User talk:Grey Wanderer/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

Howdy, Grey Wanderer...

While at heart I am very interested in your invitation, I have my irons in so many fires at Hickman as a teacher, sponsor, and committee chairman that I would be daft to add something else to the pile. BUT...come summer...I might be interested. This page, as you say, has potential, but it needs a lot of work, not just in editing and revision, but it certainly needs to be fuller. It doesn't have all the components it needs to fully represent Hickman. I can envision possibly enlisting some students writers (good ones) to add sections after I meet with them, look at the existing page, and brainstorm necessary changes. Giving actual students ownership would make the entry an even more powerful thing. Let me know your thoughts about that.

Do I happen to know you outside of cyberspace? I am Phil Overeem, as I say, a teacher at Hickman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Povereem (talk • contribs) 12:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this message was at the top of my talk page without me seeing it for two months. Sorry bout' that. I'll give you another blurb this summer to see if your interested. I like the idea of student writers, though they must understand that anything they write would be edited mercilessly for style and neutrality. There is a whole page somewhere here about using wiki as a teaching tool, it happens fairly often. I'll try to find that for you. I don't believe you know me in real life, I graduated several years ago.-Grey Wanderer | Talk 21:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject kansas city chiefs

Would you be interested in joining The Kansas City Chiefs Wikiproject? RC-0722 (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have my hands full with my current wikiprojects and real life right now. Thanks for the offer.-Grey Wanderer | Talk 01:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:User WikiProject Columbia

A tag has been placed on Template:User WikiProject Columbia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The page has lived past its time. Delete away.-Grey Wanderer | Talk 01:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

troy missouri page

Hello Grey, long time no talk to. Why did you delete Watson Powell and Omer Avery from the list of notable residents on this page? No one has ever heard of Tankersley perhaps he is a friend of yours hmmmmm?

Splitsville —Preceding unsigned comment added by Splitsville (talk • contribs) 01:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, I deleted Watson Powell and Omer Avery per Wikipedia:Notability. They don't have wiki articles of their own and their inclusion was not sourced. If you believe that they are notably perhaps you could create pages for them (with sources) make sure you read up on what establishes notability first at the above link. Thanks.-Grey Wanderer | Talk 01:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Missouri Students Association

An editor has nominated Missouri Students Association, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Missouri Students Association and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Raytown South

What was the reason for changing the Raytown South HS page? Those links had been fine for over a year and no one had touched them. You deleted several VERY notable alumni from the list and also deleted two HARMLESS external links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NeelyCrenshaw (talk • contribs) 15:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The to "very notable" alumni I deleted did not have wikipedia pages or sources as to their inclusion, which means they fail both WP:Notability and the guidelines set forth by WikiProject Schools. Create a page for these people if you think they are notable or try to find a source. If you want to add they external links back I won't remove remove them again. I originally removed them because I thought they were bad links (the website for the newspaper was not working yesterday), though they are only indirectly related to the topic of the article.--Grey Wanderer | Talk 18:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Cedar City, Missouri page edit

As a new contributor I appreciate your comments relative to my edit on the Cedar City, Missouri page. I did notice that when accessing that page with privacy set high (cookies turned off) that my edit did not appear and only when I turned cookies on did it appear. Is it such that the casual user will not see the contributions that I made unless they are a contributor or the specific contributor that made the edit? Callawegian (talk) 14:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No, your edit will appear on the version of the page that the entire web sees. I imaging you just needed to refresh your browser, sometimes the Wikipedia database lags in updating as well. Happy editing!-Grey Wanderer | Talk 21:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Bud Lathrop

Why did you nominate that for deletion......I JUST CREATED IT AS YOU TOLD ME TO! Give me some gang time to work on it for crying out loud. Do you have something against Ray-South/Bud Lathrop? You seem to want to derail any progress in those topics. Please explain yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NeelyCrenshaw (talk • contribs) 04:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, I did say to create the page if you thought he was notable enough, but I never said I would agree with you. The page currently has very little in the way of sources, and doesn't demonstrate notability at anymore than a local level. The page has been in existence for over a week and I won't make any move to delete if for a few more days, but know that if the page remains how it is there is a good chance it may be deleted. Careful with your accusations, and read Wikipedia:Civility. I certainly have nothing against you Raytown articles, I usually look at dozens of Missouri and Education article a day, just trying to keep things tidy here.-Grey Wanderer | Talk 19:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

So what would you do to improve the page? That page is like DOZENS of entries in WP about other basketball coaches. It is even sourced. I will add to it as I get around to it, but I see no reason why you would delete it. In fact, you are the only one I see that has a problem with it. NeelyCrenshaw (talk) 13:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I've not seen another page on someone who is just a high school basketball coach, no matter how long his been one, you're probably going to have a fight winning an afd battle. If you want time then I certainly won't make a move for a while.-Grey Wanderer | Talk 18:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much for giving me a barnstar. I appreciate it and will display it with pride. →Wordbuilder (talk) 22:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject: KCMO

What all would that involve exactly? Jrmiller962 (talk) 23:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Your welcome to join, but your participation level and subject area is entirely up to you. There is nothing required by you joining, just add your name to the participants list if you like. I just noticed that most of your edits involved subjects that are under the wikiproject's umbrella. Thanks, let me know if there is anything else I can do for you.-Grey Wanderer | Talk 17:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

stl neighborhoods

i'm sorry to muscle into your territory so abruptly and brashly. I've taken the liberty of creating a to do list for the neighborhoods of st. louis and i'm planning to make a heavy amount a stub creating and article standardizing across the board there. I'm still being detained by my much larger projects of a similar nature in Seoul, see Gu of Seoul and Dong of Gangnam-gu. I'd like to do something similar for St. Louis if I can. I've got all the maps, poor quality, but I have them. I'm shopping around for work partners now. If you have the time, could you look over my to list and recommend any changes in the order of priorities as you see them? This is just for the individual neighborhood pages. I guess the actual page, Neighborhoods of St. Louis would probably eventually look similar to Gu of Seoul. I'll be working on that as my own subpage for a while though. Cheers. DaronDierkes (talk) 04:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Great! this is an endeavor that really needs tackling, so muscle in as abruptly as you like. I'll take a look, and possible be able to get involved, though I'm bogged down on a number of my own projects currently. if Neighborhoods of St. Louis could look as good as Gu of Seoul that would be a vast improvement. Let me know if there's anything else I can do for you.-Grey Wanderer | Talk 17:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I muscled. You will find that Template:WikiProject St. Louis has undergone some radical changes. I've also messed with the main wikiproject page a bit. I made a few working groups too. more are possible, but i figured this would be a good start. As mentioned on the Mizzou project talk page, I've been thinking of starting a UMSL wikiproject, but wondered if that would just be creating a lot of extra work without too many results. I thought perhaps we could make a University of Missouri project and then have four working groups, the Mizzou working group would just be the Mizzou wikiproject. I'm not really sure how to organize it yet, so for now, I'll do some UMSL editing under the guise of the St. Louis Education working group. DaronDierkes (talk) 04:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC) DaronDierkes (talk) 04:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice work with that template, I've replied to your comment on the WikiProject Mizzou talk page.-Grey Wanderer | Talk 01:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Nobody's ever given me an award before. That's crazy! I didn't expect it to be for that. Sweet. good good good. DaronDierkes (talk) 02:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You probably noticed that the stl template can now be used to group articles under a number of various working groups. I've been working through Category:Unassessed St. Louis articles and slowly rating and sorting articles. Generally, the work is pretty easy, but i do have a problem with certain businesses, musuems, parks, and other minor things. They don't specifically belong to of the working groups I made, and I am very reluctant to begin new working groups because there are already way too many. The education group, which is shaping up nicely is a bit overloaded. I'm trying to decide if I should group all the museums under them or not. Musuems may also be categorized under buildings and structures and therefore architecture, and some of them can fall under History. I made a proto-list at List of museums in Greater St. Louis which seems like a useful place to work from, but should I really make a museums working group? Alternately I could just leave all the museums without a group and just let them fall under the general wikiproject. What are your thoughts?

Hmmm....My suggestion would be to combine the music, food, architecture, working groups into the "culture" working group, this also covers museums, and a lot of loose ends nicely. I know that requires backtracking, so it may not be the best choice. The way I've seen museums dealt with is usually under an education working group, right alongside libraries and schools. Anyways, do whatever is easiest for you. If you need someone to head up the education working group (which last time I checked you do) I'm game, I just want to make sure I'm following the standards you set for the other groups. Also on another note, I'm thinking about making the St. Louis, Missouri page my next project, maybe taking it up to GA-status to complement all the work your doing.-Grey Wanderer | Talk 06:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I was really hoping that each working group could constantly edit the subsection of the St. Louis, Missouri page. you know, history does history and education does education. the education group is the most developed right now with transportation coming in second. I think the objectives for the education group are also clearest. look over the article series and the cats I made (which I now know was outside my authority... jeez.) and i'm sure you'll see the basic structure I was going for, which is in essence whatever structure WikiProject Missouri already put in place. I was hoping to make a cat for each school district and university, put that cat under education in blah county and then put that under education in greater st. louis. I'm just pulling stuff off missouri lists right now and making localized clones.

For culture... i think you're probably right. I'll leave the libraries under education and pull music and food together, though I think architecture is a different topic. If I make a culture group it will let me put all kinds of random stuff together. :o) Cool. DaronDierkes (talk) 06:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

secretly I know geography and neighborhoods are tackling the same issues... but i've got local pride holding me down. DaronDierkes (talk) 06:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want to help with the education project, that would be a great help indeed. The more I look into it the more frustrated I get. I set up an outline of what we can do for St. Louis County and city. After those we can move on to the other counties. I've got high hopes, but there sure are a lot of red links. DaronDierkes (talk) 11:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Why did you remove my Brianna Love reference

She is a graduate of Cotton high school in Missiouri.

I removed it because, you provided no references as to her attending Smith-Cotton, and I could also find nothing in any of the references on her page here. Also several of your other edits in the same time span added random characters to the article that looked like test edits or vandalism. Wikipedians must be careful with pornography actress' because of the high likely hood of vandalism and hoaxes. I've removed the listing for now, if you find a references, please add it back, and if you need any help doing so, don't hesitate to ask.-Grey Wanderer | Talk 17:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

MacGregor Arctic Expedition Photos

Grey,

I have created articles documenting the 1937 MacGregor Arctic Expedition of which my father was a member. I have had his negatives from the expedition professionally scanned and I am using some of them in the articles. None of these photographs have copyrights.

How do I document that he has released all rights to the uploaded photos.

Thanks for all your hard work.

Bob Inglis AKA bobhaybob —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobhaybob (talk • contribs) 11:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you own the rights to the photos? (you do if you own the photos themselves). If so, then its as easy as using the GFDL-self template or something like that. I looked at a sampling of your photos, they seem to be documented just fine. Just make sure you add the documentation when you upload the photos or shortly after or they could be deleted. -Grey Wanderer | Talk 01:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Invite

I would be honored to help out on the St. Louis project. I am from St. Louis so I hope I can contribute quite a bit. Freemasonx (talk) 23:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Great! I see you added yourself to the participants list, see ya around.-Grey Wanderer | Talk 00:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Holy Hills, St. Louis Copyright violation

Please compare this with this--24.36.35.188 (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I can and certainly did, and I don't mine helping out. But if you can write on my talk page, you can remove the copyrighted material. Be Bold! -Grey Wanderer | Talk 18:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

There is more. Also article Carondelet. I have had some unpleasant interactions with this user in the past and would rather keep as low a profile as possible on this. 24.36.35.188 (talk) 19:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I've removed all the copyrighted material. -Grey Wanderer | Talk 18:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

No you haven't. But I have. 24.36.21.8 (talk) 11:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh! your right, I thought I had, but you're on top of it. -Grey Wanderer | Talk 18:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

If you have a problem with something I added to an article user "24.36.35.188", please feel free to speak right up, to me, that is. Freemasonx (talk) 06:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

to do list

thanks a lot man. :o) I really appreciate it. I kind of fell away from that project a bit. I've got a user subpage for st. louis, I can move it there, I guess I'm the only one really using it. I hope to update it eventually. Ah. anyway, thanks. DaronDierkes (talk) 07:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:CoMoflowers.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:CoMoflowers.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 03:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC) --Kelly ^hi! 03:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:CoMoPano.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:CoMoPano.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 03:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC) --Kelly ^hi! 03:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:CoMoMoss.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:CoMoMoss.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 03:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC) --Kelly ^hi! 03:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:CoMoBlueNote.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:CoMoBlueNote.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 03:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC) --Kelly ^hi! 03:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Recreation

Using speedy G4 after a re-creation is only applicable when the article had been deleted as he result of an Afd.-- not a previous speedy, not a prod. The only practical things to do with Restaurants in Mexico City are to either improve it, to merge it with another article, or send it for AfD. DGG (talk) 01:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah thanks I see that now, sorry, I'm using Twinkle for the first time, and trying to find my way around that. I tagged the article with a replacement speedy-delete tag before I saw your message. So do what you will. Thanks again -Grey Wanderer | Talk 01:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Washington U

The information was not unsourced and contained a link to the university's public defense statement. Furthermore, those clicking on the provided link, would also be given a link to the chancellors explanation on the matter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Longjanes (talk • contribs) 23:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see the response on your talk page. Grey Wanderer | Talk 23:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

That response does not apply to the edit you most recently reverted. i am also extremely disappointed at your accusing me, and publically no less, of intentionally putting the same comment twice in an article so it wouldn't be deleted. Given the nature of the "Undo" button, no one with an iq above 10 should ever consider, even momentarily, that their putting forth a comment twice would keep it from being removed. Now rewriting an entire artilce over multipe edits, yes. But not something that it would take two seconds to glance at to see it was done, and even less time to undo it The truth, which should have been obvious imo, is that I had move the statement to a more appropriate section and either forgot to delete from the top or the internet troubles I was experiencing at the time readded while I was on the edit page. A pretty big clue should have been that in the new section, it was reworded perfectly within your requests. Also, even though it was removed from the new add, there was no reason to put forth a reference for Schlafly's son being gay because her name was clickable. one only needed to click on it to see the wiki article that mentioned her having a gay son. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Longjanes (talk • contribs) 21:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does. What was your motivation for inserting the same information word for word at two different points in the article then? you'll find pretty much everything is done publicly here at Wikipedia. Grey Wanderer | Talk 11:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Aspire One

You know i am having a real problem with what is being done here. I was the author that started ASUS eee pc article several months ago, and it has proven to be a valuable, highly-edited intro into what has become a very important market, the netbook.

I am trying to get the Aspire One article going for the very same reason (I don't work for any of these companies, I just think this is a very significant trend in the computing space.)

Why not help me out here, rather than hassling me?

I may be that the page can be kept. But it needs to be written in a much more neutral tone. Why not try creating the page in you userspace and then when you think its ready send me a message and I'll come take a look at it and help you move it to the mainspace. deal? Grey Wanderer | Talk 22:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Myrtis Dightman

I added some references to Myrtis Dightman. I think that the article now demonstrates notability. --Eastmain (talk) 23:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks much better now, nice work. Grey Wanderer | Talk 23:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Award for Little Dixie

Hi - thanks for the award on counties of Little Dixie - some other counties are considered border or outer Little Dixie, but at least it was a start. It would be great to find pics of a typical house and barn. Haven't looked yet.--Parkwells (talk) 10:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Cahokia

Thanks, I'm not sure what to do if he keeps this up, he seems to be saying that we can't verify that Young and Fowler are correct, and he thinks they are wrong. Doug Weller (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well if he keeps removing the content without any sources to the contrary, hes going to run into Wikipedia:3RR pretty fast here. I'll keep an eye on things over there. I've checked your sources you know more about the local than I. Just keep your cool for now, usually editors like that will give up after not too long. Grey Wanderer | Talk 21:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Your Source is not verifiable because it is mere speculation about the reason that fingers were "vertical". This encyclopedia is not the place for your racist views or continuing fringe views of the minority. Native American burials are not yours to condemn as sacrifices or buried alive. If you want to keep the statement, You need to adjust the wording to state "Young presumed that the burials were trying to dig themselves out." Not, state it as a fact because a mere speculation on Youngs part is far from fact. Marburg72 (talk) 22:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not my source, I simply was a neutral party who happened across the article. You accusations of racism are in gross violation of Wikipedia:Civility. The book sourced is a reliable source and it's views should be demonstrated in the article. However, if you want to provide a contrasting view then find a source instead of edit warring and making baseless accusations. You seem to have ties to the Native American culture, if you are too attached or in any way feel your views make hinder your neutrality, I encourage you to take a step back and take a deep breath. Grey Wanderer | Talk 23:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The source that I am referencing is the Fowler Study on Mound 72, which is the best source on the specific topic in question. It does not state anything about buried alive theory. Youngs source falls into the Fringe category. It is merely rumors and speculation. So do not accuse me of violating civility rules when I am citing the best source on the topic. Youngs souce is once again unreliable See WP:reliableMarburg72 (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Both sources appear to be reliable and both sources should be included in the article. Youngs source appears not to rule out being buried alive. Your civility has nothing to do with how good your source is, your civility has to do with the fact that you have accused multiple editors of being racist. Grey Wanderer | Talk 23:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The source that you cited (Young) states in a speculative manner that the "Vertical fingers" appeared to be evidence of digging out of a grave. Appeared to be cannot be misinterpreted as FACT as you have done. The encyclopedia is not a place to take someones speculation and convert it into fact. This is where you have made a serious mistake. It is uncivil to discuss human burials and misconstrue a speculation as if it is fact. See wp:verifiable The source that is the basis of your argument is very doubtful and highly controversial due to its jump to rash conclusion with little evidence. 71.11.133.246 (talk) 01:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

This argument should probably take place on the Talk:Cahokia page. I've not interpreted anything as fact or fiction, I'm not the editor who added it to the article. I'm not arguing anything except that you need to cease edit warring and use the talk page along with User:Dougweller and remember we're all here to improve Wikipedia. I'm sure doug is not purposefully trying to add what you deem racist comments on the page. Why don't you include the argument you've made here in a neutral tone of voice on the Cahokia page, with sources. I would never revert that, but you've only removed what someone else inserted into the article saying its false instead of trying to improve it or show why its false. Grey Wanderer | Talk 03:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to point out that there is no 'Youngs source', the book in question is by Young and Fowler together and you can't separate it from Fowler. From a review in the archaeology magazine American Antiquity: "This book is the clearest, most honest, and most intelligent reconstruction of an intellectual tradition to appear in a long time. Whether or not you are convinced that Cahokia was a city, this book lays out the facts, pro and con, and the disputes. It illustrates how archaeology is embedded in society, how individuals and institutions grapple for support, how cooperation triumphs over iso-lation, and how archaeology is a hard life, among other topics. It drags a bit in later chapters where scholarly issues overshadow human interest stories. Even here, however, complex archaeological data are summarized and described in straightforward terms; a masterful example is their treatment of Mound 72. Above all else, this book is testimony to the legacy Mike Fowler has created..."

And I am really glad that this has been pushed so far, or else I might not have discovered that the entire text of the book is on the Internet and so far as I can see legally. I probably wouldn't have found that out if this hadn't happened. "http://www.archive.org/stream/cahokiagreatnati00youn/cahokiagreatnati00youn_djvu.txt]. I have, by the way, inserted a quote from the book so that it can't be called my interpretation. Doug Weller (talk) 07:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Who is Mike Fowler? The author is Young and Melvin Fowler. Once Again, Melvin Fowler's book on Mound 72 and the Sacred Space says nothing of this wild, unverifyable speculation that the burials were attempting to dig out of thier graves due to a vertical finger bone. Your source is not reliable and Fringe Material. Cite a Journal that says the opinon that the burials were attempting to dig out of their graves. Until then, it is a fringe opinion of Young, and Young alone. See WP:Fringe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marburg72 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't know that his friends called him Mike? It doesn't matter that Fowler's earlier book doesn't mention the fingers, his later book, that I quote, does. The book is written by both of them, you are alleging that Fowler wasn't competent enough to spot fringe and let it slip by. Take it up with him, but the quote is accurate. Doug Weller (talk) 14:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I dont care what his friends call him, The passage you are choosing to cite is unscientific and clearly a fringe theory. If you want to cite a source that prooves that all vertical fingers are evidence of digging out of a mass burial, then it will be acceptable.Marburg72 (talk) 16:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The debate between you two should take place at Talk:Cahokia, not here. No hard feelings, but it should be easily assessable for editors on Cahokia and right where they expect it to be. Any additional comments will be deleted. Grey Wanderer | Talk 22:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much for the barnstar it's my first one. Me5000 (talk) 03:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. Grey Wanderer | Talk 03:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

And even more thanks

I see you've been busy awarding barnstars—aside from your many other contributions—and as such, thanks for the first barnstar of my very own. I shall not rest until the unassessed article count on WikiProject St. Louis drops to zero.

On a side note, I was looking at WikiProject Kansas City and noticed that an assessment bot/table has not been setup there. If you could help create the underlying mechanism, I'll gladly help tag all those articles, too. --Millbrooky (talk) 06:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

At the rate your going you'll have them done in no time. As far as Kansas City goes, its on the to-do list, soon. Probably along with a makeover of the main WikiProject Kansas City page. It won't take much since a bot takes care of a lot of the work. I'll let you know when its done.Grey Wanderer | Talk 06:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the information concerning COI, Grey Wanderer. I've looked over Wikipedia's policies on the subject, but I'm unsure how to proceed editing my organization's article. I am attempting to remain neutral and factual. Do you have any advice for me? I am new to editing Wikipedia articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Columbiacollege.prm (talk • contribs) 21:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

As you probably read in the COI policy, having one, shouldn't necessary stop you from editing. I think you'll be able to improve the Columbia College article significantly. In regards to what you have already edited, technically it is still a copyright violation. But don't let that discourage you. If you email Wikipedia at permissions-en@wikimedia.org and state that you (the author or the holder of the copyright) give permission to use the text and or images from the Columbia College website (http://www.ccis.edu/about/history.asp). I'm not exactly sure, but you will have to license them under a creative commons license or release them into the public domain. Your email contact will know more than I. This process can be done with both text and images. It would be best to use your Columbia College email address assuming you have one. If you look at the Missouri Military Academy page you will see someone did the same thing there, look on the talk page and you will see the documentation template. Grey Wanderer | Talk 21:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hendrix College cleanup

Hey! Thanks for cleaning up the Hendrix College article! I was thinking about re-adding a "notable alumnus" that you removed... The entry looked benign, but it needed to be wikilinked. I'm going to re-add the entry. Please remove it if you still think it doesn't belong. Thanks! -- Swerdnaneb 23:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been going though removing lots of redlinks and vanity links in alumni sections and if you think he is notable enough then thats good enough for me.

Awesome. Thanks for your work. -- Swerdnaneb 23:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

QEBH article

I know you're also concerned with the validity and accuracy of articles relating to MU, so you might want to pay particular attention to the QEBH page. There's an anonymous editor who is trying to push some sort of agenda for another society into the article. He uses sources almost exclusively from a Theta Nu Epsilon website that contains a great deal of inaccurate information. For example, the source referenced states "Since 2003 the Alpha Theta has been in operation again as a pro-chapter. It has been a very successful chapter of Theta Nu Epsilon, and is earning its position as the pre-eminent organization of the class societies at the University of Missouri." There's no such registered organization at MU, and no press relating to this apparent organization either, so how they can make such a claim baffles me. BlueGold73 (talk) 04:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it, thanks for letting me know.Grey Wanderer | Talk 19:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

First, I posted with cited references, BlueGold73 did not follow wikipedia policy in response. He did not bring up the matter in discussion, or follow any other intermediate steps to deal with the issue, he simply revert edited it. THAT was a violation of wikipedia policy, not anything I did. You should have given him a warning, not me. I didn't seek redress with an admin, I simply put it back, noting that a good poster should not simply delete referenced material. He still should not be doing that. Secondly, the material relating to the Alpha Theta Chapter on the Theta Nu Epsilon website has been there for years, and has been researched by undergraduate members at Columbia. Whether they have registered with anyone is immaterial. The complaint you received above is about material that is not on a wikipedia website, that has been available on that website for a number of years, and relates to a five year old society on the Missouri campus that has had over 50 members. If that doesn't meet with someone's approval is entirely outside the question as to the status of the QEBH article. Note, Grey Wanderer, some individual is trying to bring outside campus issues into wikipedia in an attempt to change the content of an article; -- I am not that person.129.133.124.194 (talk) 21:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

And, by the way, if some individual refuses to believe in the existence of an Alpha Theta chapter, then why are there Missouri members of the Theta Nu Epsilon facebook group? ---Please. 129.133.124.194 (talk) 22:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see my comments at Talk:QEBH. Grey Wanderer | Talk 03:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

List-class articles

Did you purposely omit List-class articles from the Columbia and Kansas City WikiProject templates? I assessed a few articles as list-class and noticed they did not get updated with the last bot run.--Millbrooky (talk) 00:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm....no I certainly didn't. Something is fishy there. The mizzou template suffers the same problem, but the st. louis one works fine. Whatever Daron did to the St. Louis Template must have fixed the problem. I'll take a look at it somtime later this week. Thanks for the catch. Grey Wanderer | Talk 03:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and fixed the problem on all three WikiProject templates, Mizzou included. As I mentioned earlier, the List-class categories had simply been omitted from the template code. The next bot run should work as expected. --Millbrooky (talk) 06:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! Grey Wanderer | Talk 18:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ryan2845

Please read my comment. Yechiel (Shalom) 02:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I think thats a fine action. Grey Wanderer | Talk 03:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Ryan SSP

If he's still revert-warring, make a report at WP:AN3, noting that it's not four reverts in 24 hours but is nevertheless a continuing edit war after being warned and acknowledging the problem. I'm not sure I would block him under the circumstances, especially given the content of the edit summary, but it could be considered. I will not be recommending a block for sockpuppetry because at this point it does no good; the only reason to block would be edit-warring. Note that Soccerlover8 (not his precise username) is probably not Ryan. Yechiel (Shalom) 20:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Kansas Jayhawks

I have suggested what I think is a more fair resolution on, let me know what you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan2845 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to beat a dead horse here, but after looking at the reference website for the "more NCAA Major Infractions than any other NCAA Division I Basketball program" stat (https://goomer.ncaa.org/wdbctx/LSDBi/LSDBI.home) I have found that two other universities have the same number of major basketball violations (5). Minnesota and Cincinnati. Therefore, that addition is no longer a true statement, or "unique" to the Kansas Jayhawks. I'm not going to change that again before getting your opinion, comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan2845 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I saw your edit added the "basketball" qualifier. Did that fix the problem? Grey Wanderer | Talk 05:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no, I added "basketball" before I discovered this new information, because without "basketball" KU is actually way down the list in terms of total NCAA Violations https://web1.ncaa.org/pdf/convert?pdfurl=http://goomer.ncaa.org:2020/wdbctx/LSDBi/lsdbi.lsdbi_mi_rpts.mostinfractionsrpt ( arizona state and SMU both have 8 total in all sports, KU, UofMinn, and Cincinnati all have 5 in basketball )Ryan2845 (talk) 12:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah okay, I changed the sentence to read "The KU Men's Basketball team is tied with the University of Minnesota and the University of Cincinnati for the most major NCAA infractions committed by a Division-I program." I'm going to added something along the same lines on the UM and UC pages as well. Nice job adding more info about illegal plane ticket home to see his sick grandmother. Thats way more interesting than what was there before. Grey Wanderer | Talk 19:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, I changed the minnesota and cincinnati pages to specifically say "basketball violations" otherwise the statement is untrue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan2845 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I thought that was obvious because it was on the basketball specific pages, but if you thought it was ambiguous then thats good enough for me. Grey Wanderer | Talk 19:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Slackers

Thanks for the kind words about the Slackers article, it's much appreciated. Me5000 (talk) 19:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I GET IT!

Yeah, okay! I GET IT! YOU SENT ME ABOUT THAT NEW MOUSE CITY TWICE AND I GET IT!

Good, used the wrong tag the first time, and so I alerted you the second time so you could see the new tag/merge as well.Grey Wanderer | Talk 19:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

back off

There is absolutely no reason to go off the deep end on me for removing information that had no appropriate reference. You think the information belongs there? fine. cite it. I wasn't doing anything wrong, just editing like everyone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Demoares (talk • contribs) 22:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The referenced worked just fine, I checked it. It was cited. There has been an edit war recently and you should not have reverted the information after Ryan added it back. See the talk page if you want more information. Messing with that information without or against the current consensus is grounds for a serious warning. Especially for New Users, or anons because there has been gross violations of the 3RR and Sockpuppetry. Also, careful with accusations see Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks. Thanks. Grey Wanderer | Talk 22:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Washington University in St. Louis posting

I placed the information there in order to distinguish it as a separate University versus George Washington University and others here in the Washington, DC area. There is much confusion! All the points are factual -- compare, for instance, with the Johns Hopkins University entry's notation that it is highly esteemed in medicine, international studies, etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkfisher (talk • contribs) 22:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The name of the article is "Washington University in St. Louis" I dont' think that is going to be confused with George Washington University in Washington D.C. Anywash Wash U is a very good university, but saying it is "world class" because the wash u website says it is not NPOV. Grey Wanderer | Talk 22:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Look

well, I absolutely disagree -- if you look at the main metrics of what constitutes a "world class" research institution -- such as scholarly journal citations and rankings.

If you refer to University of Chicago's entry, the second paragraph notes that UofC is "widely regarded as one of the world's foremost universities." UofC and Washington University are similarly ranked in the US News and World Report National University rankings (#9 versus #12). Also, Johns Hopkins University is mentioned as being "particularly esteemed for its medical, scientific, and international studies programs." JHU, overall, is ranked below Washington University and the number of "top 10" ranked programs at Washington University actually outnumbers JHU. Thus, your point that the earlier comment was somehow biased is without warrant.

In short, please understand that the world is much larger than Missouri. There IS much confusion on the West Coast and East Coast between U. of Washington, GWU, and Washington University -- let alone all the other iterations of "Washington" and either "College" or "University." One clear example is in the arena of Law Schools, GWU and Washington University have similarly ranked law school programs (per US News), but W.U. is frequently confused with GWU and vice versa in Washington public policy forums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.1.165 (talk) 05:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well considering three different editors have removed your edits and you've been just been warned about vandalizing other pages, I think you should take my advice on this. Giving the founding date and namesake was a good idea. That part has been left in the article. I'm sure there is much confusion between Wash U and GWU, my point is the name of the article is "Washington University in St. Louis" so the fact that it is not GWU doesn't need to be covered in the lead paragraph. If you feel that other Universities articles are NPOV or unsourced then your free to remove the information or tag the article as such. What other articles contain doesn't mean that you have to lower the Wash U article to that standard. And your right...the earth has an area of 510,072,000 km² Missouri only has an area of 180,533 km². Grey Wanderer | Talk 18:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

another aside, on Wikipedia don't say something is "world class" show it. Grey Wanderer | Talk 18:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)