User talk:Skyerise/Archive 2011

You rock

What vandalism level she up to? I wonder if they'll block for 3 reverts, all things considered. I've done 2 so far.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 15:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Let me count. She probably deserves a 3RR warning. Yworo (talk) 15:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thought you might know off hand. Don't go to any trouble counting, it's a better use of time if I just locate four more fake cites than to rummage through her talk page history.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 15:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't really tell how much of what she is doing is reverting. You are in a better position to tell what's a revert and what's editing. If you think she has reverted you three times in the last 24 hours, slap a {{subst:3rr|Rare groove}} on her talk page (which she will immediately remove). Yworo (talk) 15:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see you already did that. What is wrong with this girl? Can't she see that's she's completely cutting off the possibility of communication by instantly reverting anything and everything that's put on her talk page? Yworo (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh ya, I totally give her a 3RR and I mentioned it on the article talk prior to that. She pretty much went through and reverted what we were discussing, and then started reverting more stuff I added earlier today. LOL, maybe she'll just keep doing exactly what she's doing and it won't be long...

She's spamming her own talk to make it harder to find anything in it. I'm definitely going to give her a vandalism notice for adding another fake cite that doesn't even mention Rare groove in the entire book. The other source has a whole chapter on it but it's ohh soooo postmodern—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 15:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to put something together to post to User:Machine Elf 1735/COIN. I have no clue what I'm doing.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 00:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't know that a report at WP:COIN would do much good unless she starts placing links to her own sites again. Maybe she has figured that out? However, I've nominated Postmodern Buddhism for deletion as original research. Yworo (talk) 06:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow and pomo religion too, nice.

I looked at RS noticeboard... funny how people kept suggesting that; WP:BEANS I guess. (The spam guideline talks about spam cites v GF cites). Anyway, that was kind of my first thought too, but spam linking would be less disruptive than the WP:TE. I don't get how COIN is different from the spam noticeboard if they're both predicated on linkspam. I've seen WP:COI applied much more broadly on people's talk pages... Unabated edit warring over the exact same line seems like it should speak to a conflict of interest. But all the noticeboards still seem opaque and pointless as ever.

Question: Besides WP:IDHT, is there another acronym that addresses deceptive talk page behavior like saying I've agreed to the opposite or some other crazy thing? Do you think the informal mediation thing is an effective way to cope with those tactics (in general)?

A decent cup of coffee was "exotic" in 80s London. What's the supposed implication? That "exotic" black people from Chicago recorded the imports? If it wasn't for geolocate, that would so troll.

Maybe it's pomo mumbo jumbo but the scene was described as multiracial and, (in contrast to the social politics of the original), it was re-contextualized by London club kids as ("differencing") social currency. The pseudo-genre was, collectively, the erstwhile obscure soul & funk songs, selected by pirate radio deejays. By virtue of being "labeled" Rare groove, it instantly increased their £ value too. I would' call all that "academic", but Rare groove for Dummies would be ok too, so long as "a connection" to Black Power isn't Carte Blanche for capricious demands. —Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Besides spam links, WP:COIN would cover people writing articles about themselves or their companies, or editing those articles, in a way that makes them look better. Since these appear to be general articles, and since she's stopped adding the links which seem to have been the original motivation for creating the articles, I don't think COIN would be much help. It'd have been a great place to post back at the beginning of the episode, when the links were still being added making the intent obvious. I just think that time has passed for these articles at this time. I'm pretty sure Pomo Buddhism is toast. We'll see about PoMo religion, that's got a better chance I think simply because PoMo Christianity certainly passes muster. Yworo (talk) 00:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM December 2010 Newsletter

The December 2010 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

Hello, Skyerise/Archive 2011! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 03:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Bye Yworo

Just dropped by to say goodbye.

It is obvious to me that you really care about Wikipedia and that you were trying to do the best thing in a complex situation.

I would like to retract my comment about you not listening to admin. that was pretty harsh and unfair given that you seem to always strive to do the right thing.

I have finally just read through the archives at Machine Elf's talk page - which was not fun what a load of waffle - and I can see the issue.

I really respect what Wikipedia does for people, particularly how it provides information for free and I can see that the systems in place here are just set up to protect that.

Looking at the noticeboard situation, I think I did come in with a rude taunt at the end there which you simply responded to calmly.

ME, who started to endlessly rant and comment really needs to be restricted to a 'tweet' style of conversation. I think his style of interacting just leads to a lack of fresh content being developed really which seems a little bit counter productive as in analysis paralysis.

It's quite funny how the systems work here as in "they keep dragging me back in". I do go on original research tangents so I don't think I really fit in here.

Anyway, all the best and sorry to be mean - your the smartest person I met in this joint (not that I met many people) so I am sure you will go far. --94.175.145.18 (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk Page References

You wrote "We do not reference talk pages." Why? TradingBands (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Removing Comments

I'd like to remove the superfluous information on David James (South African actor) Discussion page regarding external links since the subject was cleared up and it seems distracting, but I don't want to remove your comments without checking with you first.Bobbyandbeans (talk) 23:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Article talk page comments are never deleted, even your own, unless they are vandalism or off-topic. The talk page is intended to keep a record of article-improvement related discussions. If you remove any comments I will restore them. When an article talk page gets too long, the older material is archived. See our talk page guidelines. You may, however, remove comments from your own talk page once you have read them. Yworo (talk) 00:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Really could have done without the "if you remove any comments I will restore them" statement. An explanation that they're not removed was sufficient. Obviously I'm new to Wiki and am just trying to do what I can to improve a page, as I stated in my reasons here (they're superfluous and distracting). I checked with you first about removing them so obviously I'm not doing anything malicious; there's no need to act as if I would do it anyway after an explanation.Bobbyandbeans (talk) 01:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Yworo (talk) 14:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

DeLorean pop culture

A lyrics page is a secondary source. The song itself it the primary. The reference was not to establish notability but to establish validity. It's not a passing mentioning in the song, the entire song is about the need of a DeLorean time machine. -- Henriok (talk) 23:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Not true. A secondary source is a discussion about the cultural reference by a third party specifically relating it to the subject of the article. In addition, most lyrics sites are in violation of copyright. The only lyrics we can link to are those published by the copyright holder. Yworo (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Ptolemy Project

Hi, on 31 May 2010 you edited Ptolemy Project (computing) and marked it as "external links". Your summary was "will try to come back and fix these external links later". I went ahead and removed the external links. If you approve of the page, could you remove the "external links" tag? Full disclosure: I work for the Ptolemy Project. Cxbrx (talk) 19:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your updates to Ptolemy Project (computing) and thanks for removing the "external links" tag. Cxbrx (talk) 20:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I notice that you just added

Joseph Rael, shamanism writer
as a notable person from Picuris Pueblo. Perhaps you should also add at least a stub article about him so that his name will appear in blue. This is often one of the tests that are applied when judging whether someone is notable or not. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 18:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Life is good. Carptrash (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Rabbi Pinto

Hey Yworo, there's a lot of activity on the Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto page. Would love to hear your input! --Beobjectiveplease (talk) 02:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk page thanks!

Thanks for noticing and reverting this so quickly! Someone didn't like me deleting their spammed article...! Talk page stalkers ftw! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! Yworo (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Technical analysis

Since the talk page should not become an interactive forum, I am responding here. I already apologized as my counting was apparently incorrect. I was hoping others would add the cites, but nobody did. If you would have posted on the talk page that you will start removing by a certain date, I would have added cites by that time. The way I read WP:BURDEN, it does suggest that the person looking for cites seek to find cites themselves. If you are not familiar with the subject though, it is probably a better idea to go to the talk page and ask others and remind them that the un-cited work will be removed aggressively. Thanks.Sposer (talk) 21:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I am familiar with the subject, I simply don't have references to hand. Yworo (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

"lc heading"?

Hi - I'm not familiar with that term you used in your last edit summary for the 2001 article. Could you explain that?Shirtwaist (talk) 11:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

shorthand for "lower case heading". Per MoS, only the first word and proper nouns are to be capitalized in headings. Yworo (talk) 16:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks!Shirtwaist (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Mashro Monastery and Matho Monastery

Hello! I saw you removing my templates questioning the merge between the two articles describing similarly located monasteries in Ladakh. Would you please give some explanation as to their being actually different objects? If it for some reason cannot fit into any of the articles (the relations of the supposedly neighboring structures may fit OK I guess) a line may be dropped here: Talk:Mashro Monastery.

Both monasteries' locations are "across from Thiksey Monastery" and so far the article texts lack any features to help differentiate between them. I placed the question in English wiki as result of an outside internet discussion, and I believe far wider readership circles may be confused. --Tar-ba-gan (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

After looking into it further, I think I was wrong. Seems we also have another duplicate, Matho. The correct name does seem to be Mashro. I'll put the merge tags back. Yworo (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the compliment! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! I can't believe I'm actually watching AN/I again. It can be such a waste of time. :-) Yworo (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Tagging etc

Hey Yworo, thanks for the tip. That whole page needs massive work, and I'm just beginning it, through introducing academically sourced material. My apologies if my edits made it appear that I was just randomnly deleting sections of the text, I was merely replacing them. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC))

Very well, I'm far more familiar with Wicca and contemporary witchcraft than Druidry, and wasn't aware of that. Is there specific quotes and the like from the Tyson text that you feel should be incorporated here to reflect the other side of the story ? (Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC))

I'll look into it. Isaac Bonewits also wrote about the creation of the RDNA. I'll add sources with Google link to the relevant chapters. Yworo (talk) 23:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't actually have access to Bonewits' book, do you know if it's available online anywhere? I know in general any free access to his works were removed last year so that people would buy his books to raise funds for his treatement.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC))

Check the page number link to Google books I added to the citation. Gotta run... Yworo (talk) 00:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

My External Links

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I added what I thought were helpful resources.

I am curious however why sites like Coffee Geek are allowed to remain as resources when they are clearly commercial sites only been around longer. In addition there is no relationship between their reference [3] and their URL.

This appears to be a huge problem with Wikipedia. I myself have had to delete self serving links. And just a quick cursory glance found this: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Breitling

Take a look at the first no-followed link in the second paragraph. This has been there since Feb. Seems that spammers are running rampant on Wikipedia adding non relevant links.

And I need to correct you about no-follow tags. Despite what search engines might "officially" say, they do help and help tremendously.

Best, Kwazeen (talk) 00:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You broke the Otero citation, please fix it

Go read the Table of Contents. Otero is the Editor of the Book, and the author of the cited chapter in a collected edition. Chomsky is the editor of the bulk of the chapters (thus "book author). Fifelfoo (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, fixing them one at a time, great, now I have to peruse 260 or so references every time in order, applying the same editorial rules I've already previously applied until I realise that a single line item is missing a publisher location. That's really reduced my workload by reverting a large scale body of work. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Videophone cleanup

Hi Yworo, that was an impressive cleanup you performed on the videophone article, which was somewhat overdue. Just to let you know, I've reinstated the TeleType font to the A.G. Bell quotation due to its long standing use in the article to help readers understand they're viewing material extracted from another source. Alternate font usage is not forbidden in the MOS, with the proviso that it not be employed crazily. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 05:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Trainguy101

Just for the record, I have the same suspicions about this editor. Pretty interesting that, not long after I warned the IP for the conflict of interest and the legal threat, here comes a brand new registered user that picks right up editing where the IP left off. Strikerforce (talk) 02:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah... however it looks as if he might be interested in learning what's allowable and what's not, what kind of citations required, etc. If that's the case, it's much less of a problem... Yworo (talk) 14:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For bringing some NPOV sanity into a crazy left-right food fight! CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar, Carol! Yworo (talk) 15:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dreamlinux (2nd nomination)

You made a decent argument for deletion and I didn't find the "keep" arguments convincing. (the ZDnet review was a blog post) However, after 2 weeks you were the only one making a delete argument. My recommendation is to wait a few months and renominate. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Richmond Outreach Center

hello. this is my first entry to a talk page and so may not be following all the guidelines. Re old entry to Richmond Outreach Center - why do you consider that Rick Ross is not a reliable source. If referencing the fact that there is controversy, then it is reliable. If referencing factual information, I agree that it is less than reliable. Seems to me to be important information to reference in a balanced article. Otherwise, it is just a PR piece. ----

There are two problems with Rick Ross's site: the first is that he reproduces newspaper articles without copyright permission. This means that we cannot link to his site, as we would be contributing to driving traffic to his copyright violations. We can use the newspaper articles as sources, linking to the original articles at the newspaper's website if available, using a non-linked citation if a live link is not available. As for reliability, he is a polemic anti-cult crusader and is not neutral. We have no way to ensure that the copied newspaper articles have not been modified, which is another reason we don't source to copies of articles hosted without permission of the original publisher. For the same reason, we cannot use material which was written be Rick Ross himself, as there is no expectation of neutrality.

P.S New talk page entries always go at the end.

P.P.S. I see from the edit history of the article that the source used was a forum at rickross.com. Forums consist of user-contributed content and our policies state that not only may they not be used as sources, we may not even link to them in the external links section. Yworo (talk) 01:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

reverted your link

Hi, I reverted your link to goldprice.org due to some wikipedia.org violations regarding anti-spam. Please see http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam

if you actually go to www.goldprice.org you'll see that it is just a spam website, the gold prices they have listed are not even live.

GoldAlert is a reputable source and an authority on Gold news as cited by local and national news outlets.

Noeltazz (talk) 21:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Yworo.
First of all thanks for your contributions in Murry Hope, was very nice. I have appreciated your help and everybody else contributing. Would be fantastic if everybody did real contributions like you (It’s pretty aggressive the attitude of some people in Wikipedia, I don’t believe Wikipedia can survive if that don’t change in short term).
I still can’t believe that “Murry” was wrong spelled as well as “Egypt”. I need some sleep. Regarding the issue of “Living people” I suspect that the name “Murry Hope” might be a pseudonym. Would be necessary find a birth certificate to confirm (I couldn’t find one).

The article now also has been improved with much more references (more than enough, likely). Obviously you know that it is a worth article, you spent your time in it. Would be possible also you put your “keep” in discussion: (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Murry_Hope#Murry_Hope)? But please be comfortable, doesn’t matter if you don’t want.
You are welcome, needing a help for an article call me (I will do my best). Best, Hour of Angels (talk) 02:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Those loose references I had left for incorporating when had some available time (seemed ok but ...). Already it's been done by that time, but has been very hard to me manage time to take care that.

I didn’t know that, thanks for the tip message.

Your clarification (keep) was realistic, informative and eloquent. A light that illuminates.Hour of Angels (talk) 21:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

By the way, what a hard work you had for put all those ISBNs (only for proving a point to uninformed people). Honestly I agree articles should have good references but without extremes. You know, if one day Wikipedia “finishing” its project then will not exist any encyclopedia available for consulting (unhappily). I mean the biggest French encyclopedia already ended because of free Wikipedia. So, when this day arrives and someone wants to write an article about Shakespeare, he cannot because there are only primary and secondary sources in the world. (???)

Anyway, it is a pleasure to see good prevailing. Congratulations to everyone (and in a special manner to you). But I don’t get it one thing: Of course the article can continuing always being improved but essentially the discussion it is over, the article was assumed OK. So, the tags (asking references and copy-edit) could be removed, right? Best, Hour of Angels (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Yworo. Actually we have an especial case here. Without doubt was necessary to include the publishers and ISBNs in that list of works for helping to prove the relevance of the author (for clarifying a point to uninformed people). However, that is a list of literary works not is a bibliography. You know, bibliography is a list of source materials (most books) used in the preparation of a scholarly article; i.e., references (bibliography) are used for justifying assertions in the body text. Therefore in theory ISBNs usually are not showed in a historic list of personal accomplishments by author unless you really want to supply maxim information as much possible to the reader (but rarely a reader cares about ISBNs). Besides, according to Manual of Style (footnotes) when you want to supplement contents (for instance more details just like those) you do exactly what was done: you create a dedicated section for those notes (named “Notes” and separated from references section, because they not are references). But sometimes some articles just consider references and notes being the same thing (but rigorously that not is correct, they are in fact distinct things). By the way, the abbreviation used (n.b.) meant exactly that: take notice (nota bene in Latin).

However Yworo, that is my personal perception (and it can be wrong). What matters is that you deserve to do what you think best (you saved this article). Glad to see that you really care to do a good job, that is what counts, so it's all right. Best, Hour of Angels (talk) 18:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Please take the time to check our Manual of Style. The section on bibliographies, what they should include, and suggestions on formatting can be found here. In general, when publication details are included, which they needed to be for this author, they are included in the bibliography itself. There is no provision in the MoS for footnoting these details. Yworo (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)r

Ok Yworo, please let me say: it is all about personal perceptions. Personally usually I don’t’ see relevance in ISBNs for a list of works (considering from point of view by most readers), however technically all you did was absolutely correct. See, the manual also allows to put a list of works in a soft way, which regularly it is my first option because otherwise visually we have a swollen text, i.e. unnecessarily and esthetically terrible. But everyone has an opinion, we don’t have do agree with every thing because we not are programmed robots and Wikipedia not is a sect. Now about the my mention about “Notes section”, in fact we don’t have that virtually written (in English Wikipedia) but are implicit around here: Explanatory notes.

At last, like I already have said, you more than proved your good intentions, so I can easy compromise my preferences in favor of yours, you are welcome! Hour of Angels (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Typically, author bibliographies are done the same as reference bibliographies. I find the ISBNs quite useful. Have you followed the ISBN links? From there you can look up the book in Worldcat or dozens of vendors including Amazon and Amazon UK, among others. I agree that it doesn't look as nice. Some of those lines could be shortened by putting republications on a second line preceded by "**" to indent it under the first edition. I almost did that when I added all the pub data. While the softer lists are allowed, due to the way things work on Wikipedia, eventually someone will add the publication data and ISBNs to make for completeness. I think adding the pub data probably contributed significantly to the deletion discussion, with folks who might have added a delete !vote deciding to leave well enough alone after looking at those added details... Yworo (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Francis MacNutt

He was actually pretty well known in the 70s and 80s, remember to do a Google News search in the archives before prodding. Prod is only for uncontroversial deletion. Fences&Windows 21:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that, looked pretty dismal at the time I put the prod on it. Yworo (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

p.s. You've got a Kilroy was here userbox, did you know about {{User kilroy was here}}? Fences&Windows 22:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was aware of it, but specifically wanted to use the image of Kilroy as a band-pass filter diagram. Yworo (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It is a cool pic. Researching the history of Kilroy was here was really interesting. Fences&Windows 18:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Just a mention

This is a note to let you know that I have mentioned you here. I am not calling for any action to be taken against you. I am merely expressing my concerns over the thread that transpired here. I just thought I should tell you that you have been mentioned, nothing more. Bus stop (talk) 22:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about categories

I did not change much. Only reason why i did any thing is because i saw it needed changes and the actual categories them self say they need changes. It did not affect anything really. I wont do it no more.Program Death (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Hopper Rider.jpg relisted

This file File:Hopper Rider.jpg that you commented on at FfD has been re-listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 April 28#File:Hopper Rider.jpg Please see the discussion to see why this is. Skier Dude (talk) 01:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Advices

Hi Yworo, how are you? You have helped me with several issues (few time ago), now recently I had an unexpected problem, may ask you for some help again, guidance and advice in this list of doubts?

1- An article in Wikipedia can be written using famous paintings (under public domain) as essential and most part of it? I mean the subject it is not directly about painting but they have implicated relations. So, may I use them not only for article’s illustration but also as a massive and important part of it? If yes, an editor can immediately (without any discussion) remove these images (and esthetically wrecking the article) if he has another point of view? (vandalism?)

Images in the public domain may be used anywhere. However, that usage must conform to our image use policies. In short, typically only the lead image and images with details such as maps or writing may be enlarged. In general, images should not be manually-sized, even art. The reader can always click on the image to see more detail. Other violations of the image use policy include excessive use of images in an article (we are an encyclopedia, not a coffee-table book), placing images on both the right and the left such that the text is squeezed between them, using left-placed images such that they indent a major heading, etc.

2- An editor can immediately (without any previous discussion) remove parts (script) of an article if he has another point of view over some (referenced) sentence? (vandalism?)

If the editor is acting in good faith, yes. We only count obvious defacement as vandalism. Content disputes are not vandalism.

3- When an editor claims that didn’t find a reference (even if it near exists in the article), he can immediately remove the paragraph without first asking for it? (vandalism?)

All references should be in footnotes directly following the sentence or paragraph asserting the facts. Another editor should not have to hunt for them. And yes, any editor may remove material he believes in good faith are not supported by references. The burden of proof is on the editor adding the facts.

4- A text (supposed with neutral point of view) with a statement made in a valid reference can simply be removed because the editor has another personal interpretation for it? (vandalism?)

Not usually. If there are multiple interpretations for something, all major viewpoints should be included and supported by references. If a POV is supported, another editor should be adding the differing point-of-view, not replacing it.

5- A non-English reference is it a valid reference? If yes, an editor can immediately remove a paragraph if didn’t find an English reference? (vandalism?)

A non-English reference is valid, provided it is a reliable source, but the editor who adds it is expected to provide an English translation in the footnote of the pertinent text. If an editor cannot easily verify that a statement is support, they can remove text. They are not to be expected to read a foreign-language source to find and verify the supporting text.

6- Any editor can judge and decide (according to his personal believes and grade of knowledge) what is related (or not) to an article and immediately remove without first discussing the question? (vandalism?)

Again, content disputes are never vandalism. Yes, they can do this, but if you then restore the text, they should not be removing it a second time without discussion. See WP:BRD.

7- An editor can remove parts (with multiple references) of an article leaving other parts with orphaned references? (vandalism?)

Again, it the orphaning of references is not intentional, it's not vandalism. They made a mistake which should be pointed out to them. They should ensure that the orphaned references are fixed. There is a bot that sometimes fixes these things, eventually...

8- If a reference (of another part) was misplaced in a sentence, an editor can immediately erase the paragraph without first asking for a revision? (vandalism?)

An editor need not ask for anything. Anyone can remove any text at any time. However, if they do this repeatedly, it is considered tendentious editing.

9- Is it usual a steady Wikipedia’s article (constantly improved by numerous users and created many months or years ago) suddenly (in one only day, probably by same person with more than one username) be flooded with impolite demands and amputated like described here?

If an editor is using more than one username, they may be violating our policy against sock puppets.

Thanks Yworo, these are very important and determinant questions to me (and to many others editors, for sure). The affected article in question concerns the subject of ethereal entities (gods, spirits, angels, etc.), now seriously wrecked. Hour of Angels (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I've replied interspersed above (which is technically considered bad form, but this is my talk page so.... ) Yworo (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I lack of experience in Wikipedia, so your answers were very useful and disappointed although expected. As long as I can manage some time perhaps I (try to) patch something of what left from that article, and next I am quitting Wikipedia forever (cheers). It is easy to see now that I do not belong here. I am old and certainly over past. I am from time when people had politeness, an outdated fashion (particularly inside Wikipedia). Honestly I believe Wikipedia it is finishing in bad way. Again Yworo, thanks for your time. Hour of Angels (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Yworo, I saw that you helped me in an article again; it was nice. Now, about your last answers, I researched them and I think this time I can help you to expand your possibilities:

If an article can or not make massive use of images; actually if there is a good reason, you can. Sometimes follow too many rules can wrap you and cause loss of perspective (give a look on that: wk: loss of perpective).

The good reason: the images of this article complete it, are part of its subject (but sure there is a limit too). So, follow some technical rule to remove or leave very short images harms the encyclopedia because degrade the information. Trust me, all this argumentation already exist, read this: wk:rules and this: wk:There_is_no_common_sense.

See, there is no point in placing an image in an article if it has not good visibility. And yes, in cases like that actually you are free to enlarge the images until certain limits (see Image policy - display). An image cannot be extremely small, it has to have a certain size to be able of interesting the reader. Usually the standard size (thumb) is enough for most images, but not every time.

And please don’t get me wrong; I regard Wikipedia an awesome idea. I hope the best for it, but right now I think it lost the way. Why? Because without mention the impoliteness, all these prime guidelines that I cited above (and others ones), simply, many times have been ignored, (this does not help to improve Wikipedia). Hour of Angels (talk) 23:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Just because you don't understand the common sense that is being supplied does not mean the guidelines are arbitrary. Not everyone in the world has high-speed internet. Many are still on dial-up. Some get charged for bandwidth. The reasons behind many of the guidelines concerning images have to do with not destroying the ability for those with low-bandwidth to use and benefit from Wikipedia. In addition, some of the image rules have to do with optimizing the ability for the blind to efficiently use screen-readers (some uses of images confuse or garble the order the text is read in), for people with mobile devices to more easily use Wikipedia (typically so that the text comes first rather than the image), and finally, Wikipedia is not designed for the web alone, but is expected to properly format for print as well.In addition, users have the ability to set their own default size for images: whether they need them larger for visual disability or smaller for low-bandwidth; but this only works if the images are NOT manually-sized. Since you seem to be completely unaware of all the considerations which lead to the current guidelines, it's kind of hard to take your criticism seriously. Please try be considerate to differently-abled people by not manually-sizing images for cosmetic reasons only. What you LIKE better may make Wikipedia unusable for others. Yworo (talk) 16:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Yworo I didn’t have intention, and never will think in make an edit war with anybody. And only now I saw your answer in your talk page. You should take my words positively, as new options; I’m sorry if that upset you, wasn’t that my intention. When I spend time writing to someone it is because I think I can say something constructively. Until here I thought I had made a point and obtained a compromise with you about images. Obviously not.

Actually I liked very much your last answer. I really didn’t know those technological problems (I thought all was about personal taste).

So, may I ask you a little more of tolerance with my mistakes? I mean, if I make some edition with wrong style, would be possible you fix only that? Please don’t assume personal attack. I don’t act like this, it is something absolutely useless in my opinion. Remember, I asked your help. Hour of Angels (talk) 00:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The kind of formatting and image size and position edits I do take quite a bit of time. They are much more painstaking and detail-oriented than simply adding text and references. I won't redo them. Please edit from the live article, not a copy. Yworo (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Yworo you did an excellent work re-formatting conspiracy section. I really loved the results (much better than I had made earlier). It was nice, I have appreciated. Hour of Angels (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I am here to improve Wikipedia. :-) Yworo (talk) 17:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Anxious about your editing

I am User:Iapx86 the youngest son of Jerome Y Lettvin. Jerry just died on March 23rd, and I updated his wikipedia entry. He was far more influential than is currently shown in the article.

I have direct verifiable information that I inserted in this page. However, your edits have been so severe that I hardly trust trying again.

For instance, I had inserted the names of his doctoral_students and influences/influenced in the article. Your action then was to remove the entire list of names and say wikipedia is not a directory. So I reviewed the entry and inserted the names of his doctoral_students in the infobox:scientist. Your criticism was that URLs do not belong in this section. Your action was to remove the entire list of names rather than strip them of their links. If the infobox:scientist doctoral_students section is not the right place for the names of his doctoral students where should such a list be inserted? And if links are not given, how can the information be called verifiable? The dissertations of ALL of these students is now in the archives of the American Philosophical Society. Most of his doctoral students have gone on to substantial careers in the neurosciences.

The material I am inserting is first hand knowledge and verifiable by his students. I am entirely open to criticism and advice on improving my entries. But I am now uncertain that you will not simply remove everything I insert. Please help me improve my delivery to avoid these removals. iapx86 04:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iapx86 (talk • contribs)

Joseph Henry Sharp

Sorry about both elements. I know better. On the second - the surnames of his wives, I put a placeholder for his wives as a way of reminding myself while working on it, as I expected to be able to find their names. Have not been able to yet, and meant to delete the "xxxs". Parkwells (talk) 16:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Sam Fuld

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I thank you for your contribution to one of wikipedia's latest WP:GA's

This user helped promote Sam Fuld to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Taos

Sorry for the error on the first; was trying to distinguish Gorman and Martin, certainly, from the early 20th c. artists; should have indicated later 20th c. Parkwells (talk) 14:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Heinlein

I have no opinion on this matter and I could not care less, I reverted the IP because a quick search showed that there were obvious links between the two, including links that were admitted by Heinlein himself. I you feel the information is questionable, fine. Asavaa (talk) 16:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Taos Art Colony

Hi, Thanks for jumping on board with the expansion, ref documentation, etc. of the colony (one of my most favorite places on Earth). As an FYI, I'm going to be adding references - and there's the non-referenced template that I'll leave up until then - so you need not work that I'll catch them all, I will.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

And I have the window open for Millicent, I just haven't gotten to it yet. (I have four windows of info open.)--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm working on both articles, because of course the source informatoin overlaps. I'm going to put an "in use" on the Taos Society of Artists, too.

But if you have content that you'd like to write and would like to take control for awhile, please leave a message on my talk page. Thanks! I hope this doesn't sound rude, I LOVE having you around. I'm just in a work-in-progress (that's why I put up the under construction templates). I'm actually not bad - if you don't mind giving me a chance to get a little further, it would be appreciated! (I forgot the stream that I was going to put in the TSA article).--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, most editors don't mind a little help with their work. I'll just go do something else for awhile. Don't forget the Taos Art Museum at the Nicolai Fechin House. Yworo (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind help with work - and thanks for the additional items to catch. It's just distracting to get edit conflicts and notes about something I'm going to do in the midst of writing. I will LOVE to see what you come back with - and can ping you when I get a bulk of info in, add the links, spell check, etc - so that you're working with better copy. Thanks so much for understanding!!!--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I finished updates to the Taos Society of Artists - there's much more content but it starts getting specific by artist, and since there are articles for each of the six artists, I stopped the expansion here. Is there anything else that you think should be covered though? Would love to hear your thoughts.

I still have more to do on the Taos art colony. Any further direction there is appreciated, too! Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 13:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Trivia

Fixed. Please feel free to edit or add a citation needed tag as needed. Thanks, TheFireTones 14:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok. TheFireTones 16:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Lists

According to the guideline on lists, they serve three main purposes, of which navigation is but one. The other two are information and development. That is squarely where redlinks fall. If you wish to debate the purpose of lists please take this conversation to the MoS talk page, or propose an AfD for the list to promote other editors' contributions. Thank you. • Freechildtalk 00:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

List criteria are specified when the list article is created. This one specified "Entries on this list are demonstrated as notable by having linked articles or being supported by reliable sources." Since you were adding red links without any reliable sources, your additions violated the existing list criteria for this specific list. As I had just cleaned up the list to comply with this list's criteria on May 26th, I don't appreciate your messing it up again. Yworo (talk) 01:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Please do not instigate edit wars according to your interpretation of WP guidelines, and note they are that: guidelines, not rules. They are not hard and fast. Here, they are open to consensus-driven decision-making; perhaps acting with civility would be prudent at this point. Please see my conversation on the article's talk page towards that end. • Freechildtalk 02:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

You have made no comments on the article talk page. The last comment was an IP opining that the list needed to be cleaned up. It was. Please don't add entries until you've written an article on the subject being added. Thanks. Yworo (talk) 02:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Natami

As it happens, I'd added the {{afdanons}} template. Tothwolf removed it, I restored it, and he removed it again. Thanks for putting it back up, but it's time to take this to ANI, I think.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  03:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Could be. Yworo (talk) 03:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FNatami

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (Apologies, but since I mentioned that you put the template back up, I felt it necessary to alert you.)  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  03:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I intend to ignore it in any case. AN/I is usually a big time waster :-( Yworo (talk) 03:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Kilroy was here

Thanks for the warning.

Eric567 (talk) 16:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

A Wiki-question for you

Hi. You helped me out a few weeks ago, and I thought you might again. (Actually, I wish I knew of a common wikipedia page where questions like these could be put and answered.)

I sometimes come across articles that look as though they were translated from another language by somebody not quite fluent in English. My current example: Chalcolithic; in fact, I see that the first entry in its history is 15:43, 25 February 2002 Conversion script (talk) m (382 bytes) (Automated conversion)

Do you know if there are accepted ways of marking such articles, something like {{bad english}}? Obviously, one solution is for me to fix it myself, but (a) I don't have time right now, and (b) I'm not sure I can rephrase some of the text without inadvertently changing the meaning. Bloody Viking (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Editor using IPs 76.121.180.74 and 24.17.63.79

User:Yworo has asked the editor using IPs 76.121.180.74 and 24.17.63.79 not to post on this talk page; please have the courtesy to respect this and use the article talk pages instead. Like all users, Yworo has the right to remove any material from this page and will, I assume, continue to do so. Material will be more visible and permanent on article talk pages where it cannot be refactored in this way. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 00:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Thaksinocracy

I have removed the prod tag you placed on Thaksinocracy, as per policy an article that has ever been discussed at AfD is ineligible for deletion via prod. I did this only to comply with policy; do not interpret this action as an endorsement for keeping this article. If you still wish to pursue deletion, please open another AfD. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 03:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Caps on HD

Please see WP:HD#How do I work out what the problem is re Capitalization?. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  10:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Indigenous religions

Thanks for doing something with that paragraph dealing with Animist faiths in the Spiritualist article. It didn't fit in the article but I was not sure what to do with it. Tom Butler (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

"CYBER" vs "Cyber"

Please don't stuff around with capitalization on CDC CYBER related pages. The correct spelling in this context is all capitals "CYBER" not "Cyber". The CDC CYBER was a mainframe computer manufactured by Control Data Corporation between about 1970 to 1992. The company always used the word CYBER all capitalized. Thanks. Tom. Cdccyber (talk) 12:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

We don't use stupid capitalization even when the company does. Only acronyms get all caps. Thus is it NOS and NOS/BE, which are acronyms, but Cyber and Kronos, Fortran, Lisp, because they are not acronyms. See WP:ALLCAPS for details. Yworo (talk) 14:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

FORTRAN is short for FORmula TRANslator.

LISP is short for LISt Processing.

Cdccyber (talk) 14:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Yup, but those are not acronyms, and neither is cased like that anymore. The only reason most of these works were written in all-caps was that the characters sets of the machines at the time did not include lower-case. We don't copy that. Yworo (talk) 14:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for WikiProject United States to support WikiProject New Mexico

It was recently suggested that WikiProject New Mexico, to which you are a member, may be inactive or semi-active and it might be beneficial to include it in the list of projects supported by WikiProject United States. After reviewing the project it appears that there haven't been much active discussion on the talk page in some time and the only content updates appear to be simple maintenance so being supported by a larger project might be beneficial. I have begun a discussion on the projects talk page to see how the members of the project feel about this suggestion. Another user has added the project to the WPUS template and I added it to the list of supported projects in the WPUS main project page but before I take any further action I wanted to contact each of the active members for their input. --Kumioko (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

SubGenius edits

As stated on my talk page, I do have reason to believe sock puppetry is involved with the blocked username in question. Because the majority of this particular drama is taking on Facebook and outside of Wikipedia, I wouldn't expect Wikipedia's admins to have first-hand knowledge of this. The username in question was used to intentionally slander the person whose name it was opened under, "Jessica Darling." I sent a message last week to Wikipedia's admins asking for the IP address of the username, but my request was rebuffed; they feel that the person using the name of "Jessica Darling" should contact them directly instead. -- Modemac (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Max Morath

Thank you for your help and the barnstar. Much appreciated. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 21:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Michael Walker (knifemaker)

The subject, or a friend, may add or correct their own birthday, and correct other information that is not controversial, as was done at Michael Walker (knifemaker), see Wikipedia:Autobiography#Problems_in_an_article_about_you. User:Fred Bauder Talk 00:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Nobody has made a claim to be either the subject or their friend. Some new user simply changed the birthdate without explanation. As we didn't have a source, and the new user didn't provide a source, why should we even include the birthdate, which can be used for identity theft in any case? Yworo (talk) 01:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The editor has claimed, off wiki, that he is a friend who has attended the subject's birthday parties. User:Fred Bauder Talk 03:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't we subject that sort of thing to verification? OTRS? Something? Yworo (talk) 03:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Images and galleries

Hi

While I appreciate the points you have made, do you know a way to get around the gallery problem of alt= and alt text?

If you can, then having changed them into galleries will be ok, if not then there is still going to be a problem. Chaosdruid (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, I didn't notice any "alt=" parameters so didn't think about that. I know featured articles are supposed to have those though so I understand we can't go in a direction that prevents it. I had to switch from my MacBook Pro to an old moldy Windows machine, and now can't even load or edit the due to the number of images!! Feel free to revert my work as I can't really collaborate now. If you could make sure none of the tables exceeds 700px in width (I think that's the width allowed for panoramic images) then the problem would be greatly reduced. Yworo (talk) 20:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not just FA unfortunately, the GA criteria require MoS image compliance (well, technically all articles should comply to MoS lol), at GA the alt= parameter should be present but does not need the alt text, as per MoS (this stops visually impaired readers from having to listen to the file name when the alt= is not present); at FA the alt= should have the alt text included as well.

I was hoping you knew a way around it lol, never mind. I had a similar problem on a GA I nominated. The images were in a drop down and neither any of the wikitable versions I tried to change it to nor the {{hidden begin I had used originally would allow the alt= or the alt text to be placed without displaying it ... most annoying. Ah well, if I find a solution I will let you know :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Links to publishers site

The links I added on the Chee Soo page are directly relevant to the article, the publisher is non-profit making and what is more they have an extensive online mediawiki with almost all of the author's published works on there to read free of charge. --Chuangzu (talk) 19:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Anon IP trouble

Wow, looking at contribs that must have been annoying to clean up. You have to feel for some people. My first articles were deleted and I felt annoyed at Wikipedia, but I soon learnt the notability guideline, not how to troll others. Sorry about the hassle. PS what did it take to get your talk page autoconfirmed? I've been vandalised once or twice during vandal fighting. --Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 14:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Heads up

Sounds like the newbie at User talk:66.108.86.141 doesn't understand your process. I hope you'll take a moment to enlighten them as to your editing process. Thanks. • Freechildtalk 22:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that- looks good on WP as a whole. • Freechildtalk 03:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I watch the article talk page but unless I am the first one to post a message on an IP talk page, I don't always remember to watch them after making a comment. Usually they are dynamic so the same user shows up elsewhere the next day... Yworo (talk) 14:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

thumbs up

awesome box at the top of this page, well-reasoned approach to anons. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Finished?

Are you finished hounding my edits now? You've already been humiliated twice. Please, I encourage you to try a third time. RonaldMerchant (talk) 01:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

You've been asked not to post on my talk page further. It's considered harassment to continue to do so, for any reason. If you don't believe me, see the post by admin Kim at the top of my talk page. Again, please do not post on my talk page again.

In any case, I'm not at all humiliated, why should I be? I was simply removing material that needed to be sourced. So you found a source, big deal. I find them sometimes too. We can't all be experts on everything, but your characterization of me as such does speak to your battle ground mentality. Yworo (talk) 02:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

A little joy for you: User talk:RonaldMerchant#Indef block. Zero^talk 10:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for Help on an Article You've Been Editing

Hello, I noticed you were instrumental in helping clean up the entry Tara Brach. I am trying to get the page to comply with Wikipedia's guidelines as much as possible and would love your assistance even though you must be quite busy. I have one question in particular - Tara Brach has been cited in several scholarly journals that can only be accessed on a per-fee basis. If one were to buy the journal article in question citing Tara Brach's work as a psychologist and meditation teacher, could that article be cited even though it's not available to the general public and therefore hard for other editors to review? Thanks in advance for your help. Sueanne0310 (talk) 22:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Catherine Yronwode

When did I place the template in a section by itself? Reviewing both of my edits ([1], [2]), the only change to the commons link was to change it to a link to the actual category page. In what was its section location changed? Nightscream (talk) 09:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I never said I did not know what I was doing, so please do not take that accusatory tone with me, as we have rules against incivility and assumptions of bad faith. My understanding was that "commonscategory" was the proper link to use. I was not familiar with the template instructions you pointed out to me, which clearly indicate that this is not the case, so I appreciate you illuminating that for me. I'm sorry if I initially did not comprehend those instructions clearly, but there is no reason for your accusatory attitude. Please see WP:CIV and WP:AGF for future reference. Thank you very much. Nightscream (talk) 16:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Max Morath

You may care to have a look at the current version of this article, which seems to me to be more promotional than encyclopedic. Thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 01:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Re:About Buddhist temples

Hi there. I did not know that there was an "inclusion criteria". All I could see on the discussion page was an agreement between 5 users. I personally think that it is pointless creating a list of Buddhist temples with wikipedia articles. There is a different page for that, it is called Category. Also, Lalitpur submetropolitan city website lists the majority of the deleted Buddhist shrines as UNESCO world heritage monuments (within UNESCO world heritage site Kathmandu valley). A reference to the page was also provided during the edit. I see no point excluding UNESCO world heritage monuments just because they do not have an article. Thank you. Cheers!--Eukesh (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi again. I still dont see any discussion or consensus on the discussion page. I can change the first line as easily as anyone can. That does not make it a valid inclusion criteria, does it? Still, have it the way you see correct. I am not editing in that page anymore or creating article stubs about heritages (of which I do not have detailed knowledge). Thanks. Cheers!--Eukesh (talk) 20:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Precisely. And when there is no consensus, you cannot force your view as inclusion criteria, can you? Besides, its clear that we disagree with each other. So, there is no consensus. That does not make the "criteria" that you stated inclusion-al. Anyway, I believe there is no rationale for proceeding this discussion further as I do not intend to edit the page anymore. Thank you.--Eukesh (talk) 20:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

When there is no consensus to change things, things are left as they are. I implemented the criteria based on previous comments and asked for objections before implementing it. It is the current consensus, as there were no objections at the time. Now you object, but that's not enough to make a change. Yworo (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Outline of spirituality

I'm looking for people to help maintain outlines. I noticed you did some work on this one awhile back. Would you watchlist this? Please look it over again to help it keep up with Wikipedia's growing coverage of the subject. I look forward to your reply. The Transhumanist 02:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

re:Lake Superior Zendo

I've added some different outside sources citing information about Lake Superior Zendo. I also added some information about a short-lived scandal involving a Episcopalian Bishop. However, LSZ was only implicated incidentally, and I'm not sure if the information belongs there or in an article about Episcopalian syncretism, or if it only needs to be reworded. There is a huge amount of coverage about the subject (for having happened in the UP of Mich.), but few of the articles name LSZ. Could you suggest where the information belongs, or possibly edit the wording? I'll mention this problem in the discussion page, as well. Thank you. Terrencereilly (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

List of sanghas in San Diego

Hi. Sorry I didn't realize right away that the List of Buddhist temples need to have an article written about them. Some other pages, like photographers, work like that, so it is a good idea. Do you think I can include an article made of sanghas in San Diego that people can add to? None of them seem to be notable on their own in my opinion except Deer Park Monastery which already has its own article (except maybe the Dharma Bums because they have three organizations in San Diego). Thanks for your thoughts. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Excellent comments, thank you. I removed all of the extra bold text, swapped in third party sources and added bullets, so this seemed okay to link to the main list. Hope so. Thank you again for your suggestions. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Last name or first name

Most of these architects are known by first name. I edited the article List of Bangladeshi architects from practical experience. I wish you think about it again. Rossi101 (talk) 17:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)Rossi101

Since they are probably not known at all to 90% of our readers, that leaves no more than a small percentage of people who are already familiar with the topic who know them by first name. Lists of people are always ordered by last name. I see no reason to treat this differently. Yworo (talk) 02:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

CS Lewis

I reverted your edit, but I ask you if you can take a look at the new section on the relevant talk page for your opinion, I also requested mediation from an uninvolved administrator in order to help resolve the issue. Sheodred (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I really only discuss content issues on the talk pages of articles. I've posted my view about what should be done there. Yworo (talk) 18:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a proponent of Wikipedia:UKNAT, btw. GoodDay (talk) 22:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Kubrick Sources

You are entirely correct. I hadn't really looked at that section for a while. I have now added a sentence with reference to the rebuttal of these theories at "RationalWiki" which in turn cites Prison Planet, etc., so if the user wants to find the promulgators, they can either reference the Cracked.com article or the rationalwiki article.--WickerGuy (talk) 22:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional help. Currently, Wikiwatcher1 has once again moved the whole section again to Talk:Stanley Kubrick/sandbox, but I think he just wants to find the right place in the article for this material. I'm mainly interested in including the stuff on the moon landing mockumentary that Kubrick's widow and brother-in-law/producer helped out with and appeared in. The rest is kinda to provide a context for the mockumentary to point out that although the it is news parody (a la The Onion, Saturday Night Live news) there are other folks who take these ideas seriously (including viewers of the mockumentary who didn't get that it was a joke.)--WickerGuy (talk) 23:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

IP editing Rachel Reeves article

Hi, I see you've already reverted a few additions by the IP on the Reeves article. Could you possibly review their other edits as they've removed some material as well such as the name of her spouse and are keen on using her first name. I restored the material once already and issued guidance but the IP reverted that and input from another editor would be useful. Thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually I just noticed the links you removed were not by that IP (sorry I assumed with the timing and with all the other inappropriate links they introduced that it was their addition).--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Religion fields in infoboxes

The identification of Judaism as a religion is, as was mentioned in the talk page, a tricky issue. See Who is a Jew? for more information on how a person may be born Jewish, become a practicing Hindu, Muslim, or Catholic, and still be a Jew according to halakh and Israeli law.--Louiedog (talk) 19:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but for living people, the identification always has to be self-identification. We do not describe a person as adhering to a religion unless they say they do. If they convert, we do not say they still ascribe to the religion. In point of fact, we do not use halakh and Israeli law, only the subject's self-identification. If there is no religious self-identification, we may not label the subject in infoboxes, categories, or lists. Yworo (talk) 20:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Curious you now espouse self identification, different matter on Lewis. Mo ainm~Talk 21:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Religion of living people has always been covered by WP:BLPCAT. It does not cover either nationality or deceased people. Context, context, context. Yworo (talk) 22:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:Astrology project would like your views on what constitutes appropriate content and sources for astrology-related content

Hi, this is to let you know that there is an important discussion taking place in the WP:Astrology project, which affects the guidelines for content and sources on astrology-related pages. This requires input from its members. It would be very much appreciated if you could leave a comment/express your views on the issues raised.

The link to the discussion is here.

Hope you can find time to add a few thoughts

Thank you, -- Zac Δ ^talk! 14:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Those stickers

Hello Yworo! How does one get the stickers like those on the right-hand side of your page? I notice some people have them, others don't. I've done a lot of minor editing over the last six years but I've just started having my own page here. Axel (talk) 19:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Richard_Reames#Arborist

I've started a section at Richard Reames talk page about the citations need. ?oygul (talk) 02:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Your 3RR complaint

WP:AN3#User:174.99.127.20 reported by Yworo (talk) (Result: ). There is no good option for admin action that I can see, based on what you have written. The IP-hopping editor can't be easily blocked. We are unlikely to semiprotect an SPI against the person charged. The SPI itself lists a bunch of articles where you think the IP has been misbehaving, including Richard Stallman and C. S. Lewis. If you could make a proper case, it might be justified to semiprotect some of those articles. But some evidence for each article would be needed. If you agree with this approach, consider expanding your 3RR request to justify their protection. EdJohnston (talk) 16:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, Ed. I'll think about it. Perhaps it will just go back to quietly tagging articles with maintenance templates and quit thinking it's some sort of IP-admin entitled to repeatedly template the regulars. Yworo (talk) 16:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia meetup

Do you live in Seattle? I saw that you edit Seattle-area articles.

I would like to invite you to attend a Wikipedia meetup described on Wikipedia:Meetup/seattlewp. This meeting is scheduled for 7pm Tuesday December 6 in Cafe Allegro. Thank you for your attention and I hope to see you there. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Walker

Thanks for fixing it. I found it in the Commons last night by accident. I had no idea it was there when I first wrote the article and was concerned about getting a photo of one of his knives. He onlydoes 2 shows a year and I don't make it to either.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks as well for those parameters in the infobox!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on the knife related articles, it seems like a one-man-task at times!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Williams Tube

I have added a couple of references from primary literature, as requested. Perhaps you can help me by tidying up the snytax -- I don't have much experience with citations & Co.

Dulciana (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Slumach

A user called Fred Braches has created a page called Slumach and another page called Pitt Lake gold find. On Fred Braches talk page he states that he has a slumach website. The articles Slumach and Pitt Lake gold find links directly to his website. Fred Braches is using the articles to advertise his website. Is this a conflict of interest. His website is located on the external links section of Slumach and Pitt Lake gold find. It looks like he is advertising a book on his website.Msruzicka (talk) 21:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

BRD is an essay

Please be less insistent on having things your way.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Please be sensitive to users with disabilities. Yworo (talk) 02:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Please read the page you're citing. BRD, or bold-revert-discuss, would indicate in this situation that once your edit was reverted, you should discuss, not try to make your edit again. In this situation, it was you who first "violated" BRD. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Nope, that's after "if your edit was a revert" in the flowchart. My first edit was not a revert. I've made one revert, you've made two. Yworo (talk) 03:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Your edit was bold, Wehwalt's was a revert, the next step should have been discussion - instead, you reverted. I've made no reverts at all, not sure where you're getting that from. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Eh, my brain must be getting fuzzy. I could have sworn BRD effectively said "Discuss rather than revert a second time" instead of "Discuss if your bold edit is reverted". Of course, policies, guidelines, and even essays change frequently around here, it's possible I'm remembering a previous version of the flowchart from years ago. I've been here long enough that that sort of thing trips me up occasionally. Yworo (talk) 05:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Adyashanti

I was wondering if you could evaluate the new sources that I added to the AfD. SL93 (talk) 22:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Already done. Four look good. Yworo (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I added three more sources after that though. SL93 (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Chaos magic

The book exists. However, the editor who cited the book did so specifically to support the inclusion of "semenancy", which is not mentioned in the book.

To claim that (book X) supports (statement Y), when (book X) makes no mention whatsoever of (statement Y), is to make a false reference. DS (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure. That statement was originally added by a Hilarious Prankster, and brought to my attention by a "Funniest Garbage On Wikipedia" thread on a discussion forum. It's been difficult to remove: anons keep trying to restore it because it's Hilarious And Funny. And now one of them tried registering an account and falsely citing a source. DS (talk) 20:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

It would be easier if you added a section on the article talk page explaining, then note the talk page section when making an edit involving it. Many editors check the talk page for reasons for various actions to determine whether they should be reverted or not. Yworo (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Raymond Salvatore Harmon

Curious what your deal is with the Raymond Salvatore Harmon page I created. I have also noticed a pattern of you removing cited references to him without reason from other wikipages in order to orphan that page. In particular the Stan Brakhage page.

While you complain that I reverted your "work" most of the columns you "fixed" were in fact tables that can be sorted either way chronologically. Additionally you removed a ton of reference links to his work that took me much time in hunting down and adding to this page. While you complain that I reverted your work you have spent a considerable amount of time attacking a page I have been working on for years without consideration.

So, do you have an excuse for your behavior or is it another case of "wikilord will rule the interwebs!"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creatcher (talk • contribs) 05:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

You don't own the page. Wikipedia has standards. They can be found in the Manual of Style. I am improving the article by improving its adherence to these standards. One standard is, that bibliographies, discographies, etc. should be displayed in chronological order. It doesn't matter that they are sortable, they should be listed in chronological order to start. Not reverse, not by title, chronological.

We also have standards for what is considered a reliable source. Some of the sources you used did not meet those standards. We also have standards for prose. Article sections should not read like resumés or timelines. They should be composed of well-written paragraphs. Try your hand at writing some.

External links are allowed in some places, and not in others. In general, all external links belong in the Notes, References, Further reading and External links sections. No text links like this are allowed in the body of the article, which is all of the article before the See also section.

Sites such as blogs, forums, mailing lists are not only not reliable sources, they are not even allowed to be linked from the External links section.

Also, we don't cite "by example". If a writer compares Harmon with Brakhage, you cannot use that as support for "Harmon is often compared with Brakhage" unless the source states that explicitly. You gave an example of one writer comparing Harmon with Brakhage once, how do you get "often" from that?

These are not rules I am making up, they are all documented in our Manual of Style, of which you appear to be woefully ignorant.

Our standards are even higher for biographies of living people than for other articles. I suggest you read through the Manual of Style and try harder to comply with it if you do not want others to have to improve the article. Remember what it says just below the save button every time you edit, "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here."

Thank your for your contributions to Wikipedia. Yworo (talk) 06:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

You still haven't addressed the issue I am raising which is that you have deliberately looked for and removed as many references to Raymond Salvatore Harmon on wikipedia as you could find. In doing so you seem to be showing a kind of behavior that is unbecoming to someone who truly wants to improve the wiki community. Having now spent a bit of time looking through your editing history and past interactions with other editors and contributors to wikipedia I am concerned about a focused attempt that you are making toward changing articles related to esoterism, occultism, and specific filmmakers and artists who interact with those fields.

From other discussions and issues I have seen here on wikipedia (related to your user name) it would appear your actions are deliberate and meant not to make wikipedia a better place but to reinforce certain concepts, downplay certain people involved in these fields, and overall change historic fact for personal research on a large scale.

I would like you to address this question. Are you changing articles to reflect an altered version of what is referenced data in order to downplay certain people, and or change how wikipedia represents historic fact involving these fields? It certainly would appear so. Creatcher (talk) 23:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

That's your accusation. But it's not what I've done. I removed unsourced or poorly sourced content from other articles in a manner consistent with our policy requiring reliable citations for information about living people. I will not further address this unless you bring up specific instances, one at a time. And desist with your personal attacks. Yworo (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you need to stop this right now. I removed a link from only one article. You put it back, I changed the wording to reflect the source, and the link is still there. Harmon's film, The Philosopher's Stone, is simply not notable and shouldn't have an article. IMDb is not considered a reliable source, and being listed in it does not confer notability. See WP:MOVIE for the actual notability requirements for films. Yworo (talk) 00:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Use of quotes on Tetrabiblos

Hi Yworo - I have just noticed that you changed the article titles to be enclosed by double quotes not single quotes. I want to explain the situaion so you don't mind that I change them back. Unaware that you had done this, but with other quote issues in mind, I raised a question yesterday morning about the use of the quotes in the article, was subsequently informed that its OK to follow the format of using single quotes for article titles, and then I posted some typographical conventions to keep a note of what is being consistently applied in the article. See also this post which came over the discussion on the FA discussion page, saying the single quotes should be retained.

It is only this morning that I notice you changed the quotes in the citation box yesterday. I think the footnotes and citations should be consistent with each other, and it will be an easy job to change the quotes in the Works cited panel, but a hell of a job picking through all the code to change the style in the inline citations. The reason I want to explain this is so you don't think I am thoughtlessly reverting your edit. So hope that's OK. And thanks for adding the sister project links - I was struggling with that -- Zac Δ ^talk! 10:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah - and thanks for the edit summary note about emboldening - just noticed that too -- Zac Δ ^talk! 11:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Double quotes are standard for article citations. They are generated when you use cite templates and I believe that our Manual of Style specifies that double quotes are to be used for this purpose. I'll see if I can find it. Yworo (talk) 14:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I found it, here: Italics are generally used only for titles of longer works. Titles of shorter works should be enclosed in double quotation marks ("text like this"). Yworo (talk) 15:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

But MOS also says that the use of double or single is often discretionary, which is why I raised this for discussion, and the response there was to leave this as it is. The more important consideration is that the article is consistent throughout. I have spent a great deal of time now Yworo making sure that there is consistency throughout the article, so it would cause great disruption to change the style at this stage. This is quite an acceptable style, and more logical when titles and quotes are used together, as in the references. If you feel that this merits a fuller discussion, can you raise the argument on this thread, which I initiated in order to create a clear guideline from those who review articles at a top level. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 15:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

We use standard citation styles. There is a list of allowed citation styles (Citation, APA style, MLA style, The Chicago Manual of Style, Author-date referencing, Vancouver system and Bluebook) at WP:CITE. Which of the listed styles have you selected? What does the manual for that style say? As far as I know, all citation styles specify double quotes for article titles. Personally, I think you should use double quotes. Yeah, it's a lot of work. What I did was a lot of work. Your characterization of Wikipedia guidelines does not jive with my understanding, which is that double quotes are preferred for everything except quotations within quotations. Since scare or sneer quotes aren't permitted (they imply a derogatory reading of a word), single quotes are pretty much only used in linguistic contexts and for plant cultivars. Yworo (talk) 15:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

On occult-related articles

I appreciate the work you've done, your edits on different articles keep coming up on my watchlist (and my watchlist isn't too big) — but right now I'm going to have to ask you to slow down a bit, you're putting a lot of work on me. I don't know of anyone else who's ready to immediately do the actual research on these subjects, and I'd prefer to concentrate on one or two subjects at a time without the pressure. Maybe refrain from AfD'ing on this topic for the next week or so? Please? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 16:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey, you're not the only editor involved. Don't imagine you are the only one working on this. You are probably right that Lionel is notable. Eshelman isn't, don't waste any time on him. Kaczynski is probably not notable, but might possibly barely squeak by. Sherwin's article should, in my opinion, be deleted and started from scratch, being an unsourced BLP and all.

I do see a real problem here we need to watch out for... It seems that the occult community has gotten the idea that if one of their notable members writes an article about a non-notable member and publishes it on their own personal or group website, they can then get the the non-notable member into Wikipedia. That's not true, because the "recognized expert" exception for self-published sources does not apply to biographies of living people. In particular, we need to watch out for biographical information sourced to Phil Hine's site.

However, I will go put some work into the Harry Everett Smith article, which is atrociously referenced. :-) Yworo (talk) 16:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I mean about these particular ones, I didn't see anyone else promising to save them, so it seems to be on me. I agree about Eshelman and Kaczynski, I'm going to vote on their AfDs when I get around to googling them first.

Do you honestly think there's some sort of a conspiracy in the occult community regarding Wikipedia? It may seem to outsiders that the occult community is one big incestuous group, but that's simply not true. One writer writing about another doesn't mean they're pals, it probably means they agree (or vehemently disagree) with their ideas. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 17:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

An organized conspiracy? No. A concerted effort on the part of several individuals to stuff Wikipedia with articles about non-notable occultists by trying to game our notability system? Yes. Yworo (talk) 17:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. An example of one such article? There's some authors that are widely recommended and discussed in relevant communities on the Internet (and probably offline but I don't know about it), but, to Wikipedia, are only "notable" for being covered by other notable occultists. But I've also seen articles on people who, according to my own opinion, haven't made mentionable contributions to the field and haven't been widely recommended — but make a claim for notability for being connected to some or other magic society or such, some examples being James A. Eshelman and Jean-Louis de Biasi. The societies and orders themselves are often of questionable significance. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 18:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't have an example offhand. Most I've found, including articles about the non-notable groups themselves, have been deleted. But take a look through the list of articles on User:Rosencomet (primarily the occult-related ones, he does better on musician and comics-related articles) - many of them are very poorly sourced and may include such examples. Another interesting "ploy" I've found - new groups taking the names of defunct but notable groups. Or publications. See for example the Psychic News article, a defunct publication. A new blog "Spirit of PN", claims to be the "successor" publication, self-sourced of course, and keeps spamming their links into the article. Another interesting one was Alexander (magician), where a group claiming to have revived his "Crystal Spirit League" has self-published his work with a new introduction, privately printed and distributed and with a fake ISBN. Ultimately, it turned out that the editor trying to spam the article with links to this new group was actually the publisher of the book, owned the domain being spammed and was spamming several other personally-owned domains in other articles! Yworo (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what an imprint is. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 07:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The publisher's mark or name. Some publishers have multiple marks, but I used the word here simply because his second self-published work used the imprint "Baphomet Publishing". He may or may not have put an imprint on his first work, but if he did and anyone knows it, it should be added like I added Baphomet Publishing as the imprint on the first edition of The Theatre of Magick. Yworo (talk) 00:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and did you notice the price someone is trying to get for a new copy of the 2006 edition on Amazon? $2475 and its not even a first edition. The seller is insane, and if anyone buys it, they will be too (unless they are planning to counterfeit it and sell new copies themselves). Yworo (talk) 00:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I've no idea about the first editions; but the later edition of that one says exactly that, published by Baphomet Publishing in association with Lulu Press. (Both of those are for the later edition, I don't know who published it originally, it might've been printed out in his basement.) — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 06:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, the book may say that, but Amazon, Google, etc just say Lulu.com,so that's what the article should say. Yworo (talk) 06:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The publisher is Lulu (company), not a web address. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 06:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Not if every online catalog of the book says Lulu.com. I'll check worldcat to see what it says. Yworo (talk) 06:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: Be Here Now (disambiguation)

Has been deleted. you can go ahead with your move. --GraemeL ^(talk) 19:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Lady Lilith pix

Six Rossetti paintings as hung in Leyland's drawing room, 1892. Lady Lilith hangs at the far right. (click on painting for full view)

I appreciate your input on all the pix at Lady Lilith. You may be right in removing some of them. I'll ask that you describe the issues on the talkpage. I may revisit the illustrations. My basic feeling is that this is an article about an illustration, how it developed, and was then displayed, so that lots of illustrations are required. But I'll wait awhile to let my mind clear first. Smallbones (talk) 02:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm done editing for today. Will discuss tomorrow. I'd like to try to re-integrate the painting of Leyland. I do think the gallery of paintings it was displayed with is a bit much. I wonder if there is a way to do an image map, so that clicking on each painting in the photo of the drawing room would link to the individual images that were in the room. Then the caption could indicate that this is possible. That would be a rather slick way to do it.

One thing we do need to figure out how to do is to not squeeze text between images on the right and left. That's definitely something the style guidelines say to avoid. I think we can come up with something that presents well. Will discuss more tomorrow on the article talk page. Feel free to copy this beginning discussion there if you like, but I've gotta go now.... Yworo (talk) 03:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I think I got it. Thanks for the idea and the encouragement. Smallbones (talk) 02:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Smallbones (talk) 02:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Rollback links in watch list

Hi.

I'm not sure if you saw, but I got an answer to your question, via the helpdesk and the Village Pump;

• If you edit Special:MyPage/skin.css and add this line;

.page-Special_Watchlist .mw-rollback-link {display:none}

...that should stop the 'rollback' links showing up in your Watchlist.

Hope that helps.  Chzz  ►  12:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The holiday season is upon us

Hi Yworo. I think we have agreed and disagreed but your contributions have greatly benefited the project and respect to you for that. I hope you won't allow this issue to upset you longer than necessary and that you will return to contributing in the near future. Best wishes and happy holidays. Youreallycan (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Although Yworo may have made contributions to Wikipedia, my personal opinion is that he has done as much damage as he has constructive work. That's not a personal attack, just as noting his accomplishments is not an endorsement of some of his abrasive behavior. It's just my opinion based on personal experience with Yworo. I certainly will never edit an article again as long as he is a part of Wikipedia; it's just not worth it. And from what I can gather, there are others like me. Irolnire (talk) 18:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Well that is up to you. I see you have only seven extremely minor edits to articles in the four months you have been here anyway. I can tell you now, editing wikipedia is not worth the personal attacks you get from upset new users that want to add anything they want irrespective of wikipedia policies and guidelines. I gather Yworo who I have experienced has a good grasp of our policies upset you by requesting you follow them. Facebook is not a reliable source for a religious status addition to any wikipedia biography. Youreallycan (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back

Well done dude - don't let it get to you. Ignore them, rise above it, don't reply in kind. Youreallycan (talk) 23:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

ANI discussion

I've closed the ANI thread. If it happens again, don't be drawn into an argument: ping an admin directly with the evidence. I'm not sure whether there's a long-term solution, but assuming said IP isn't so obsessed that he starts rapidly swapping IPs a block or two should encourage him to find something more productive to do with his time than following you around. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I hate to throw cold (or at least room-temperature) water on all this, but the specific content-related edits Yworo gripes about appear to be valid. I especially noted Yworo's continued posting of lyrics of a song, despite the IP's concerns about copyright issues. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Lyrics of a song written in the early 1900s and for which I provided a citation that said lyrics were in the public domain? The IP had been repeatedly informed by other editors that works from before 1923 were in the public domain. He was just being contentious, and had been shouting in edit comments before I arrived. Yworo (talk) 10:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

If it was written in the early 1900s, then the song is probably out of copyright - and then it could be argued that the lyrics belong in wikisource rather than in wikipedia. So basically he griped about the wrong thing. Your one complaint about block evasion also has merit, although I've seen block-evading registered users welcomed back with open arms, so that's not a show-stopper by itself. And, unfortunately, as I've learned from bitter experience, IP-hoppers by definition are not "socks", unless they do something sock-specific such as voting twice. They exploit wikipedia's loophole (or wide open, gaping wound, truth to tell) that "anyone can edit". Until (or if) that fundamental philosophy changes, IP's will continue to do that kind of stuff. I have had many rows over that irritating subject, and I always lose, but it doesn't stop me from pointing it out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate what you are saying. I tried to open a sock investigation but got nowhere. I highly doubt it has always been an IP, but figuring what username(s) it may have used seems impossible, though it may have temporarily have used the account User:Yworohater (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for a brief time. Certainly the data for any accounts it has used will be stale. Yworo (talk) 10:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Checkusers won't comment on IP's. That's another loophole IP's exploit. Is that the correct user ID? It doesn't have any log entries. How old is it? If it's older than a month or two, they can't do any technical review to see if it's the same guy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

It made three nasty edits to my user page in August. [3]. I don't recall if it made any other edits, but if it did they were the sort that get deleted. Yworo (talk) 10:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

If it were me, I would have let those edits stand, unless they revealed personal information. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

IIRC (which I may not), they were gratuitously and graphically obscene. And/or they might also have attempted to out my identity, probably inaccurately. I know that I've had that happen in the past, though maybe these were not the edits I remember. In any case, I think they must have gone beyond normal vandalism or I'd not have bothered to have them excised. Or perhaps some admin excised them on their own. I really don't recall. Yworo (talk) 11:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

If in doubt, leave them hidden. On the very rare occasions when someone has tried to "out" me, I've sent an e-mail to a trusted admin who then discretely zapped it. One thing you don't want to do in such a case is call attention to it. If it's just insults, I don't care. Sometimes it can be funny, especially if it's misspelled. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

In short, you've got a fair start in documenting your problems with that guy, but I think you're going to need to come up with additional specific diffs on specific issues. For example, this[4] is not much of a "personal attack". I've seen admins (including Thumper) get snippier than that. An admin's apparent order to "get an account"[5] violates the fundamental premise I mentioned earlier. No one is required to get an account. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll just keep a running log if it continues to interact with or attempt to provoke me. What else can I do? At some point, maybe some admin will give him a block or two to encourage him to behave. His edits are not always bad, but he does have a tendency to just tag an article that is easily fixed, then complain that I am stalking him if I notice this and actually fix the problem he has tagged. Yworo (talk) 10:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Documenting it is obviously an important step in the process. Even if the guy stays as an IP, a ban against the user behind a series of IP's presumably could be enacted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for StarWind Software

An editor has asked for a deletion review of StarWind Software. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Hu12 (talk) 16:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	For converting my bunch of amazon.com book URLs to ISBN / text view during the work on the article marked AfD. That's pure altruism and and excellent example of a team work. Thank you for your efforts! APS (Full Auto) (talk) 23:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for weighing in at this discussion. I made a serious proposal to Yakushima; I'm naive enough to think it has a chance. If we get to the next level, one of the conditions I'll ask for is participation in a community discussion about footnotes in infoboxes. I think it is clear they should be avoided, but I'd like to see a robust community discussion about when exceptions are warranted. I'd also like to see a discussion about what qualifies as an influence. I'll go along with what the community wants, but I think the inclusion criteria should be a little tighter than "I found a ref that says the views of X were somehow affected by the views of Y". I think the threshold should be stronger than that.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

communication power imbalance

On a different subject, I just read your rationale for semi protection of this page. Very interesting. I'm not quite ready to adopt it myself, maybe I've been lucky and haven't had much interaction with IPs, but it poses a concept (communication power imbalance), I hadn't considered before.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Standard procedure is to have a second talk page, i.e. a sub-page, where unregistered users can post whatever they want to when the real talk page is blocked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

As indicated in my message, there is always a more appropriate place to communicate specific things. Yworo (talk) 18:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The beauty of a separate sub-page is that (1) it won't trigger annoying "new message" banners; and (2) if you take it off your watch list, you can ignore it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, and it keeps a record of harassment or abusive messages. Gotcha! Yworo (talk)

Yep. That's it. It is a good idea to check it once in awhile and see if they've posted anything that could cause real-life harm. But other than that, it's just a "troll sink". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

just fyi

looking like this use is not here to contribute content - it's primary function appears to attaching you - one of the sadder parts of anyone can edit, our open environment. Youreallycan (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. It appears to have been instigated by the IP editor which had agreed not to interact with me. Now recruiting meatpuppets to harass me. Yworo (talk) 18:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it looks all a bit suspiciously smelly sock to me. I would block him now if I was an admin. User not here to contribute to the encyclopedia and the accounts edits have become disruptive. Youreallycan (talk) 18:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It posted a minimum number of edits initially to get "confirmed", and then immediately started to go after Yworo. Almost certainly, some prior history with Yworo, under one or more registered ID's and/or anon IP's. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Clearly. Come on Yworo - who is it? If you know a checkuser a quiet request might be worthwhile. Youreallycan (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It's most likely this IP editor who may have previously registered Yworohater (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). As they edit primarily as an IP and have been doing so for some time before it decided it didn't like me, it has been impossible to get a checkuser done. Yworo (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, he mentioned that page in your userspace. I think we have plenty of eyes on him anyway. Back to boring editing articles. .. tch. Rob - Youreallycan (talk) 19:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, maybe you could edit more interesting articles? Yworo (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

My main interests are Rocket science and Official Monster Raving Loony Party and I avoid editing them for fear of COI accusations- lol. Youreallycan (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I can understand the COI with respect to the latter. :-) I've been starting a project to review and improve the biographies of Manhattan Project people, which, while not exactly rocket science, would probably be of interest to someone with an interest in rocket science. Yworo (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Unless you have a high degree of certainty, speculating about who might be a sock or meat puppet is a risky practice, especially if it's IP's. Checkusers won't comment on IP's. But if you notify a trusted checkuser via e-mail, they might be willing to do some research for you and take appropriate action. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

So, if Irolnire should be shown to be the same user as the IP editor, they would now have an account against which the various IPs could be identified as IP socks, is that not correct? Yworo (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

That's correct, just that a SPI checkuser won't confirm IPs' possible connections to one or more named users. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I was getting a lot of returns to a martial arts net - [[6]] - has there been any such associated editing? Youreallycan (talk)

Not that I have observed. The IPs locate to the Raleigh, North Carolina area and that martial arts net is in the Austin, Texas area. Yworo (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

All the IP's seem to emanate from the Raleigh area, which suggests maybe an NC State University student, for whatever that might be worth. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, wrong road then. He does seem to be upset about your page with the IP details - why not offer him a deal - if he goes away and stops bothering you, you'll delete it for him. Youreallycan (talk) 20:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The page is there because he continued to bother me after making an agreement on WP:AN/I to stop! How can I believe him when the first thing he does after making the agreement is to hop to a new IP address and break it? Yworo (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I see, .. like I said if I was an admin he would be blocked and checkusers already. Sorry Yworo that your being harassed, I will keep my eye and help get rid of him as fast as possible. Youreallycan (talk) 20:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Rob, I appreciate your concern and support. Yworo (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi all. I saw the report on WP:AIV and have been thinking about what to do while I was at the gym. The account User:Irolnire has not edited an article since September and has stated that they have no intention of editing an article again. So their sole purpose here seems to be to harass Yworo. I am gonna indef-block on that basis. I have these IPs so far and will range-block if the harassment continues: I record them here for future reference:

• 24.163.37.58
• 24.163.38.235
• 24.163.39.217
• 24.163.39.174
• 71.49.56.15
• 71.77.20.26
• 71.77.21.198
• 65.41.234.70
• 69.134.110.78
• 69.134.110.166
• 174.99.120.98
• 174.99.127.20

Please continue to collect any further IPs used as the more info we have, the tighter the range blocks, and the less collateral damage. Please post on my talk page if/when the user reappears; or send a note to Drmies; he is almost always around. Regards, --Dianna (talk) 04:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks,Dianna! Yworo (talk) 05:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure

Hey, it's always great to collaborate with a fellow veteran editor who can throw in a good cite! --Tenebrae (talk) 03:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Bob Timberlake (artist)

Check out the external links on Bob Timberlake (artist). One of the links is a furniture store and the other link is advertising merchandise for sale. Bob Timberlake official website is advertising merchandise for sale including lamps etc...Msruzicka (talk) 07:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Ha, apparently those are the perks you get when you design a postage stamp. But seriously, too many primary sources, plus external links have to have related content. Apparently he is noted for his furniture and the first link is his site, but the second link is gratuitous, it would need to link directly to a page with information about the subject to be valid. Yworo (talk) 07:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I've cleaned it up some. Guy certainly knows how to do his marketing. Hire the right PR team, and you'll be in all the right glossy magazines. Then you get picked up by real sources. The guy is clearly notable. It's also clear that the article was written by his PR team. Not much we can do about it but weed out the primary and unreliable sources and insist that claims be cited to real sources rather than the promotional material his website is packed with. Yworo (talk) 07:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Watch out for the "news" articles sourced from PR WEB. There are a bazillion "sources" that pick these press releases up verbatim, peacock descriptions and all. Bob has told the world he is outstanding so many times via such press releases, that now real but unquestioning sources simply repeat the blather. Seriously, in a few months, I could make my own or even a non-existent business "world renowned" this way, at about $200 per press release for writing and distribution to the "right" sites and newsfeeds (of course, it'd take quite a few well-spaced releases). I'm sure he didn't do it piecemeal like that, he most likely paid $10-20K or more for a complete and ongoing media blitz back when he founded his company. Yworo (talk) 08:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and I see that Jerry Bledsoe is in the business of co-writing memoirs and autobiographies for various people. Presumably his customers are too busy or otherwise unable to write their own. If I were Bob, I'd have chosen someone who doesn't write "true murder" biographies to be my ghostwriter, though. :-) Yworo (talk) 08:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Albert Ostman

I was working on an article called Albert Ostman. Some have questioned it's notability. Is the article notable, what is your opinion?Msruzicka (talk) 08:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your fixes to Peter Nygård‎

Just a quick word of thanks for your small-but-helpful fixes to [[Peter Nygård]‎]. It is hard to catch such things without a lot more experience...

Alexthepuffin (talk) 14:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

ARB notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Demi Moore and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Tenebrae (talk) 15:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculous. You can't take it to ARB without going through normal dispute resolution processes first, which you have not done. Since it will never be accepted, I won't waste my time responding to it in any way. But do watch out for the boomarang effect. Yworo (talk) 15:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Ban discussion at ANI

I've started a discussion on the IP at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed community ban for a harrassing IP. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

That discussion was snowing supported and the IPs and any accounts that are clearly repeating these patterns can now be treated as if banned. You might want to add some of the historic details and a link to the ANI thread, to the Wikipedia:List of banned users page so that if the harassment continues you can point administrators to it for their ease. Youreallycan (talk) 20:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I've been looking at Wikipedia:List of banned users and users are all listed by name. I don't see how to list a roving IP user there. Do we make up a nickname for it? Or what? Yworo (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

You could do, you could call him, User:Yworo's follower or similar - something not attacking. Have you thought to ask a checkuser to check the recently indefed account User talk:Irolnire against the evidence you have collected and if there is a return the add the ban under that account. I would say that user was the follower, or closely associated ot the IP addresses. It's not usual, but you don't need a name - Use the made up name and you link to your evidence page and to the ani ban consensus and add a small report and that would suffice, something to direct admins ot that have no memory of the issue. Youreallycan (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think they were the same person, but I guess it's worth checking. The IP once claimed to be a doctor and I'm pretty sure is male. Irolnire is "Erin Lori" spelled backwards. Yworo (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

They might not be the same person but they may well have a IP address that is connected to the IP address that have been trying to harass you - If I was you, I wouldn't make a SPI report but I might ask a checkuser by email. If you don't feel to, just at to the banned users page with the created username. Youreallycan (talk) 22:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Charlize

The statement at the beginning did indeed say "currently." Please look it up. I'm not talking about anything but use of the word "currently" in violation of WP:DATED. If you want to repeat the same words about citizenship twice in one paragraph, by all means, go ahead. I'm removing your uncivil post from my talk page.--Tenebrae (talk) 01:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to repeat the same words twice in one paragraph. The addition to the first sentence was against consensus and has been removed. Yworo (talk) 01:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

So we're on the same side and in agreement in this case. Ironic. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't even notice the addition to the first sentence or your change to it. I was reverting the trimming of the last sentence of the paragraph. And you only recently got involved at that article, so don't accuse me of stalking you in edit comments unless you want the same in return. Yworo (talk) 01:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

In all sincerity...

...just want to say that it's nice to see us, twice now, in agreement (re: Charlize above and Grant Morrison). Emotions aside, I know we have in common that we care for this wonderful, altruistic project, WIkipedia, very much, and we're making the concrete contribution of our time and effort. So maybe we'll be able to find common ground sometime. In the meantime, I would like to wish you happy holidays. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

And having now looked at your page, I would also tip my hat to your being a Master Editor II. I've just under six months away from that, and there are very few of us who have volunteered that much service here. I don't mean to overstate anything, but I do have to respect your longevity and dedication.

Now, believe it or not, I've been on a little work break and — 6:38 p.m. NYC time — I've a little more to do before I can take Christmas Eve (and, hopefully, Christmas Day) off. See you later! With regards, Tenebrae (talk) 23:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Cadborosaurus willsi

Could you check out the article Cadborosaurus willsi. Information was added which was not cited and some information was cited to Youtube videos. Can youtube videos be used as a references?Msruzicka (talk) 06:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

No, YouTube videos are not generally reliable sources. See Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites for details on this and the reliability other common websites. Yworo (talk) 06:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Somebody has cited a video as a reference in the Cadborosaurus willsi article again. Although the video does not appear to be from youtube.Msruzicka (talk) 08:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

North Carolina Barbecue Society

Is the article North Carolina Barbecue Society notable? Msruzicka (talk) 05:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Note

I've had to modify your userbox per Wikipedia:Userpages#Images, which doesn't allow sexually provocative images. I have replaced it with another that should carry the same meaning. Sorry. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I put it back but just until I decide how to modify it. Just give me a minute. Though I might question whether nudity = sexual. Yworo (talk) 17:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Please do replace it with a non-sexual image (or at least blank it until you find the time to choose a better image). The images-on-userpage policy is quite clear on this matter. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

It's fixed already. Yworo (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah. When I had started to edit this page, it wasn't. Thank you for making the change. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I recognized that you found it urgent and did it right away. It was made a bit complicated by subst'ing for efficiency... Yworo (talk) 18:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Unwise creation of a userbox

Malleus Fatuorum was unblocked by a fellow Arbitration clerk in order to participate in the request for arbitration. Malleus himself requested twice to be reblocked, which was granted, and has since made it perfectly clear that he does not wish to be unblocked. Your userbox, to my mind, serves no purpose other than to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 18:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Alas, wisdom is not a requirement for editing Wikipedia, otherwise we'd have a much smaller population of editors. Yworo (talk) 18:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Don't panic. :) There's a discussion there about someone's alleged "attack page". Your documentation page, User:Yworo/IP incident record, strikes me as a model for the right way to build up a case. I have to say that I have not yet looked at the details of the complaint, but once I do, I would like to cite your page. If that's OK with you. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'm still trying to find the right way to get it out of my user space and into the list of banned users or long-term abuse. I think it's a good example of a neutral presentation of events. Not sure I'd do the same for a registered user, but there would be no other reasonable way to document a dynamic-IP-hoppers behavior. Yworo (talk) 22:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Homeland Stupidity

I deleted the article Homeland Stupidity under G10 instead of G3, since it was clearly a page meant to attack Homeland Security. Keep in mind that it's better to tag attack pages under G10, because they're prioritized for speedy deletion and blanked.--Slon02 (talk) 04:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

List of Polyamorists

I understand the policy. The dispute here is about terms. I feel your deletion of the polyfidelitous section was retaliation against me for adding back two names you removed. Polyamory is a wider term - you could have at least copied the polyfideltious section into the main list instead of totally deleting it. I am feeling physically sick right now because of your targeted actions towards me. Cooltobekind (talk) 03:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I never falsified any references you bully!!! I took my time and researched they were in relationships with multiple people. You say one thing for living, and are now holding the dead to the same standard - when the authors of these academic texts clearly state they were in consenting relationships with multiple people Cooltobekind (talk) 06:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

You may not do original research. Yworo (talk) 06:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I've requested a dispute resolution team to clarify the issues. Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "List of polyamorists". Thank you.

contribution to list of blade materials.

thank you for your contribution! however i had the excess space there because the expand button interfere with the TOC.Abc123456person (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

i will remove the links. however this will take a long time as i need to keep them as references for replacement internal links. Abc123456person (talk) 19:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

you have been invited to find the elusive camocat! he is hiding on my user page. Abc123456person (talk) 19:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

List of blade materials

Hello, I noticed that you have re-instated the split tag. I think it was removed because there was a marginal concensus not to split (see the talk page). I am only interested, because I have been trying to clear up the backlog of split tags and now this one has suddenly re-appeared. If you have a clear idea of how to split the article then I suggest that you do so, the split tag is already over a year and a half old. Op47 (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

It had not been removed, it had been commented out. I'll go ahead and do the split. Likely other article will want to link to it. Yworo (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

That's a bit harsh. I have had 1 or 2 like that picked up by Corenbot, but at least that gives time to get things straightened out. I am sorry I had no idea. Op47 (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, me neither. By the time I saw the notice, it had already been deleted. Yworo (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The Group 1965

Sorry to canvas you again. Is the article The Group 1965 notable?Msruzicka (talk) 02:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Hard to say. With art, it depends a lot on what galleries they have shown at, and I don't know a thing about galleries in Tokyo. There seems to be a book they are covered in, though, from the refs. But, it seems to have been designed or written by the group itself. Maybe check and see if the publisher, Silvana Editoriale Spa, is in the legitimate business of publishing art books. If it is, that's a sign they are probably notable. Usually artists have to become notable before an art book is published, as the publisher needs to be sure the book will sell: all those glossy color pages don't come cheap. There should be some media coverage cited, but it's likely to be in Japanese and so hard to find unless you read Japanese, and hard to verify even if supplied. You could ask opinions at the talk pages of WP:WikiProject Japan and WP:WikiProject Art. Yworo (talk) 03:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)