User talk:Wassupwestcoast/Archive to May 2008

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

April 2008

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Bardcom. Tb (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Sympathetic and cynical. I have no interest in pointless pseudo-litigation of the make-believe variety. Wikipedia is supposed to be fun. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I said my piece and left. I have got too much done in the last few weeks to get caught up in this sort of thing. -- Secisek (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah

I love your comment about enjoying oneself on W. Too many in this 'community' see themselves as demi-gods, or perhaps even THE God. Cheers!!! Albanman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albanman (talk • contribs) 22:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 23:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Cheers?

Wassupwiththe__"Cheers!"? =D...Honestly, I really am curious. the_ed17 02:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

'cause its polite ... 'cause its friendly...reminds me and other editors that Wikipedia is not a life or death game. It's just fun. So...Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess I agree completely it's not life or death! But I also feel like I've been cheated when people suck the fun out by making it such. Tb (talk) 03:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I had my Wiki-happiness sucked out of me by a Wiki-dementor in Jan. I went on a month long break over Feb 'cause of it. Never again will I allow Wikipedia to become anything but a fun hobby. If you feel like some editor is sucking the fun out then just chant the mantra 'two million articles two million articles two million articles'. Suddenly, the spell is broken. You realize there are nooks and crannies everywhere. Articles free of Wiki-drama and Wiki-stress. That is why I say. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I agree with you. I followed your lead and stopped editing one of my favorite articles for the same reason. I enjoy learning new things and filling in the gaps in my knowledge. When it stops being enjoyable, I stop. I'm at an age and in a condition where I'm beyond competitiveness. I did that for a living and I don't need it anymore. FAs, GAs, etc., mean nothing to me. My own satisfaction is what counts now. It helps to have some cordial interaction with other editors without the game playing. Back to Cheers, I guess it's what was called a complimentary close in more formal times when people wrote real letters to each other that started with a salutation, etc. I prefer Best wishes, but it means the same thing. Best wishes. clariosophic (talk) 03:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, 'complimentary close'...that was the phrase I was looking for. The opposite of a salutation. I used 'take care' for a long time. 'Cheers' is short and doesn't suggest seriousness. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

(Re: Clariosophic) =D That's why I work mainly in the Shannara universe. Once or twice last month I went to the featured article and almost completely rewrote their into's, but my edits were apparently good, so no one said anything......And now, Wassup, you've got me thinking about adding "Cheers" or something to MY signature! =) the_ed17 21:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Re Unitarians and Facundo

Thanks for that, Wassup! I'm kind of nibbling away at the copyedit, and commented that bit since, while I didn't want to remove it, I couldn't immediately think of a way to work it into the text without disrupting the flow. I was intending to return after thinking it over, but your solution is more elegant anyway... so cheers ;) EyeSerene^talk 16:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Just trying to stop a conspiracy theory from starting. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... if I was that way inclined, it would make an interesting one. Shame April 1st has come and gone! EyeSerene^talk 16:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Your deletion of Comparison of church management software

I do not believe that this page qualifies under WP:CSD#G11, as from what I remember about this page it was not blatant enough to qualify. Furthmore most of the arguments in the "debate" seemed to center around Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFF or easily correctable issues WP:OR. I am therefore requesting that you undelete the article, and restart the afd. Thank you for you time. NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 01:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Try deletion review. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Living dinosaurs

I don't think the article Living dinosaurs qualified for a speedy delete. The WP:SPEEDY policy page says that the G1 criteria (which you cited) is for:

Patent nonsense and gibberish, an unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content. This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, badly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes of any sort; some of these, however, may be deleted as vandalism in blatant cases.

I doubt that this article will survive AfD, but that's not a reason for a speedy delete. Can you please restore the article so that the AfD process can continue? Thanks. —BradV 02:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Ooops! You beat me. I think it is possible that this could survive AFD. There have been entire books speculating about living dinosaurs. I'm sure the article needed lots of cleanup, buts that's not a reason for deletion. Zagalejo^^^ 02:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right. This isn't an instance of WP:SNOW, it's an instance of WP:STEAM. —BradV 02:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Are you sure this article really counted as "patent nonsense"? Speculation about living dinosaurs is very common in cryptozoological circles and creationist circles, and it's possible to write about this subject in a detached, objective manner. Zagalejo^^^ 02:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Try deletion review. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

done. Zagalejo^^^ 02:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

And reported to ANI. —BradV 02:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Church management software deletion

I could support you when you deleted comparison of church management software as spam. However to delete the main church management software article as spam also is really, really a long stretch of my imagination! Unlike the comparison article, there were no specific products linked to, or even named, in the main article. As such it would appear that no products are being promoted at all. The page simply describes the functions common to a specific class of software, much like our wiki page. Please reconsider your deletion. Pegasus «C¦T» 05:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I saw a brochure. Speedy delete is appropriate. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 05:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

"I saw a brochure" - for what? "Cheers" - to a deletion that brings no cheer to anyone except yourself, perhaps. Pegasus «C¦T» 05:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The President

No longer needs the (novel) after it with the new title. It should just be El Señor Presidente. Yomangani^talk 18:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Because it is non-English, I think it advisable to say it is a novel. Anyway, it has multiple redirects already including all variations upon the theme including El Señor Presidente and The President (novel). Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That seems strange reasoning. We don't normally explain articles in their titles, even if they aren't in English - La maja desnuda, Notre Dame de Paris, La Bête humaine, Le Père Goriot, ¿Por qué no te callas? etc. etc. I can't think who that would assist. Yomangani^talk 18:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, people who don't speak Spanish. I sense that we are going to enter the downward death spiral of a name debate. I hate name debates :-) Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Wassup, Wassup? (Sorry, couldn't resist.) I know you've voiced concerns in the past about a particular suspected sockpuppet, but what do you think of this? I think I make a valid case. I wouldn't have got involved, but dude made it personal. Any suggestions, especially since you're an admin and all, would be much appreciated. Should this be brought to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets? María (habla conmigo) 18:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it should be brought as a sockpuppet case. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone's already listed it at Checkuser (the original blocking admin!), so I guess we'll just see what happens? Phew. María (habla conmigo) 19:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I did it too! Oh well. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi wassaup you know me from helping out with MMM, anyway today Jbmurrays essay was vandalised by two users: User:Southern Beau and User:Virginia fried chicken, since one vandalised right after the other, I suspected them of being the same person and so in other to check that and also if they had vandalised other pages, I had a look at their edit histories which despite being quite small showed a curious similarity. So by now I was pretty sure they were the same person.

I openned the history of some of the pages they had edited and while navigating thruh the list of edits I saw a name that was quite familiar although I coulnt rember from where exactly: User:P.wormer and then it occured to me, I had seen that name over at citizendiums forums, he's a regular over there (although I dont participate there I read their forums occasionally) and a few days ago Murray made a post to their blog: [[1]] and Wormer was one of the people who participated in the discussion.I checked other articles edited by both of the accounts I meantioned above and most of them were at some point edited by Wormer if not started by himself. By now I was really starting to suspect that all tree were the same person. If you read Wormers post at the blog you can see that hes a frustrated ex-wikipedian.

I belive he has been using those two accounts to insert subtle errors into articles he had worked in the past or authored himself. One exmaple of this is: Eckart conditions which was written by him, you can see by looking at the history that user:Southern Beau made an edit saying it was minor corrections but which changed the content of the article subtly. Now I'm not mathematician so I had no way to know if the edit was legit or not so I decided to check citizendium( I figured wormer would've copied his article overthere) and surprise surprise, the article was there [2] also written by wormer, and the part that was changed by user:Southern Beau was there in its original form meaning that the change to the wp article was indeed vandalism. Here are some exemples that were edited by all three: [3] [4] and by two: [5] [6]. I think he did not like the post Murray made at the blog, saying that WP had higher standards than CZ and so he vandalised the essay. I wasn't sure on how to go about this so I decided to tell you being and admin and all. Can you investigate? (sorry for the long post) Acer (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh boy. I'll open up a check user request on this. Thanks for the detailed info. Note thought that not much can really be done. Blocking an account doesn't really do much. Malicious sockpuppets just create new accounts. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 00:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I've put in a check user request. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 00:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thx for looking into it. I found the coincidences abit striking to be just that... But the checkuser should clarify this Acer (talk) 01:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Re your RfA comment

Hi Wassup! I hope it's OK to respond here (I'll link to this reply from my RfA page). You cited my apparent lack of experience in AfD as the reason for your oppose, with only five deletion debates. If you check my contributions going back for 12 months or so, you'll find I was much more active over at AfD than I have been recently - the GA sweep and the FA-Team has monopolised my time since the end of last year. For example, this diff is a fair sample of both my AfD and anti-vandal contribs (and I could have picked plenty of others!). I hope this helps to address your concerns. All the best, EyeSerene^talk 17:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't looked at your RfA debate since my oppose. I'll check it out again...especially in light of your comments. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. You are going to make admin no problem! I don't feel guilty in retaining my oppose. As I mentioned at the RfA, we really have had good productive editors chased away by the Wiki lunatics within days of being made an admin. Your edit history makes me think that you might be a bit naive to this. I think once you become an admin, you'll look back at my comment as being prescient :-) Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Harry Potter

Hi there!

Thanks for offering to review the GA Nom!

--The Helpful One ^(Review) 17:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Re my mixup

Lol - I should have checked. It's been a long day... :P EyeSerene^talk 20:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:TFA request

You had requested El Senor Presidente for the main page on April 16th as it is the next available slot. However, I wanted to point out that Virginia Tech massacre has already been requested for that date as it is the one-year anniversary of the event and there is considerable support for that nomination. Can I ask that you pick a different date? Thanks Ronnotel (talk) 03:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Turns out that my request is null. So don't worry about 16 April. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

United States

Please discuss first before unprotecting this. It was easily either the #1 or #2 (behind George W. Bush) most vandalized article on Wikipedia before the blessed invention of permanent semiprotection, and every time someone has come along with the noble intention of reopening it back to anonymous editing, it has been very quickly swamped with vandalism. It's an experiment that cannot work. --Golbez (talk) 03:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I feel your pain but it has been page protected since Nov 2007. The ethos of Wikipedia is that it is the encyclopedia that can be edited by everyone. Permanently protecting the U.S. page is somewhat ironic. I'd leave it open for a day or two and see what happens. Remember that page protection is not a prophylactic. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The top vandalized articles have been, if not by law, then by practice, semiprotected to save the sanity of us admins who foolishly keep them on our watchlists. Wikipedia can be edited by everyone, yes - but that is not the point of Wikipedia. The point of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedia; open editing is merely the method of Wikipedia, and on these few articles, the risk (and certainty) of frequent vandalism far outweighs the benefit of anonymous editing. A couple of days is quite long; you could leave it open for 12 hours and already see a half dozen anon/newaccount vandalisms. (Which, considering that the article takes over 30 seconds to load, just compounds the issue further - we'd be losing that much extra time just seeing if an edit IS vandalism)

My point is - if you're going to unprotect an article like that, at least warn us on the talk page first. :P Perhaps we can talk you out of it. --Golbez (talk) 09:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm very willing to reverse myself...so I'm easily talked out of something :-) Deletion/inclusion, IP editors / no IP editors, censorship of certain content / no censorship of certain content, and fiction / no fiction are some the big Wikiepdia battle lines. I'm certain that will always be so. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 11:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I'm a big fan of IP editors, I know that while ~90% of vandalisms come from them, 90% of their edits are valid. (86% of statistics are made up on the spot) But semi-protection of certain articles has become a necessary fact of life. --Golbez (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup, pragmatism on wikipedia is probably the best way to go! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Novels WikiProject Newsletter

(I posted this on Feydey's talk page, but thought you may have some good input, as well.) Since Kevin has taken a hiatus and his bot is usually the one to send notices for The Novels WikiProject Newsletter out, do we have another course of action? Do you know of another user with a bot that can send it out to the members? Since it's nearly mid-April, I thought we should try to get something out, especially if we want to remind people that we've got a few things that are changing and/or updating. María (habla conmigo) 16:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I must admit to being bot-ignorant. I'd try John Carter (talk · contribs) first. It is a good idea. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Will do, thanks muchly. María (habla conmigo) 17:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you already knew this, but...

The April 2008 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 23:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 23:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

HP MfD

My apologies; this was my first time processing one, and I had followed the cue of another editor who added it to the HP dab page. I have since found out he was wrong toadd it, and I was wrong to select the miscellany for deletion. I apologize if my mistake harshed your calm. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No stress here. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

 ???

What am I doing? I'm confused. Scholars say Shakespeare probably used the Geneva Bible, not the AV (AV=KJV ??) Wrad (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I was confused by your syntax. I though your parathentical comment was referencing the AV. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Jbmurray

I suggest you read this before you start accusing me of talking to someone after they asked me to stop. His actions are clearly inappropriate and are an abuse of the talk page feature. Talk pages are not there to express lack of good faith upon edits in a condescending manner. Neither are feature article discussion pages there to say such things as "basta" about other people here. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Basta doesn't mean what you think it means... [7] Wrad (talk) 01:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Ottava (and this really is my last word):

• I used Cirt's talk page to alert him to a possible context for an edit that might otherwise appear puzzling. (He is the major contributor to Getting It: The psychology of est and the person who has nominated it to FAC.) I think that is an appropriate use of the page.
• I am sorry if you feel that "Basta!" (which, as you are aware judging from your own user page, simply means "Enough!") is insulting. I admit that I was at that point somewhat frustrated, for reasons that should be apparent from a reading both of the FAC review and of my talk page. I am happy to withdraw that wording, but not the sentiment--which is that I feel it would be more productive if I were to walk away; my sense it that you have that same feeling, too.

Again, all the best! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 02:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser

Hey wassup, thanks for the heads up. Too bad the other account was too old to check, but I may have found a way around this problem: User talk:86.81.145.23 check the first revision of that page. So perhaps this can be checked against the newer accounts? Acer (talk) 10:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Moonrise (Warriors)

No, I'm not planning to bring Moonrise (Warriors) to FA for a while. I still need to develop the article a bit more. But thanks for offering to apply for a peer review - I'll need it sometime. Shrewpelt (talk) 13:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 14:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Nobel prize-winning

Here is a prior discussion that is suitable. The first sentence should be a general declarative sentence of who the subject is. indopug (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, clearly the Reese Witherspoon argument does not follow [[WP:LEAD] or Wikipedia:The perfect article. Note: "starts with a clear description of the subject; the lead introduces and explains the subject and its significance clearly and accurately, without going into excessive detail. " Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The lead as a whole is not in question here, only the first sentence is. The first sentence should be a general declarative sentence to tell a reader who the subject is. If you were to include X award-winning, you are highlighting one of the subject's achievements and thus influencing the POV of the reader. Further examples, "Halle Berry is an American Razzie award-winning actress" or "Adolf Hitler is a mass-murdering German politician". indopug (talk) 16:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

What is the problem? I think you are misunderstanding or misinterpreting WP:NPOV. Neutral POV is not a policy to make nice or to smooth out achievements. With WP:Notable, Wikipedia articles must explicitly state why the subject is notable. A Nobel prize or an Academy award is both a fact and a touchstone of notability. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm with wassup on this one. Saying that he won a Nobel is not POV, its factual and establishes notability. Acer (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

But the notability is established anyway as one reads on (in the lead itself). From WP:NPOV, "Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present". Halle Berry could either be "Academy award-winning" or "Razzie award-winning"—they are both facts; which one of those is going to start the article? Notability is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article. The fact that he has a Wikipedia article makes him notable. "With WP:Notable, Wikipedia articles must explicitly state why the subject is notable." - could you point where this is to me? indopug (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Georgette Heyer

Thanks for the review on Georgette Heyer. I was just digging in to address your suggestions when I saw that you'd re-reviewed (so thanks for that too). I will definitely be keeping your comments in mind as I get the article ready for an FA nom. I appreciate your time! Karanacs (talk) 13:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! I enjoyed reading about her. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 13:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Aye

Thanks for the welcome back. :) IvoShandor (talk) 13:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see you back! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 13:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Mammal evolution

Hello! Thanks for your advice. In fact, I am proposing both this article and its Catalan version for featured article status. I didn't write the English article, but I'd like to see it reach FA status, so I'm going to work hard on that lead. Maybe 3-4 paragraphs will suffice, but it will be hard to summarise 81 kilobytes in just a few paragraphs. Anyways, I'll have a go at it. Thanks again for your help! Leptictidium (mammal talk!) 16:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

My RfA...

Talk:Edmund the Martyr

User:EdChampion has just returned, saying he's not sure how to proceed with the possible mediation/arbitration/whatever. I was wondering whether you might consider it politic to perhaps remove the archiving templates so the discussion can be reengaged, as it were. I don't know if that's offically done, of course, but in this case maybe we can ignore a rule or two. John Carter (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

No trouble. I'll remove the templates. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

William

Hiya, I'm thinkin' it's about time to ping Awadewit, if she's willing. Time for a bit more feedback for the lowly editors. --Slp1 (talk) 02:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I've made a gentle request! I think you will be getting a visit from Awadewit if she has the time. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 13:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Geneva

Did you notice a distinct pro-Geneva slant? I sure did. -- Secisek (talk) 21:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hello Wassupwestcoast! Just wanted to say many thanks for your continuing support on The General in his Labyrinth article. It would not have reached FA status without your help (literally...you nominated it for GA and requested it to be peer reviewed)! THank you so much! Carlaty (talk) 05:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Though you and your classmates did 99.99% of the work. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 23:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for Mediation?

Hello - I am alerting you that we are preparing a Request for Mediation regarding Gavin.collins. BOZ (talk) 04:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:25, 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) 13:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your frank comments about Wikipedia

I've edited Wiki articles for just over a year. Almost all of No free lunch in search and optimization, one of the 15 GA's in computer science, is my work. The exercise was very good for me. Explaining my research area as simply as I could led me to some new and important insights.

I recently made the mistake of tangling with the intelligent design WikiProject. The members I've dealt with are thoroughly familiar with Wiki policy. They ignore it in their own editing, and use it as a cudgel in response to editing they dislike. They know just what the limits are, and they take turns testing them. That way, no individual is exposed to much risk of sanctions from the Wiki community. They just keep coming and coming and coming with biased syntheses of "the truth" from inadequate sources.

The irony is that I am an outspoken critic of intelligent design. I have a peer-reviewed chapter criticizing ID to appear in an edited volume this June. Having seen many ID advocates refer to "Wickedpedia," I hoped that editors would go to great lengths to exhibit fairness. But "Wickedpedia" is in fact living up to its name. The mean-spirited attacks on ID proponents in their biographies, in wanton violation of WP:BLP, are particularly disheartening.

A particular editor who fought with me over policy on biographies of living persons and lost has turned to deleting balanced discussions of topics he considers ID in other articles I have edited. He evidently believes that the encyclopedia promotes pseudoscience by discussing it. He does not deign to enter into discussion on the talk pages, but comments in the revision histories:

• Paring this down per WP:NPOV. Size and credulousness of section gave undue weight to ID proponents views.
• Restoring last version without undue weight issues.
• NPOVing this article. Promoting ID via this "labs" article is a not going to fly. What a POV mess.
• Restoring accurate, neutral version.

The "credulous" section passed GA review. Most of the attention "no free lunch" gets these days is in connection with intelligent design, because a leading ID proponent appropriated the term for the title of one of his books. That proponent and a creationist research collaborator are subjects in the controversial documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, which was just released on 1100 screens. So it is very important to discuss what the subject of the article does and does not have to do with ID. Most of the section was descriptive, and the rest critical. As for "promoting ID" in the other article, the deleted section treated the question of whether a particular notion was ID in disguise. It contained the opinion of one ID opponent that it was not ID, and another ID opponent that it was ID. I have posted on the talk page of the offending editor a request to engage in discussion, but he has ignored it. You had posted there, and that's what brought me here.

I have left out details because I do not want you to act. This is sheer chaos, not silliness. You say,

Be a WikiSloth. Spend time with your family. Write real papers and real articles in the real world. On Wikipedia, enjoy yourself.

I'm glad for what I gained in working on the GA, but I'm sorry that I contributed to "Wickedpedia." Now that I have been lawyered so much, and have responded with so much lawyering, I know of departures from Wiki policy in my GA that no one else is likely to catch. I am going to police myself. Then I am going to spend more time with my lady friend. And I am going to give more time to writing real papers and real articles in the real world. But this hijacked ship is not my idea of a place to have fun in my spare time. --Tom English ThomHImself (talk) 07:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is very strange. Sometimes it is down right hostile: I think you understand the situation well now. Treat this has a hobby...if you aren't getting a lot more pleasure than grief then either find a more fun part of Wikipedia or re-enter the Real World. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

GA review of The God Delusion

Hi, and thanks for your review of the God Delusion. I have implemented some already, and reacted to some of the points I don't agree with. Your further input on whether it is going in the right direction as well as reasons if I might be mistaken to dismiss some of the advice would be very welcome.

Talk:The_God_Delusion#GA_advice

Naturally, any further comments as to what would improve the article would be very welcome. Thanks again for your review, Merzul (talk) 09:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I almost forgot about this review. Yes, I will take a look. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The Laramie Project

Hi there Wassupwestcoast, I was just wondering what the reasons behind redirecting The Laramie Project (film) and The Laramie Project were. I'm not sure if I've missed a discussion on this somewhere, but I was somewhat surprised. The Laramie Project (film) was not very long, I know, but it absolutely had the potential of being a fully developed article, as I'm sure did The Laramie Project. I would have thought both were notable enough for their own article. Cultural depictions of Matthew Shepard appears to be in list form, with most of the items probably not requiring their own articles. What's wrong with having the list and the two articles? Thanks, --BelovedFreak 16:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with them having their own articles. But, the articles were just stubs ...and have been for a long time. Until someone takes the time to work on them, I believe they are best served merged into an omnibus article. If you want to make them B-class or better on their own, OK. But, it is easier to maintain if they are all together. And, easier to fight off an AfD. My Wiki-philosophy is mergist: merge stubs into a central article until some one can spend the time and effort to expand. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I suppose that makes sense. I was hoping to see the film article develop further, but since I don't have the time at the moment, I guess it can wait. --BelovedFreak 17:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Who knows, I might even expand them one day. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar of Murder!!

		Barnstar of Murder, Madness, and Mayhem
		On behalf of Murder, Madness, and Mayhem, this barnstar is to thank you for your hard work and patience in motivating, mentoring, and moulding the work of student editors, and helping them to achieve excellence in research and writing. For your enthusiasm and encouragement, helping us believe that the project's goals were a possibility. Thank you so much! On behalf of the entire class of UBC's SPAN312. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity

Hello Wassupwestcoast/Archive to May 2008!

You are cordially invited to participate in WikiProject Christianity The goal of WikiProject Christianity is to improve the quality and quantity of information about Christianity available on Wikipedia. WP:X as a group does not prefer any particular tradition or denominination of Christianity, but prefers that all Christian traditions are fairly and accurately represented.

You are receiving this invitation because you are a member of one of the related Christianity Projects and I thought that you might be interested in this project also - Tinucherian (talk) 05:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 05:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello Wassupwestcoast/Archive to May 2008! Welcome to Wikiproject Christianity! Thank you for joining. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! - Tinucherian (talk) 05:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Getting Started General • Task for You Wikiproject Talk Page • Templates Useful Links Project Category List of Christian Topics Christianity Portal Miscellaneous Featured Articles • Good Articles Did You Know? • Work Groups Anabaptist • Core Topics • Indian Christianity Iglesia ni Cristo • Jesus • Syriac Christianity Projects Article Requests • Destubbing Campaign Assessment • Articles Needing Clean-up Peer Review • Adopted Topics Similar WikiProjects Anglicanism • Bible • Calvinism Roman Catholicism • Lutheranism

Deletion of The University Transition Program

Could you please restore the University Transititon Program article that you deleted? I need the info that was on the page. Thanks. JoshuaKuo (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)JoshuaKuo

Sorry. Wikipedia doesn't provide free web space. For the program, see The University Transition Program. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason for deleting The University Transition Program was "A7 (web): Web content; doesn't indicate importance/significance: non notable school course" How is the Transition Program not notable? It's an early college entrance program, and is the only program of its kind in Canada. How is that not notable? It's certainly more notable than the hundreds and thousands of regular schools that have articles in Wikipedia. JoshuaKuo (talk) 01:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)JoshuaKuo

Cultural depictions of Matthew Shepard

Re: your edits here: The leading # makes the see also link jump directly to the section on the same page. Without them, the links are being followed to the redirect pages, which in turn point back to the according sections in Cultural depictions of Matthew Shepard. Dorftrottel (vandalise) 20:09, April 29, 2008

You're right. It just looked ugly! Should put in alias. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Alias? You mean [[WP:PIPE|piping]]? It didn't work when I tried it. Dorftrottel (criticise) 20:14, April 29, 2008

yup, same thing. I did it within the text as the see also template doesn't allow it (as far as I can tell). Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

K, looks good. Dorftrottel (canvass) 20:23, April 29, 2008

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.