User talk:Colonel Warden

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Moving pages

Hi - Please read WP:MOVE before moving any more pages. If you have any questions, leave a note on my talk page. Thanks! -SCEhardT 22:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't moved any pages today. Perhaps you mean WP:REDIRECT? Colonel Warden (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. That was rather cryptic. I was referring to the move of the contents of Feature creep. Although you didn't do it all at once, the end result was a copy/paste move, which causes the page history to be lost. Instead, please use the 'move' button. -SCEhardT 22:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not possible to move/overwrite an existing page unless you are an admin. I was performing a manual merge. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

If the sole content (and history) of the destination page is a redirect, you should be able to move the page yourself. If not, you can make a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Regardless, the actions you performed result in a loss of page history (page history is required for compliance with the GFDL). If page B is empty, do not copy and paste content from page A to page B and then turn page A into a redirect. Use the move function instead, or request that an admin make the move. -SCEhardT 23:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

In this case we have multiple existing pages witn similar titles Feature creep, Featuritis, Scope creep, Functionality creep and who knows how many more. In this case, it seems best to keep the talk for each of these with the page it originated with rather than shuffling them about and confusing matters further. I see that you have moved Featuritis talk page to the talk page of Feature creep. What happened to the talk page for the latter? What if someone wanted to revert?
Anyway, little of either article survives - this is effectively a reset as I rebuilt from fresh sources. If there is some technical difficulty with my action, then, in future cases of this sort, I will retain nothing of the originals. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I see that Talk:Functionality creep has lots of chatter even though that was redirected after an AFD. Since that must have done by an admin, I'm confused. In your view, should that now be added to the talk for Feature creep or what? Since it is mostly bickering, it seems like a big waste of time. :) Colonel Warden (talk) 23:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, OK, I see now. I thought the content at Feature creep was a shortened version of what had previously been Featuritis. I didn't realize it was a collection of several articles. In this case, I think noting the names of the articles where the content came from (in the edit summary) is sufficient to track history for GFDL purposes. (Though if a majority of the content came from one article, it still wouldn't hurt to move it to the new name)

I think you are correct about the talk page. I put it back. There was no existing talk page for Feature creep, so it is blank now.

Phew - Hopefully this is all cleared up now :-) -SCEhardT 01:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

Thanks for the barnstar! Much appreciated.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More moves...

Hi,

I reverted your move of Anti-pattern to bad habit; the term "anti-pattern" is well established in CS literature, and not a neologism. Feel free to expand bad habit to discuss other relevant non-CS topics; but antipatterns are a sufficiently notable and relevant topic to deserve their own article. If you want to discuss this further, please do so at Talk:Anti-pattern. --EngineerScotty (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More Anti-pattern

Actually, the non-list portions of the article read reasonably well. It seems to have been subjected to some copy editing.

It may well be a non-notable neologism; it does seem to be the sort of process management cruft I instinctively dislike. The instant page also seems to be an original synthesis. Apparently professional computer programmers react with some surprise when they discover that human foibles that have plagued every other sort of enterprise also are found within their own, so they concoct a new label. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Homeopathy article probation

The homeopathy article and related pages are on article probation, due to past editing problems. Please read the terms at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation and be sure to comply.

If you look at the article's talk page, especially Talk:Homeopathy#Basic principles, you will see that the wording from which you removed a statement was a consensus version after a long discussion, and that it was considerably less POV than the previous wording, but that an IP alias CKCortez reverted to the POV version. When it just seemed that this had been resolved (OrangeMarlin's intervention for the new version and QuackGuru's minor changes), you advocated a further step in the direction that we had gone. Tagging a statement without sources as "citation needed", as QuackGuru has done for you, was of course OK. But removing it entirely in the current situation without thoroughly discussing it first and reaching a consensus was not constructive in a charged situation like this. I am not sure about this, but I believe if you had had the above warning before you did this you would have risked being blocked for this carelessness. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

In such a controversial case, it is best to remove contentious OR and fall back upon the sources. This position is well supported by policy, I suppose, and so my conscience is clear. Performing some sort of collective OR does not seem a satisfactory alternative. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid in the current situation we don't have a choice between the new version with and without this statement. We have a choice between the new version and the old version, which claimed that "the ideas/theories of homeopathy are [...] directly opposed to fundamental principles of natural science and modern medicine.'" If you want to make this change it's better to wait until (something like) the present, more reasonable version has become the "longstanding version". Let's suppose you and CKCortez continue to push in opposite directions with direct edits to the article. Then it's very likely that a completely uninvolved admin comes a long and decides that we have an edit war caused by a substantial change, and reverts to the "longstanding version". If you wait for at least a month that seems much less likely. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand your points and desire to help. But to clarify, do you have any special status in this matter - being an appointed arbitrator or the like? Colonel Warden (talk) 09:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
No, don't worry about disagreeing with me, I am not even an admin. But I am trying to get the homeopathy page into a state where it is factually correct and everybody is slightly unhappy with it, but not enough to start warring over it. I want to prove that civil discussions and taking WP:AGF seriously are things that actually work, even in a highly charged environment like this one. Of course my opinions are just my opinions, I didn't want to misled you into thinking I have some extrinsic authority, sorry. (If you follow the link to the article probation page you will see that I just notified myself about article probation as well, and also CKCortez. It seems to be standard practice that non-admins can do this, and I think that makes sense because it's just about making sure you know about it.)

[edit] List of tomboys in fiction

I would appreciate if you did not vandalise my talk page with misused templates and use the talk pages to discuss edits in future. --neonwhite user page talk 17:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ealing Broadway

You might find it more productive, fulfilling and a better use of your time to edit Ealing Broadway station. However I think anything worthwhile that can be said about a single - and the least frequently used - platform has already been included there. Thanks/wangi (talk) 19:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

  • In other words, take my advice, I'm not using it. You see, if it is more productive to spend this time upon other articles then why are you too not doing so? Colonel Warden (talk) 20:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Ultimate Combat!

An editor has nominated Ultimate Combat!, 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/Ultimate Combat! (2nd nomination) 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) 19:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ealing Broadway Platform 9

I'm afraid my deletion under WP:CSD#G7 was entirely accurate. The original author added a db-author tag. The only changes made to the article other than by him was a reversion of a tag and your wikilinking and minor adjustment of the lead. The AFD became irrelevant when the author G7'd, but I did review it and the consensus was clearly delete anyhow. If you wish however feel free to re-create the article (I can userfy the deleted text for you if you wish, for you to work on to ensure that it's up to scratch and will survice another AFD). Pedro :  Chat  12:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I've popped the article into User:Colonel Warden/Sandbox for you. Good luck with it. Pedro :  Chat  12:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I've advised the article's creator [1] to try and help him out as well. Pedro :  Chat  12:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The thread you mentioned is here at RFA talk. You'll notice it was my comment at WT:CSD that actually started the thread, ironically. I've very aware of how many newbies we loose by speedying off stuff they have created in good faith. However I've found that gentle advising of why a deletion has occured will often retain a potentialy excellent editor. Hopefully this will happen here. It is a dificult tight-rope to balance WP:BITE whilst maintaining what all work here for - to provide a quality encyclopedia. Pedro :  Chat  13:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I have replied on my talk, and I would ask you not to admonish me ("Tsk") when I have done everything totally within the policies, guidelines and best practice expected on Wikipedia. If you don't like the guidelines suggest a change. Don't have a go at those that implement them correctly. You're a respected editor round here and there is simply no need for terse comments like that, I'm afraid. Pedro :  Chat  19:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Awarding Barnstar

The Barnstar of Good Humor
Aprils fools day was a blast. Loads of users lightened up to have good old fashion fun. I want to thank you for taking part in editing this page in particular and even though I may not know you, embrace the same talk pages, or even edit with you in the near future, I'd like to award you this Barnstar for making Wikipedia a fun environment in which to contribute. Until next year. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 13:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you - I thought it was fun too and fancy it had a good collegial effect. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question about Administrator Abuse

  • I'm troubled by the administator Pedro. In my mind he utterly fails in understanding the spirit of wikipedia. My conscience is perfectly clear to speak out about his behavior. Am I wrong to remove his comments from my User page with "removal of abusive editor" edit tags? Pedro said I have been "warned". I find that threating, unjustified, and another instance ofAdministrator Abuse. I believe I am justifiably calling a spade a spade and that it should be alright to continue to point out his abusive behavior, even in edit summaries. What do you think?
  • I'm reading up on administrator abuse and it says as a first step (when discussions with the administator fail) that I should talk with someone else (such as yourself, which is what I am doing) before escalating it to an administator page, which I am most certainly prepared to do. --Firefly322 (talk) 17:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • It seems unwise to pick fights with admins since they protect their own in the usual manner of officious types. On the other hand, ‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’. My impression of this case is that you are over-reacting. My experience is that a calm demeanour is best, per WP:AGF. As a Christian, you will be familiar with the doctrine of turning the other cheek. It might seem that I post a lot but there are many cases when I take a deep breath and say nothing. The trick is deciding when to speak out. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I believe and cherish your counsel. So many modifications and extensions to basic values and beliefs are involved in integrating the wikipedia editorial environment with Christian ontology. In matters other than disputes, for example, I set myself a challenge to do something in the full spirit of wikipedia that would raise eyebrows in almost any Christian community. Hence my creation of the article Fleeting expletive. Given an experienced editor has already picked it up, it feels as though I have at least partially succeeded in that particullarly thorny challenge.
  • As for WP:AGF, I recognize your example each time you make a contribution. Yet, assuming good faith WP:AGF towards those whose behavior has run amuck of WP:BITE seems to lack efficiency (this is spare the rod, spoil the child thinking...). * smiles * (due to irony there). Your demonstrated patience in making contributions to good, encyclopedic topic and articles that face deletion is often nothing short of saintly. Nevertheless, I think truth of efficiency may sometimes be non-intuitive for me. Not to sound flip, but I gonna pray for Pedro. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Fleeting expletive is an excellent little article - well done. The general challenge on Wikipedia is to keep focus upon such constructive work rather than getting too engaged in sterile conflict - what people seem to call drama. As for Pedro, another good Christian homily is love the sinner, hate the sin, right? Colonel Warden (talk) 19:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me interjecting, but as this thread is about me I feel it is justified. At not one point have I abused my admin tools. Not one single point. If you can find the incident where I have then produce it. Repeated allegations of abuse are an attack if not justified. love the sinner hate the sin .... What Sin? I have done everything in the total spirit of good faith with the overiding aim of producing a quality encyclopedia. Please remember I give up my time to this project just like you two. I don't get paid, I don't get some kick out of it. I do it for one reason - to write and give away a free encyclopedia. I work damn hard at that and to see my efforts described as "officious" and "abuse" is deeply upsetting. Bottom line guys : everything I've done is in process, in policy and in good faith. Allegations of abuse which are totally wrong are outside policy and outside of good faith. You ask to love the sinner and hate the sin? Look to yourselves in this instance. Pedro :  Chat  22:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a note - Firefly, as you have stated you may wish to escalate this, WP:ANI is your next course. I'm hoping you will not find it neccessary, and that on reflection and an analysis of my edits will discover that I have not abused anything. However, that is your route should you choose it. Pedro :  Chat  22:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DRV for List of Geordies

Hi Col, just wondering if you got round to reading my treatise on 1==2's talk page (specifically, my summary of the votes, halfway through this in his archive 12 here), re. raising a possible DRV of list of geordies. I think blacknite made a basic error in quoting the paul collingwood case, I cant remember if it was in the afd or 1==2s talk, but I found a personal quotes discrediting his 'lazy journo' source outing him as a mackem. Despite requests, no other specific cases have been provided, and I think this should focus on the people, not general geographic sources. Anyway, something to ponder, if the above issues aren't keeping you too busy, but I thought I waould say while I remembered and saw your name pop up. MickMacNee (talk) 18:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

  • No, I have not been following it - when you were blocked again, I felt that you were too quixotic to devote further time to and I have windmills of my own to tilt at. But I do have Geordie and Mackem on my watch list and so am keeping an eye on them. I am willing to take the matter of the list to DRV if you can demonstrate some patience by waiting a week or two for the heat to subside. It's best not to rush at these things since impatience tends to annoy people and the time can be usefully spent preparing a solid case and mulling over the details. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    • No problem, it was more a case of me being reminded of it when I saw your name coming up. Gregs the baker is perma banned anyway; I have the outlines of a defence, as per 1=2 talk, but I'm in no rush at the moment either, many projects on the to do list from 6 days out. MickMacNee (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Ok - I'll keep this topic here as a reminder. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] philosemitism

Thanks, I figured that out shortly after I posted my comment. I posted to the discussion there; for the record, that term seems a lot more well-substantiated in the literature (which I confess I was ignorant of before reading about it) than "Islamohilia". csloat (talk) 00:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pipes

So, what from that discussion makes you believe he's a bête noire of mine? ^_^ I'd also echo the sentiments of PhilKnight... while I and others may be very happy to discuss the issue at hand, personal attacks or claims about personal motives should not enter the discussion at all. I noted this elsewhere aswell when you referred to User:PelleSmith as a "fanatic." Let's just stick to discussing things in a collegial manner. ITAQALLAH 00:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I had never heard of this person until you mentioned him so I must have got the idea from you. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A stuffed dog

I'm not sure if there is a method behind you creating less and less notable articles just to see what happens (per your talkpage comment to User:Kmweber), but I'd suggest that it's borderline disruptive. Stop it, please it is quite obvious that you are able to create notable content when you wish. Black Kite 15:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Non-notable like 'List of Geordies' non-notable? Like never heard of by anyone but a few million people not notable? MickMacNee (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
User:Black Kite prefers to create articles such as World Domination Enterprises. I do not share his tastes but, happily, Wikipedia is able to accommodate both. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Don't take the list of band articles I've created as any guide to my musical taste! They're mainly bands I came across in old festival programmes that didn't have articles. Black Kite 16:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DRV

Yes, you can take speedy deletions to DRV in the same way as AfD. Black Kite 16:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Just follow the instructions at WP:DRV. The only difference is that the "AfD" link on the entry will obviously be a redlink. Make sure you mention that the deletion was a speedy. Black Kite 16:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tomboys

Tomboy's are a feature largely in alot of anime so naturally it would feature in some way in this kind of article, some of the entries came from descriptions in the article which i think is usually ok in a navigational list. I have actually proposed in be merged into List of female stock characters#Tomboy. See the discussion Talk:List of female stock characters#Merger_proposal --neonwhite user page talk 00:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the one 'tomboy' is sourced, but I don't see that it's a reliable source. Edward321 (talk) 03:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Race and intelligence

Thanks for reverting my revert. I'm not sure what happend but I think the article got truncated by my browser in the preview of the revert - presumably because of the length of the article. Either that or I'm possessed by gremlins. Nick Connolly (talk) 08:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The -90K stood out and looked like a page-blanking. Accidents will happen. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


Thanks anyway. :) Nick Connolly (talk) 08:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prussia's Defiant Stand, submitted for deletion

Thanks for adding a reference to, & defending my stub on the 7YW game. I think people are overreacting somewhat. If you have time, do read my points in the deletion discussion. In any case, thank you again.

--Nielspeterq (talk) 13:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/65536

Regarding your !vote in this discussion -- 65536 seems to meet WP:NUMBER(wang). Especially given that the nomination has been withdrawn, you might want to reconsider your !vote. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

  • The nominator has done this before iirc. He seems indecisive. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete This is indiscriminate info. Note that if we continue with these silly articles on natural numbers, we will have an infinite number of them as one can prove that there are no insignificant numbers: if there were any insignificant numbers then the lowest of them would be significant for having this property - repeat. Information of this sort belongs in the articles on Mersenne numbers and the like. At best, one might merge them into a List of natural numbers. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Let's delete John F. Kennedy, because if we continue having articles on individual persons, we will eventually have one on every person who has ever existed. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I remember John Kennedy and, like others, recall the exact moment that I learnt of his death. To coin a phrase, this number is no Jack Kennedy. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Neither are most people who are worthy of Wikipedia articles. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Searches

Hi, thanks for the message. Yes, using the template {{find}} on the talk page of an article will give you a quick method for setting up searches using Google. Because the template places the article title in quotation marks, it is however less useful for titles such as "John Doe (actor)" and some tweaking is needed for searches on these kind of titles. Kind regards. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response

I have responded to your comment on my talk page. - Philippe 16:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation?

Hello - I am alerting you that we are preparing a Request for Mediation regarding Gavin.collins. BOZ (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I am alerting you that we are now considering a Request for Arbitration regarding him as an alternative to mediation, and would like your opinion on the matter. BOZ (talk) 13:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Input

I suggest that we take the question of fictional House characters to mediation. Can I ask you to weigh in on which form of mediation you would prefer? Thanks much! Eusebeus (talk) 02:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration Committee case on Homeopathy

You posted your contribution on the Request for Arbitration on homeopathy here: [2] However, it seems that you posted this at the "Requests for arbitration" page rather than on the EVIDENCE page. This arbitration case has already been accepted. I'm not clear if the Arb Committee will re-read the "request" postings. Instead, your comments might be more appropriate at the link: [3] DanaUllmanTalk 03:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] reasons for deleting comments on talk page

While I respect your decision to revert my deletion of comments here, you should be aware that talk pages have to follow policies WP:V, and that Happening's statements were not verifiable at all. I wouldn't have deleted his comments based on that alone, mind you, it would have been enough to tell that we can only use verifiable sources, but there was also the suspicions of sockpuppetry, so I went ahead and deleted. Just making a comment so you know why I deleted those comments. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Enric, you were of course right in this particular case. Happening was clearly a reincarnation of Dr.Jhingaadey. (Colonel Warden, if you don't believe it look at his first three edits. I only did this after he started editing from Indian IP addresses; I wish I had known this earlier.) However, your invocation of WP:V makes no sense. This policy only applies to articles and even says explicitly: "Alternatively, you may move material lacking a reliable source to the talk page." I think that you are interpreting WP:TALK a bit stricter than most editors, and I am glad that you are showing so much tolerance. In any case it's a good thing to have someone who occasionally nudges us to go to a user talk page. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I normally put up with a lof of stuff [4][5] before I decide to act, and I normally warn the user first to see if he enters in reason [6]. I only delete when it's clear-cut trolling [7][8][9] or when it's a sock of a user that was blocked for the same type of comments [10][11] and even then I warn them [12]. Once, I reverted myself for trolling a talk page [13]
In Happening's case, I had already reverted his talk page comments once[14], but I had given him advice on how using other user's talk pages would be more effective[15]. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Talk page comments should only be amended if there is a severe technical problem such as excessive length or libel. If we start messing with them on other grounds then we will be unable to communicate clearly and chaos will result. For example, Enric Naval appears to be Spanish and so has difficulty writing grammatical English. My view is that he therefore has no business editing the English Wikipedia and should stick to his native language(s). But if I were to go further and start editing his talk page comments to correct their grammar, this would be uncivil and it would distort his message in that they would no longer be his comments. We need to maintain a clear channel of communication even if we don't like what we hear. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Generally you are correct about editing talk page comments under normal conditions. In this case "a clear channel of communication" is precisely what we are required to block. A banned user is not allowed access to Wikipedia in any manner, and their edits and talk page comments may be reverted and/or removed. In this case, either removing them or striking them through - like this - is allowable, and I would opt for the second. Any further attempts by this banned user should be deleted on sight. Aiding and abetting such a user by defending them or their edits and comments may be seen as meatpuppetry, and can get one in serious trouble. -- Fyslee / talk 15:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Fyslee's comments about removal of socks' comments. I will try more often on the future to strike them instead of deleting. Colonel, please make sure you are not confusing bad grammar with abundant typos. I try to never delete comments based on wheter I like their content. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] same thing again, this time about archiving trolling comments

Can you explain how this[16] improves the quality of the discussion at the talk page, or how this user was not actually trolling, or how it's not true that this argument was beaten to death and that the statements were sourced reliabily and verifiably and saying "is hopelessly POV and can not be verified" is pure troll? This time I didn't remove the comments, I just archived them. Would you be happy if I just stroke them throught? --Enric Naval (talk) 21:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

  • No, I will oppose any such attempt to suppress or mutilate the good faith comments of other editors. If these comments displease you then the best policy is to ignore them. No further action is required. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
    • He looks like some sort of troll to me. Do you mind if we ask Fyslee and Hans Adler for a second opinion? (maybe I'm wrong after all) --Enric Naval (talk) 22:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I have already given you my opinion without seeing this comment. Now its tone is much rougher than it would have been otherwise. Sorry for that. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
        • No problem. I'll wait to see what Fyslee says, so I can learn a bit more of how to avoid problems on the future. It looks like I jumped the gun on this issue. On hindsight, I should have just explained that it was sourced, and explained WP:V and WP:RL to the IP editor. (I finally went and did that[17]).
        • (long paragraph of talking to myself while looking for diffs) Looking at other edits by the two IPs that made the comment, he looks a reasonable editor [18][19] but he needs a little talking about WP:OR and using personal experience as a reliable source[20] specially on articles[21] and usage of wording [22] and removal of sources without providing a reason [23]. He also appears to be User:Naturstud, but editing from several IPs for some reason instead of logging in [24] (the contribution histories are remarkably similar). If he is this user, then he already had disputes about NPOV with two other users[25][26] and knows about OR[27]. Hum, not sure about this editor. He seems to have an axe to grind, to be honest[28] --Enric Naval (talk) 00:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
          • I haven't been following this story but a quick look makes me a bit cautious. Single comments of this type can just be ignored. If they continue and it drains our resources and patience, then I too might be tempted to collapse the comment...;-) Just think of how many more of these types of trollish and ignorant comments we have to tolerate from established true believing users and practitioners on the homeopathy talk page. They are deeply entrenched trolls who really drain everyone of energy, and we don't collapse their comments. Instead they end up in RfCs and RfARbs. -- Fyslee / talk 04:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Belin/Bilen

I added a link in the "See Also" section to Bilen because the two words are spelled similarly. A see also link causes no harm, does it? Powers T 13:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Now what? Powers T 13:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Food vs biofuels debate

Hi Colonel. Rember me from the edits on the Antarctica cooling controversy? When you have some time, would you be so kind to visit Talk:Food vs fuel and give us your experienced opinion on the discussion regarding the proposal to change the name to the article. Also, any comments on the article's content and structure will be welcome. The article presents a very interesting topic but everyday it is looking lmore ike a collection of trivia, so any recommendation from you will help. Thanks. Mariordo (talk) 13:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like another hot topic (!) so I'll take a look. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

This is a great edit. Things have been ridiculously testy for far too long, so I thought I'd drop a line to let you know that I appreciate any effort to improve the articles in question. — Scientizzle 21:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  • You're welcome. It is an interesting topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please consider taking the AGF Challenge

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [29] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 13:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take a look. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hosaphone

Hi Colonel. Part of the problem with the Hosaphone joke is that it is so convincing. The Hosaphone was invented in 1976, while I'm an Urban Spaceman was recorded in 1968! What the "inventors" of the Hosaphone are doing is laying claim to blowing down a rubber tube - and that's part of the joke itself. Regards SilkTork *YES! 20:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

So we report the truth of the matter. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I've taken your points on board and have rewritten the article to include the Bonzo reference and to play down the Hosaphone reference. Let me know what you think. Regards SilkTork *YES! 13:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
It looks good. I'm not sure where we might find more on this but you often find that tidbits turn up once you look out for them. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for turning me round on this. I've closed the AfD and renamed the article Tube trumpet. Regards SilkTork *YES! 08:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

A good result - well done. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revisionism

Why don't you want the Pages Disambiguated? Do you realize that the above is a disambiguation page? --Ludvikus (talk) 12:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

  • You seem to have the wrong editor as I am not familiar with this article. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Multiplayer game category

I think that it might be better to create a subcategory, Multiplayer board game (much like the Multiplayer video game subcat) than to use the general category. Just a thought. -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Could be - there are certainly a lot of them. I'm going to bed now though. Please create the category if you like but give some thought to what we do about games that do not have a board like Illuminati (game). Colonel Warden (talk) 23:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Number of Players

Colonel, I'm sorry for being persistent on the number of players, but I'm talking not about a dictionary line I've read somewhere but about something very familiar to me, something I deal with almost every day. The fact is that if somebody, let's say a reporter, asks "does this game has multiplayer?", "yes, 2-player co-op and versus modes" is a perfectly valid and commonly used answer. I'm not writing this to persuade you but because I don't mean it to be personal and I respect the time you volunteer into editing work here. Rankiri (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Discussion of the matter is best done on the article's talk page so that other editors may partcipate. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Guppy

Sorry I nearly screwed up for you on this one - I was just amazed when I saw there was nothing on him. Is referring to Johnson as Mayor of London in connection with Guppy now banned? I have seen the 'coatrack' explanation but I don't see how this could be regarded as an attack on either of them - it is merely factual, surely? User: cj1340 17.00, 6 May 08 (BST)

A lot of the interest in Guppy is because of his association with Boris. The point of WP:COATRACK is that you shouldn't hang irrelevant details upon an article in order to attack another subject. The article upon Boris Johnson is the place for details of his mayorality and his past controversies. There's no need to repeat it in the Guppy article. Ok? Colonel Warden (talk) 16:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The AFD is over now but bear in mind that it may return. The WP:BLP fanatics sometimes nominate an article again and again until it is deleted. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rabbit of Caerbannog

I'd appreciate if you'd strike this comment as no consensus formed to block me or take any other punitive action. The unblocking administrator from my sockpuppetry case 6 months stated that he saw no cause to reblock since I have not broken the agreement that he and I made. Also, I think you should refrain from making such edits in the future until the accusations have actually been validated. Doctorfluffy (i can has msg) 23:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I used the word suspect. The important thing here is the discussion about the article. Many improvements have been made to the article requiring several hours of work. You have revisited the discussion but have not amended your vote. The accusation against you is that you make blind delete votes and this substantiates it. Since such action is destructive and disruptive, you ought to be barred from AFD. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Your edit summary was "sock suspect", not something related my conduct in AFDs. Regardless, it should be made clear to the closing admin that the accusations were not shown to be substantial enough to warrant any action. Allowing your comment to remain does not indicate good faith to me. Despite that and despite the fact that you are bordering on incivility by saying that I am "destructive and disruptive" and that I should be "barred from AFD", I would consider reviewing the updates to the article if you would strike your comment. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 06:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
On your user page, you proclaim the total of your contributions to Wikipedia. These supposed contributions seem relentlessly critical, negative and destructive. Since we are here to build an encyclopedia, not destroy one, you should reconsider your position. I find that there are many articles on everyday matters such as Wet floor signs which are quite neglected. No specialist expertise is required to improve these. Scattering tags to point out the obvious, such as a lack of sources, is not very helpful. Please try actually adding some sources yourself and then you will be in a better position to judge the work of other editors. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
You are completely ignoring my original and still sole reason for starting this thread. I am not concerned with your opinion of my user page, your perception of my edits, or your interpretation of what constitutes an encyclopedia. I certainly don't care about wet floor signs or the neglect they receive. It's unfortunate that you feel the need to judge others, but I do not want to debate you about inclusion philosophy or what constitutes a valid contribution to Wikipedia. I'm asking you nicely for the third time to strike a comment which was based on accusations that did not lead anywhere. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 07:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
My impression is still that your activities are suspicious and so I am content for my comment to stand. It may assist the closing admin and, once the AFD is closed, the discussion will be archived like the discussion at ANI. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
There is currently an open thread about you on ANI regarding edit warring which another user believes is vandalism. I reviewed the situation and my impression is that your activities are suspicious despite the fact that no admins have taken any action. I believe that a comment regarding your conduct may assist the closing admin on the AFD, and I think it's important for the archived discussion to include the other user's accusations. Would you object to me adding a note saying that you are a suspected edit warring vandal with a link to the ANI thread? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 15:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
No - go ahead. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Very well. Thank you for remaining level headed and mostly calm throughout this ordeal. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 16:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
The AFD is now closed and you may update your scorecard accordingly. This scorekeeping, as if this were a game, is another indication that you have an inappropriate attitude, since it will bias you against improvements made in response to the AFD, as in this case. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea what you're talking about. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I refer to User:Doctorfluffy#AFDs. Perhaps this section needs clarification. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
That section is for AFDs that I started, not for those in which I merely !voted. It's mainly there to easily check for page recreations and to have quick access to the debates while they are in progress. It is a common thing to do. I don't see how that would lead you to conclude that I am playing a "game". I'm truly sorry that you feel that I have inappropriate attitude, but I should point out that you are the one who continually assumes bad faith and immediately attacks me with anything you can think of. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying the basis of ths list of AFDs. It is the first part, the summary, which gives the impression of a scorecard. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:ANI

Since User:Rankiri, who started the thread, hasn't bothered to inform you, you are being discussed here - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Colonel_Warden. Best, Black Kite 23:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Light of Destruction

  • Every other booster pack that has been nominated for AfD has been successfully deleted. You are the one who is being disruptive. JuJube (talk) 22:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I often find that articles are deleted on flimsy grounds such as yours. "Clearly unencyclopedic" is begging the question and should be dismissed immediately. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just to say hai

Tinucherian has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend or a possibly new friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Have a great day ! -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 09:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks!

RfA: Many thanks
Many thanks for your participation in my recent request for adminship. I am impressed by the amount of thought that goes into people's contribution to the RfA process, and humbled that so many have chosen to trust me with this new responsibility. I step into this new role cautiously, but will do my very best to live up to your kind words and expectations, and to further the project of the encyclopedia. Again, thank you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Googlefight Keep vs Delete.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Googlefight Keep vs Delete.JPG. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 16:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another Feather in Wikipedia's Cap

The Technology Barnstar
Googlefight is a brilliant idea for a new article. Just brilliant mate! Firefly322 (talk) 16:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - the illustration was especially entertaining and shows the battles one has to fight with bots over such now. But note that the inspiration was one of yesterday's AFDs in which the non-notability of this topic was repeatedly asserted without a shred of evidence. One wonders how many more promising stubs are speedily deleted. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps another good idea would be a bot that immediately blocks Administrators for a short periods of time (a day or so) whose behavior is so obviously an abuse of administrative tools as well as administrative freedom and authority. They make wikipedia look bad. --Firefly322 (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Googlefight_Keep_vs_Delete.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Googlefight_Keep_vs_Delete.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. Melesse (talk) 06:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Googlefight Keep vs Delete.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Googlefight Keep vs Delete.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) 12:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Studies

Dear Colonel, If you really want to help the pro-science Lobby on the article on Homeopathy, please mention the word studies in a positive way in Para 2 of the Lead and tag the references I'm providing (originally from the url:'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Peter_morrell/Selection_of_studies

'):-e.g.studies[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][35][36][35][37][38][39][40][41]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Selection (talk • contribs) 08:02, 19 May 2008

  • I'm not sure I have time to look through 41 references. Meta-analyses and summaries seem best when we have this volume of material. But I will skim through them to see what I make of them. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I've blocked User:Selection as a block-evading sock. He created this page in your userspace: User talk:Colonel Warden/Selection of Studies. Do you want me to delete it, or would you rather keep it for future reference? Up to you. MastCell Talk 16:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems to be a good faith attempt to provide soirces for an article. When I am done with it, I can remove it myself. Thanks. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
How can you call a banned liar's repeated attempts to evade his numerous blocks to be "good faith attempt[s]"? (I call him a "liar" because he has repeatedly denied his sock puppets are him, but has been proved wrong yet again.) By siding with him you are adopting the mindset of a meatpuppet and will be watched intensely. Either you are for Wikipedia policies or you are against them. Make your choice clear to all. -- Fyslee / talk 02:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
No problem; just wanted to make sure you were aware of it, since pages can appear in one's userspace without their knowledge sometimes. MastCell Talk 17:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just between Colonel Warden and Firefly322 (er...Dana Ullman too)

I've looked at the situation at the article Homeopathy from time to time. Often impressed by how amazingly impartial you manage to be (i'm not always so successful as you, i think). There's one thing that I would like to understand better. What's with the Arbcom Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy and Dana Ullman ban?

Is Dana Ullman a sort of Jesus Christ figure being sacrificed by an angry mob? Is the ban and the way its worded mere pandering to the angry mob, rather than legit commentary? Just wondering. --Firefly322 (talk) 02:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

In 1976, I was arrested for practicing medicine without a license (heck, didn't Jesus have problems from his healing work? but please, I mean this humorously). The good news with that arrest was that we won a courtcase with a settlement that allowed me to continue to practice homeopathy as long as I referred patients to physicians for "diagnosis and/or treatment of disease" while I was allowed to treat the person (in classical homeopathy, we treat people, not diseases) and as long as I used contracts as a way to define roles and responsibilies of the patient and of me, the practitioner. Despite being giving the right to practice, I chose to not practice and instead chose to work to educate people about homeopathy. Instead of practicing, I have written 9 books, which some editors insist is a "conflict of interest" (however, in this light, no MD should edit any medical topic on wikipedia because any type of advocacy for medical thinking or practice might also be a conflict of interest. At present, there are 6 Arb committee members voting to give me a year-long ban. I too wonder what silverlining there will be if they choose to ban me, though I am confident that there will be one (and a good one!). And yes, I too am shocked that they are going after me, as they have gone after so many before me, though there seems to be more venom and more mob rule with me. Such are the problems when an editor chooses to be transparent and to use his/her real name. It seems that some editors think that I am only an advocate for homeopathy, while strangely enough, their livid anti-homeopathy attitude is not considered "advocacy." I don't get that at all. While I have made some errors, I personally do not believe that the punishment fits the "crime." Colonel, you have such a positive spirit that you seem to be even more shocked than I am at the venom against me. Perhaps YOU are a part of the silverlining. Keep up the good work. As they say, I must be going... DanaUllmanTalk 04:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
(if this writing on Colonel Warden's page iritates, I apologize in advance). DanaUllman, that's a lot to share all at once :-) Not bad faith :-) But I imagine few editors would have patience to want to really read and process what you've written. Naturally, such an impatience with verbosity does not justify their animosity, but it could very well explain it. If it's merely verbosity coupled with thinking outside the normal boundaries, then Jimbo on down should really feel ashamed of how you've been treated (even me near the bottom shall feel the shame too). --Firefly322 (talk) 05:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Myself, I struggled for a few minutes trying to understand "silverlining", until I remembered that "every cloud has a silver lining" (notice they are two separate words). And, yeah, Dana should attempt to talk about only one topic on one given post. I have headaches trying to parse his posts because he switches topics all the time. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Got it. Thanks, Naval. It's becoming quite clear what's really happening. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Err, is it? Can you explain?? I don't think it's clear! What is really happening?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.65.222.32 (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Not surprising, but this IP address is a part of a TOR network. DanaUllmanTalk 21:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC) Sock puppet nonsense. Tor (anonymity network) --Firefly322 (talk) 00:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your user name

Hello, your user name: Colonel Warden - did you get that name from the second world war as it was the name used from the Cunard passenger manifests by Winston Churchill was he was sailing on the Queens?

Regards

90.197.96.83 (talk) 20:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is one reason - well spotted. Since Churchill used it as an alias, it seemed a good choice. Why don't you choose a name for yourself too? Colonel Warden (talk) 20:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Belin nominated for merging

See merge discussion there. Yakushima (talk) 04:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Supposed Personal attacks in re Super-recursive algorithm

"Your recent edits seem to contravene our personal attacks policy."

You mean to the article itself? I wonder if you could explain how? If you follow the link I supplied to establish (from Mark Burgin's own CV) that he is a visiting scholar at UCLA (and not a professor there, as some have assumed), you'll see that Burgin puts AT THE TOP OF THE LIST of his "peer honors" this position he holds as a committee member at the American Biographical Institute. So, was Mark Burgin attacking himself in his own CV? Perhaps you should write to him and clear this up, before deciding on your own that it's a personal attack? Burgin apparently considers it an honor -- why don't you?

"I let your attack on myself in the AFD ...."

And where did I attack you personally? From what I can see, I merely suggested that you were confusing my "actually trying" with "reaching".

After all, I am really trying -- I'm actually reading papers where Burgin's work is reportedly (by Multipundit) or actually mentioned, to assess whether super-recursive functions are actually discussed. This is work. Time-consuming work. I'm doing it because "notability" isn't achieved with brief mentions (else anyone who'd ever placed a classified ad would be "notable.")

I'm also trying to establish which sources are peer reviewed and which are not. This is also "actually trying". It may look to you like "reaching", but as I understand Wikipedia standards, this is "source-based research", it's looking for "independent" treatment in "reliable" sources. As I understand it, when it comes to scientific topics on Wikipedia, "reliable" is virtually synonymous with "peer reviewed", except where the scientific topic has become notable in the popular press (e.g., Intelligent Design). Have I misinterpreted policy? Please point out where and how.

" .... I am, in fact, well-qualified in this area [of personal attacks] ..."

Are you? Citations, please?

"Please focus upon the topic rather than attacking those associated with it."

Again, please explain to me why it's not an attack when Mark Burgin -- the coiner and (patently) predominant user of the term "super-recursive algorithm" -- proudly uses the same information to describe himself and his qualifications, in his own resume. Then explain to me why it is an attack when I mention it (and cite Burgin -- accurately -- as the source for the information.)

Here, let me get you started, you can copy and paste this into your reply, which I eagerly await:

"Mark Burgin is well within his rights to openly and proudly associate himself with American Biographical Institute to document his credentials on his CV, but when a Wikipedia editor does it by way of introduction to the progenitor of a concept covered by an article, it is a personal attack because ....."

Try to be patient in your explanation. Keep in mind: I'm not very smart, OK? I can understand things like recursive function theory and effective computability (from a mainstream computer science perspective, anyway, which may be as critically brain-damaged as Burgin seems to think) but the logic of your "personal attack" argument eludes me, and probably because it's an inherently more complex topic. If I can't get it after your patient explanation, maybe we can take it to some administrative process within Wikipedia? If, as you say, you're well-qualified to judge what is or isn't transgressing personal attack policy on Wikipedia, you're probably well-connected at those administrative levels, from extensive personal experience. Help me out here.

In the meantime, I'll wait 24 hours, and if you haven't responded (patiently and coherently) in that time, the reference to Burgin's claimed usefulness to the American Biographical Institute goes right back into the article. I can't see why Mark Burgin would object, either. Why should he? Yakushima (talk) 09:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Your comments are noted. I differ with some of the points made but will await developments. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You

I do appreciate the Barnstar. ShoesssS Talk 15:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merging

You reverted a user today[30] with the comment, "revert cut and paste copy of the list article into this article, contravening the GFDL".

Which part of GFDL does this contravene? GFDL allows the text to be copied and manipulated in any way, as long as the copy/derived work is also GFDL-licensed (which it is in this case). It does not say that history must be preserved when copying.

We do article merges every day by pasting the content between articles. Wikipedia has no way of merging the histories for multiple articles (it would make looking at page histories a nightmare!) Furthermore, WP:MERGE explicitly condones C&P-merges. -- Mark Chovain 00:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  • WP:MERGE states: Do not move or rename a page by copying/pasting its content, because doing so destroys the edit history. (The GFDL requires acknowledgement of all contributors, and editors continue to hold copyright on their contributions unless they specifically give up this right. Hence it is required that edit histories be preserved for all major contributions until the normal copyright expires.) If you come across a cut-and-paste move that should be fixed by merging the page histories, please follow the instructions here to have an administrator repair it. A proper merge of these articles has not been agreed and my copyright in my contribution has not been recognised in the cut/paste which has been done. I shall revert again. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
My bad. I didn't read the merge instructions in enough detail. For the record, the section you've quoted refers to page moves/renames, not merges. Had the user put an appropriate edit comment in saying where the content was merged from, it'd be fine.
While the merge discussion is going on, do you have a problem with the content existing in both places (as long as WP:MERGE is followed correctly)? -- Mark Chovain 01:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article to be deleted

HELP. This article to be deleted in id.wiki. Can you help me to SAY KEEP in its Talk page, in Indonesia Wikipedia. I don't know why they don't appreciate Freedom of Religion, Speech, Press, and Assembly. Thanks for your support. Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 08:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

  • I regret I am unable to help with this matter. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)