Wikipedia

User:Leonard^Bloom/Archive2

< User:Leonard^Bloom

Re: Your userpage...

edit

No clue. Ask hmwith, who designed it. It was me who templatified my page later on. (This is the lastest version of my page, pre-transclusion). 21655 ταλκ/01ҁ 00:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Big stick question

edit

Hey there! I am a bit confused on the concept of "Big Stick Diplomacy." In my research, I see very little real diplomacy in TR's Latin American/Caribbean endeavours. Does this fall under the category of "Gunboat Diplomacy"? Or does it make sense to call the article "Big Stick Policy"? I may think "policy" is the right word if you consider that TR used that modus operandi on the domestic front, too. Please let me know. Cheers! Ecoleetage (talk) 12:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. I didn't forget you -- sort of got distracted with other endeavours. I hope to get back on the TR bandwagon later in the week or early next week. Cheers! Ecoleetage (talk) 15:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

changes to robert a wilson

edit

that wasn't a test and i don't see why you changed it back, please explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.184.172 (talk) 03:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

you've confused me, what title did i give the film.

i edited it quite a lot...i added heading to distinguis between all the different forms he wrote in...can this be put back in —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.184.172 (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

hmm

edit

you reverted it back to normal halfway through me editing, the reason i changed the title to "works About robert Anton wilson" was because i was just about to add eric wagners biography of him. i think you shouldv'e been patient and waited until i had actually finished, instead of interrupting halfway through my edit. can you tell me why the rest of it went back to normal here is the finished layout i had for it.

Works by Robert Anton Wilson

edit

Bibliography

edit

Fiction

edit

Autobiographical

edit
  • Cosmic Trigger
    • The Final Secret of the Illuminati (1977)
    • Down To Earth (1992)
    • My Life After Death (1995)

Essay Collections

edit

Screenplays

edit

Non-fiction

edit

Reference

edit

Discography

edit
  • A Meeting with Robert Anton Wilson (ACE) Cassette
  • Religion for the Hell of It (ACE) Cassette
  • H.O.M.E.s on LaGrange (ACE) Cassette
  • The New Inquisition (ACE) Cassette
  • The H.E.A.D. Revolution (ACE) Cassette and CD
  • Prometheus Rising (ACE) Cassette
  • The Inner Frontier (with Timothy Leary) (ACE) Cassette
  • The Magickal Movement: Present & Future (with Margot Adler, Isaac Bonewits & Selena Fox) (ACE) Panel Discussion - Cassette
  • Magick Changing the World, the World Changing Magick (ACE) Panel Discussion - Cassette
  • The Self in Transformation (ACE) Panel Discussion - Cassette
  • The Once & Future Legend (with Ivan Stang, Robert Shea and others) (ACE) Panel Discussion - Cassette
  • What IS the Conspiracy, Anyway? (ACE) Panel Discussion - Cassette
  • The Chocolate-Biscuit Conspiracy Music cassette with The Golden Horde (1984)
  • Twelve Eggs in a Basket CD
  • Robert Anton Wilson On Finnegans Wake and Joseph Campbell (interview by Faustin Bray and Brian Wallace) (1988) 2 CD Set Sound Photosynthesis ASIN: B000BJSF66
  • Acceleration of Knowledge (1991) Cassette
  • Secrets of Power Comedy Cassette
  • Robert Anton Wilson Explains Everything: or Old Bob Exposes His Ignorance (July 30, 2005) Sounds True ISBN 1591793750, ISBN 978-1591793755

Filmography

edit

Actor

edit

Writer

edit
  • Wilhelm Reich in Hell (2005) (Video) Deepleaf Productions

Appearing as himself

edit
  • Children of the Revolution: Tune Back In (2005) Revolutionary Child Productions
  • Maybe Logic: The Lives and Ideas of Robert Anton Wilson (2003) (Video and DVD) Deepleaf Productions
  • The Gospel According to Philip K. Dick (2001) TKO Productions
  • 23 (1998) (23 - Nichts ist so wie es scheint) Claussen & Wöbke Filmproduktion GmbH (Germany)
  • Arise! The SubGenius Video (1992) (V) (aka Arise! SubGenius Recruitment Film #16) The SubGenius Foundation (USA)
  • Borders (1989) Co-Directions Inc. (TV Documentary)
  • Fear In The Night: Demons, Incest and UFOs (1993) Video - Trajectories
  • Twelve Eggs in a Box: Myth, Ritual and the Jury System (1994) Video - Trajectories
  • Everything Is Under Control: Robert Anton Wilson in Interview (1998) Video - Trajectories

hey

edit

thanks for the help, i've already got an accouent but i don't how to associate the posts from this ip addresse to my account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.184.172 (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

cool

edit

thanks and here are the tildes, i did know about that but i forget...sorry.

77.97.184.172 (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Huggle

edit

Please do remember that Huggle, as noted on its wiki page, is for reverting vandalism. I have undone this edit, as it was completely unreasoned (and the info added, that the photo shows a male, is entirely correct). Rabo3 (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply

edit

I replied regarding the Jackson deletion article. — Realist2 (Speak) 02:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, it is a shame that this article was nominated for deletion seemingly based on the personal opinions of that editor. This is so annoying, the stress of the Michael Jackson FA review was enough, now I have to watch over this deletion as well. I'm not going to be making any more articles on Jackson, I have a great knowledge of him, with some wonderful books, but some people can't look beyond their biases. Anyway, I hope you enjoy my work, the Jackson article or the Thriller album are my best bits. — Realist2 (Speak) 02:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Cheers, I thought I remembered your user name from somewhere. Michael Jackson's health and appearance is now a GA article, just 20 days after he nominated it for deletion. — Realist2 04:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Virginia edits in Creationism vs. Evolution

edit

Hi Leonard,

I'm the guy who posted the edits to the Virginia section of CvEiPE a little while ago, which was immediately reverted back by you. First off, let me explain that I entirely understand where you are coming from - I personally love Wikipedia, not only for absolutely objective material, but for the pages that present the differing perspectives in crucial debates. Wikipedia is one of my most commonly viewed websites, and is definitely #1 when you exclude recreational sites. I would never want to compromise this site's integrity in any way, and especially not to further personal propaganda (of which I have very little, besides).

However, I argue that the edit I made, while undoubtedly a "sting" to a minority of people, was entirely appropriate, and well within the purview of Wikipedia. My edit, as you may recall, concerned the fact that creationism is not science, no matter how much it is erroneously labelled as such. While I very briefly summarized the reason for this fact as "...[creationism] is not the outcome of typical logical analysis centered on objective evidence", I can elaborate.

Science is advanced by competition and rivalry between opposing theories for a given phenomenon. In a typical scientific forum, not every theory is automatically accepted as worthy of participation, however. In particular, a theory must offer resolution to apparent paradoxes entertained by its counterparts (i.e. bring something new to the table), and it especially must make predictions that could be verified by further, repeated, independent experimentation (otherwise, the "theory" is just a reformulated observation of what is, instead of a conjecture about what could possibly be). While I do not endorse it by any means, I fully believe that creationism is not incompatible with evolution in any way; when it comes to creationism vs. evolution, however, creationism tends to simply absorb what is better described as anti-evolutionism. Thus, in an article on such a debate, it is prudent to regard creationism as anti-evolutionism, at least initially, and to counter it as such.

Creationism, in this sense, fails to be scientific, in that it fails to meet not one but both of the aforementioned requirements. Creationists repeatedly espouse the same "problems" with evolution - as you recall, this is exactly what is expected of competing theories, and is not in and of itself a problem. What is an issue, however, is the fact that these objections do not stem from scholarly expertise of the theory they seek to debunk. Moreover, most of these objections have been refuted countless times by people who are extremely knowledgeable of evolution, and said arguments are rather quickly exposed as nothing more than misunderstandings of the principles of the theory (hence the scholarly comment earlier). More crucially, not only does creationism introduce a plethora of other self-contradictions to the arena, but it frequently fails to respond to the very problems it uses to target evolutionary theory - even though, as I've already said, evolutionary theory generally explains them quite well itself!

An example would be appropriate. One of creationists' favorite perceived "aces in the hole" is the spotty fossil record. To be specific, evolution purports gradual change, or "transition", from one species to another - this is the entire basis of its claim to explaining the diversity of life. Therefore, it is to be expected that there will be fossilized evidence of "transition species" - organisms intermediate in physiology between the species of the past and modern species. However, creationists steadfastly maintain that, while there are clearly fossils of extinct organisms that could be classified as "part-x, part-y", the fossil record is far too "gappy" to support evolution. This, however, is a heavily flawed criticism, for two reasons. One, while people can easily picture a gradual, seamless transition from one animal to another, a la Animorphs, evolution itself never works that way. This transition is never perfectly continual - there has to be discrete "jumps", just because there are discrete differences between generations (parents do not gradually become their offspring, at least not in higher life). In particular, embryonic development involves developmental genes that, when "triggered", singlehandedly produce drastic effects in the organism - generally because these genes are responsible for the expression of multiple other genes. There are plenty of examples, such as a well-known fly mutation where mutating the right gene (in both copies) leads to the development of extra legs where the antenna would develop. While this particular mutation is, needless to say, rather unlikely to enhance survival in the organisms that have it, it does serve to express just how very abrupt change can frequently be.

The second problem with "the gap problem" is that nowhere near every organism, or even every species of organism, that ever lived will be represented in the fossil record. I do not know the details of fossilization, but I am aware that it is a complicated process that occurs only very rarely, and then only under the right conditions. Therefore, it is quite likely that fossils will fail to reflect anywhere near the entire evolutionary pathway between organisms A and B - too many of the intermediates will be lost forever to mere complete decomposition. On a related note, what organisms are fossilized do not reveal nearly as much about their species as we would like to know. While paleontologists have done an impressive job generalizing the overall body structure from incomplete skeletons, that is generally the extent of our knowledge of extinct species - the overall body structure, and, if the teeth are preserved, the diet (sometimes we can infer more by random luck with fossils, such as the one where the dinosaur was found incubating its eggs like birds, but these are the exceptions, not the rule). We almost never know about the organ composition, except for things that can be inferred from the skeleton (for example, in vertebrates, the brain's size cannot exceed the size of the cranial cravity). The point is that much of the raw material evolution would work with is lost, leaving us with sorely incomplete islands of data in an overall sorely incomplete record of the history of life.

The above is only one lonely example of the failure, at least thus far, of creationists' efforts to refute evolution - others can be easily found by visiting a pro-creationism (or, even better, an anti-evolution) website. On the other hand, evolution endures not just because nothing has been able to challenge it, but because there is tremendous evidence that vindicates it. In fact, if it WERE planted by God, it could only suggest that he WANTS us to understand evolution. The conclusive evidence that suggests our mitochondria (and plants' chloroplasts) are derived from the most primitive microorganisms. What transition species HAVE been preserved in the fossil record (including not only "recent" evolution, such as from the dinosaurs to birds, but at least one link between plants and animals). Substantial genetic similarity - much, much more than would be expected by chance - between humans and the most primitive animals...that increases rapidly as you move further up the evolutionary ladder. In the end, anti-evolutionism does not hold up, not in the eyes of any well-informed student of evolution (whose experise is the only one that matters, when focusing exclusively on the merits of evolution alone).

Thus, creationists have only one recourse - to superimpose God on already satisfactory scientific conclusions, and say that he just "wanted" evolution. This is entirely a personal choice, and believe me, I do not hold it against anyone in the slightest who pursues this course. However, it must be understood that it is not in the least scientific. By attributing everything to a higher, immensely powerful entity - much less one that we do not at all understand - creationists (and theists in general) immediately eliminate any window for challenge, any opportunity to challenge the assertion. This, in and of itself, puts it beyond the reach of science, which is, again, the collective outcomes of logical analysis that is centered on objective evidence. There is another problem as well. While science does not shy away from complexity, it is accepted that if two assertions explain the same amount of data, but one is less "complicated" (it is more general, and/or it has fewer ad hoc modifications), the "simpler" one prevails, since accepting the second one implies the acceptance of additional conclusions that are not founded on evidence (if there were no such "superfluous" conclusions, then the simpler theory would be flawed, contradicting the assumption they have equal explanatory power).

Therefore, creationism is a perfectly legitimate belief system. It is not legitimate science. My original edit did not support or refute creationism on the basis of faith, because that was not the subject of the page. It only pointed out what I have now much more fully explained - creationism is not science, any more than someone failing to understand gravity arguing against its existence is science, so to cast evolution vs. creationism as a scientific debate is inaccurate. Later on, I will attempt to re-include my edit - while it will remain largely the same, I will review it and remove any shred of bias. To call creationism unscientific is not biased, though - it is objective fact.

Thanks for reading this thesis. =P If you want to reply (and I hope you do), please do so to Drlight11, my Wiki account.

Drlight11 (talk) 22:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Drlight11

Pontiac GTO

edit

How was it vandalism? I was merely adding that it is currently used in the KONI Challenge Series Grand Sport class. 76.126.15.78 (talk) 02:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

RE: Speedy deletion of Peter Gaehtgens

edit

Hang on one second. i am just starting to create this article and you want to delete it after the first edit. I am still putting things. Once, I am done you can still nominate it. However, the person was president of Germany's largest university and later promoted to the president of all the Hochschulrektorenkonferenz which is kind of a the national club of all professors. Be a little bit patient please. Tomeasy T C 18:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

So, now I am done. If you still want to delete it, I can't help it, but I wouldn't understand why. This person is for sure among the 1000 most influential people in Germany. Doesn't that (I mean the facts that make it so) qualify for being on Wikipedia. Tomeasy T C 18:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to paste you a link to his large article on the German Wikipedia, but saw your message then. So it's probably not necessary anymore. Thanks for telling me about the underconstruction template. I didn't know this and will use it in the future. Cheers. Tomeasy T C 18:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

edit

RFA thankspam

edit

Thanks for your support in my RFA, which passed with 140 supporting, 11 opposing, and 4 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have given to me. If I can ever assist you with anything, just ask.

Cheers!

J.delanoygabsadds 19:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Restoring images

edit

The two orphaned images you just restored do not fit WP:NFCC, and the movie poster also does not meet WP:MOSFILM. The images were removed for valid reasons. --EEMIV (talk) 02:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Akash (band)

edit

Hello. I see you worked on this and then tagged for deletion as a repost. Did you mean to? Where was the AFD if so? Cheers, Dlohcierekim 21:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I just wanted to be sure before I zapped it. cheers, Dlohcierekim 22:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Teddy's big stick

edit

Hey there! I am sorry that I have not been able to contribute to the Big Stick Ideology article. I did some research on the subject (I knew very little on TR before this), and to be honest I don’t feel very comfortable writing on this. U.S. history is not my specialty, and I don’t want to muck up the contents with inadequate offerings. I hope this is not an inconvenience – but from what I am viewing, it appears that you are doing more than well on this endeavour. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for being so understanding. I am curious, though -- where does the Big Stick fit in regard to TR's Nobel Prize-winning negotiations for the end of the Russo-Japanese War? Ecoleetage (talk) 23:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Invitation

edit

Think this is good? User:Diligent Terrier/Sandbox/WikiProject United States Government invitations « Diligent Terrier (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Invitation

edit

Introducing WikiProject United States Government...

edit

  Hello Leonard^Bloom,

Are you interested in Politics, Law or the United States? Do you enjoy expanding, creating or maintaining articles relating to those subjects? Or do you enjoy the small stuff? Or maybe you like learning about the United States Congress or the Commander in Chief.

Well, wait no longer, because we have a project for you! WikiProject United States Government is where all the cool Wikipedians who watch C-SPAN hang out! Join the project today and help us get it off the ground and flying.

Thanks in advance, « Diligent Terrier Bot (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


This message has been delivered by Diligent Terrier Bot on behalf of WikiProject United States Government.
You have received it because you are a member of a related WikiProject or you have said you are interested in your userspace.
Message written by Leonard^Bloom and Diligent Terrier.

 

Help us get the project off the ground and flying.

Clinical medicine: oncology

edit

I've rejected the speedy delete. The purpose stated of WP:COPYVIO is to avoid liability risk to the Foundation from lawsuits or encumbrances to the GDFL licence. While it's true that the two sentence description in the article resembles the two-sentence discription in the journal's web site, I don't see any conceivable risk that the journal publisher would regard this resemblance as infringing, or sue the Foundation or object to a GDFL licence over it. If there is no risk of a perception of infringement, a suit, an encumbrance to the licence, or some objection from a copyright holder, deleting material would not further WP:COPYVIO's purposes. WP:IAR requires some benefit to the project or some likelihood of fullfilling a policy's stated purpose in order to take action on a policy. Taking action mechanically is prohibited. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 06:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Any chance you could help with Niedermayer-Hentig Expedition

edit

Hello Leonard, I was wodnering if you might be able to help with Niedermayer-Hentig Expedition. I wanted to see if there was any help especially with prose and c/e, but would also appreciate any other comments, since I wanted to put it up for FAC once PR is done. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 14:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

thankspam

edit
  Thanks to everyone who participated in my RfA, regardless of their !vote. I have withdrawn the nomination as a failure at 19 supports, 45 opposes, and 9 neutral statements.

As has been written and sung, you can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you get what you need — and what I need is to go back to working on our shared project. Not everyone has to be an admin; there is a role for each of us. After reflection, I feel I don't have the temperament to secure community consensus as an admin at any point, and I will not be applying again in the future — and hey, that's all right, 'cause I stay true to the philosophy that adminship is no big deal: I tried, I failed, and now I'll return to doing what I've always done. I have an extremely strong belief in the consensus process, and the consensus was clear. I will be devoting my energies to volunteering at MedCab and working up a complete series of articles on the short stories of Ernest Hemingway, among lord knows what else. Thanks again to everyone who spared the time to weigh in on this one. It was made in better faith than it probably seemed.
Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 14:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the good words. Though it looks like adminship is not for me, I'll definitely be seeing you 'round and look forward to working w/ you. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 14:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

edit

Thanks for the barnstar, and even more thanks for helping out with Niedermayer-Hentig Expedition. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 23:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Silesian Offensives AfD

edit

We're very confused by your nomination of Silesian Offensives on WP:AfD. If you could provide specifics such as why it is against CFORK and why that's so bad, and link to the article it's a fork of, that'd improve the chances of it being deleted or (better yet) merged. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 05:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Federal Government of the United States

edit

Sure, I'll help get it to GA! ...Tommorow though--I've got to go soon. the_ed17 02:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll be there as soon as I can...my mom is forcing me off at this moment though... =( the_ed17 02:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
If you could find the references, that would be great...I suck at finding them...but i will then copy-edit the entire beastly article. the_ed17 02:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Good luck with your mom...mine has run out. =D the_ed17 02:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Darrell vickers

edit
 

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Darrell vickers, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. mboverload@ 04:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Editor review

edit

Thanks alot! I really appreciate the kind comments. Have a nice day. Scottydude review 16:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

 

Scottydude review 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. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

My apologies :)

edit

As I was checking an article about Marilyn R. (Lynn) McDonald for copy-editing, I came across a section about Families and Schools Together and thought it was a bit out of place and should've been a separate article. I guess I was wrong :(

Sorry for the inconvenience... My mistake! Pheebalicious (talk) 21:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

sami tenetz

edit

Doesn't look like theres a Speedy deletion note on the page to me. ??? JazzlineB (talk) 04:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Choices of the Heart

edit

Did a search and played with the search parameters. Found THIS and others. Definitely notable. I'll be honored to bring the article in line. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Ahhhh heck. I knew you wouldn't have brought it AfD if you had found the sources. I just did a lot of different seearches and found it. Kinda tough too for a 25-year-old film. If I had't found anything I would have been voting delete right alongside. The one who wrote the article originally should have done a better job. But now, I get to spend a little time and tweak it into shape. Best regards, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I would think that you could withdraw the AfD nimination if you wished, but I am not sure of the procedures. I have done a few more tweaks to the article itself, and will look to expanding it a bit. Again, the original author could certainly have done a much better job of writing and sourcing. I think a few of those PROD tags can be pulled off as well. I'll look into that. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
One of the editors who voted keep is PC78. He apparently has been involved in Wiki Film for a while and knows a lot more than I. He's a good guiy. Drop him a line and ask him the procedures. He will likely be happy to either remove the Nom or instruct you how to do so. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Good working with you. Always glad to dig. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

advice

edit

Before slapping tags on articles seconds after their creation I stronly suggest you to review WP:MUSIC and not annoy people unnecessarily. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 05:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems you have troubles with reading and comprehesion. I suggest you to re-read item 5 two or three times until you find the words "major label" . Dzied Bulbash (talk) 05:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
If you don't know what EMI is and cannot find it, I don't think I can reasonably discuss the topic with you. Please don't bother me more. Dzied Bulbash (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry for unnecessarily harsh tone. At first it seemed to me that you quickly unnecessarily tag pages for deletion. After reviewing your edits, I see that you usually judge deletable articles quite correctly. Although mistakes happen, but it is only human, and I was unnecessarily excited; probably because I am new and not used to life in wikipedia. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: Who Made Huckabee? and Barnstar

edit

Wow. Wow, what an honor! Thank you! *sniffle* I've — I've never been awarded a Barnstar before. This is so unexpected — I have no words. . . *pulls out a thick pile of papers and thuds it down on the podium* I'd like to thank all the people who made this possible: Jimbo Wales, Stephen Colbert, God. . . :P Thanks, again! — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 23:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Much obliged for your kind words, Leonard. In regards to the aticle's GA potential — thanks for the suggestion. My experience in the GA process hasn't been too successful (see here and here), but I was able to fix the article up to WP standards with the recent AfD and PR, so I think I'll give it another shot. I might not be able to devote much time to the GA review, though, for the rest of the week — as I've said before, I'm pretty busy now — so d'you think you could give me a hand and help spruce it up during the nomination process. I'd really appreciate it. :) — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 23:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
The article has now been nominated for GA, so any improvements are welcome and appreciated. Thank you, Leonard. I sincerely hope this article will be able to pass GAN — if I don't screw up again, that is. :) — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 23:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I really appreciate all the encouragement and work you've been putting into the article. But I've run out of time for today's session, so... until we meet again ... Cheers! :) — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 00:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

About your message.

edit

Oh, Hi, I don't mind, and by the way, nice to meet you :]. Oh, and I need to tell you that I'm taking a "Wiki-Holiday", it's mainly due to the Olympic games, so please excuse me If I take time to reply! I'm looking forward to your reply. --EmilioPin (talk) 03:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Big Stick Fix

edit

Hey, I think the problem was your reference tag. You were writing stuff like <ref name=ELT> on second and third references when you should've written <ref name=ELT />. Hope that helps. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Re:GA collaboration

edit

Alright, I'll give it a copyedit, and we'll see where we need to go from there! Malinaccier (talk) 20:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, before we go to WP:GAN I would suggest expanding the section on "Construction of the Panama Canal". This should be enough to get the article up to a good level. Malinaccier (talk) 21:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe it meets the criteria to become a good article. You can go ahead and nominate the article. I will help deal with any concerns that come up in the review. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 00:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
No problem! If you have any other articles you wish to collaborate on, just leave me a message. Malinaccier (talk) 00:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Great! Hopefully we'll get a speedy review. Malinaccier (talk) 01:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:USG

edit

Hi Leonard, thanks for the invitation, it sounds like a great idea. At the moment, though, I'm trying to focus on areas where Wikipedia's coverage is weaker. I appreciate your comments though, and wish you all the best with your project. Polemarchus (talk) 03:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Gin (Border Collie)

edit

i am humbly requesting that you do not erase the recently created article on Gin (Border Collie), as a finalist on the recent series of Britain's got talent I feel she deserves her own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atmcgurn (talk • contribs) 19:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Bleak (band)

edit

Hello, I've just replied to your AFD of Bleak (band) at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bleak_(band). With the points I've raised, I thought you may wish to re-consider your stance on their notability. Esteffect (talk) 23:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Vicky Chopra

edit

Google searches for Vicky Chopra and Vikram Chopra confirm the IMDB data that he directed one film. I was about to vote delete but tried another combination or search parameters. THIS search found coverage of Vikram at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and others... definitely enough to show notability even if for only one film. Article sure needs work though. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Always glad to help. I am learning that digging os one of my strengths... in that I try repeated combinations of names and events in order to properly tickle the search engines. I am going to drop a note on the talk page of the artticle creator and suggest he/she improve the article somewhat, as i already have several improvement projects in my workspaces. Have we figured out yet how to remove a deletion nomination? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I suppose, since I am too new to attempt a WP:NAC, either you might physically do so yourself or simply make such a request at the AfD page that an Admin might see, staing your reasons for wishing to withdraw the nom. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Always glad to help. Posting a reversal of your nom is the easiest thing to so. Certainly Vicky does not have much a career to brag over, but he is making headlines. Even were the AfD to sit for 5 days it will either be a keep or be unlisted as a non-consensus. And if you ever wish assistance in creating a search parameter, I'd be glad to lend you my expertise. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Damn... you're fast. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
What the heck... I'll spend some time this evening addressing a few of the tags on the article. Maybe this will encourage others to help as well. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm gonna pay attention so I know just how for next time. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House of Binary

edit

You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House of Binary as Keep? I see two opinons to keep it and effectively two opinions to delete it (not counting the nom), and one pure vote by McCart42. I could both see a close as no consensus or a relist, but where do you see a consensus here? --AmaltheaTalk 06:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The Delete and the Redirect also cited WP:MUSIC, which I find remarkable in itself ;)
Since I've formed an opinion on the article before I don't really want to tell you what to do, both options sound reasonable to me.
Thanks & Cheers, AmaltheaTalk 16:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok thanks.
It's very easy to remain civil if you don't have a strong feeling towards either side.
That being said, I'm of course convinced that my interpretation of WP:MUSIC is the correct one. ;-)
Cheers, and happy editing, AmaltheaTalk 17:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

EgoPHobia

edit

I do not understand why you deleted the EgoPHobia page. It is about a cultural e-zine from Romanian, the most important one from there. It has an English section, too. If I'll find time I'll work a bit on it, to "wikize" it, but until then it belongs here. Thanx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smg (talk • contribs) 08:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Reviewed

edit

OK the review can be seen here. It's nothing bad. I'll help out where I can, I've already done some copy editing. — Realist2 18:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Good job! Hope to work with you again! Malinaccier P. (talk) 13:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:Speedy keep and WP:Snow

edit

Have a look at WP:Speedy keep and WP:Snow - the terms aren't interchangeable. PhilKnight (talk) 15:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello

edit

Hello Leonard^Bloom, I'm user: Jok3r of Italian Wikipedia. I put in the section on canceled films, because the abandonment of Man of Steel was confirmed by Jeff Robinov few days ago. below links, [1] [2].

I hope for your response on my page discussion, hello.--82.52.159.59 (talk) 16:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Please, do not apologise. Good evening.--82.52.159.59 (talk) 17:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

C. B. Cebulski

edit

"Writer and editor for Marvel Comics" would be a clear assertion of notability for anyone even remotely familiar with the subject. Please be more careful with speedy tags. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The Adventures of Brer Rabbit speedy keep

edit

Hello! Can you explain from Wikipedia:Speedy keep why you non-admin closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Adventures of Brer Rabbit as a Speedy Keep? It does not appear to meet the criteria there. It doesn't seem to me to meet the criteria of WP:SNOW either - as an "uphill battle" was occurring. (BTW, I'm not arguing your call as such. The article improved much over the couple of days it was in AfD, and my own opinion is that is was borderline when nominated. The keep decision was most likely was the right call, but not a certainty IMVHO.) I am, though, questioning your rationale as to closing the debate early. Also, note that while I'm asking you a question, it really is to make us all better editors. LaughingVulcan 22:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it *too* much. There were only two of us advocating anything other than keep. If I hadn't spoken up it would have qualified as a snow candidate. And as I said in the discussion, I don't mind that it was kept. Even if it wouldn't qualify under speedy, it would have probably qualified under older snow guidelines, as then you could have asked if there was any way it would not have been kept and that would've been the end of it. But chalk it up to live and learn, would be my advice. As errors go, this one ain't too bad. :) Best, LaughingVulcan 23:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi!

edit

Hey man whats up? Do you want to hear a retarded joke? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Screambloodygore667 (talk • contribs) 09:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Digi time capsule

edit

Ah, I didn't see that alternative capitalization. Nevertheless, CSD G4 covers only the recreation of articles that have been deleted through the AfD process, not articles that have been previously speedied, as in this case. And an AfD can't be non-admin closed as delete until the article has actually been deleted. Deor (talk) 04:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

CSD and PROD activity: Arbol de chicomecoatl

edit

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Arbol de chicomecoatl, which you proposed for deletion. I am leaving this message here to notify you about it. No evidence has been presented that the article exists on another language Wikipedia, which is required to satisfy WP:CSD#A2. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to it. Instead, feel free to list the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

edit
  Thank you for voting in my RfA, which succeeded with 71 support, 14 oppose, and 5 neutral. Thanks for your participation. I hope I serve you well!

--SmashvilleBONK! 23:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Disability etiquette

edit

As the nominator of the article disability etiquette for deletion, this is a heads up that I've undeleted it. See this message at User talk:Scientizzle for why I undeleted the article. The long and short of it: a history merge I did went horribly wrong. You are still allowed to re-nominate the article for deletion if you think that's warranted. Graham87 09:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I heard the producers talking about Leo Bloom.

edit

Anyhow, one stalled civil rights movement is the self-determination of a 266 thousand kilometer African Union member, Western Sahara. It's part of the list I'd like you to peer review, Wikipedia:Peer_review/United_Nations_list_of_Non-Self-Governing_Territories/archive1 . Enjoy! :)--Thecurran (talk) 15:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey Now!

edit

With all due respect, why do you hassle people with legitimate information to share/add to the Wiki? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billowing sheen (talk • contribs) 05:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Mike Blume page

edit

Hi Leonard,

Maybe I was incorrect, but I posted this page about myself due to the additions I made to the Preterist and Partial Preterist pages where my website was used as reference to some information I made, and my name was attached and lacked such a page as this. I thought that hovering over my name with the computer mouse on those pages and finding a note saying there is no page attached to this name was indication that a page should be made.

Mfblume (talk) 06:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Mike Blume

Justyn Pogue

edit

Dear sir. What are you basing your opinion on? If you are familiar with Phil Elvrum's work as The Microphones and Mount Eerie you'll notice that many many people wish to know about the various contributors to his albums and live shows. On the Phil Elvrum Wiki page, Mr. Pogue's name is listed without an entry. Therefor shouldn't that entry be filled? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billowing sheen (talk • contribs) 06:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ "23 Questions with Robert Anton Wilson." [MungBeing Magazine, Issue 1, http://www.mungbeing.com/issue_1.html?page=21#62].
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Leonard%5EBloom/Archive2&oldid=1086394434"