User talk:EronMain

SAMPLE MY POWER

Drop me a line

Welcome

Hello, EronMain, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Kukini 15:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You called?

?Crampy20 15:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

lol, question answered below Crampy20 15:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Help with moving a page

Help:Moving a page has plenty of information. Bascially you just use the move button (to the right of the history button).--Commander Keane 15:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

That part, I get. My question is about what I do next. The Help tells me that after I move, the old page name will redirect to the new page name. What happens if I want to use the old page name with different content?

To be specific, I'm looking at the page Paralympic Alpine Skiing. This contains specific content about alpine skiing at the 2006 Winter Paralympics, not general content about Paralympic Alpine Skiing. I'd like to move it (and other related pages about the 2006 Games) to "(Sport Name) at the 2006 Winter Paralympics" and then create general articles (well, stubs actually) under each sports name. But I don't want to break anything.

Maybe it's a question of insufficient boldness on my part... Eron 15:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

What you are saying makes sense. Move the page, and then go back and edit the redirect (changing the redirect into an article). Use 2006 Winter Olympics as a reference for naming. For example, note the the correct capitalisaion is Alpine skiing at the 2006 Winter Olympics (only captitalise proper nouns).--Commander Keane 15:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Eron 15:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[bot warning posted in error removed]

Hmmm, I'll take a look into it, thanks for bringing it to my attention -- Tawker 14:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

random thanks...

I think I just came behind you and another fellow who reverted dragonsrevenge's changes.

Thank you for laboring to help wikipedia. And please have a good day. Peace, --Gbinal 14:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Glad I could help. Eron 14:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Theni district

I see you redirected the page Theni district, which I had nominated for deletion; thanks for cleaning that up. (On reflection, I probably could have checked that out myself. Live and learn.) I have a question about the four related pages I nominated at the same time. I've checked them out; they are all copyvios as well, and two of them are actually duplicates of each other. Now the deletion debate has closed, what - if anything - should I do about these? Eron 15:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Right, sorry I forgot to clean those up aswell, thanks for reminding me. You need to follow the procedure at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. I've now done that for the four articles in question. --bainer (talk) 01:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Notice of deletion

Just so you know, Disney's Lost Isle Water Park an article you commented on has been confirmed as a hoax and deleted. The external page is a hoax located on a free web service site. Thanks. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 02:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

About Osama bin Laden

He is indeed left handed check FBI website and the reference is a good one for voice faking technology. Hence I have reverted back your change on OBL page. ---- Faisal 19:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to reply to this on the Talk:Osama bin Laden page. Eron 20:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi once again. Do not you think the sentences you write are bit conflicting with each other. I am talking about A series of audio and videotapes released later appear to confirm that he is still alive. At this point, there is no confirmation that he is either alive or dead. Should we write that ... due to lack of independent verification audio in the tapes it is not confirmed that he is either alive or dead and he has not released any video since many years. ---- Faisal 14:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Another audiotape was just released today. [1]. There may be a more elegant way of putting it - it was late when I typed that. I'm not sure what would qualify as "independent verification" in this case. I'll take another stab at it. Eron 14:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Any verification done by parties involved i.e. terrorist or USA (and USA allied) is not acceptable. A video tape that is of good quality and shown in Arabic (without dubbing) is much more reliable because everyone can monitor it. However, there is no video tape is released since many years. Having no video tape in years, is a clue that make him much more dead than alive because we know that he loved to film videos. Pakistani president had said it that he is dead but later reverted back his stand, I guess because of USA pressure. ---- Faisal 14:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

About Links and Classification: Wikipedia Guidelines

"Removing unnecessary division of external links" All wikipedians wants to see information well organized. Please , do not be apolitical and have sensibility.

Thanks for your help anyway. Cheers and have a good weekend. Nelson Brito — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.196.132.156 (talk • contribs)

I don't really know what you mean by "do not be apolitical and have sensibility."

In any event, wikipedia:external links says "If an article has a large number of external links, it may be helpful to use subheaders to classify them." I guess we disagree on what is meant by "a large number;" I don't really think eleven external links need them.

But if it's important to you, I'll leave it. Eron 17:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Use of pop-up reversion

This edit seemed like a good faith edit. I completely agree with your reverting it, but since it was not vandalism, use of pop-ups seemed unwarranted and gives the anon no explanation for why the edit was reverted. JoshuaZ 19:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't fully share your confidence that it was a good faith edit, but I take your point and I see that I might have been too quick on the draw there. Thanks. Eron 19:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is it POV?

Hi, just wondering why you thought the statement "the Tibetan antelope was first nominated by Tibetans in China" in the 2008 Olympics page is POV. Granted, it lacks citation, but so do thousands of other sentences in Wikipedia. This statement, if verified, merely states a fact, not POV. Pseudotriton 04:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The full sentence, with the edit I removed, read "Among its other complaints concerning China's policies in Tibet, Students for a Free Tibet is protesting the Chinese government's use of the Tibetan antelope (chiru) as one of its five Olympic mascots. SFT claims that this is propaganda to legitimize Chinese rule of Tibet, and that this goes against the Olympic spirit, despite the fact that the Tibetan antelope was first nominated by Tibetans in China." The addition - in italics - is unsourced. As you note, lots of Wikipedia statements are unreferenced, so I wouldn't have reverted just for that. But the effect on the sentence takes it from a statement of fact (that SFT protested this mascot) to a statement of opinion (they protested it, but that was silly as it was nominated by Tibetans in the first place.)

I guess it's the despite that gave me pause. I'm really not sure that the addition added anything substantive to the entry, and it appeared to me to be a not-so-subtle attempt to cast the SFT protest in a bad light - that is, POV. Eron 02:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, not the least because the addition was not worded as you put it (that was silly as it...). "Despite" is as an objective term as one can get. I think the sentence actually makes the paragraph more NPOV by providing "the other side of the story". The section as it currently stands is lopsided. With all due respect but it seems to me that you are reading too much into that new sentence because you are clouded by POV. Then again, I suppose it is hard to stay neutral in a touch subject like this one.

As for the references, I checked the SFT site cited, it's merely a blog with the relevant material nowhere to be found. We basically have to take their words for it and to me that's extremely POV. Pseudotriton 17:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Grimsby

Where are you getting these Demographics from? Why don't you cite the source? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tracker2345 (talk • contribs) 10:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not getting them from anywhere. I didn't put them on the page originally, and I have no source for them. I was simply reverting the unexplained removal of existing page content. If you are concerned about the validity of information, rather than removing it you can add a tag requesting a citation (see Wikipedia:Verifiability). I have added this to the Grimsby page.

I have also restored the two notable people who kept being deleted from the page along with the demographics content. If you have an issue with their inclusion, I suggest you bring it up for discussion on the article's talk page. If you just delete page content with no explanation or discussion, you are likely to see those changes reverted - again. Eron 02:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof! 1.3

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, EronMain! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page and please note this is VP 1.3 not 1.2.2 see this for the approved list. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Episcopal High School

Sorry about my addition. I recognize that the "drug use" section was unneeded, and I added that before I recieved your message. But the section

"Recently, the reign of Episcopal has begun a slight decline. The first sign of this was the new Episcopal code: "Episcopal students do not lie, cheat, steal, or chew gum on campus." This was taken to be a joke by many students, but alas, it was not. Additionally, several excellent teachers have left, and recently one of most notable faculty, Holocaust Historian John Iorii, has been asked not to renew his contract. These changes in the EHS experience began with the choice of former headmaster Charlie Zimmer to abdicate his title to Dale Regan. When asked about Ms. Regan, one student was quoted as saying, "She seems to me to be a Neo-Facist, and she talks entirely too slow."

is an actual event that is happening at the school. This something that is just as worthy as being on the page as the noose section is. If you do not think the line "When asked about Ms. Regan, one student was quoted as saying, "She seems to me to be a Neo-Facist, and she talks entirely too slow." is called for, that is fine, it can be removed if neccessary.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by X987654321x (talk • contribs) 13:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I accept that you added the first section in good faith, but the two edits you made, viewed together, looked like vandalism so I reverted both of them. In any event, you need to be careful posting unsourced and anonymous quotes calling someone "neo-fascist." That, and the overall tone of your first edit, seemed to not be made with an appropriate neutral tone. That said, the whole article looks like it could use some clean-up for neutrality - and some references. Eron 17:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Chinese Taipei

Yes, if you could get some help against that user's edits, that would be appreciated. I can sympathize with the opinion of Taiwanese people, but the Olympic pages need to match reality, which is why we need to use "TPE" for 1984-present. We can continue to use "ROC" up until 1976 (as the IOC did). I think the introduction on pages such as Chinese Taipei at the 2004 Summer Olympics (including showing both flags) is a good way to present the Taiwanese perspective in a reasonably NPOV way. Andrwsc 16:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

New page Rugby League

EronMain, if i put "Introduction" it is because just below you have: "Main article: History of rugby league" ; Like me you note that the 17 lignes only introduce the main article i.e. History of rugby league, these 17 lignes aren't the history.

Now please, can you create a page: "Rugby League Chronology (most important worldwide events)" from 1890 to now, by group of 10 years: before 1890, 1890, 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, 1940 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010, 2020.
I have only added its tittle.
a source amongst many: http://www.napit.co.uk/viewus/infobank/rugby/superleague/history.php ... (in this list all aren't to be included example: 1926 - Castleford join the RFL),
I will complete with the main French RL events and other I know for UK, Australia, ...... . (and you perhaps will have to correct my English (not good at 59 years old))
Thanks from France, jp. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.216.21.218 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the lines under the title "History" are not a full history of rugby league, however they do serve to provide a capsule history of how the game began - they aren't a general introduction as they don't talk about any other aspects of the sport. The real introduction for the article is contained in the lead paragraphs above the table of contents.

As to a rugby league chronology, I'm not really the best person to create that page as I personally know very little of the history of that sport. I am also not sure that a specific historical chronology is required. The main History of rugby league article includes a narrative timeline from 1910 through 1995 which may cover much of the same ground. I would recommend you start by looking at that page and see if there is information missing. The talk page for that article would also be a good place to find editors knowledgable about and interested in the history to contribute to a chronology.

In the meantime, I am going to remove the link to rugby league chronology; if the page is created, it can be added back later. Eron 17:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the manipulations to be made to create the page.
and, a chronology is a brief summarry.
jp

My userpage

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my userpage! Kusma (討論) 17:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Glad to be of assistance. Eron 17:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof! 1.3

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, EronMain! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page and please note this is VP 1.3 not 1.2.2 see this for the approved list. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 06:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk page appropriate

You reverted an edit of mine on Gas Chambers: Talk. I was following How to use talk pages, under the "Keep on topic" point -- Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal. If you feel I'm wrong on this point, that's ok, but NPA isn't the only reason to delete stuff from talk pages. The deleted comment is from an obvious troll whose cause seems to be Holocaust denial. His comment doesn't even touch on the issue in that paragraph (removal of a link), but rather asks questions about laws which are beyond the scope of the talk page. I have no interest in starting a rv war over this, so if you agree it should be removed, I'll let you do so. You have made many thoughtful contributions on the talk page of that article, so I wanted you to know there are some tools on Wikipedia for removal of fluff. Cantankrus 07:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand the urge to remove some of what that user posts, and on further reflection I agree that an argument can certainly be made for it. I personally tend towards being conservative in editing talk pages. I probably should have discussed it with you before reverting your change; sorry about that.

I agree that the user in question is a Holocaust-denying troll, and I haven't seen any evidence of constructive edits from him. There are a few POV-pushing edits, but the majority of his work is all questions and comments - like his gas chamber ones - on talk pages related to Holocaust subjects. If I knew Wikipedia policy a little better, I'd try to have him blocked for being disruptive to the project. I'm still researching that.

I'm not going to remove his comments, as I've tangled with him a bit on that page and I don't think a removal from me would be seen as being done in good faith. But I'll not revert such a removal again. Eron 03:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Popups and reverting vandalism

Winter in Waterloo, Ontario, 2004

Hey, thanks for pitching in on the ever-present defense from vandalism. Look out for popups though as it occassionally reverts to the wrong revision. On a side note, how's the weather in Ottawa this winter? I seem to be escaping a Canadian winter here in Japan. :) --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 17:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Whoops! Thanks for picking that up. I really need to stop reverting when I'm in a hurry. Winter in Ottawa hasn't been too bad so far - no snow yet, though it's just a matter of time. Eron 17:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Any time. :) Just be sure to pull out the scarf in time. Before you know it, it's going to look like this picture here. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 17:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Ignorant Canadians

Why you...ignorant Canadian! You got a chuckle out me with that line. Thanks for contributing at Christmas and talk:Christmas. This article is more contentous than I ever would have guessed; being able to approach things with humor is a big help : ) Doc Tropics 22:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks like we'll need to play "Tag-team Vandal Stompers" at Christmas ; )

I'm looking forward to incorporating the peer review suggestions into the article. Doc Tropics 23:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, I passed. I appreciate your input. Please keep an eye on me(if you want) to see if a screw up. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

adding figures for animal-product consumption

cheers for that - you were pretty damn quick - amazing figures as well --Danlibbo 03:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Glad to help. - Eron ^Talk 19:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

How to Delete a Page

Thanks for your help on getting attempting to get that page deleted. Inter16 19:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

No worries. For future reference, take a look at speedy deletion guidelines. - Eron ^Talk 19:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting RfC strategy...

Keltik31 seems to be making the case against himself here, huh? I noted it on the RfC page and his talk page. Wow. -- weirdoactor ^t|c -- 21:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes, they jump right in the boat. -Eron ^Talk 21:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Christmas

Hello, I wanted to contact you here at your talk page before you saw my edits at Christmas. I made some revisions to the new opening that you had written, with explanation at Talk:Christmas. I want you to know that I certainly appreciate your contributions and invite you to discuss the matter in a civil manner at the talk page. The reasons I changed the intro are there, and I think there are some vital issues concerning the opening that we all need to discuss before going further. I've raised issues that are hard to decide upon but are vital for a smooth and verifiable opening at Christmas. Thank you.. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 10:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I think you've made some good, constructive changes. That first sentence is a bear; we've had a lot of back-and-forth on it trying to balance every aspect and please everyone. - Eron ^Talk 13:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Hi, you've been helping with this article so I wanted to drop you a note. User:Kauffner has recently made many (30) changes without prior discussion, including the deletion of well-sourced material that was added to the article by consensus. I have started a new section to discuss these changes here and I hope you will join in. Thanks. --Doc Tropics 17:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

There was some vandalism (profanity and sexual references) in the article (more specifically, in the title of a subsection) that seemed to have gone unnoticed, and in reverting those edits, I also undid some valid edits that were occuring at the same time as my revertion. My sincerest apologies to you and everyone working on the article; it was never my intention to make it out that your edits were vandalism. I will be more careful in the future. 199.212.18.131 15:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

War decorations on Valiants Memorial

Thanks for your edits to Valiants Memorial. I see that some people have decorations separated by a comma and a space, some by just a space. Is this intentional. I think they all need commas, but maybe I'm missing something. Canadiana 20:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly not intentional, and I agree that they should all have commas. I think I was the one missing something! I'll fix that, thanks. - Eron ^Talk 21:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

White Canadians

Thanks for the kind words. This is not what I want to spend my time on, but I just can't bear the way this article would appear without a hard look at the data. It's just plain disturbing that some editors have a worldview so strong and so contrary, that they refuse to interpret things in any way that diverges from it. I'm very glad that there is a majority of level-headed participants such as you. —Michael Z. 2006-12-09 00:24 Z

Reverting using popups

Just another reminder that reversions that aren't OBVIOUS vandalism (like this one) should not be reverted using popups. There's no problem with reverting things that aren't obvious vandalism, if you have a reason, but it's important to explain why in the edit summary. Popups should only be used in cases of OBVIOUS vandalism. —P^urpleRA^IN 18:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I was reverting a number of linkspam edits from a user, all of whose edits (many reverted by others) were inappropriate external links. That may not have been obvious vandalism, but they were clearly not constructive edits. I have had comments like this before, and I'm quite happy to take advice. That said, I'm not familiar with a policy that suggests I shouldn't use popups in this manner. I'd appreciate you pointing me in the right direction so I can take a look. Thanks. - Eron ^Talk 00:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

You may have me there. I was sure I'd seen that specific policy before, but I can't find it anywhere now. However, Help:Reverting does state that reverting should only be used for vandalism. I'll leave it to your judgement. The reason that I mention it is that an edit summary is very helpful if the reason for the reversion is not immediately obvious. Popups don't supply a reason, so they aren't very helpful in such a situation. —P^urpleRA^IN 07:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Christmas article Further reading

Hi EronMain. I had added to the article on Christmas a classic tome and collection of short stories by famous authors which revolve around Christmas and Christmas time because I thought it was germane to the topic and a unique classic collection of stories. Godfrey's anthology "Murder for Christmas" is a well-received work. You removed it from the article saying it wasn't really encyclopedic. Hmm. I see what you mean in some senses. In other senses, it's not unusal to cite an ancillary work on the theme. I also made a formatting change in the references which got lost I think. Thoughts? Best Wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 15:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC) (talk)

I removed the book for the same reason that the list of external references was trimmed; there are so many works out there on Christmas themes that those lists could rapidly overwhelm the article. The manual of style (in Citing sources) states that "an 'External links' or 'Further reading' section is placed near the end of an article and offers books, articles, and links to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader." I think that would be more helpful on a topic more obscure than Christmas.

Perhaps that collection could be provided in the Arts and Media section of the article itself as an example of how Christmas themes pervade popular culture? We don't have any examples of books from the 20th century there.

For the formatting change, I believe you changed the title above the list of inline citatition from "References" to "Notes", and then added the "References" title above two books that were listed below the cites. After reviewing the manual of style I changed that back, in accordance with this description of standard appendices: "'Notes' is only for footnotes (explanations or comments on any part of the main text). 'References' is only for referenced materials (books, websites etc. cited in the main text). Otherwise 'Notes and references' should be combined." In the case of Christmas, the citations are all references; I don't see any that are explanatory or commentary footnotes. Guidelines on citing sources are a little more muddy, but they also generally support this, noting "All citation techniques require detailed full citations to be shown in a 'References' section following the text."

That said, I'm not opposed to cleaning up the References section; the guidelines on citation also say that "It is helpful when non-citation footnotes are used that a "References" section also be maintained, in which the sources that were used are listed in alphabetical order. With articles that have lots of footnotes, it can become hard to see after a while exactly which sources have been used...a 'References' section, which contains only citations, helps readers to see at a glance the quality of the references used." We haven't got explanatory footnotes, but we do have a lot of references, and this might be helpful. However, I would want it discussed on the article talk page first, and I would recommend waiting until the current work on the page is done; there are two more sections that need a lot of referencing, and I think it would confuse things to change our reference style in the middle of that job.

I hope this explanation makes things clear. I'd be happy to discuss this more on the article talk page. - Eron ^Talk 15:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Eron. Points taken. There are many styles of references/footnotes around WP. Best left for now as it is. Thanks and Best Wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 18:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC) (talk)

User:EronMain Accusations of Incivility

Clearly just jealous that I'm right and he's wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NewStew (talk • contribs) 3:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

No, just not interested in seeing "You're all a bunch of pansies if you can't just get rid of the friggin' page and be done with it," inserted into an otherwise civil discussion. - Eron ^Talk 17:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal / Herbert Hoover Middle School

Hello, I am the mediator who will be handling the voluntary mediation for Hoover Middle School, please acknowledge if you would like to participate in this process and read the page linked. Thanks, Somitho 21:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to participate, although I don't really see this as a case for mediation. There is no dispute; this case was raised by a new user who does not really seem to understand how Wikipedia works. I'd be pleased to explain my position; what it is the appropriate location for me to do that? - Eron ^Talk 23:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/_2006-15-06_Hoover_Middle_School under discussion; I realize this is a new user and he seems to not understand much on the path of Wikipedia. However, I would hope you can both come to an understanding to include both of your ideas. Both current and past history maybe? Somitho 21:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Help

Each time I create an external link, the "|" shows on the page, or goes with the link. eg: www.wi.com becomes www.wi.com|, or it shows as Text| instead of Text. Can you tell me what is wrong?~BoboBonnie~ 03:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

External links don't need the "|" between the link and the link name; it's only used with internal links. So, you would use:

[http://en.wikipedia.com Wikipedia]

to make the external link:

Wikipedia

For the internal link, you'd use:

[[Main Page|Wikipedia]]

to get:

Wikipedia

I'll edit the external link on your user page to show you what I mean. :Hope this helps. - Eron ^Talk 04:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Islamic Bill of Rights for Women in the Mosque

Do stated on the talk page that this article was a copyvio... do you have a link or refrence I can use to verify that? ---J.S ^(T/C) 22:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The article was mostly a copyvio at the time it was nominated for deletion: this version consisted mainly of a straight copy of the bill of rights itself. The article has since been edited to remove the copyvio portion. I'll note that on the article talk page. - Eron ^Talk 23:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok then. If it's been fixed I'll put away the copy-vio-bucket-of-doom. ---J.S ^(T/C) 23:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays EronMain! | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 01:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

May you and your family have a Merry Christmas, as well as any other Holiday you may celebrate. I hope that warmth, good cheer, and love surround you during these special days. May God bless you during the Holidays. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 01:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

File:Julekort.jpg

.

Quadriplegia

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

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

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

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

Proof of the Holocaust, Nizkor

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

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

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

RFC/discussion of article World War II

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

When in doubt

1913 advertisement for Encyclopædia Britannica, the oldest and one of the largest contemporary English encyclopedias.

--Parker007 03:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

"vandalism"

How the fuck do you know if it is or isnt biotch my stuff is helpful—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Twinkie09 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC). Sure ill keep it cool just tell me how u get to decide if its helpful or not

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

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

Good to see you back

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

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

Nice pic

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

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

2008 Olympic Torch Relay nominated for DYK

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

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

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

the skinny on mufti

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

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

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

DYK

On 2 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 2008 Olympic Torch Relay, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--ALoan (Talk) 11:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Power Soccer

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

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

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

Google Results

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

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

Merger

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

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

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

USOC Coach of the Year

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

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

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

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

Canada-article lead

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

Great work

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

RE: Canada

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Pictures, again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Canada

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

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

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

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

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

Here's the long-standing version:

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

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

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

Barbarossa pic?

Hi again, Eron!

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

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

US Aircraft Carrier Angled Flight Decks

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

Michele Renouf

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

Good man. I have fallen foul.

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

Pool noodles

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

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

Something I Gotta Say...

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

2010

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

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Murderball poster.jpg

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

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

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Torino Paralympic Mascot.jpg

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

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

Orphaned non-free media (Image:London 2012 Paralympic.jpg)

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

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

Holocaust denial‎ GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

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

I have responded at my talk page to the revert

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

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

Re: my forum

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

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

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

Kanabekobaton

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

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

Toponymy

Hi Eron,

I have responded to your comments on my talk page.

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

Olympic talk page

Please see the following link: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought

I have also added the following to the olympic page.

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

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

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

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

Sarcasm

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

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

Science ref desk thread

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