User talk:Lionelt/Archive 2

Gary Glenn redux

		The Citation Barnstar
		Lionelt, I award you this "Citation" Barnstar for the work detailed in this talk page section. You found a reliable source citation for a particularly pivotal quotation. Inclusion of this (now well documented) quote improves the article immensely. Congratulations on your success, and keep up the good work! (sdsds - talk) 07:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

3RR and Traditonal Marriage Movement

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. --Dr.enh (talk) 20:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

This warning is purely retaliatory because I reported this user to AN3 and he was sanctioned with a warning. Does anyone know if I can blank this? Lionelt (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Please also review Wikipedia:Consensus. Please note especially, "Consensus discussions should always be attempts to convince others, using reasons." Your reversions of my edits lack reasons grounded in Wikipedia policies. Note especially that when unsourced material is in dispute, WP:BURDEN states that the burden of proof is on the person restoring material (you), not on the person removing material (me). --Dr.enh (talk) 05:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

South Park notability

I thought along the same lines as you did with regards South Park episodes. There was a lenghty debate about the Season 1 episodes, the result of which was some impressive work done on both them and the most recent articles. Take a look at them, I was convinced that with the work done that far, the rest of the articles from the series could be brought up to the same standard. Alastairward (talk) 14:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Hunter Kahn has been working to improve the articles at a pretty good pace. If you have access to good info databases Lexus/Nexus; Ebsco etc. you can help! It does appear that most South Park Episodes can be shown to have significant 3rd party coverage in reliable sources. Family Guy episodes, on the other hand, I am not so sure.-- The Red Pen of Doom 01:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Star Trek has been around for long enough and has had such a fan base, that it's easier to establish it's notability, but as RedPen notes above, Hunter Kahn has been doing some great stuff with the early and later episodes. Alastairward (talk) 11:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

deletion of part of your comments on TMM

I have deleted part of your comments on Talk:Traditional marriage movement, as you seemed to step over the line from discussing content to negatively discussing the actions of a given user in other threads. As per WP:PA, "Similarly, discussion of a user's conduct is not in itself a personal attack when done in the appropriate forum for such discussion (e.g. the user's talk page, WP:WQA, WP:ANI)." (emphasis mine) As per that same page, "Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor", which is what I have done. Nat Gertler (talk) 23:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

While it is true that other folks working on other pages have disagreements with the actions of that user, it is not relevant to the concern which I raised. Posting as you did is not only against guidelines, it is against good strategy. Certainly, that sort of posting is not apt to convince the target of your accusations. By being the one who seems to "lose it" in the discussion, it's not the target of your anger who comes off looking unreasonable, it's you. A calm tone may be a challenge to maintain, but it tends to be more effective.

And to answer your other question -- no, I don't know how to draw in an administrator to lock out any edits - yours, his, or otherwise. Nat Gertler (talk) 00:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Garbage and Recycling: Opposing Viewpoints

Hello Lionelt, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Garbage and Recycling: Opposing Viewpoints has been removed. It was removed by Windlake with the following edit summary '(deprod because this is a notable book)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Windlake before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 19:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Edit-warring on Immigration Equality (organization)

Hi, please do not re-add disputed content against consensus. The items sourcing is being reviewed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The New American reliable source and is this appropriate for Immigration Equality .28organization.29. It seems this isn't a a reliable source for anything but the opinions of the John Birch Society. Please revert yourself or I can see to it someone else assists in the removal of this material. -- Banjeboi 20:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Action alert

Hello Lionelt, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Action alert has been removed. It was removed by Benjiboi with the following edit summary '(action alerts are a pretty common device used by dozens if not hundreds or organizations, no need to delete this)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Benjiboi before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Question

Above all else, go to the talk page. It seems like the talk page should always be open to you to voice you concerns. If you think that anything particularly disruptive is afoot give me a shout, You can also request a third party opinion on the matter without needing to edit the mainspace of the article. - Schrandit (talk) 05:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays

I left you a message at the above talk page, which you might like to check out. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

No personal attacks

Even anonymous editors deserve respect. Please don't leave an edit summary like this again.[1] Thanks,   Will Beback  talk  23:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:You don't love me3.ogg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:You don't love me3.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Re:Cottrell

I suppose you can just copy and paste over the current revision (so, select all and copy the raw text of the workpage, then open the article for editing, select all, delete the old text, and paste the raw text from the workpage in, and save). I think the site will want to preserve the old history of the page, so that's probably the best way to do it. Thanks for the improvements. Chubbles (talk) 13:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't have online access to Grove anymore, but that is also a print reference - The New Grove Dictionary of Jazz, ed. Barry Kernfeld. The 2nd edition is four volumes and came out in 2002; any decent university library should have a copy of it. Chubbles (talk) 16:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Cottrell3.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Cottrell3.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Louis Cottrell, Jr.

Hello! Your submission of Louis Cottrell, Jr. at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 08:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Franklin Canyon Park

Nice work. I thought there was already an article on the topic, but I guess not. Thanks for writing and contributing that.   Will Beback  talk  23:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing! It's a great little place, perfect for a picnic by the lake, especially this time of year. I have misgivings about giving it any publicity: it's fairly obscure. I'd hate for it to turn into Runyon. Lionelt (talk) 01:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Louis Cottrell, Jr.

The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Prop. 8 video

Ooooh, a very interesting question. I think it would be all about the description of the video and whether or not a neutral phrasing oculd be agreed upon. That being said, I think the video clip would do a lot to help explain the climate that surrounded the vote and should absolutly go in. Let me know how it goes. - Schrandit (talk) 08:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: D. J. Wessler

Hello Lionelt. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of D. J. Wessler, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: "Wessler's sculpture has earned him numerous awards" is an assertion of importance. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers 17:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Franklin Canyon Park

— Rlevse • Talk • 13:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC) 06:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Wolf Blitzer

First WP:BLP then WP:COPYVIO ? You can´t decide what it is . Now citation needed. But it´s agreeable. Thanks --Thomaskh (talk) 06:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi! And thanks for stopping by. Originally there was untoward material about Blitzer that was poorly sourced. BLP practically mandates removal. Next, a neutral comment was added, and then a youtube video to provide context. Well, the neutral comment isn't inflammatory, so it's ok. But we are prohibited from linking to websites that are known for unlawfully posting copyrighted material, and youtube is one of the biggest violators of copyright. A much better website for media is Flickr. You should be able to find the video on a more reliable site. If I didn't take these actions, another editor would have eventually. LionelT (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

"added cats so the legions of rabid fans can find the article of their beloved TREK73"

With regards Trek73, the information about it's creation and adoption is being cited by a mixture of sources, but it still seems to be lacking anything more than a trivial mention here and there. Is there anything to make it more than a simple university project? WikiuserNI (talk) 23:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not it was a simple univ. project, the article has consensus and has withstood AfD twice. Many of the historic pre-Internet games which have articles don't even have sources, such as Baseball (1971 video game), Space Race (arcade game) and Touch Me (arcade game) Would you consider PRODing the "first-ever baseball computer game?" You know the sourcing at Star Trek (script game) is pretty weak. Have you considered focusing your deletion efforts over there? LionelT (talk) 00:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Consensus from a number of fans of the game (I notice some similarities between user names of those involved in the article and those listed in the external links...) won't stop it being listed again, that's the problem. Simply showing up and saying "Notable, keep!" will keep an AfD at bay, but then what?

I have nominated some of these types of game articles before with the result that they have been merged. (Trek73 was to be merged IIRC, but was sneakily unmerged later.) These games are just not notable really, what's all this talk of a pre-internet black hole in sourcing or "historic pre-Internet games"? Historic but just not historic enough to warrant a lot of coverage?

And BTW, thank you, but I've been "warned" from editing the article before, it would be nice if you could suggest something more worthwhile to expand the article. WikiuserNI (talk) 09:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Star Trek Concordance

You accidentally started this in article space, while it was obvious to me that you wanted to work on it in your user space. So I moved it there. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, I have in my possession a work by Bjo Trimble called Star Trek Encyclopedia. Would the "Concordance" be the same thing? -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. The original The Star Trek Encyclopedia was written by the Okudas. Note that they give credit to Trimble. The Concordance predates STE. Lionel (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

thanks for article refs and help

hey, here comes the cavalry...at warp speed, too!!! thanks!!! --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		for outstanding work in finding refs for Begin, a computer game which had much notability, but insufficient references. good work!!! --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Stanback

Thanks for the heads up, I think your prod makes sense. - Schrandit (talk) 10:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Roger De Bris

I removed the prod, as it is likely to be contested at WP:AfD. Bearian (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Max Wolf Valerio

He's a very well known author in the field of gender studies. Personally I think he's a bit of a dick, but as someone with a degree in the field, I think his notability is pretty much unquestionable.

I might also add that one of those anthologies was This Bridge Called My Back, arguably the most notable anthology of feminist writing ever written, and of which every other contributor has an article. However, he's notable for his modern writing alone. Rebecca (talk) 01:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

CSD Declined - Eric Stryker

Hi! Just to let you know that I have declined the speedy deletion of Eric Stryker, as there is an assertion of notability through the inclusion of third party references where the person received coverage. Articles that make assertions of notability are not candidates for speedy deletion. As the article has been declined for PROD, the method for deleting it has to be through AFD. Stephen! ^Coming... 09:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Stephen, for taking the time to explain things. Just wanted to clarify, did you mean "importance" as opposed to "notability"? As I understand it, the speedy criteria A7 is concerned with importance, not notability. Are they the same? One last thing, are you saying that if an article has a third party reference, that satisfies the "credible claim of significance" required by A7? Thanks Lionel (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

No worries. The criteria for CSD is very strict to stop articles being needlessly deleted without giving them a chance. An assertion of notability (which covers significance and importance) is all it needs. From WP:A7: The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. As one of the criteria for notability is coverage by several third party sources, I see references as an assertion of notability (even if the reference isn't a reliable source). Not sure if that has answered your question; if not, please let me know! Stephen! ^Coming... 21:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Diane Sabin

Hello Lionelt. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Diane Sabin, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: if you think so, take it to WP:AFD. She clearly fails the speedy deletion criteria, so A7 cannot be applied. Thank you. SoWhy 10:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

CSD A7 / Rod Michano

I've removed the tag, I think it might pass WP:GNG. I'm more than happy for you to run an AfD on it if you think I'm wrong, though. Cheers! --j⚛e decker^talk 23:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Ditto the PROD, same reasoning. Again, no problem with you taking it to AfD. --j⚛e decker^talk 23:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Agenda?

You appear to have added prod templates to a number of articles that relate either to LGBT issues or have been edited by Benjiboi (there is a large overlap). I also notice that many of your prod templates have already been removed. Is there some reason why you are asking for so many LGBT articles to be deleted? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in my editing. My only agenda is to improve the encyclopedia.Lionel (talk) 22:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I saw a series of pages on my watchlist appear with your name as last editor and thought I would check. Thanks for your response. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I was going to ask the same question about your Afd nomination of Anything But Straight. You edits do give the impression of an agenda other than improving the encyclopedia, and more than one editor has noticed. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello Phil, impressions can be misleading. When I happened upon Anything But Straight it had been tagged since 2007 for notability. When I nom it for AfD it had 2 sources, 1 of which was a pay-site, and which I could not verify. At the time the nom was fully in good faith. BTW Benjiboi has not edited that article. It also appears my edits coincide with articles that have been edited by user:schrandit. Additionally I put this non-LGBT up for AfD. Lionel (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

James Clark (British diplomat)

I sourced it to two major British periodicals. If you still do not like it, send it to AfD and get back to me on my talk page. Bearian (talk) 23:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

CSD Declined - Andrew Lee (director)

I have declined the speedy deletion of Andrew Lee (director), as it makes claims of notability (i.e. director of tv programmes and award nominations). Remember if an article makes a credible claim, it is not a candidate for speedy deletion under WP:A7, regardless of whether or not it is referenced. Stephen! ^Coming... 19:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obama Anak Menteng

In line with my comments at the AFD, I'm preparing something as a replacement for the book article. While it is still be expanded, I invite you to look in at User:MichaelQSchmidt/workspace/Obama Anak Menteng (film). Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Now in main space

Obama Anak Menteng (film) is the better and more easily sourced of the two, far less likely to ever be sent to AFD, and a merge/redirect to this newer article will preserve the contribution histories of the original. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

In accompanying your sigh of relief (chuckle), does THIS support a merge? Just asking so it might be easier for a closer to draw such a conclusion if warranted. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Hyacinth#Warning: Safe space

You provide no justification for the claim that my edits may be disruptive. Hyacinth (talk) 00:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Michael Ryan (broadcaster)

Hi Lionelt. I am writing to let you know that I have declined your speedy deletion request regarding Michael Ryan (broadcaster). The article states that he presents a thrice-weekly primetime show on Ireland's largest broadcaster. While the article is a substub, I feel that there is a more than credible claim of significance or importance. Best wishes, Rje (talk) 21:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy tags

Hi, Lionelt. I noticed that you tagged Richard Lawrence (artist) and Eric Williams (basketball, born 1978) for speedy deletion without notifying the original author. In the future, please remember to notify the article creator when you tag a page for speedy deletion. (There is a WP markup tag on the speedy deletion template which you can use for this purpose.) It allows the editor to respond to the deletion request. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. I was just coming here to tell you the exact same thing. Try tagging with WP:TWINKLE, you can enable it in your user preferences. It automates the process by automatically notifying the article creator. -- œ^™ 05:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

John Bosco‎

You are new to this article. I would suggest you look at the talkpage as the article is under dispute. Under dispute is an actionable item. I would suggest you revert yourself. There is no WP:CONSENSUS for removal and several editors have been taken to WP:ANEW for their actions. ----moreno oso (talk) 19:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I have fully discussed the matter on the talkpage. ----moreno oso (talk) 19:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello Morenooso thanks for stopping by. I saw you edit-warring with another user, looked at the Talk page and it seems that there is no consensus for inclusion going back 3 months. In fact, "Also, the consensus on this page was to omit the material for the reasons I stated above and for reasons explained in the archive of this talk page, including that the accusation is serious and the sources are weak for this POV, fringe theory claim. You will note that this article was stably without this section until it was reintroduced in February of this year. As to consensus, the consensus was to omit it. " - Mamalujo 4/29/10. My revert was in good faith and within policy. Instead of POV tagging, edit warring and trying to scare new editors away by threatening to take them to appropriate noticeboards for five months, why not just WP:DRR? Lionel (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You're obviously an experienced editor, and I am not. Help me understand something. I thought when you threaten to report someone to WP:ANEW you use Template:Uw-3rr? Lionel (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)

You probably missed it but Mamalujo is actually the one who "waded in bold as brass" with his first wholesale delete and challenge by his edit summary to incite anyone who he thought be posting bad or questionable info to the article. I have not edit warred. Let's be clear on that. As for working this out, I've tried both on the talkpage and even his user talkpage. If you don't know what the under dispute tag means and the full history of all parties involved, you've just waded in too. ----moreno oso (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't make threats. Let's also be clear on that too. That is why as a senior editor, I advised you to reconsider your edit. For lack of better words, the other editor has a history of being very passionate about Spanish saints or articles. He has done the same on other articles. Also as per my "wade in" comment, he has a habit of letting the matter die, then come and re-iniate the matter and in essence fueling the fire. That is why with my second edit summary revert, I mentioned that we (the collective editors) have been all through this. As a sign to myself, I went to NatGertler's talkpage and asked him his thoughts on the matter because he has been a straight shooter on similar articles we follow. In fact, he corrected me on one and I really respect him for the way he did it. When he rewrote the material objected to, several other editors agreed to his compromise. Obviously you are not at 3RR but Marmalujo is approaching it. He will blindly revert as he did twice already. As a senior editor, I tried to remind him of all the salient points which he should be well aware of. In a nutshell, you ventured in without knowing all the facts. Am I correct? ----moreno oso (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You can review the article history to go back to the version I reverted to see what the under dispute means. Both parties should abide by it as neither side sees the other viewpoint. ----moreno oso (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Your suggestion to revert myself, and your warning about WP:ANEW (which was wikilinked for emphasis)could only be construed by a reasonable person as an implied threat. I.e., "If you don't revert yourself, I could report you to WP:ANEW." As it happens, this was an empty threat since as you pointed out I was not 3RRing and WP:ANEW in this case was not the appropriate noticeboard. I'm going to AGF and suggest that maybe you take a little wikibreak, why not here?

If you construed it as a threat then I apologize. However, since you chose to revert and remove a valid maintenance template, consider this an informal {{subst:uw-tdel1}} warning level one. ----moreno oso (talk) 00:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Agricola44's talk page.

Speedy deletion declined: Catriona MacLeod

Hello Lionelt. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Catriona MacLeod, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Being a prof is a credible assertion of significance sufficient for A7. BLPPROD or take to AfD if required. Thank you. GedUK  19:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Jennifer Strahl speedy declined

Asserts significance, a lower standard than notability, with "She is currently the Department Chair of Science at Montverde Academy in Montverde, Florida. She was also recently appointed President of the Purdue College of Science Alumni Board." Tried to BLP PROD, page is too old. See lots of Google hits, none could I sink my teeth into. If you feel strongly that she is NN, you might want to AFD. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 13:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

War on Drugs

Please see my response at Talk:War on Drugs#Racial disparities section - POV. You have incorrectly interpreted a primary source, and should revert your recent incorrect edit. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

And by the way, judging from your talk page, you might want to look at the guidelines for speedy deletion requests. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

They're just inclusionists ;-) Lionel (talk) 01:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand your sentiment, and I have a knack for deleting crappy garage bands' vanity pages too -- but I do it through the proper channels, such as AfD. Speedy deletion should be used for obvious vandalism like articles named The small size of Don Juan's wanker or pages filled with gibberish like "jfladsjflksdajfklsdajflksdajflkasdjlksjflksdajf". (See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion for other examples). Otherwise, you should use AfD.

By the way. I was in a crappy mood, when the War on Drugs thing started, and was being a dick. I'd like to work with you, and find reliable sources, and don't want this to escalate into a battle -- I've really got other things I'm more interested in right now, but I'd be glad to dedicate a little time here and there to improving the article. I'll keep my tongue-whip in check, and hopefully you can do the same. Let's both calm down and work on improving the article. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC) Hello. You have a new message at Jrtayloriv's talk page.

Birkensnake

I made it "fall" since the editor said at the AfD that they were in the process of binding. As for the "calibre of the company," please don't be too hasty--these joints are not companies, there is no money involved, and going to print, even for academic journals, always takes much longer than expected (trust me, I speak from experience). The SPA's that are coming out of the f***ing wazoo are probably not the editors, thought they may be readers for the magazine--some goodwilling, some idiots. If the article gets deleted, I won't cry in my beer, and the editor won't either, I imagine, and in a way I want those SPA's to have to suck it up, but I think that the magazine has been noted enough to warrant inclusion. Keep in mind that the market for such publications is much smaller and their noticeability likewise, but that doesn't meant they're not important in their field. The Black Warrior Review, for instance, is poorly referenced and would be difficult to reference, but they are one of the most important literary magazines (in their own category) in the country. Holding these kinds of publications to the standards of newspapers or famous people doesn't always make a lot of sense. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 04:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Points well taken. All they need to do is find 1, just 1 more RS and they're home free. At this point it depends on the closing admin. Looks like no consensus to me. I wonder in that case will the SPAs come back for a round 2 when it gets renom.? Lionel (talk) 20:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I personally don't know if it needs another one--that other one, if it exists, is not going to be stronger than what's already there. I hope it's enough, and that the closing admin will see through all the sock nonsense and the Flash Bang rudeness. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Content requires sources

When adding content, particularly controversial content such as you did with this edit:[2] you MUST provide reliable sources. WP:V. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 13:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Being listed as a member/supporter of NAMBLA could be the ultimate BLP concern. Well, maybe 2nd to being listed as a serial killer. If they're already in the article and sourced, do they need another ref (e.g. Allen Ginsberg, Samuel R. Delany)? And what if their own article states, with references, that they are a member/supporter (e.g. Scott O'Hara)? Lionel (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes the source needs to be directly cited in the NAMBLA article- because of the open nature of editing at Wikipedia, a source on the persons page may be removed at some time in the future leaving no way to verify the claim at the other article. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 17:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. But what about Ginsberg - in the NAMBLA lede ref #4 identifies him as a supporter. Is it necessary to duplicate that ref later on in the Members section? Lionel (talk) 17:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Any living people would need to have the claim cited in line, and I think it is best practice to have duplicated cites even for dead people. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 17:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Micro Award

An article that you have been involved in editing, Micro Award, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Micro Award. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. --23 Benson (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You appear to have an admirer

Special:Contributions/Qspwn3

You should probably also take a look at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#http:.2F.2Fwiki.riteme.site.2Fwiki.2FNorth_American_Man.2FBoy_Love_Association.23Notable_members_and_supporters - Schrandit (talk) 11:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Becoming a fan club [3]. I get a the feeling a whitewash is coming. These "new users" are exerienced. What are they - alternate accounts? Socks? Lionel (talk) 21:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Talk:North American Man/Boy Love Association/FAQ

Talk:North American Man/Boy Love Association/FAQ, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:North American Man/Boy Love Association/FAQ and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Talk:North American Man/Boy Love Association/FAQ during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Arlene Ackerman

Your recently nominated this for speedy and it was deleted A7. It has been put back, with the comment "There was no reason to remove the article! It passed an AFD. Why was it removed?" In fact Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arlene Ackerman in 2007 was "no consensus", but I think in view of that, if the article is to be challenged it should go back to AfD. I will notify Airplaneman (talk · contribs), the admin who deleted it. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Stonewall1994.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Stonewall1994.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Micro Award

Lionel, you've convinced me on the merge for Micro Award. I agree that it's a workable compromise and makes sense per wikipedia's guidelines. HeartSWild (talk) 17:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Edward S. Brown

Hello Lionelt. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Edward S. Brown, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Being a major party candidate for U.S. Congress is an assertion of importance. Likely not notability, but importance is a lower standard. Thank you. Courcelles 22:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Stonewall1994.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Stonewall1994.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 04:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

PROD tags

I see you've added the PROD tag to several articles, but it looks like you haven't alerted the original authors on their talk pages. If you read the text in the tag itself, it gives directions. Please make sure you complete this necessary step, otherwise the tags may be removed for that reason.   Will Beback  talk  23:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Categories

Please remember that whatever topics are reflected in categories need to be sourced, just like anything else in an article. So if we categorize an article as concerning pedophilia, for example, then we need to have a source which makes that connection. We can't draw that conclusion on our own, per WP:NOR. See WP:CATEGORY for more information.   Will Beback  talk  01:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, Will. Do you think ped cat not appropriate for Boise? Lionel (talk) 01:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, categories like Pedophilia and Anti-Semitism are not usually applied to individuals, except those who have made significant contributions to the field. For instance, Kevin B. MacDonald is in the anti-semitism category because he wrote a major book on the topic, not because we consider him to be anti-semitic. So if it were an article on a person convicted of child molestation, we would not include it in a pedophilia category (but we would include it in the molestation crime category. On the other hand, if the article is on a incident which was very famous for its pedophilia connection, then we'd include it. If that were the case, we'd have no trouble finding sources to support that categorization. So it comes back to sources, not opinions.   Will Beback  talk  01:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)