Weregerbil

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

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! — Graibeard 12:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your concern about this item. The IS group is a serious group of intellectuals and scientists that has met for over 20 years to discuss issues of science, technology, and culture. It started at Haskins Laboratories and Yale University in New Haven. The topics discussed over the years at the group have had a profound influence on scientific directions of those who attend the group and their related research groups and institutions. The website that began recently documenting the group's activities is not run by me and I have no control over its content. However, the light-hearted approach that it takes (humour, references to beer, etc.), are intended to reflect the spirit of the "IS group" which is a light-hearted one. Although the group deals with serious issues of science and technology, it tries not to take itself too seriously. However, it is not simply a chat and beer drinking group (though there is nothing wrong with that), and has as much credibility as other groups documented on Wikipedia. The item was added because numerous requests have been received over the years about the group (which is informal) and about how informal groups such as this have helped to shape the history of science. As indicated in its description, recent books have begun to document such informal history of science. It is important to add to the encyclopedic documentation of such history by providing information about this and other similar groups where and when possible. Wikipedia is already doing so and plays an important role in interactive documentation of history and science. The "IS group", and others such as "The Reality Club" the "Homebrew Computer Club" are an essential part of the history of science and technology. I am member, chair, or fellow of a number of reputable scientific societies. I founded this group many years ago and continue to participate in its activities. My credibility and seriousness as a scientist can be sourced and established on Wikipedia and in other documented locations, including journals, news stories, websites, etc. I strongly feel that documenting such groups helps our understanding of the informal networks that create the intricate tapestry of our current approaches to science, technology, and culture. This is what Wikipedia is about. Ddp224 13:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

This is in regards to your comment at Oklahoma, I believe it passes the test and as a consequence I've removed it. Very few external links are useful, and unless we're ruthless linkspam will only devalue wikipedia. If you have any doubts as to a users intention it pays review their current contributions, in this case that's mostly what they had been adding in their previous edits (as well as spamming their favourite hungarian site to Linux). It's also worth reviewing their edits to continue the clean up process. Keep up the good work. — Graibeard 12:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Dear Mr. «Weregerbil» kindly refrain from vandalising the Laval page or I will have to report you. History, and the TRUTH are permitted on Wikipedia. What I have added is legitimate, sorry you do not agree but that is TOO BAD for you.

John Adams for Rick Blatter

If you think I am vandalising, you know what to do (when you get unblocked). For any third parties reading this: check out the persistent Rick Blatter political spam on Laval, Quebec and make up your own mind. Weregerbil 12:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Dear Mr. «Weregerbil» kindly refrain from deleting section Different Security systems in the Security page because it is not spam and does not damage or effect the article in a negative way. If it does not seem fit because it is not complete, that is because I have not had time to finish with when you keep deleting it! It is perfictly legit and no one else is deleting it.

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. 198.166.48.219 16:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

The preceding "test" template was inserted due to a disagreement over external links in Security. It is my opinion that the links are spam. The two editors adding the links disagree: Ice-Evil (talk | contribs); 198.166.48.219 (talk | contribs). Diff showing links.

I suggest you actually try the links before making decisions. For if you had explored the links you would have found that they displayed a veraity of security systems and more would would be added to momentarly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.166.48.219 (talk • contribs)

Hi. I don't know if you're really new or just a new user ID of an existing person but I see you're finding a whole bunch of vandalism. Nice job! You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism and follow those procedures to warn vandals and/or get them blocked.  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 22:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

You're probably right about not sending a note for every one - but I still do. If for no other reason than to let them know it's been caught and reverted. Anyway, you know about Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism now so my job is done! Personally, I try not to get sucked into fighting vandalism because it's too addictive and, like you said, just feeds into more vandalism. There's so much, it could turn into a full-time job by itself.  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 13:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

It restored vandalism over a good version! - Jmabel | Talk 03:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, you've used Template:Spam on User talk:200.19.48.34 by copying the template text there, but doing so places the user's page under Category:User_warning_templates. Instead, you can use the template by typing {{subst:spam}} on that page. Regards. Shawnc 11:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for smiting all that link spam on the Spyware and Adware articles. Reyk 06:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Actually, my knowledge of the math has become a little rusty. You might try to ask Michael Hardy, who wrote a lot on Statistics. Cheers, J heisenberg 11:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Could you give an explanation of the following? On the article Primitive Baptist, an anonymous editor removed certain links, which I put back. They were removed again and I added them back. Later you removed them and added this note: "rv linkspam 'cleverly' hidden as 'rv POV edits". Would you please explain why these particular links are "linkspam"? It appears curious to me that external links that present the viewpoints of certain types of Primitive Baptists mentioned in the article have been left, while external links that present other views have been edited out.?? That seems point of view related to me, but perhaps I just don't understand. If there are better links that can be provided, I'm all for it. But if these are being edited because someone only wants one view of Primitive Baptists linked, there is something rotten in Denmark. Perhaps you did not check the history carefully. Perhaps I have no idea what "linkspam" is. Thanks. - Rlvaughn 04:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

The discrimination against Pastafarian religion is not a joke. --8bitJake 00:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

I'm fairly new to contributing to Wikipedia, but I don't understand your policies.

I added a link to a new public website with Eastern European photos, ee-photo.com and you removed it, classifying it as spam. Am I missing something?

It is my new website, but it's not a personal website, it's a gallery with people being able to view and add photos. It's not a profit website, we have no advertising on the website. I have nothing to gain from it, so how is it spam?

I wanted to share the new website with people, so they can see photos of Eastern Europe, which is exactly why I added it. It's not false advertising, it's not spam. I think it's a perfectly legitimate link for Wikipedia users to use at their own leisure. What's wrong with that? And even if you disagree with me on that, I've seen so many other websites listed that are in the same position as mine, so why are they allowed to stay?

Thanks for your time, I'd appreciate a reply very much.

Sergei y 06:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Can you tell me why the ee-photo.com link was removed from the Eastern European article?

It's been removed recently by another person because they believed it was spam, and once I discussed it with them, they checked the Wiki Spam guidelines, apologozed and allowed me to put it back up. Now, you take it off once again. Sergei y 06:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Here is a quote:

Actually, after reading Wikipedia:Spam, it looks like your links aren't considered spam, because they're not commercial. About talk pages, you can chose to either leave comments here or on my talk page. Once again, sorry about that. --Khoikhoi 02:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Sergei y 06:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I just don't understand what's wrong with a link to photos? It's useful for the users. Plus, I've seen many other pages which have links to similar photo galleries.

Sergei y 14:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please don't remove it. I understand this is your opinion, but I don't agree with it. I've consulted other people, and the Wikipedia guidelines, and it isn't breaking any rules.

As for your comments:

- the article only has two links, it's not a link farm.

- I'm not saying that this page is the most important link for Eastern Europe, but unfortunately nobody has added any others. I think a photo gallery is a good resource for users who want to know more about Eastern Europe - "remember a picture says a thousand words". But I will try my best to find more good links for Eastern Europe.

Sergei y 01:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

You asked whether you should remove completed (or redirected) entries from the list. I usually like to wait a couple of hours or a day until I remove a listing because somebody might be interested in the fate of the article. However, I think it is perfectly fine to remove an article that you have dealt with if you provide a decent edit summary. (I have done a lot of housekeeping at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English recently, and nobody has complained yet, so it seems to be okay). Happy editing, and thank you for your help! Kusma (討論) 04:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Schildt.a menat that the math-related articles that DYLAN LENNON have interwiki-linked to ja.wikiedia lately do not exist on the Japanese Wikipedia, not that the figures or the concepts that those articles are about do not exist at all. Saintjust 01:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

A reminder that biographies that do not assert significance of the subject can be speedily deleted: WP:CSD. enochlau (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello Weregerbil. Thankyou for removing the vandalism on my userpage. Regards, Blnguyen 02:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Another thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page, I very much appreciate it. Thanks for all your hard work. --Hansnesse 02:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I also thank you for reverting (very quickly) the vandalism on eliminative materialism. I just don't understand why Wikipedia still accepts anonymous edits. --Kripkenstein 03:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

You should look again, I never removed, just moved it slightly. --210.54.12.72 06:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Echoing everybody else here, thanks for reverting my userpage vandalism. -Colin Kimbrell 14:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, you're probably right, but I didn't look into it. I just saw that he was a new editor, and was doing some massive edit warring. I blocked for 24 hours, but if he continues, he'll get a longer block, and if he's someone else, he may be blocked indefinitely. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 13:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for looking after the article. User:GrahamDouglas appears to be a sockpuppet of User:Beucephalia, if it comes to banning. Choess 06:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Weregerbil,

Listen, don't let yourself get too drawn into this argument with our friend Striver. He's just spinning his wheels. The article will be deleted once an admit gets a look at it. Arguing with him only fuels the fire. Thanks for your understanding. Bobby1011 15:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey no problem. I understand what you mean. I feel compelled to loose my civility and argue the point ad nauseaum, by it serves no real purpose. A the moment, he is the raving lunatic, and we're maintaining civility, which will go a long way for us. Your interpretation of the term Conspiracy theory is to my native english speaking knowledge correct. Don't worry about striver, he types horrid english.

By the way, what is your native language? Bobby1011 15:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

When you prodded Captain Useless, it was actually the second time it'd been prodded. So as a contested deletion I've sent it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Captain Useless, if you'd like to comment. NickelShoe 15:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand your comment. My last change was to finish up a fix of a vandalism. Before that I improved the explanation of the serious meaning of the thought experiment. I did notice that the history was unusually hard to follow. Perhaps you miss-attributed something. David R. Ingham 21:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

The history does look like I restored the vandalism instead of the original link. I don't understand this, as I checked by following the link from "Show preview" before saving the edit. David R. Ingham 22:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Just wanted to explain further. I mean no offense and I understand the points that you are making entirely, I just think it's superfluous to make statements like:

• "(no fair depicting Mohammed in your basket! Must wear a burqa when weaving outside!)"; and,
• "Are these people Muslims because they really are or because they live in countries where they are likely to be beheaded for not acting like one?"

I understand that these comments were made in a tongue-in-cheek fashion to bolster your argument, but some people may view these comments as being inflammatory, which is why I commented on civility. I note that this is the 2nd AfD on this page, with a related AfD on Muslim athletes that was very heated. No offense to you at all. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C   02:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

You don't have to, of course, but I noticed on User:Dragons flight/AFD summary that a bot counts bold "merge" "delete" etc. so if you want it to count them correctly, if you change a vote by striking it out (I saw you'd done this on one of Striver's hadith AfDs), you might want to also remove the 's. I made a suggestion on the talk page there that it make note of strikeouts, though. Esquizombi 22:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please comment on my rfc Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jersey Devil--Jersey Devil 22:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Details of a book on offshoring by Prof. Erran Carmel and Paul Tjia appear as references. Why not allow inclusion of Abstract of a new book by Mohan Babu "Offshoring IT Services : A framework for managing outsourced projects" (McGrawHill India) http://www.offshoringmanagement.com/theBook.htm?

Loved your comment ("may I have my nekkid girlz without spam please."). Made me burst out laughing. I've been removing some of the latest spam in the database section myself. Wanted to let you know that the second to last one you removed is actually not spam. I originally posted it because it is the only comprehensive adult image and movie database out there not dripping with ads. I've discussed this with other wikipedia editors and they agree. Even the rest that point to Wikipedia articles about sites are, in my opinion, spam, because they are blatantly commercial. But, I've left them alone. Thanks again for the laugh. Coolmojito 13:15, 14 March 2006 (PST)

This is not productive. Thank you. Rob Church 21:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I noticed your involvement in the discussion and your revision of the article creator's illegal closure of the AfD discussion, and I agree that reverting it was the right thing to do, but I'm curious how all this transpired in the first place. As you can see, the article has been deleted, so technically the discussion can't continue any longer (unless an administrator decides to restore it on the grounds of sabotage). What I would like to know is why an administrator deleted it in the first place. How could he or she not have noticed that: a) The article was closed by someone other than an administrator, and b) That the discussion was nowhere near the proper minimal closing date of five days after the start of the AfD discussion.

Furthermore, what do you think might have been the creator's motive for declaring Delete as the final decision? None of this makes much sense to me: the hoaxer willingly has his article which he has been fighting to keep for a while deleted, and an administrator wrongly and prematurely deleted the article for some strange reason.

Should we just leave the discussion as-is until an administrator sorts it out in a few days? --Spring Rubber 00:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please comment on my rfc Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jersey Devil--Jersey Devil 22:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I noticed your messages got shorter as you progressed through the Family Tree AfD's - did you get as bored as I did of seeing so many pointless articles? :P Green Giant 09:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, realize that the Canadian Army redirects to Land Forces, wondering what your reasoning was for removing the link. Just curious, as this link is the only practicable one that allows the reader to delve further into the Land Component/Army Bridesmill 16:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the quick lesson about placing external links and writing pages for inclusion. I've learnt that wikipedia (or weregerbil) allows:

Pages about commericial organisations but only if they are already large and well established (ie 'noted' X times on google) External commercial links if the page has text about the 'key term' on it (even if its a page of spammy text that isnt written well)

Some great resource though! Category:Sexual slang and I can see how many of these are deemed suitable whereas my page isn't.....no fun in looking up small software developers...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluidcreativity (talk • contribs)

You brought up an important question, other than being the great granddaughter of Theordore Roosevelt, what else qualifies Joanna Sturm as a candidate for a Wikipedia article?

• Wikipedia gives some guidance on "notability," saying the following:
• "A topic has notability if it is known outside of a narrow interest group or constituency, or should be because of its particular importance or impact. It is an extension of the notion of prominence for biographical articles. It differs, however, from fame and importance; while all articles on "famous" and "important" subjects are notable, not all notable subjects are famous or important."

• The subjects Theodore Roosevelt and his highly controversial daughter, Alice Roosevelt Longworth are subjects of intense historical scrutiny. In the past 30 years, no less than 20 major books have been written about TR. In the past 30 years, no less than 6 books have been written about Alice Roosevelt.

In virtually EVERY major work on EITHER of these Roosevelts, Sturm has a significan resource. As of the 21st Centurym she remains the most valuable living historic resource on Alice Roosevelt Longworth and as Alice is a significant player in 20th Century US history, in particular, women's history. And why, because, Joanna, in effect was raised by Alice as a semi-daughter from the age of 10. Joanna was a witness to and participant in the last 22 years of Alice's life. She was more than a normal daughter, she was Alice's almost constant companion and facilitarot.

Thus, Joanna was a key player in the life of the most famous presidential daughter in US history, Alice Roosevelt Longworth. And why - because Alice's relationship with Joanna was the ONLY 100% successful relationship in Alice's life. Joanna has made significant contributions to the making of the last 1/4 of Alice's life and the recording of Alice's story. Joanna was the main facilitator of Alice's famous interviews with Michael Teague over a period of more than five years that formed the basis of his book "Conversations with Mrs. L. which is Alice's only accurate auto-biography. She is pictured in that book in numerous pages. Indeed, the author thanked Joanna for making the interviews, themselves, and hence, the best "inside Alice's mind" book ever written and I've read every biography of Alice in or out of pring.

• Joanna also was the chief facilitator of Alice being able to finish these important interviews and, by her support of this woman, literally prolonged her life into her 96th year. Withouth Joanna, Alice would never have lived to age 90 and ended up forgotten in some DC area resthome. Joanna has "inside the Roosevelt family" view that only a literal handful of living Roosevelt family members have. You can count them on one hand! Joanna has provided information to virtually every Roosevelt biographer of the last 30 years.

She IS credited by virtually every TR biographer since 1970.

Why doesn't the world know more about this remarkable woman? I suspect the plain simple fact is, that Sturm is a modest woman and keeps a very low profile. That is her right. right. That fact of NOT looking for the proverbial spotlight is NOT grounds for an article on her being NOT notable. Do some research, editors.

• I will be footnoting this article to provide additional background information to establish the validity of this article. This process is very time-consuming, but I am starting on it ASAP.

Just because one of our esteemed editors may be unfamliar with Joanna Sturm is not grounds for removal. In the meantime, I welcome discussion on this issue. Thanks. SimonATL 08:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Wikipedia also defines a notable biography as "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events." Joanna Sturm falls precisely into this category.

Please go back to the Joanna Sturm article and see my expanded comments on Joanna Sturm's place as a collaborator and facilitator in the life of Alice Roosevelt and her contributions to virtually every Roosevelt historian in the last 30 years and to 20th Century Womens history. Thanks. SimonATL 10:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

• You might want to bundle Purlieu (album) into the Second thought AfD.--Isotope23 16:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Weregerbil, I am from the Welcoming Committee and in following up on some new users I saw that you and another had questioned the notibility/etc of a page created by a new user. The reason I am writing you is because I could not see link to the article's afd. I wanted to look into it and possibly enter my vote. Thankyou ^_^ Waikiki!!! --ElectricEye 01:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

They were not of my doing, and as a recent contributor to Wikipedia, I am being merely curious. Why are the recently removed music links on the Prefab Sprout, and The Blow Monkeys pages, considered to be spam ? I have seen other such links elsewhere.

Derek R Bullamore 19:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I saw that you marked MySpam as {prod} because the name was a protologism: I've now moved the article to social networking spam, since it seems to have some otherwise valid content, and removed the redirect from the protologism. Please let me know if you disagree with this. -- Karada 10:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I first came across the term "invisible univeristy" as defined in the article I wrote when one of my freinds lent me the book Peak Learning by Richard Gross. I have since returned the book, but its Amazon listing contains the following text:

-Tap into the vast resources of THE INVISIBLE UNIVERSITY--the global network of learning opportunities that surrounds you.

What I did with the article was expand that definition slightly and provide an example of how the "invisible university" works in that context.

(By the way, that link was result number 21 on my Google search.)

--SpecOp Macavity 13:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Um, why is my article up for deletion? I worked hard to create that. Rosies 13:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Karl Meiers changes speak for himself. I wonder, why an editor with that attitude should edit on Islamophobia. Raphael1 13:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your comments on Raphaels talkpage. For your information, he has just recently returned from a week long block for disruptions on another article. -- Karl Meier 14:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Humor?!? You consider that Website is funny?!? Raphael1 14:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

What you call "tongue-in-cheek" resp. "levity", I call "blatant racism". Anyway, defending such a website tells a lot about your character. Raphael1 14:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

There is a True Crime 3 in production and a DS version called "True Crime: Diaries" in production

Greetings Weregerbil, I was wondering if you might express your editorial view on this bottom section of talk on this article? Thanks. Netscott 13:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Islamophobia category?

Weregerbil, as a long time editor on the islamophobia article you should express your opinion on this "islamophobia" CfD. Netscott 00:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Apparently, this is supposed to refer to Krakozhia. Sort of an out there spelling, so we might as well delete it. :) Mangojuice^talk 15:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

There is a true crime 3, I heard about it on MTV News.

I am unsure why you removed the paragraph in this article about a retrospective called Bleeding Was Only HALF the Job. While it may not have been published, not one, not two, but THREE sources which Wikipedia considers valid (ObsessedWithWrestling.com, DeclarationOfIndependents.net, and SoCalUncensored.com) have published the articles. The fact that these sites are considered valid sources by Wikipedia is evidenced by their being included in the References section of many different articles. Whether the retrospective is actually published or not should not have any bearing on its inclusion in the article, as it is totally relevent to the topic hand. Please let me know how you feel about this. Thanks. JB196 14:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

It is written by a fan of the organization although its information has indeed been verified by several credible sources, such as those I mentioned above. I agree with you to a degree that Wikipedia "is not a crystal ball" but at the same time there are many examples of books, projects, and organized events related to professional wrestling which have entries on Wikipedia even though they have not been released yet/happened yet. As far as its notability, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be considered "notable," being that it directly involves mainstream celebrities (both professional wrestlers and adult film stars). Also, note that the original inclusion of the mention of the retrospective in the XPW article was made by Parsonburg, who has shown a respectable committment to Wikipedia's integrity with his past contributions.JB196 14:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

It is written by YOU and is nothing but an attempt to hijack the page to get yourself some publicity. TruthCrusader 18:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, go to the sites I've mentioned. They are all considered credible sources by Wikipedia standards and are used as References in over 100 Wikipedia articles, and all of them have printed this retrospective. If you would like direct links let me know.JB196 14:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

OK, check the XPW page in a few mins and I'll have two links up. Although even without those links the article should still be considered valid in my opinion for the several reasons stated above.JB196 14:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I am having a lot of trouble with the HTML on the page so that needs some work. I forgot to mention that Verne Langdon - who helped produce "Planet of the Apes," has appeared in many different magazines, has his own radio show, and overall is very respected in a number of different industries (from magicianry to makeup artistry to pro wrestling to radio) - has endorsed the retrospective as well. So again, I see no reason why the authority of this "Bleeding Was Only Half the Job" entry should be questioned. If someone could give me a host I would be happy to upload the Ron Jeremy video which endorses it. JB196 14:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Weregerbil, did you get my last message (see directly above)? Thanks in advance.JB196 20:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Have you read my reply on Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Cyde2? Raphael1 01:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

The evidence of trying and failing to resolve this dispute (alleged blocking abuse) can be found in the link #7. Unfortunately this dispute is rather short, because Cyde refused any further communication after I summerized his engagement in the other dispute (display of an image).Raphael1 20:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Oooh, thank you! It's purty, I love it!

You deserve it, gave me a chuckle!EvocativeIntrigue _{TALK | EMAIL} 19:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, is it notable? Yes. They are a team that has played in the Thunder Bay area for a long time. I have at least 4 years of stats for them and a history. It will be much more notable once I've gotten to writing it. It is currently a stub only because I've had to do about 200 other sports teams in the past 2 months. This teams is also a team that is eligible to compete for the Keystone Cup which is a national event and has competed for it on multiple occasions. I plan to expand this article in about a week or two. DMighton 15:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey man, I just wrote this back to you: [1]. My deepest apologies if I have been found offencive, but this guy is just a little much for a lot of us. DMighton 09:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Excellent, that was exactly what I was hoping for. Thank you. DMighton 09:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Because of the speedy close on the first nominatio I have reoprned the nomination for deletion of this non-notable team - it would be good to have your input. Robertsteadman 17:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Re this revert, I've probably missed a couple of episodes or something. LMTO used to exist in List of Internet slang#L (one old version here). Then I saw an article for LOL (Internet slang) which doesn't include it. Can you please explain briefly what has happened in the meantime? I wouldn't want to add unnecessary entries either, but really think this is common enough. So, do we have to create a wictionary entry? :NikoSilver: 12:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

(copied from my place)

There is something of a consensus rule in LOL; from the HTML comments:

ACHTUNG: This article is not a dumping ground for arbitrary variations. Any variation added here MUST already have a Wiktionary article, and satisfy the Wiktionary criteria for inclusion as a word.

There is a ontinuous flow of freshly invented, little used LOL variants added to that page (and then removed). Check out Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion. Google gives eight unique hits[2]; I wouldn't bet too much Wiktionary wants it. Weregerbil 13:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ha ha, right. Thanks for the briefing! Checking it out more carefully, I found there are many other variations of the same acronym:

I googled +LMTO +Laughing and got some 1,300 hits. There are also other interesting variations for the letter "T". Care to give them a look? :-) :NikoSilver: 14:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello Weregerbil, just a note to suggest that relative to your commentary there you might want to clearly indicate your support (or not be it the case) to Kim Van der Lindt's proposal. Thanks. Netscott 13:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I noticed your edits to Gail McKenna. The article was a horrifically bad piece of attack POV, almost completely unreferenced (discounting unreliable sources, of which it has plenty), completely unencyclopedic and full of original research to boot. It may actually be better to wipe entirely and rewrite from a stub, but for now I'm making some NPOV edits and removing some of the worst attacks, and adding cite needed tags. Please help me out, as editor Rintelen seems determined to attack McKenna, having recently inserted a similar allegation, unsourced, in Prostitution: [3]. I expect he may attempt to revert my NPOV changes. If I can't get the article to an NPOV state, I will put it up for a speedy AfD. I'd appreciate your help. Thanks, Kasreyn 19:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I know how strongly you feel about spamming or attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view.. so I thought that you might like to take some action regarding User:Robertsteadman. He has been leaving messages on talk pages [[4]] [[5][[6]]. to ask editors to comment on an AfD of one of his articles. But the editors he contacted are those who have either edited the article or who have offerred him some kind of support. This is a much more blatant example of spamming than [[7]]. I am assuming good faith in that Robertsteadman wasn't aware of Wp:Spam - although he did edit the page after you had warned Dmighton about spamming. Regardless, I look forward to seeing you act in your usual impartial way regarding this.Neuropean 19:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I invited people to take part in a debate on a subject that they had previosuly shown interest. I gave no indictaion of the result I wanted, mere;y that their view would be welcomed. Please look at Neuropean 's contributions. He is a sockpuppet and is out to make apoint. He nominated in bad faith and is upset because things aren't going his way. Robertsteadman 19:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Weregerbil, I contacted you about the internal spamming because I knew that you had had some dealings with Robsteadman. As far as your warning is concerned, I notice NO warning on Robsteadman's page about accusing me of being a sock, that is hardly impartial. There are dozens of pages on wiki where he has posted personal attacks and nothing has been done - you are aware of it. So please don't send me advice when you ignore his failure to AGF and his repeated violations of NPA. Every time he refers to me as a sockpuppet, I will keep adding the lonks until he removes the allegation.Neuropean 08:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Oh don't be ridiculous. No, I don't expect you to be aware of everything, but if you read enough of the article to see my 'personal attacks', then the reason for them must have been glaringly obvious. You chose to warn me but not the other editor. I didn't involve you in this childish argument, you chose to involve yourself. Well, as you have done so, at least act in an impartial manner and don't complain when you are pulled up about not doing so.Neuropean 08:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Seriously, you see nothing wrong with ignoring an unproved allegation of sock puppetry on your talk page and then posting a warning to an editor who sees this allegation and provides a link to a proved case of sockpuppetry? Seriously? No, seriously? Me, I can't undeerstand the logic.Neuropean 09:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Oh, whatever, weregerbil. There was no need for you to look anywhere - it was there on your own talkpage: I invited people to take part in a debate on a subject that they had previosuly shown interest. I gave no indictaion of the result I wanted, mere;y that their view would be welcomed. Please look at Neuropean 's contributions. He is a sockpuppet and is out to make apoint. He nominated in bad faith and is upset because things aren't going his way. Robertsteadman 19:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I should assume good faith and assume that you missed He is a sockpuppet and is out to make apoint and He nominated in bad faith and is upset because things aren't going his way yet you were sharp enough to notice Only one sockpuppet here. As far as your statement that you will drop out of this conversation, feel free. Feel free to stay away dfrom my page altogether. If you must add warnings to my page, then make sure that you do act in an imaprtial way.Neuropean 09:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I didn't know what their viewpoint would be. I merely invited them to take part because they had shown an interest in the subject matter and in order to widen the debate. I know its not a vote, though many don;t, I just think that having a good cross section of opinions is sensible. And, if you look closely, I believe one of those I invited to express THEIR opinion has expresse an opinion contrary to mine. Robertsteadman 06:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I believe you warned Neuropean not to do this sort of thing yesterday [[[8]] - sadly, as you can see, he is continuing today. What do you suggest? It is very hard to AGF when someone (a clear sock) is virtually stalking me on here. Robertsteadman 11:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for marking the article I wrote for deletion without even reading it. I'm referring to Bruce Willis is a robot which you state that "non-notable phrase (neologism/protologism). Let it catch on first; document it after major newspapers start using it in movie reviews. Not when a handful of people use it in a chat forum."

• First of all, as stated in the article itself, the type of term that it is prohibits its proper usage in a form like newspapers or movie reviews. It is mostly used in speech. If you had taken the time to read the article, you might have understood that the type of usage it has prohibits it from being included in that kind of media.
• Secondly, it's in several chat forums, not just one, including Slashdot.
• Is Wikipedia only about history that can be seen in written form? --Terevos 21:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Re: Please keep expressing your opinion on the matter but please also be mindful of Wikipedia policies on verifiability and reliable sources so as not to spend too much time on articles that do not conform to policy and have no hope of doing so. I'm saying that in all friendliness, in the interest of saving your time as well as others'. Thanks! Weregerbil 21:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Is it a Wikipedia policy to not allow colloquialisms used in forums? For a colloquialism, you should only need to show that people are using it. I believe that is what I have done. How else would a speech-only (or primarily speech) type colloquialism ever get included in wikipedia?

[I have added it to Wiktionary.] Minitrue 23:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your comments involving German organized crime. Please understand that the only source available is the U.S. Census. The only way to describe these people as gangsters is to say that they don't get caught. Please try to help me keep this article alive and to get through to people that gangsters don't get caught. Just curious, why do you think Joseph P. Baker is the only real person in the entire article? He's 17-years-old. Honestly, if you think this article is a hoax, that would most likely be the most fabricated indivdual.

Wow. From 15 May to 10 July.[9] Amazingly long time for a vandal edit to stick around, but the deceptive edit summary was especially well-done. Thanks for the fun! --Habap 15:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have edited the article to relfect notability, please take another look. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 21:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I noted you did something to Rule Based Trading. How do we delete the whole article? I obviously need to read up on this, but could you point me in the right direction?

Rule based trading is just Technical analysis made simple, and TA is pretty simple-minded to start with. If you have some statistical expertise you might look at some of the claims of statistical significance that they are now making in the TA article. Smallbones 13:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

You have reverted many many times in the last 24 hours. Suggest you self revert (restore the lead) or your reverts will be reported and may getblocked. Best, Zeq 19:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Could you please provide diffs of what I have reverted more than three times? Thanks. Weregerbil 19:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

This is friendly warning, not a formal report. I want to avoid having you blocked.

The best would be the check all your edits in the last 24 hours, count how many reverts there were (many) and self revert all but the first 3. You can start with the last revert. Zeq 20:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I already did that. I didn't find the 3rr violation you claim. Can you prove your claim? Weregerbil 20:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Most of your edits are reactions to other people edits and thus almost all of them qulify as reverts (cause you undo editing by others) here is a partila list. This is your last warnning I am not intersted in long debates:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2006_Israel-Lebanon_crisis&diff=prev&oldid=63833707

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2006_Israel-Lebanon_crisis&diff=prev&oldid=63817510

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2006_Israel-Lebanon_crisis&diff=prev&oldid=63809923

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2006_Israel-Lebanon_crisis&diff=prev&oldid=63808202

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2006_Israel-Lebanon_crisis&diff=prev&oldid=63762653

Err... did you notice those diffs are edits of three completely unrelated things? Weregerbil 20:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Do you actually turn into a gerbil during the full moon? :) AntonioBu 13:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

You tagged Mariano Ristori Morakis before..... Whoever edited after that removed your tags without addressing the problem, I think. I found it while following a chain that started at Cristian Mac Entyre. One or both of these guys appear to be using Wikipedia to plug their artwork, and they are editing a number of pages related to their work in support of this. It would not be such a big deal, except they don't appear to be "notable" WP:BIO

Will you help? I'm only one man (or Antelope)....  ;) --Antelope In Search Of Truth 20:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

You might want to put it on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid/Evidence. Homey 13:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Your comment was irelevant because the issue is not at all if I was right or wrong to advertize the Afd. The issue is Homey FALSE claim that it did had an affaect on the Afd. Zeq 13:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

No I do not edit by Gfwesq. Gfwesq is my spouse, but I assure you we are not 'one'.jawesq 17:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I don't know what your agenda is. There are 11 OTHER independent editors who voted 'delete' and had comments about this article. AND YES I DO THINK IT APPROPRIATE TO ADD MINE AND GFWESQ. THAT IS 13. THERE ARE NOW ONLY 3 KEEP. Last time I checked, even 11 v. 3 is a consensus. Gfwesq and I are NOT a potential WP::SOCK and we can prove it. I gave no 3RR warning on this basis, so I do not know what you are talking about.jawesq 17:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

An accusation of WP:SOCK and reality are two different things. I can easily prove this is not the case. Neither Gfwesq nor I should be considered as 'one' except maybe in the eyes of the Church. Thank you for your concern, though.jawesq 18:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know whether you are married or not. If you are married, are you capable of independent thought from your spouse? When you vote in elections, are both you and your spouses votes counted? Or do you and your spouse only get one vote to split between you? How about your extended family? Are they disenfranchised because you vote? Do you see how insulting and ridiculous your comments on jawesq's page were? I am my own person, I do not tell jawesq what to think or how to vote and vice versa. In the future please be civil. Respectfully, Gfwesq 18:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please read advertising and soliciting meatpuppets.

I did awhile back and again recently.

Somehow you and your spouse seem to find the same articles to edit, do the same reverts and edit warring, "vote"AfdIsNotAVote(TM) the same way in AfDs, and give WP:3RR warnings to people for each others' edits.

This is not exactly true. We have collaborated on some things and some things we have not. In any event, that shouldn't matter. I gather you are not married. I think someday you will find that married couples often have common interests and common beliefs and positions. Is it that hard for you to believe that a couple, who are both lawyers, have common interests and common beliefs and positions? I don't think you get it. If we were not married, but were a couple of lawyers from different cities with similar interests, I doubt anyone would make anything of it. Wikipedians need to get over it. As I have been lectured by some admins that no rule is set in stone, I guess it applies to WP:Sock as well. In any event, I am not going to change my beliefs or my spouse over to satisfy some imaginary question of sock puppetry by some Wikipedians. Some folks are just going to have to read WP:AGF and apply it my case. That and learn how to examine writing styles. An examination of style should tell any intelligent reader that jawesq and I are not the same. There is only so much I can do for those incapable of that analysis.

I am not aware of the WP:3RR warning you keep citing. I did give someone a WP:3RR warning awhile back it is true. S/he was an instigator. If you followed the history, you would see that s/he had stated they read comments by jawesq and found them "emotional" and came to comment. Sounds like an instigator. Hard to credit with GF.

Its my observation in large firm/corporate politics, friendly warnings are not actually friendly. Despite this experience, I will view you message as WP:AGF.Gfwesq 22:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gfwesq (talk • contribs) Reply

Memo to self (or whoever is interested): discussion prior to User_talk:Jgwlaw archived his talk page: [10]. — Weregerbil 20:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

You're mentioned. It's on AN/I. Tyrenius 17:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

"The couple in this case appear to have contact outside Wikipedia, such as when I write on one participant's talk page, the other responds." It would be helpful if you could supply diffs for this. Thanks. Tyrenius 22:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for supplying diffs for your statement. Tyrenius 01:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Given your interest in conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11, I thought you might be interested in one that was up for review. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs deemed inappropriate by Clear Channel following the September 11, 2001 attacks I urge you to carefully examine Wikipedia's policies and rules, and then carefully consider whether you have an opinion on the matter. Your friend.  Morton Devonshire^Yo

I tagged this as patent nonsense right after you added the repost tag! What is it with vandals and repostings?? --TheM62Manchester 10:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

The article is patent nonsense, isn't it?? --TheM62Manchester 10:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps my entry would be considered a coatrack of self promotion.

I am a newbie to the wikipedia scene but by no means new to the notion of open communication and sharing of knowledge which is the whole reason for my venturing into this medium. Bulletin Boards were nice as are blogs, but they are not quite the same thing as what wiki has to offer which is that whole notion of Knowledge Sharing.

So to my own defense I really do feel I have made significant contributions in the area of Design Technology and very much intend to continue to do so and since that is the primary objective of my entry I would welcome any advice you might have to save my article from quick deletion.

Thank you.

Yes, I'd like to make a video of what I do on my screen. How do I do that? Is there any software? Thanks. Reply on my talkpage, please!--203.124.2.6 08:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, i hope you are satisfied with the answer. --Striver 16:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Didn't you notice it was only 6 minutes old when adding the db-band tag? I'm not sure of anything, but the page can be in process of editing right now. Just give new pages some time to evolve. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 08:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Tagging pages from the recent changes list is perfectly valid. The tag itself indicates to an editor who might be "in progress" how to respond. -Harmil 14:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

You put Legacy of Tirlannon up for AfD. In future, please consider using {{prod}} first. This reduces the volume of pages that hit the AfD process, and results in removing a majority of the cruft. Thanks, and happy editing! -Harmil 15:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Brother Weregerbil. We have talked before, and we have not always agreed. But this one was clearly bad faith, you could just have taken on my offer on turning it into a full redirect, but no, instead you made it into a articles fd, arguing that it was not a article. BUT OF COURSE it is not, it not even supposed to be, as stated in the page AND talk page. The main arguements and circumstances are in the article it redirected to. This did not improve our relationship as fellow editors.

And no, not AGF is not a PA. --Striver 13:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, sorry if you were offended. I got very uppset on that one. try see it from my pov, when articles like S9/11T get nom AGAIN. --Striver 13:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Weregerbil, the afd closed. Would you preferer if the article would be deleted? In that case, i could offer to speedy it, as the creator of the redirect. Rather that then cultivating a bad an even more hostile editing enviorment. --Striver 14:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi... I just saw you tagged them. Not sure if you've done one of those before, but you need to edit/make the daily page too I think. rootology (T) 17:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I got it. My reasoning is actually based on the links I put up there. We'll see, good luck. rootology (T) 17:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'll show every single lie and perspective, right there from the start, from election, to forming Al Qaeda, to Katarina, to Armenian genocide… http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/ohiostatusrept1505.pdf#search=%22ohio%20hearings%20pdf%22; http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&lr=&q=clint%20curtis%20testimony&btnG=Search&sa=N&tab=wv; http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1963391; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_genocide. How about that? And I'll use logic, not this Milli Vanilli CRAP:)… —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovelight (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry, I can't make heads or tails of what you are saying. Weregerbil 08:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

The Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center article should probably be deleted, not edited...trying to get it to be NPOV is going to be impossible.--MONGO 12:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I agree it should be rolled back into the conspiracy theory article and cut to what reliable impartial sources say. But the AfD is so "keep"ish already I don't give it much chance of happening, unfortunately. Weregerbil 12:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm not a graphic design major and not related to the company but I have heard of this company. It easily passed WP:CORP with the reliable sources. The company was featured in popular publications that you may heard of The New York Times [11] and Business Week [12]. --Oskar Mayer Nguyener 19:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, after thinking about you're were correct about that the majority of the articles weren't about the company as a subject. However, one of the BusinessWeek article the company was one of the subjects about its work on the American cable television show, The Daily Show on the program's redesign set, screen graphics, and first published book in 2004/05. That article is probably the closest thing about the company being a subject.

From the BusinessWeek article, "The Daily Show: Satire Restyled":

"James Biber, an architect with the New York firm Pentagram who led the set project...."

"Pentagram was asked to rethink the set -- as well as the show's graphics -- after its successful collaboration with the Stewart team on America: A Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction..."

Well good work on Wikipedia, but I just disagree with your placement of the {{notability}} template. ;-P --Oskar Mayer Nguyener 15:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for straightening me out about "sheer"/"shear."

A suggestion on how to distinguish between "9/11 researchers" and non-CT 9/11 researchers": For the latter, mention their relevant credentials or academic affiliation. That leaves bare "9/11 researchers" for the former (some of whom, whatever their shortcomings, have indeed done prodigious research).

Thanks again.

Cordially, O Govinda 11:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I appreciated your edit removing the spurious "courtesy title" of "9/11 Researcher" from Hoffman. Are there other examples of such incorrect attributions of titles or roles to named individuals in the article that you can see? It would be great to get the lot on one sweep, if you can see any. I've noted it as a point we all need to be careful of on the talk page.

I know you found the original article highly contentious. I can see why. I think and hope the various editors are making good progress on this to make it a competent and later an excellent article. Any extra issues you spot would be good news for a better article. Fiddle Faddle 15:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

The titles of my books are a bit wierd but now they have been translated properly. Here's at least one website "proving" that these books exist: http://www.uccs.edu/~asoifer/books/book2.htm Tosayit 11:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

This article labelled Jason Lee (Tennis Superstar)is about a real person. If you google Jason Lee Tennis in google.com.au the first two sites at least will take you to stuff about him, plus he has his own profile on the Victorian Institute of Sport Page. Just so you know, he does not write this stuff, at this moment he is in a competition in Thailand, trust me, I'm part of his fanclub at school. You keep saying nothing can be found about him, follow the links on his wikipedia site and that's him, the african/asian looking kid in the hat. We are trying to add more to his site but we're busy with exams at school, as we are in year 11. Don't delete it. Lee Enterprizes 06:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Weregerbil. My apologies for the double redirect. I had THOUGHT I had been reading the behavioural psychology article just days beforehand --- and it turned out (when I bothered to double check this evening) another article that also began with behavioural. Sorry to have caused you extra work, but I did end up learning a lot - and that is always a plus! Thanks for your patience. --A green Kiwi in learning mode 12:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for reverting vandalism on Wikipedia!

Be sure to put warning tags on the vandal's user talk page (such as {{subst:test}}, {{subst:test2}}, {{subst:test3}}, {{subst:test4}}). Add each of these tags on the vandal's talk page, in sequential order, after each instance of vandalism. Adding warnings to the talk page assists administrators in determining whether or not the user should be blocked. If the user continues to vandalize pages after you add the {{subst:test4}} tag, request administrator assistance at Request for Intervention. Again, thank you for helping to make Wikipedia better. --Lijnema 15:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, creator detagged 3 times. I wound up vandal warning him. He also left an inquiry with user:srose I have to stop now (too much coffee) and wanted to let you know in case you wanted to follow up. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

You have nothing better to do than attempt to delete people's work, when it is correct, and you have no written evidence of this works non-existence. I suggest you get a life and grow up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.237.37 (talk • contribs)

Regarding recent edits to State Farm Insurance, I recently made a suggestion in Talk:State Farm Insurance on what I believe would be a better way to address the Hurricane Katrina related issues on Wikipedia. I do find it rather unbalanced that for a company that's been in business for more than 80 years and is involved in many lines of business, present and past, nearly half the article addresses one recent controversy, but I also concur that simply removing the material is not the right way to handle it either. --Mwalimu59 20:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about The Wheel of Buddhist Terms article. I'm trying to work with the creator to see if he can provide some evidence of notability. If he can, then great... we'll have an article on a poster. If he can't, then of course it should be deleted, but hopefully the author will have seen that we aren't really a bunch of pompous bastards who get off on deleting pages and he'll be able to contribute constructively elsewhere. --tjstrf talk 10:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Both covered in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaun Gittens. -- Fan-1967 14:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Although I see your point, PM should have known about this "weird theory" when they wrote the article. I'm adding a similar sentence back. If you want to continue this discussion, use either my talk page or the conspiracy theoires discuission page. thanks DanCrowter 18:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

He was quite right to delete it. You can't use 'should have known about this' as that is classed as original research. --Davril2020 19:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Philanthropist, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Philanthropist. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. — Sebastian (talk) 03:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for doing that. Whilst cleaning up that page, I spotted Rodriguez, who at the time was a blue link. The Afd I started was successful, but I then forgot all about going back here and removing the red link! :-) So thanks! --Dweller 10:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Why dont we focus on identifying individual points of objection at Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories#Why_dont_the_Oppose_and_Agree_camps.3F instead of having long winded debates that cover 2 or 3 subjects The we we know everyones objections either way, we can work out a compromise on each point with a view to reaching a consensus. "Snorkel | Talk" 09:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

why did you remove Milena and Tori they are both apearing in OVW —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.149.42.163 (talk) 22:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC).Reply

Since you appear to have a changing IP address it's a bit hard to answer to you; I hope you see this. Do you have some reliable sources that they appear in the Ohio Valley Wrestling roster? All information on Wikipedia must be verifiable using reliable sources. Also, see here and here. Weregerbil 08:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, regarding your comments in edit summaries, I have supplied several academic and reliable journalistic sources that support the criticisms. I also removed an unreferenced section. If you had read the article prior to my most recent edits, you would have seen (check throught history) that two reliable sources were cited, one from a tenured Philosophy professor and another from an SNL transcript supporting the claim of Shatner's criticisms. Henceforth, I request you to refrain from making disingenuous remarks about "zero sources" in your edit summaries as it suggests a lack of sincerity. Thanks. Rumpelstiltskin223 14:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Answer here. WP:NPA, WP:AGF please. Weregerbil 14:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

True. I don't know how one would measure it, but based on income alone (from another project I'm doing dealing with ABS stats), entire regions of Melbourne and about 4 suburbs in Adelaide are wealthier. Perth and Brisbane have very evenly distributed wealth with about 85% of suburbs within 1 SD of the median income, while Sydney, Adelaide and Melbourne have more disparity. (It's a comment only - would be WP:OR if I added it) Orderinchaos78 11:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I had just typed this comment to the Nemesea debate and was about to upload it when at that moment an admin closed the AfD. I therefore submit it to you direct, for your consideration.

Comment By Weregerbil's own definition of what a personal attack is, I would suggest that the first half of his last comment is at least as much a personal attack as any I'm supposed to have made. Remarks such as "don't even try" "essays" and "running joke" seem somewhat disrespectful to me. The second half, though somewhat terse, at least stuck to the point. Weregerbil's delete argument is, to its credit, devoid of any unpleasantness and is a reasonable-sounding argument, and should have been entered on its own, minus the comment. This would have been in line with the Wikipedia policy of assuming the good faith of another editor, even (especially?) when you believe them to be misguided. One Night in Hackney's Delete argument is the most powerful and convincing argument I've had to counter, direct and to the point. And the answer is I cannot counter it, at least not at this moment. I am sure they have had articles written, but cannot right now produce the evidence. I would need time that I could better spend elsewhere. Unless I get more supporting votes, I may instead let the defence rest and bide my time until the band grows bigger. At least Google and my own site will keep free access to information on the band until then. -- Headshaker 08:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've cleaned these articles up to a more acceptable standard. Rather than biting the new editor by putting numerous tags on his pages, I think it would be more helpful to point him/her in the right direction, as at the time he didn't even have a welcome notice on his page. He seems to be creating new articles for Northampton Town F.C. players, and looking at the relevant template that can only be a good thing. Thanks One Night In Hackney 12:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Seems to me this should go right to AFD. A Google search shows precisely two hits for the phrase, and they're both on Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alberuni/Evidence and the other referring to a notorious Jew-hater's posting on Stormfront at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy/archive 2. I don't see a WP:CSD that applies, though. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Weregerbil i noticed you put some kind of tag on the article, where could we discuss this, i can maybe address some of your concerns Friendship6 19:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I responded on my talk page.Friendship6 22:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC) Hi could you help me rename the article inserting allegations before the current title i cant figure out how to do it. Friendship6 10:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I do understand why you have restored (or added) the link(s) to Google/Youtube videos to the CDH article. They add value to the article. The issue is one of highly debatable copyright and Wikipedia's desire (as I perceive it from many discussions elsewhere) not to be associated with nor to link to such videos.

The challenge with linking to them, unless their copyright is explicitly noted somehow, is that there is a properly intentioned loose collection of editors and admins who are patrolling for and removing these links.

I can't really work out what the correct approach should be, here, other than to source permission explicitly for such use and lodge that permission with Wikipedia via OTRS in the usual way.

I'm not about to revert your relinking, I was simply wondering how you woudl solve this issue? Fiddle Faddle 12:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Or, of course, I may have misread the dif! Fiddle Faddle 12:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, there's some chance of that :-) I don't think I've ever added a YouTube link anywhere, except maybe when reverting page blanking. Weregerbil 12:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Licks egg off face* Yup. Mea culpa. Fooled myself. hardly surprising in this enormous article. Fiddle Faddle 12:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Regarding your edit rm joke sourced by a joke web page I do take issue with this. The "joke website" is the OFFICIAL website of the "Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster" - so is obviously a notable source (allbeit a primary one). Its worth noting that User:MikeURL was blocked indefinitely for removing referenced material from that same article (as you just did - although it was I that unblocked him)... however my point is that removing cited material from articles because you don't agree with it is strongly frowned upon Glen 10:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate regurgitator of every joke that Henderson makes on his web page. Please see WP:RS on the subject of self-published sources. Thank you! Weregerbil 10:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wow, you are an admin?! And you leave threatening messages[13] for removing material in conflict with WP:V and WP:RS? That's kind of worrying. Weregerbil 11:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

a) I already stated its a primary source b) I never "threatened" you (someone else blocked him - I - as I said above) unblocked him (how is telling you I unblocked someone a threat?)

Please read messages more carefully before jumping to childish conclusions. Glen 19:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oh, so you discussed blocking just for fun. Like you would discuss the weather. You meant nothing by it. Smalltalk. Oooo...kay...

You keep teaching me how admins are supposed to behave: the first thing in an edit disagreement start talking about how other people get blocks for similar edits, and your "childish" remark. I keep getting surprised by your lessons. Weregerbil 09:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think someone may need to read WP:NPA a little closer. Calling a conclusion childish is to Comment on content, not on the contributor. Sheesh Glen 09:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I disagree with your interpretation. While "Your edits are childish" technically refers to edits it is not appropriate on Wikipedia.

trolling, eh? Is that also commenting on edits, not the editor?

Are you a model of how admins should behave? Weregerbil 09:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

You're correct, I certainly could have handled that better and I apologise. Tough day(s) at the office. Thanks for the heads up re ANI too :) Glen 10:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good to me :) Thanks for your understanding Glen 11:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I just wanted to lend my support to your reversion of the Java article in regards to the performance perception. JIT-compiled languages like Java and the whole .NET family are beginning to out-perform their pre-compiled predasessors as more and more performance is gained via optimization. Thanks for the revert. //BankingBum 18:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC) ^$$Reply

How did you come to the conclusion a Victoria's Secret model isn't notable? As far as I can tell from my Google searches, she's not verifiable, but I could be missing something obvious. Isn't this for AFD? _ Mgm|^(talk) 11:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Obviously not all models in there are notable, but I'd rather have an AFD with an extra set of eyes to be sure I'm not missing anything. If your eyes say hoax too, I'm reassured deleting it was a good call. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Haha yeah you're welcome. He's been blocked now so hopefully that should be the end of it! Will (aka Wimt) 11:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have cut out the advertising-type language and added some references - is it acceptable? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thkbc (talk • contribs) 12:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC).Reply

I don't think this will come to much, but you probably should be aware that a user with a newly created account at Conservapedia, whose Conservapedia account name is "Weregerbil," has posted a suggestion at Conservapedia that people should vandalize your user page.

I suggest you not do anything in particular other than be aware and be ready to revert.

Contrary to what he probably supposes, the page where he makes that suggestion is not one that's all that closely followed; I've already removed the handy link to your user page he provided, and I've posted a note on Conservapedia's "abuse" page. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm perplexed as to your proposed removal of the page. Could you please take a look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tools_for_static_code_analysis#Commercial_products

QA·C was listed there and the page was a simple description--no fluff; no advertising. You might want to compare to the others listed and linked for context. If QA·C cannot be listed then perhaps the entire "Commercial Products" category should be removed?

Thanks in advance for investigating. Please let me know what else you need.

Rdbuckley 13:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Continued in Talk:QA·C. Weregerbil 13:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Weregerbil, Please know you are under attack at Conservapedia. As well, there are numerous news articles about the relationship between MDS America and MDS International. The "breakup" between the companies was under a confidentiality agreement that has recently been lifted. As such there have not been news articles YET. Please research the subject or leave the edits. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.134.109.95 (talk) 10:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC).Reply

Please let's continue this on the talk page Talk:MDS International. Weregerbil 10:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Wikipedia under the name of Weregerbil to give to us the IP address of WizardOfword this are right and confirm That Mr Harold Kirpatrick CEO of MDS America are Located in Stuart Florida for the Home and for the Business, Thank you again for your Kind Help.

Best Regards

Jean-Claude Ducasse

What is this?

What? I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are saying. Weregerbil 21:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I heard you were a [faggot] on conservapedia. Is this true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerMoore007 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for taking an interest in my sexual preferences (which I shall hereby assume you are indeed discussing; as opposed to, say, asking whether I might be a bundle of sticks of a specific size. Unfortunately, I fear I must reject your advances, flattering as they may be, as I am not in a position to explore physical relations with you at this time. Please do not be discouraged by this however; I am confident you shall find a homosexual person to keep you company in that Special Way; just you keep asking people like you asked me. Thank you again for showing such keen interest in my penis! Weregerbil 07:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

You're right. I love to fuck gerbils on a basis daily, brah. But the thing is I'm in love with just one gerbil, you, Weregerbil. With much love, xoxoxoxox, RogerMoore007 22:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Booooooriiiiiingggg.... Please expend some effort towards making your comments somehow interesting in the future, please. You have some neurons in your skull, huh, doya? Show it! "U r a faggot" and crap is just too 12-year-old. Surely you can do better? Be friggin' interesting, willya?! "Faggot" vandalism happens 10,000 times a day on Wikipedia; can't you somehow differentiate yourself from the great unwashed masses? Being boring is not funny. You are not funny. Try to be less boring please. From now on I will answer you only if you are non-boring; please consider any and all lack of response as "you are boring and useless". Thank you. Weregerbil 22:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the cleanup; I've used blockquote myself before so I think that will be fine. Although I didn't start the article, I've certainly come across the theory before and was surprised to see it didn't already have an article here; I'm sure I can dig out some references. Marasmusine 13:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm curious. Where are you headed with the drinking games? Merge quickie descriptions into the drinking games article? Delete all the drinking games articles? I would hate to duplicate your effort. -- Ben 17:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, point taken and I've re-written the article the best I could, to meet Wikipedia standards and objectify it wherever possible. I will look at the article again in a few days to see whether this is OK now, if I see no further marks, I assume it will be alright.

My main goal in writing this article was to provide information to the category(??) of somatic disciplines, of which I found Kinetic Awareness to be a part. As far as notability is concerned, I admit this particular discipline of bodywork is not very visible generally and not practised by an overwhelming majority of people, but I wanted to give evidence of its existence. The mere fact that so far there have been relatively few coverages makes it difficult to provide more detailed information from truly secondary sources. However, through my work and study with Elaine Summers I had a chance to create secondary writing, recently affirmed by the Postgradual Education Dance Unlimited (awaiting accredition as a Masters) in the Netherlands. I await to see how much that will count. Thomas Körtvélyessy 23:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Weregerbil,

Could you clarify your specific objection to the Lunarpedia article please?

Some hint as to what precisely is needed would be of assistance. The article in question is about a website with a fairly active user base, and while still early days, it does have about 250 pages of content.

-- Mikedelaney16 16:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oh, does it read too much like an advert?

Want me to pull it till I can get someone else to write a better more compliant article?

-- Mikedelaney16 16:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

You just removed the useful information about Bowers acronyms I created and deleted all the redirects I made. These acronyms are found not only on Bowers's site, but many other Web sites mention or use them, in addition to the polyhedron mailing list [14]. This is as notable and verifiable as you'll get in this subject, and it's pretty obvious that, while they may have been just 'made up in school one day', they're established enough now that they're not going away.

Also, they are already used in one Wikipedia article, List of uniform polyhedra. It doesn't make sense to give all the acronyms without explaining what they mean.

In the AfD, all the 'delete' votes were presumably from people who knew nothing about polyhedra or why these things are necessary and useful; whereas User:Salix alba, who first put the stuff up, does. The way, the truth, and the light 04:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

The remainder of this discussion has been moved to Talk:Uniform polyhedron.

Weregerbil:

The Wikiepedia topics of "Cute" and "Cuteness" mention CuteOverload, a personal blog that has pictures of animals deemed cute by the blog's author.

I have added to the "Cute" and "Cuteness" topics Cxxxute.TV, which I believe matches the same criteria as CuteOverload.

You have marked it as "linkspam," but I am uncertain of your reasoning. After all, both CuteOverload and Cxxxute.TV deal with the same topic -- namely cuteness.

The CuteOverload link is an inbound one, but is effectively a promotional item for a personal blog. I have not added an internal wikipedia page for Cxxxute.TV because I do not believe it is the most effective way of explaining that blog's content. (After all, it is video)

In essense, I believe it is quite hypocritical for you to leave CuteOverload, but remove Cxxxute.TV from the "Cute" and "Cuteness" topics.

Please respond here, or on my talk page, as to what your rationale behind this is.

Warm regards, Mark —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark.j.preston (talk • contribs) The preceding comment has been modified by yours truly to alleviate any accidental SEO concerns. Weregerbil 11:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Wikipedia is not a link farm. Cute Overload appears to have won major awards; and anyway, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is never a criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia. As for you "hypocricical" comments, please see WP:NPA. Thanks! Weregerbil 11:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I do not answer to personal attacks. Please try to phrase your comments without attacks. Thanks. Weregerbil 12:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I completely forgot to notify User:Complete Truth about the report I filed at WP:3RR while I was busy reporting his second violation. By the time I had remembered to warn him, you had already covered it for me. Thanks for taking care of that. Pablo Talk | Contributions 08:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, is it possible to find out if User:Rdpaperclip and User:T3Smile are sockpuppets? Bearian 02:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Thank you for that information. :-) Bearian 18:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • FYI: T3Smile confirmed as IP 60.241.91.14. —Travis^talk 21:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

• T3Smile (talk · contribs · logs) and Rdpaperclip (talk · contribs · logs) - Blocked as sockpuppets. See SSP Achidiac -- Jreferee t/c 16:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello Weregerbil,

I'll just copy and paste here what I wrote on Humus' page:

We certainly do append judgement on the term 'conspiracy theory' Humus, whether consciously or not. Under this definition come such theories as those suggesting that the 'rulers of the world' are lizards (hello David Icke) or that the U.S. government are in cahoots with extra-terrestrial beings. In popular culture it is always used to refer to the incredible (I use the word in its literal sense). It was used consistently with reference to 'The X-Files' for example.

So, it has connotations that the term 'alternative account' does not. I thought we wanted scholarly objectivity on Wikipedia: using glib popular terms at the expense of neutrality does not help towards such an aim. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eustace Plimsoll (talk • contribs) 11:26, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

Hello, Weregerbil. I noticed that you recently voiced your opinion on the article regarding the current war in Afghanistan and its talk page. I wanted to let you know that earlier this morning I tried by best to explain to the best of my understanding how the NPOV guidelines (particularly that of Undue Weight) and the use of reliable sources should apply in the context of the introduction to that article. Specifically, that the article itself should best reflect the broader consensus of the reporting community and any reliable sources that can be found on the subject. If you have any comments, please reply there or at my talk page. --ForbiddenWord 15:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

240 is the maximum possible in the time frame the NIST report supports. Drywall can only release Sulphur when burnt and releases it at a specific rate. I suspect that 240 is far too high as it assumes more drywall was burnt than is probable in conditions that are not verified but at least it is a published claim. I'll leave it to you to remove the fact tag if satisfied. Wayne 05:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

What a great essay. Thank you for writing that. Very well done. Rossami (talk) 00:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think we crossed wires at least twice - probably more. Kinda funny, really. I wasn't getting EC messages either. Pairadox (talk) 10:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Weregerbil - I noticed you removed a link I added to external links. It seems I am having trouble understanding what external links are acceptable. Could you please explain what is an acceptable site to include? I see http://www.neverhaveiever.com/ and http://www.moviecynics.com/blog/4 are accepted and I am just wondering why the site I suggested was not when it seems to provide more relevant information. Thank you for your time! Cphillips (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Your talk page contains much on the issue. The existence of one junk link is not a reason to add another (see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS); there are spam links on Wikipedia because nobody has gotten to them yet. Weregerbil (talk) 11:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

• your edit(rv, more to the point, WP:RS) 12:45, 1 March 2008

We have four options:

1. conspiracy theories have emerged;
2. conspiracy theorists have emerged;
3. claims have emerged;
4. persons

...suggesting that individuals...knew or carried out...

Number four sounds ridiculous. The persons "emerged". Were they under water, or lost, then? That is why I also do not like 2. That would leave 1 or 3, where I find 3 the shortest, clearest, and most neutral. How do you feel about option 1 versus 2?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 12:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Call a spade a spade. That's what reliable sources do too. "Conspiracy theories" is what they are. Informative and to the point. Weregerbil (talk) 12:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Weregerbil! You just made a rather odd revert on this page. Don't worry though, I fixed it up for you. Sarah777 (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oops, thanks! I was actually trying to revert this. I'm thinking there is a bug (feature?) somewhere in the Wikipedia software that occasionally lets edit conflicts go through without the good ol' "edit conflict, whatyawannado?" message. Weregerbil (talk) 18:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, you might want to consider using Wikipedia:Speedy keep, since the banner on the page seems to be wasting people's time ?

regards,  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 00:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Looking at the google search you use here: let's remove the phrase Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge debate from the equation: five hits, four of which refer to Wikipedia and the fifth is still about Pearl Harbor on "wikispiracy.org". It appears to me that there still are no reliable sources describing a debate, or showing how the randomly picked conspiracycruft in the article are a part of that famous reliably sourced debate. Weregerbil (talk) 09:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Can I ask you for an opinion on interpretations of WP:COATRACK? In a recent {{afd}} Coatrack was repeatedly cited as a justification for its deletion.

Would you mind looking at the google-cache, and telling me if it is an example of the kind of article you had in mind when you drafted WP:COATRACK? I'd really appreciate it.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 03:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Here is another instance of an {{afd}} respondent claiming authority under your essay to justify deletion. I remain curious as to whether this is what you had in mind when you drafted the essay. Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 15:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I haven't looked at the AfDs in question. I feel invitations to AfDs are a complex subject, as it is hard to draw a line between vote stacking and genuine disinterested informing of parties who may have experience in the subject of the AfD. I'm not suggesting you are doing something improper; this is just in explanation as to why I'm ultra sensitive to anyone telling me about AfDs for any reason, and why I'm unlikely to participate in AfDs that someone has told me about. ...Wait, did I just give WP:BEANS instructions how people can pre-emptively kick me out of any AfD simply by telling me about it? Shit, back to the drawing board I guess... Weregerbil (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Okay, thanks for the reply.

For the record, I do not believe I did anything improper. The first time I asked for your opinion the {{afd}} was already concluded -- why I asked you to look at the google cache.

For the record your essay is frequently cited, as if it were an official policy, not an essay. Your essay makes some good points -- but it is not a policy.

In my experience new article patrollers, and deletion fora participants, routinely mis-quote the policies, guidelines and essays they cite. It is a problem.

When these patrollers assert that contributions I have made lapse from COATRACK I ask them to be specific as to which sections your essay advises are a mistake they think it lapses from. None of them have ever shown that they took my request seriously.

I am, of course, as fallible as the next guy. Maybe my contributions really were about "wongo juice", and I was too focussed on the details to appreciate that. But I don't think so.

What I am wondering is possible is whether the essay could be clarified.

The way I see it, either my challengers are correct, and I am a bone-head, and their references to your essay are a short-hand for a valid concern -- in which case what the article needs is a clarification so it can spell out what I am doing wrong so even a bone-head like me can understand it.

Alternatively, their concerns are misplaced, my contributions have complied with policy -- in which case the section on "what is not a coatrack" needs to be clarified, so they stop calling on the authority of your essay, for what boils down to an instance of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

Now maybe you see your role in the essay being essentially over? We are all volunteers here. You get to say that.

In case you are still interested -- I write on controversial topics. I've played a big role in expanding the wikipedia's coverage of the war in Afghanistan, and the detention of captives apprehended there. Between March 2005 and March 2006, through google news searches I started articles about dozens of the captives held in Guantanamo. I thought I was disciplined and stuck strictly to the facts.

In March 2006 the DoD started to publish documents about the captives. In the two years since then the DoD has published about 2,500 documents, about 15,000 pages. I've started articles that rely on those documents the DoD published. It would be inappropriate to insert my personal interpretation into those articles, as to the credibility of the allegations against the captives, and the credibility of their testimony. I haven't done that.

Now, if I understand your essay, if one of these articles was only nominally about the captive, but quickly digressed, so that it was mainly about the camp, that would be a lapse from the advice in your essay. Have I got that right? The camp would be the "wongo juice" your essay describes.

But, it seems to me, these articles don't digress to talk about "wongo juice" -- they remain on topic, and describe the allegations used to justify the captive's detention, their testimony, if they testified, and press reports about them, when I have come across press coverage, in English. It seems to me, if I read your essay properly, that all of this is like the astronaut in your example of "what is not a coatrack".

Thanks for reading to this point. Geo Swan (talk) 11:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

HAHA! i'm sorry, i couldn't resist! i just love witty vandalism... you should have left it how it was though! It won't happen again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickey bliss16 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I came by chance across the "Ragabonds" article, and noticed you had also had issues with it. I've spelled out a few problems in the Discussion, but it has now been over a year, and the organization involved seems not to be responding to the issues. There seems to be a certain perception on their part that as a charity, the guidelines and rules are allowed to be bent. The only significant change since you mentioned a problem is for them to add a sentence about how much money they've collected.

67.169.126.27 (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

You have nominated 3 articles of me, don't you have anything better to do! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niflheim89 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I do have better things to do, but I am afraid I am prone to procrastination, and nuking WP:vanispamcruftisement on Wikipedia is one of my methods of exercising said character flaw. Weregerbil (talk) 17:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Weregerbil,

Please can you assist with "shaping up" my article on Schlemiel the painter? I've never written an encylopedia article before, and I guess I pretty much suck at it. Someone added "essay-like", and "unencyclopedic" tags to the article, and all of a sudden I fealt like a naughty school boy.

Since then I've done my best to unearn the "essay-like" tag... and I think I've suceeded, but I won't remove the tag myself, as I expect I'm probably biased.

The "unencyclopedic" tag I'm not so sure about. I can tell you that I was introduced to the concept and Joel Spolski's article (http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000319.html) by my boss, who is DEFINATELY a professional programmer, and many folks at work call instances of the problem "a Schlemiel"... but I honestly don't know if that's a "local idiom" or a widely accepted industry practice... nor do I know who I would ask such a thing.

I don't honestly know if this problem has a "proper" name, I suspect that some Dr Supergeek somewhere has a latin derived name for it, which never caught on, coz it's just like totally meaningless dude!

Cheers. Keith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wookie2u (talk • contribs) 11:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've already posted a mugshot from the Nebraska corrections database, as well as references from The Chicago Tribune, The Orlando Sentinel, and The Cincinatti Post. In addition, it appeared on the national TV program, Unsolved Mysteries, which does have an article on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YerCaughtSon (talk • contribs) 18:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I noticed that you'd previously weighed in on the VSTEP article, and I thought I'd let you know that I've nominated it for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VSTEP if you're interested. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

As far as I can tell, you inserted [15] the following sentence into the current version of the article on the collapse of the WTC:

"The cores of the buildings began to fall 15 to 25 seconds after the initial start of the collapse."

It seems to be an attempt to paraphrase this sentence from the NIST FAQ:

"... significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse."

But there's a significant difference between the cores beginning to fall 15-25 seconds after the collapses started and parts of the cores remaining stading 15-25 after the collapses started.

I'm not allowed to edit the article or talk page myself, but since you seem to have made the original edit, I thought you might want to correct it.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 20:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I hope you don't mind, I history-merged your old userspace version of the coatrack essay into the (now firmly established) project space version WP:COATRACK. It sat there copy/pasted without proper attribution to you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Template:911ct supporters has been nominated for deletion by Ice Cold Beer. As this TfD nomination includes objections to the same list of people that is currently in use in Template:911ct, I am inviting you to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. (I am sending this message to you as a current or former editor of Template:911ct, following the guideline on multiple messages.) Regards —  Cs32en  08:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I recently posted the following text on Wikipedia regarding the creation of a new computing-related project:

'WikiProject Java is a Wikipedian community that aims to better organize information in articles related to the Java programming language and its platform.

• If I'm cor-rec-to, there are about 900 articles on Java technology in Wikipedia, which may be more than ALL other programming languages articles combined...
• At least, it's more than for C++, and there IS a C++ WikiProject...
• And it's MUCH more than the .NET WikiProject with 82 articles...
• There is also a Ruby project and a Python portal so...
• Now you can also see a proposal for the Java Portal (temp location).'

Please support this initiative,  A l a i n  R 3 4 5
 ^{Techno-Wiki-Geek} 04:14, 25 October 2009 (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) 13:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello and welcome back! I was going through a list of missing Wikipedians and saw you were listed. However, you edited again this year after over 10 years (welcome back! Hope you enjoyed your break). On the other hand, you haven’t edited since June. If you are a sporadic editor who comes around every once and a while to add your two cents, please let me know. However, if you think this is it for you and you’d like to fully retire, I will add you back to the list (although I hope you decide to stay!). Hope to see you around some more! Happy editing, Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC)Reply