01:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just wanted to drop you a line and say that I really like the image on your user page! Really nice shot! Dismas|^(talk) 15:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. That is one of my favourite places in the world. - Eron ^Talk 15:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I've nominated an article you worked on, 2008 Olympic Torch Relay, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the "hook" for the article at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created on April 27 where you can improve it if you see fit. Also, I think an image of the torch would be amazing to go on the main page, but it'd have to be freely licensed to be put on there. Ichibani 23:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. I doubt that there are free images of the torch; I think we can probably claim fair use but I don't know if that will do for the main page. - Eron ^Talk 01:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Nope, has to be freely licensed to go up there. Ichibani 02:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

thanks eron, i should have tried a few combinations of 'mufti', but hell i'm lazy, thanks again :) Perry-mankster 15:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

My pleasure. It turns out that Mufti did have a link to Mufti (dress), but it was vandalised out a week and a half ago. No one noticed until you asked the question, so, nice catch! - Eron ^Talk 15:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wouldn't think that someone would find vandalising a subject like 'mufti' execiting, but hey, whatever floats you boat, yo'all sure do move swift thou! :) Perry-mankster 15:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

well um #14 did win the best golie award so fact not opinion and Indiana is awesome because they've won everything you could ask everyone in Power Soccer reference powersoccerusa.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Twinkie09 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC).Reply

Please read WP:ABOUT and WP:NOT to get an idea about what we are trying to do here. In brief, the teams and players you are trying to add are not notable for the purposes of this encyclopedia. That doesn't mean they aren't good; it just means they are not well known enough in the world at large to merit mention.

If you are involved in the sport of Power Soccer - and it looks like you are - I would encourage you to improve that article by adding more general information about the sport. See the articles on wheelchair rugby or sledge hockey if you want an idea of the sort of information that would be suitable. I'd be happy to help you improve the power soccer article if you'd like. - Eron ^Talk 00:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm a little steamed that you made your comment to "funkatram" (me), about vandalism, a highly-ranked result on a google search for "funkatram"! Thanks a lot, buddy! (<<Sarcasm) It's all good, though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.154.135.10 (talk • contribs) 10:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Glad to be of assistance. Eron ^Talk 17:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your message about the merger with Paralympian of the year. I didn't think the content was sufficient to warrant its own article, and I'm certainly open to putting it in a more appropriate place (or, removing it all-together if that's best). Are there some other more appropriate articles on the Paralympics from a specific country's perspective? Thanks! Eliz81^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

The current level of coverage of Paralympic sport on Wikipedia is spotty at best. (Something I am v-e-r-y s-lo-w-l-y working on improving) so I'm not sure about appropriate articles. There isn't an article on US Paralympics, the governing body. I notice that the USOC award for USOC Team of the Year has an article, linked from the USOC page. It might be best to restore the Paralympian of the year article, perhaps renaming to USOC Paralympian of the year or some such, and then ensure that it is linked from the USOC page and any others. - Eron ^Talk 02:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I restored the article, renamed it to USOC Paralympian of the Year, removed it from the Paralympics page, and categorized the article. I wasn't sure where to place internal links to the article, I trust your judgment since you're familiar with the topic. Please let me know if there's anything else I can do to help. All the best, Eliz81^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have perfomed a web search with the contents of USOC Coach of the Year, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.usoc.org/39_12730.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 17:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Responded to on User talk:Coren - Eron ^Talk 17:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, no bot could hope to be smart enough to distinguish scène à faire material from prose. You did the right thing by just removing the tag. — Coren ^(talk) 17:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm having another go at a one-thing-at-a-time approach to editing the lead, beginning with whether or not the first paragraph should be exclusively geographic. Please look over how I've shown the views given so far, at the talkpage and ensure that yours is accurately shown by my treatment. Thanks. The goal, of course, is a definite result to build upon.
-- Lonewolf BC 19:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for all your hard work and time making sure the Canada article is factually correct and neutral. Regards, -- Jeff3000 02:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello: really, thank you for working towards a conciliatory version in the 'Canada' introduction. I do support substituting in one of the versions you have concocted; I've made edits to the deluxe version. However, I really don't really understand the ignorance and intransigence regarding what, through verifiable source matter, should be a simple affair. Quizimodo 17:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I assume that I am not one of the ignorant or intransigent... and that being said, I hear you. I've been dabbling a bit at World War II and there are similar issues there over what should be a simple matter (which countries are listed in the basic infobox). This is one of the challenges of Wikipedia: while the majority can usually reach a consensus, it only takes one or two editors on either side of an issue to undo it all. - Eron ^Talk 17:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

No, you don't seem to be one of those (though I have responded to your points), but some editors involved in the poll/editing fit one or both criteria. While I do support your recent concoctions, given the above, I do so 'grudgingly' because neither version clearly communicates that Canada became a federation/dominion in 1867. If you can consider that somehow without syntax getting awkward, great. In any event, thanks again. Quizimodo 17:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'll give it some thought. I agree that it is unsatisfactory saying that three provinces joined in 1867 without saying what it was they joined to form. But as you'll see in my latest on the talk page, I think it that the name of that which was formed is still open to debate, and I lean towards keeping things simple - if somewhat incomplete - in the lede. - Eron ^Talk 17:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks; I've responded. Perhaps, in this instance, it is better to keep things simpler -- but why? An encyclopedia, by design, is supposed to be a comprehensive compendium of information, not one that necessarily caters to the lowest common denominator. :) Quizimodo 17:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi there; I hope you're well. Might you reconsider your stance in the original poll, given your recent comments? Relatedly, I will address Soulscanner's essay after preparing a response dealing with germane points ... once I cool down. :) Mind you, I do support (I think) your most recent proposal, replacing 'self-governing' with 'federal' and including the diddy regarding the Statute of Westminster 9which deals with the 'self-governing' notion. Thanks anyway! Quizimodo 18:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your message, Eron! And thanks for your support, much appreciated!

Yes, you are correct, I have chosen to focus on the proposed new framework at the moment; btw if you feel like commenting on it/suggest/whatever, you are much welcome to do so here.

Yes, I am aware of the "pic problems", and that my revision was "finally" partly reverted (yet a small part of it went through). Personally I have chosen to let this matter be for now, as I fear further USSR changes of mine will be reverted on sight, because of these somewhat heated debates here: 1, 2 and 3. I believe the pic problems origin in the article text itself, and a better framework will most likely result in a better overall balance.

But if you feel like it, feel free to try to prune the images as you see fit. I can provide feedback to you, since I tried to think it through thoroughly. But if you don't feel like it, I don't blame you..:)

My warm regards, --Dna-Dennis 03:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Partly due to your message, I've now did some pruning of the pics on World War II with reasons stated in the edit summaries. Thanks again, my regards, --Dna-Dennis 17:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi again, Eron! I actually am a bit divided on the map/charts stuff. To sum it up:

Eastern Front maps: You are quite right that this is the only area that has battle maps, and this is an argument for removing them. But sadly, if we remove the Barbarossa map, the Invasion of the Soviet Union will lack an appropriate intro image, which IMO would be a shame. Another argument for the two Eastern front maps are that they are both rather informative; Operation Barbarossa was huge in many aspects, and Operation Bagration was also huge - just look at the number of troops involved and the areas they covered. I am divided though, but my vote goes for "keep" at the moment. I will however not bleed tears if they are removed later.

Charts: The downside of having no casualty charts in the section Casualties will be that that section in this case will be raw text with figures coupled with horrifying images. The charts provide IMO a visual view of the impact (I might be partial, since I personally made the piecharts). I like the idea and intention of the bar chart, even though it's a little bit massive to say the least. Maybe it can be done better? I could have a go at this later. Hmm, don't know - for now I think I vote for keeping the bar chart and replacing my military deaths piecharts with this one instead: Image:WorldWarII-DeathsByAlliance-Piechart.png - maybe this is better as it is more "overall"? Bu the piechart(s) should not be top-aligned, as they are now - the section should IMO start with text, and have piechart(s) to the right. My regards, --Dna-Dennis 23:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I still think the maps would be better in the main articles, but I take your point on Barbarossa. I'll see if I can find a good image to replace the map with before I do anything with it. I like the overall chart in place of the two we have now; it does a good job of demonstrating the overwhelming level of civilian casualties. I'll put that in place of the other two. I will also see if I can wrestle the bar chart down to a size that doesn't overwhelm the article.

Looking at the casualties section, I see two concentration camp pictures and one of Axis bombing. I think, for the sake of balance, it would be better to drop one of the two camp photos (probably the Ebensee one, as the Auschwitz picture gives a much more visceral image of the scope of that particular atrocity) and replace the Warsaw bombing picture with something from the Allied side - Dresden, perhaps, or Tokyo. I think we should also find a picture from Nuremburg or another of the war crimes trial for illustrative purposes. I think the image of high military commanders in the dock would put across well the shift in attitudes that the trials represented - enemy leaders tried under the law. - Eron ^Talk 00:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi again, Eron, and thank you very much for your latest opinions! I will soon reply to them on Talk:World War II, I just have to fix & nominate Image:USS Franklin list-700px.jpg as a Featured picture first. I was blown away when I examined it; I'm not kidding, I've seen thousands of WW2 photos (I have 2000+ from Operation Overlord) on my computer, and this photo is IMO a masterpiece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dna-webmaster (talk • contribs) 15:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. I actually made a start on modifying the Casualties images last night, but I ran into problems almost immediately. With that bar chart, I can't see a way to make it work; there just aren't enough words in the section to flow properly around the pictures. And I agree with you on the Frankiln picture. It's really something. - Eron ^Talk 15:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi again, Eron! Sorry for not responding until now, I was too tired yesterday after my research/campaign for the Franklin pic. I have responded to all your matters on Talk:World War II. My regards, --Dna-Dennis 21:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think you're one of the few editors on the Canada article that's actually worked to get the current discussion fleshed out, and I commend you on that. I think for the most part, those that would like the term dominion in the main text of the article would be fine with your proposal. I don't fully understand the other side, however. Better explaining the term lower in the text, in both the etymology and history sections would seem give the term a higher visibility than a passing reference in the lead. Regards, -- Jeff3000 02:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I also commend you for working towards a compromise. In response to J., however, I don't fully understand your side. And it's frankly not about visibility: it's about clarity as to what arose in 1867. I simply don't believe that recent proposals do that as well as the long-standing version, with some tweaks of course. :) Quizimodo 17:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think your version is much better than the current one and recommend you put it back on. The current version supported by Quizimodo is not the long-standing one. Regards, -- Jeff3000 18:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

So at least go to the version that was actually long-standing. Sticking with the current version that has dominion goes against the large majority of editors. Regards, -- Jeff3000 18:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Actually, also consult the second poll, where a majority seems to support inclusion. Reverting to the prior version (if any reversions need to made) will only prompt renewed, self-referential and perhaps redundant discussion about the inexactitude of the 4th sentence of the 2nd paragraph. And, with all due respect, Eron is not your proxy, J. Quizimodo 18:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Here's the long-standing version:

The lands have been inhabited for millennia by aboriginal peoples. Beginning in the late 15th century, British and French expeditions explored and later settled the Atlantic coast. France ceded nearly all of New France in 1763 after the Seven Years War. In 1867, Canada was formed by Confederation of four British North American colonies. A gradual process of independence from the United Kingdom culminated in the Canada Act 1982, severing the last vestiges of dependence on the British parliament.

Regards, -- Jeff3000 18:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've given up on the Canada article, and it's off my watchlist. When two editors, which are pushing a POV, can override consensus, and even reasonable offers of compromise, there's something wrong. It's not worth the headache. Regards, -- Jeff3000 00:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi again, Eron!

I just wonder if you read my latest posts on Talk:World_War_II#Pictures_Revision_2_-_Asia.2C_Pacific.2C_Aftermath_.26_Casualties? I found a (probable) Barbarossa pic and would really like to hear your opinion on the WW2 talk page (I'm not certain enough myself about it, so it would be interesting to hear what you have to say). I hope you also noticed that I found your German POW pic excellent, and replaced the Bagration map with it. Regards, --Dna-Dennis 01:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC). (PS. When I saw your pan of Lake Wanaka on your userpage, I immediately downloaded it - it's really beautiful! DS.)Reply

I did see it; didn't comment until you reminded me as I got a bit sidetracked with the restructuring and some back-and-forth on the lead of another article I'm working on. I've answered now. And thanks for the compliment; I'd like to take credit but I was just lucky enough to be in a beautiful spot on a beautiful day. - Eron ^Talk 01:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I didn't even search for the flight deck article...my apologies. Thanks for your help. :) --Doctorcherokee 09:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

"Some say it was, some say it wasn't; for the sake of neutrality let's just call it what it was called"

Good man. I have fallen foul.

"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster."

I monkeyed with the article (Pool noodle). Let me know what you think. Was there something in particular you wanted to add to it? This is a high-importance swimming-culture-Americana article on a par with the Hula-Hoop, Right? ---- Milkbreath (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

What I wasn't sure about is what to say they are made of... EVA doesn't read quite right to me - it sounds like a softer material. While pool noodles are flexible, they aren't made of a material that I would imagine being used as padding in my ski boots. I think polyethylene foam is more likely. (As to the rest of the article, I think it needs a picture of a noodle in use; time to go see if I have one.) - Eron^Talk 20:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

...Sorry for my hysterics on the talk page of the article Holocaust Denial. They weren't needed and I'm sorry. No hard feelings? Please forgive. FitzCommunist (talk) 16:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Nope, basically it was a "the comments showing up on the news / press sites aren't looking too good and it's not long until we get the cracks on Wikipedia - in short, it was a prevent a lot of revert work. Your addition was excellent! The protection is preventative from my past experience w/ these types of events -- Tawker (talk) 22:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading Image:Murderball poster.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading Image:Torino Paralympic Mascot.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 02:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks for uploading Image:London 2012 Paralympic.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I have reviewed Holocaust denial‎ and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are several issues that need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left this message on your talk page since you have significantly edited the article (based on using this article history tool). Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix with the assistance of multiple editors. I have also left messages on the talk pages of a few other editors and a related WikiProject to spread the workload around some. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please read Bowlover's forum. I have been swamped today with series of posts. Sentriclecub (talk) 23:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have responded here. Sentriclecub (talk) 01:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am not looking to argue with someone has served, I have tremendous respect for my friends who have served. But just for completion. The first quote is a plea, the second quote also had the word please in front of it but clipped out, the third quote I was referring to the group of editors lead by Ten_of_trades (and I thought included kineau), the fourth quote was trying to explain what happens if I have permission to delete Kineau's comment but what if Rowlover didn't give me permission to delete the response to Kineau's. In other words, I'd have to go to every editor who responded to a presumptuous revert in addition to the main one. Also, to let you know I fully disagree with The fact that you then went to the editors in question and explained yourself, and that they did not protest, does not mean that this removal was acceptable. if you see, I gave him a clickable link showing my edit of his post, there's no bait-n-switch implied that I got his permission to modify only 50% or less, but keep at last 1%. I don't remember whose talk page it was on, but I replied that the scope of my permission was not obvious per the words only. It was ambiguous, it doesn't really say if I have full permission or partial permission, however it is entirely clear since I gave him the clickable link here copied from his page. If you click the link, it shows my revision, and it makes undeniable specification of the scope of my permission. And he answered and said it was okay. Without clicking the link, its ambiguous. The link was there, not hidden, not buried deep in some legalese at the bottom of my message.

What I perceived as bait was the way you are using slight variations to reword what was done. You are not saying something which is untrue, but it can be read that way by others. This statement... The fact that you then went to the editors in question and explained yourself, and that they did not protest, does not mean that this removal was acceptable. is 100% true, and if I were to disagree with it, would be the end of my logical propositioning. Additionally, it reads like I did not seek their permission. The only reason I clipped it first, was to show them the clickable link, and to prevent response buildup. I learned a little about both users and had 100% confidence that they were good-karma people. I left your post intact, because I do not know you well enough to gauge your intentions. If I ever delete someone's post without permission, then it means my account was hijacked. The only right I had to presume permission to delete Rowlover's post was that I had already gotten permission from Kineau to delete his post but someone went behind me and said I was disruptive so they reverted me. This must be taken in my favor, since it stemmed from someone else's mistake. Its a complicated point to make especially with someone who I don't know their acceptable methods to communicate a proposition.

I am simply pointing out to you that your removal of talk page posts is contrary to the guidelines. How about I keep the posts? I'm not really trying to look out for just one party. I think that with your recent interests in the matter, it is now best to not remove the comments. If this matter is about whether or not I accept wikipedia's policy when quoted on it, I'm absolutely happy to oblige. What about the other parties? If they read this, they'll know I tried to keep the matter from growing, and will agree that I now should leave the posts in given that the situation is no longer the same. I will copy this right over to the discussion area. Thanks and hope you don't feel I was making an issue. I simply deleted posts with permission. No one complained, everything was fine. Now, you have given a well reasoned proposition, to which I find it no purpose to argue against. Anyone else, and it may be a different story, but I feel you have been very fair and great to deal with, and I have full honor for your military background. Sentriclecub (talk) 02:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

You may be wasting your time here. Numerous people have tried to engage this editor to explain actions, or respond to questions without success. This editor either cannot or will not use proper edit summaries, and the typical reaction to challenges via their talk page is to revert that edit. After that, the usual pattern of hundreds of piddling little edits and redirects continues unabated. If the official name is the name you were using before Kanabekobaton redirected, change it back. If Kanabekobaton continues to revert without explanation, take it to WP:ANI. This is a continued pattern of behavior from an unresponsive editor. DarkAudit (talk) 16:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I went ahead and reverted his edit anyway with a stern warning about his pattern of behavior. I doubt it will do any good, though. The page that was redirected to is significantly longer than what I reverted to, so a merge of the two may be in order. DarkAudit (talk) 16:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Eron,

I have responded to your comments on my talk page.

Neelix (talk) 14:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please see the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought

I have also added the following to the olympic page. {{notaforum}}

None of the posts are removed have to do with improvement of the article. It is merely talk ireelevant to IMPROVING the article. Lihaas (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Previously I had thought the same too. But on another article when I queried the relevance it was just outright deleted with citations for wikipedia policy. Lihaas (talk) 13:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

It is not BECAUSE it happened to me. It's because I learnt from it. The removal was backed by citations. I can pull back up if you want. But, i'm not trying to get back with some vengeance or whathaveyou. just being consistent ;) Lihaas (talk) 08:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Just to quote from the not a forum dialogue box. "Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article." i think it's high time to start cracking the whip? Olympics has off-topic, but you should all see the South Ossetia conflict talk page. Lihaas (talk) 15:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I thought it was, but wanted to underscore what a jerk that guy was. I'm very uncomfortable with the picture he added, and it's going to go (cute pictures of kids with Down Syndrome fostering the worst kind of stereotypes) as soon as the dust settles a bit. Thanks for the good word, and keep fighting the good fight. Drmargi (talk) 23:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

You pretty much captured my suspicions. I'd planned to review some of his recent edits, since his talk page didn't tell me much. Drmargi (talk) 23:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, but I just restored the "Docking in orbit" thread that you deleted from the Science ref desk. I don't agree that this is a troll - my take is that this is a perfectly serious, interesting and ref-desk-appropriate question, although asked in a slightly humorous way. Gandalf61 (talk) 20:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Eron. Ideally each sport should have both a "Paralympic X" and an "X at the Paralympics" article. After thinking about it, I decided the the current articles should probably stay at the "Paralympic X" titles, with stuff relating specifically to the Paralympic Games moved into new articles at "X at the Paralympics". I just went ahead and reverted my page moves. Peace, — jwillbur 06:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

For the record, I'd hestitate to call it a case of 'back up' – someone might misinterpret that as evidence of some sort of clique, cabal, or conspiracy – but rather a 'calls-'em-like-I-sees-'em'.

I just hate to see a good editor who is working in good faith and in compliance with policy getting kicked for his trouble. Cheers! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

My thoughts? I think Wikipedia is seriously flawed in many ways. You know how they say that nobody can tell you're a dog on the internet? Well, there are those who think nobody can tell they're mentally unbalanced and pushy and a crusading nutbar. If I'm not the one in the disagreement with the common-sense realistic outlook, then I need my head examined instead of them. The pushiest, most determined whacko wins every time, and I'm about ready to turn vandal and lambaste Wikipedia up and down Usenet to anybody who'll listen. Wikipedia is peopled mostly by cranks and advertisers and power-trippers who can go to the place they're carrying the encyclopedia in a handbasket for all I care. And don't even get me started on the semi-literate hobbyists and their dogged defense of their language mistakes, not to mention the nationalistic ESLers and their insistence on native-language placenames and 35-letter alphabets—I thought I knew how to spell Hawaii.

Whew! Thanks. Been meaning to vent for a while now. About the refdesks, the next step is to start keeping a personal dossier of diffs delineating the problem, and take that to the different mediation thingies within Wikipedia in the hope that you're not the only sane person who can both read and think in this thing some call an encyclopedia but which is really mostly a compendium of video game characters and minor footballers. Sorry, but I guess I'm not done venting. What I'm trying to say is that I hope somebody makes an issue of the defiance of the guidelines we're seeing on the reference desks, but that I'm too emotional, misanthropic and lazy to do it myself. I'll probably just continue to be a pain there from time to time. --Milkbreath (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

What do you think about stigmata?Do you agree that there can can be the kind where a person just feels pain,all of the time,in specific places? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelsfullofgrace (talk • contribs) 22:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I agree with the definition of stigmata shown on the stigmata page here: "Stigmata are bodily marks, sores, or sensations of pain in locations corresponding to the crucifixion wounds of Jesus." So pain in specific places - with no marks or bleeding - could be considered stigmata, if the locations were associated with the crucifixion wounds. I also think that it important that the stigmatic herself believe that the pain is a manifestation of the wounds of Jesus. Stigmata need to be associated with a more general religious feeling along the lines of religious ecstasy. - Eron^Talk 22:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your assitance. I need some help as I am a new user and do not fully understand many issues reagrding editing my pages. In Zakoora And Tengpora Massacre page I have as you know few problems, one regarding POV and another regarding a non working link. The link of this "March 1, 1990: When 47 civilians were massacred for Azadi by Mir Faheem Aslam on 28 Feberuary 2007" does not work on the web site of www.greaterkashmir.com. I had posted a bloggers saved version of that news item but it is not regarded as relieable source. Please help me to resolve the issues.(Kashmirspeaks (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)).Reply

I have tried to find some neutral sources for the article and I will continue to look into it over the next couple of days. - Eron^Talk 21:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Eron, just want to thank you for bringing some balance to the flamboyantly evil thread "bark" thingy on the humanities desk. It was calm and clear and helped me with my response. Btw, that image on your user page is breathtaking. What beauty. Cheers, Julia Rossi (talk) 11:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 04:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. :) Good luck with the new tool, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

This looks good on your user page. I'm glad you found it useful. I'm sort of thinking the Holocaust infobox should exist in an alternative form as a navbox at the end of the page. See Rumbula massacre for an example of an end navbox. I'm not really very knowledgeable about Kristalnacht, so I can't give any substantive criticism.Mtsmallwood (talk) 19:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I thank you for your support. I didn't mean my rebuttal on the "personal attack" as a challenge to the Ref Desk regulars, but merely as a factual explanation as to why I wasn't going to push the matter further. There was some commentary on the relevent talk page to the effect that we should just ignore what appears to be trolling. This was almost buried in the IP's barrage of self-justification. I have no trouble not feeding the content aspect, or even in not renewing my objections to the IP's attempts at wide-eyed innocence, but I do have a problem with unfounded accusations based on a complete (disingenuous?) misreading of what I wrote. I will still stay out of the matter, but I do appreciate your understanding. Thank you. // BL \\ (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. I was a little disappointed that the OP's deletion of comments went unreverted for so long, especially when the good faith removal of questions that violate the RefDesk guidelines seems to always occasion reams of debate on the talk page. Frankly, I think we could do with being a little more swift to remove questions that aren't suitable for the Desk - and that includes questions that seem intended only to incite debate. - Eron^Talk 17:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

If this had happened later in the day, the REF Desk response might have been quicker and wordier. That is the "good faith" thought I will carry away. Thanks again. // BL \\ (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for moving the page and putting the correct title in place for the show. 76.67.181.177 (talk) 09:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

for the quiet remark. I misunderstood what you were doing. the rest we can discuss... Telaviv1 (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I was editing a category and your sandbox showed up in it. I don't know if you are still using it, but I've made the category change there anyway. I've also disabled the categories so it doesn't show up anywhere else. I hope you don't mind. Moonraker12 (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

As this proposal has recieved some support from you, I wondered if you thought there was enough support to start the project? al.is.ta.ir.jh ta.lk co.nt 15:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC) _*This user will be away for about two weeks, so don't expect a quick response to any comments that you leave. Reply

  Hello EronMain! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 3 of the articles that you created are Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to these articles, it would greatly help us with the current 139 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 07:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Quatchi.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 15:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Type of Disability and Disability Class and Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Paralympics. --Kasper2006 (talk) 07:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi, congratulations on such a huge GA. I have nominated it for Did you know, which will hopefully result in the article appearing on the main page. The link is Template:Did you know nominations/2012 Summer Paralympics. Best, Matty.007 13:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Regarding your removal of cross-posted stuff in a medical article, I removed the same text from Patient safety, Stapled hemorrhoidopexy, Hepatectomy and Hysterectomy.

I tried to salvage some stuff for Patient safety but the only "good" source was about questions that you should ask to your doctor.

As far as I am concerned, this looks like spam for doctella.com and one of its members (the doctor that is mentioned in the added text). --Enric Naval (talk) 18:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Do you feel comfortable if we remove reference to doctella.com which is a free website. --User:ppydr — Preceding undated comment added 20:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Eron, thanks for the update. We believe patient safety is a key issue that anyone reading about surgery should be aware of. patient safety and checklists save lives. You are right that it makes sense to consolidate detailed information about patient safety into the main article about patient safety. I will add content to the patient safety article.

Hi there. Do you review articles for GA status? Jonas Vinther (talk) 10:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hey,eron, i posted another question in the miscellaneous ref desk. if you don't want to answer my new question, that's alright with me.24.207.79.50 (talk) 23:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi EronMain, I have cited the either the original 1860 census documentation https://www.census.gov/prod/www/decennial.html or the summary of some of the data at civil-war.net. http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html

1) for Civil-war.net the data there supports the 26% and 31% of families who were slaveholders in the 15 slave states and the 11 Confederate states. The use of the word southern is not clear as to what states they are. There were slave states and there were confederate states. That is how they should be treated. Are southern states the 15 slave or the 11 confederate?

2) for all the other % and info I have provided, from the US Govt, I have downloaded as a PDF the original 1860 census data recapitulation of the slaveholders and state: A) by state/county B) in aggregate nationally/states. I have inputed this data into a spreadsheet and using the Fogel & Engermann breakpoints, that said a small slaveholder owned 1-14 slaves, medium 15-49 slaves, and large ≥ 50 slave, I computed the totals and % for all 15 slave states, 4 border states, 11 slave states in total and sub-grouped into the 1st 7 and 2nd 4. I can prove my numbers by showing the original 1860 documents and the spreadsheet that I show the tabulations of the data.

3) some of the data currently on wikipedia is not supported by the data in the 1860 census.

Example

Current Wiki-The distribution of slaves among holders was very unequal: holders of 200 or more slaves, constituting less than 1% of all US slaveholders (fewer than 4,000 persons, 1 in 7,000 free persons, or 0.015% of the population) held an estimated 20–30% of all slaves (800,000 to 1,200,000 slaves).

My tabulation- Actually per the 1860 census, 319 slaveholders owned ≥ 200 slaves totaling approx 95,000 slaves, almost 2.5% of the almost 4,000,000 slaves.

Slaves per 200-299 300-499 500-999 ≥ 1,000 Alabama 24 10 - - Arkansas 6 - 1 - Delaware - - - - Florida 2 - - - Georgia 23 7 1 - Kentucky 1 - - Louisiana 63 20 4 - Maryland - 1 - - Mississippi 28 8 1 - Missouri - - - - N Carolina 11 4 - - S Carolina 56 22 7 1 Tennessee 6 1 - - Texas 2 - - - Virginia 8 1 - - Total 230 74 14 1

This show 319 slaveholders owning ≥ 200 slaves.

If I take the 319 multiplied by the max slaves per group I get 120,000 slaves. I used the Avg and came up with 95,000. So there is no way that the claim that holders of 200 or more slaves owning 800,000 to 1,200,000 slaves is true.

I cited the 1860 census docs that anyone can go in and get themselves, where the current wiki data is not even cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.157.243 (talk) 01:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Eron, you had stated "You seem to have been doing original research in analyzing this data.". I am not doing original research as I am not doing a census or interpreting data that may or may require the use of an opinion. The 1860 census data is the reliable source. The Slaveholder and Slave schedules and the totals by county, state and number of slaves owned are the historical/factual data from the US Govt census bureau. All I am doing is adding them up and sorting them. The only "choices" I am making is:

1) to group the 15 slave states together, excluding the Utah, Nebraska and DC data as it is immaterial as the number of slaves in these 3 territories is less than .1% of the total and the common accepted practice is to look at the 15 slave states.

2) to group the 11 slave states that formed the Confederacy together.

Additionally one could group the 4 border states that did not secede together, the 1st 7 confederate states (deep south) together and the 2nd 4 confederate states (upper south) together. All of these 5 groupings are used by historians and are commonly accepted.

3) to group the slaveholders into 3 groups. Generally historians group the large planter class as owning 50 or more slaves into one group. Some historians group the lower group at 1-15 or at 1-20. The historians Robert Fogel and Stanley Engerman define large planters as those owning over 50 slaves, and medium planters as those owning between 16 and 50 slaves. So using their groupings I created 3 Groups of Slaveholders: Small 1-14, Medium 20-49 and Large ≥ 50. These are used by historians and commonly accepted. Additionally the 1860 Census tabulated Slaveholders in groups that are easy to group wholly into these three groups.

So you see I am not doing original research. I am taking historical census data and simply tabulating it into groups that are commonly used by historians when discussing slavery in the US right before the American Civil War.

I would like to point out that the citation of "THE SIXTEEN LARGEST AMERICAN SLAVEHOLDERS FROM 1860 SLAVE CENSUS SCHEDULES Transcribed by Tom Blake*, April to July 2001" is flimsy at best. Who is Tom Blake? Is he an authoritative figure on the subject? I am not one, but I am willing to show the original 1860 census schedules and my tabulations of them that support the data in the groupings. The citation does not show any schedules to support it's claim. Just because it is hosted by rootsweb which is part of the ancestry.com community does not make it legitimate. This is not from a historian, was not published in a book or a journal or newspaper of repute. So why is this flimsy citation allowed to support a claim, that anyone with a few hours to tabulate the 1860 census data would see is false?

How can I upload the support to someone at wikipedia with the authority to proof and verify the historical data that supports the groups data?98.220.157.243 (talk) 06:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Hello! Your submission of William Dempster at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Clarityfiend (talk) 09:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Alex Shih (talk) 07:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they affect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take no more than 1-2 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.

Survey Link: http://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9S3JByWf57fXEkR?Q_DL=56np5HpEZWkMlr7_9S3JByWf57fXEkR_MLRP_2f87buUrq1Vlue1&Q_CHL=gl

I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.

Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 23:16, 6 April 2018 (UTC)Reply