User talk:Scarpy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Mediation closure

I believe that the other participant feels the dispute has been resolved - if this is so, I will not start the mediation process, so please confirm that this is your opinion too. Thanks. —Xyrael / 13:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe that through mediation issues such as civility could be sorted out. Would you be willing to give it another shot? —Xyrael / 17:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I have left the other party a message regarding this suggestion; I will let you know what happens. —Xyrael / 18:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Bill "I never met a cult I didn't want to join" Wilson

Cheers for your help! Mr Christopher 20:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Nader-Forthofer.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Nader-Forthofer.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Plutonium.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Plutonium.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability of the twelve step groups

My main reason for throwing the note tag into those articles was that many lacked a strong case for note in the article text per WP:NOTE. Certainly does seem like something you can remedy though, given the thrid party sources you mentioned in the recreation discussion. Let me know if you need a hand, although I'm not particularly familiar with the subject matter. MrZaius^talk 08:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

To quote the template: "The best way to address this concern is to reference published, third-party sources about the subject." To argue for note on the talk page is not an adequate fix. Notability must be demonstrated in the article text, to create a strong article. Please leave any cleanup templates in place until they are fully resolved. MrZaius^talk 09:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I will leave (put back) the notability templates (if you haven't all ready). I just finished a re-write of the Emotions Anonymous article a few days ago. I know the information is out there for the rest of the groups, I'm just a little tired of doing research/writing at the moment. — Craigtalbert 09:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I restored 'em all already. I think they'll be fine till the morrow, though. None of the articles are tagged for deletion, and I certainly won't be doing so - Seems obvious that a case for notability, at least for most of them, can be made. MrZaius^talk 09:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Moving pages

Doesn't matter in the case of very new pages, but, just in case you weren't aware, there are procedures in place to move an article over a preexisting redirect without losing the edit history. Flag the redirect with template:db-redirect to get it deleted, and then you'll be generally be able to move the other page over it within 12-24 hours, depending on how backed up the WP:CSD queue is. MrZaius^talk 07:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

AA external links

Can you please discuss the removal of the more revealed link before removing it again? It actually does not contradict anything in WP:EL. In fact, WP:EL states explicitly that there should be a link to an "alternate viewpoint" on controversial subject matters. Thanks. 82.19.66.37 11:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It actually talks about avoiding undue weight. Additionally states external links should be to "sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons." More revealed doesn't count. You are effectively vandalizing the article, and next time I will report it as such. If you continue to violate WP:EL your IP will be blocked. — Craigtalbert 19:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

You fail to say why "more revealed" doesn't count. These published books were written by notable authors and experts in the subject of addiction, and opponents of AA, including Stanton Peele. It most certainly does have more detail than could be put into the article. Avoiding undue weight in said policy is to do with "number of links", as opposed to "POV" of links, especially on controversial subjects such as this. In fact, having only one (promotional) link on the AA page gives undue weight to the "pro AA" camp. I am struggling not to become frustrated at you accusing me of vandalism, but am also trying to stick to WP:DR, so I don't want an argument. I don't think that any wiki admins will be overly concerned if I choose to make a (much needed) edit, in line with wiki policy. I shall return the link. If you feel like replacing it with a better "anti-AA" link, I will be more than happy to discuss it with you on the AA talk page. In the mean time, I would be interested to hear more information as to why you see "more revealed" as a bad link for the page.... 82.19.66.37 20:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, as a contributing editor to the AA article, I wondered if you would give your opinion on this reoccurring issue. Thanks Mr Miles 23:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Edits to Alcoholics Anonymous: [1] [2]

As stated before, if you remove my contributions from the talk page, all of which have been related to content that is acceptable in the article, I will report you to wiki admins. Please consider this to be my only "official warning". 82.19.66.37 16:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

As stated before, my contributions to the talk page are valid. If you keep deleting them, I will report you for vandalism. Deleting talk page contributions contradicts Wikipedia:Vandalism, as per the following paragraph "Discussion page vandalism Blanking the posts of other users from talk pages other than your own, Wikipedia space, and other discussions, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc., is generally considered vandalism. An obvious exception is moving posts to a proper place (e.g. protection requests to WP:RFPP). Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long talk page by creating an archive page and moving the text from the main talk page there. The above rules do not apply to a user's own talk page, where this policy does not itself prohibit the removal and archival of comments at the user's discretion."

Please do not do this again without discussing it with me. I have very little patience and will be reporting it as vandalism in the future. 213.235.24.138 11:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Once again, do not remove my contributions to the talk page. I will report it as vandalism. If you don't want to discuss archieving the talk-page, then I suggest you dont do it. It's called consensus, and is something that should be achieved before you take such actions. I have read all of those policys. Not sure why you left that message on my talk page. 82.19.66.37 14:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• My opinion is that many of your contributions distract from useful work on the article. If you followed the policies you've read, I think you'd share me concern about keeping the talk page on topic. Here's an olive branch: what would it take to get you to keep your contributions on the topic of the article rather than pro- and anti- AA debate and commenting on other editors?

Uhhh, all of my contributions have been related to content on the article. It is also vandalism. Once again, I will report it as such. 82.19.66.37 21:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the support.

I added a comment on the Ward Churchill alleged misconduct talk page. Verklempt's assertions pursuat to wikipedia's policy on external links tuned out to be spurious. Thanks for the vote of confidence. Albion moonlight 08:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Reference Locations

Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings)#Standard appendices or take a look at any of our featured articles. If you wish to see a change in the Wikipedia conventions, then you should seek to get community agreement on that (the talk page for above MoS page would be a good place). Changing an individual article is confusing to our readers as it doesn't match what they have come to expect from the standard. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 11:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Responded on my talk page given BigNate37's comment there as well. -- JLaTondre 19:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for 3O

Hello, Craig. I decided to take the unusual step of commenting here instead of on the article's talk page, given the nature of the problem. You are absolutely right to want to uphold the policy of WP:FORUM and the guidelines at WP:TALK and you can use the latter page to guide you. Unfortunately, it does not specify any specific permission to remove off-topic posts (which is what I would like to have found) but there has been past discussion about this at the Village Pump (you may like to peruse the archives if you get a chance). The best thing to do, if you have not done so already, is to add {{Talkheader}} or (better still) {{Off topic warning}} coupled with {{calm talk}} and make a new section post that politely but firmly explains why we need to keep within the guidelines when posting. And remember that there is always the option of archival to hide most of the unwanted content legitimately. If the problem persists or you receive abuse for your efforts, consider making a request for comment, which will bring comments from more than one editor, thus providing (hopefully) a show of consensus. Best of luck; I hope my input serves as some help with your problem. I'll watch this page for a while in case you want to respond. Regards, Adrian M. H. 22:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. I created a new archive, posted the templates, and gave a short description of why I believe the talk page discuss needs to stay on topic. — Craigtalbert 16:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Twelve step program

Just curious why you revered the removal of poorly sourced content that seems to be attacking Bill Wilson, gives a pov perspective on the orgins of AA, and was fact tagged until an anon editor started adding content and citing a dubious source for the material. I performed a google search on the author of the source and it appears to be nn. I have no interest in the article, found it while on vandal prevention patrol. Up to you whether it stays or goes, but I'm just droppin' my 2-cents into the bucket...;)

This seemed to me to be an attack, but I may be wrong:

"There is no strong evidence to support that either Bill Wilson or Dr. Bob ever accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior or that they ever argued or were intent on secretly converting anyone to Christianity."

Thanks! Dreadstar † 07:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You might also want to look into the anon editor's postings, it definitely looks like WP:Linkspam adverts to me: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10], as well as some pov-pushing: [11] [12] [13] [14]. Dreadstar † 07:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm taking the page off my watchlist, so it's all yours. Dreadstar † 08:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see you contribute to this one too. I reverted the linkspam from it, but if you think it's legit...go ahead and put it back...Dreadstar † 08:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, you're probably right that the section as it stands now doesn't add much to the article and seems more like it serves to promote the Dick B. books. I will remove it. Thanks. -- Craigtalbert 09:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks for reconsidering! That is such a cool thing, it's great to work with a thoughtful and collaborative editor! Made the effort of collecting all those diffs worthwhile...! Dreadstar † 16:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant! What an awesome edit summary! A very nice compliment...! Dreadstar † 16:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey!

What did you mean by that [15]? >:-| Amit@Talk 10:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah ...! Amit@Talk 10:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Justine Ezarik

First of all, accusing a user of vandalizing because you do not know policy is breaking WP:AGF and WP:CIV, and is absolutely unacceptable. Secondly, violating copyright simply because you do know know our policies is unacceptable. And thirdly, if someone says something is against policy, ask them for a reason why, instead of stating that you have to have a reason-- this is as silly as saying that we have to show a policy saying it isn't ok to vandalize Wikipedia. Next time you are unsure about policy, ask the user on their talk page, instead of reverting which could get you blocked, and especially instead of accusing the user themselves of vandalism, which makes you look extremely bad. By the way, if you had actually looked at my user page instead of just templating it (Which is very bad by itself) you would've seen me point out exactly which policies are being violated, very clearly. --lucid 08:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It's extremely clear, black and white, right there in the text. Those page list exactly why this is unacceptable, and if you can't understand them yourself, I recommend you just take my advice --lucid 17:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration is completely uncalled for here. Again, if you do not understand the policies presented to you, you should simply take the advice of those that do --lucid 18:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Recovery, Inc. article

Hi, Craig--Just wanted to let you know that I made some clarifications to the Recovery, Inc. article. They were minor, but you might want to have a look and let me know what you think. I really appreciate all the attention you've paid to that article. Nekko503 21:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Craig--FYI I made minor edits to GROW and Self Help Groups.... Recovery, Inc. is really my area of expertise, since I have been in the program for 12+ years and also a leader in it. I've also been in 12-Step so I know something of that. However, I love to clean up any text and make it read more smoothly. Therefore, I may return to the articles when I get a chance. Hope that works for you. Nekko503 13:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed fantasy

Thanks for the citations for Fixed fantasy. About the Unreferenced tag: I'm used to seeing the Unreferenced notice at the top, too, but Wikipedia:Template_messages/Sources_of_articles says the tag should go in a references section. Not that I'm going to move it back – it makes more sense at the top, so if that's where people want it, that's where it can stay. Approximate Vicinity 00:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Weight Watchers and Zone Diet External Links

Hi Craig, the external links modifications that I made were for the purpose that some of the old ones do not work anymore. Best regards, Roger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.100.97.124 (talk) 12:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Alcoholics Anonymous

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. ~ Riana ⁂ 04:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)