User talk:SebastianHelm/archive2010

Proposal regarding Mihkaw napew and the reference desk

In case you're interested, I have started a proposal to have Mihkaw napew banned from responding to comments on the Language reference desk. The relevant thread is WT:RD#This is not working. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Valhalla Vineyards

Would you be so kind as to move the deleted article to my userspace? Thanks in advance, or if there's an issue just let me know. Cheerios. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Why are you so intent on editing just that particular article? From the AfD, my impression is that Valhalla Vineyards are not notable enough for a standalone article. There's no indication that that is likely to change in the foreseeable future. Wikipedia:Userfication#Userfication of deleted content says "content inappropriate for the mainspace should not be kept indefinitely in user space".

By contrast, the article about the whole area North Fork of Roanoke AVA, was still a very meager stub, and I moved all applicable information about Valhalla Vineyards there. Wouldn't it be much better to work on that article instead? — Sebastian 04:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you copy the deleted content directly or rewrite it? Straight copying requires attribution, per WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Reusing deleted material. Flatscan (talk) 05:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

What is this, the Spanish Inquisition? — Sebastian 06:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It's an actual question now being discussed at WP:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 6#Valhalla Vineyards. The version in Google cache appears to contain only the two unreferenced sentences, but it is dated 25 Dec 2009 23:30:52 GMT and probably stale. If the two unreferenced sentences were the only content copied, you may remove them (suggested edit summary: /* Wineries */ Adding some content from deleted article [[Valhalla Vineyards]], rewritten from sources) and delete the infringing revision. If the majority of the content was copied, the easiest and probably best solution is to restore and redirect, but deleting the revision outright (no merge) is a valid option. Flatscan (talk) 05:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

If you take a look at my edit history you'll see that I'm not only interested in editing that particular article. I think it's a notable subject, so I'd like to stow it along with the George W. Bush pretzel eating incident, so it can be restored with additional citations as they become available and are added. Frankly, a fair reading of the discussion shows that it meets GNG and that at worst there was no consensus. So just be glad I'm not calling for the Life of Brian, so to speak. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course, I know that you have an encyclopedically wide area of interests. And, as you know, I do userfy articles when I see a reason for it, as I did the last time you asked me. But in this case, you simply feel that the closure was not based on "a fair reading of the discussion". Obviously, we disagree on that. You are experienced enough; I don't have to tell you where to go in the event of such disagreements. — Sebastian 08:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really sure why you're pushing me towards dispute resolution when I'm just asking for a deleted article to be moved to my userspace so I can have an opportunity to work on it. I've never had this problem before. Is there some concern you have about my putting it in my userspace so I can have an opportunity to work on it? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a misunderstanding. I did no mean WP:DR, but WP:DRV. I think I answered your question above, at 04:33. Let me rephrase the question I asked there: You are a person with a wide range of interests. There are many articles about notable topics that cry out for a dedicated editor like you. There is even one for the AVA that covers the winery in question! What benefit for Wikipedia will you achieve by editing this article in your userspace instead of improving the one for the AVA? — Sebastian 18:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree it's a misunderstanding. You appear to misunderstand the notability policy and to have misread the AfD discussion. But rather than dispute that I'm simply asking that an article on a subject that I believe is notable be moved to my userspace so I can work on it there. You have not provided any justifaction for refusing to assist me in that endeavor. And in fact you have violated GFDL by merging the content and failing to restore and redirect the original article. You have failed even to redirect the subject title to the article where you included the content.

I've been polite and respectful, but I don't appreciate your playing games and jerking me around. Please stop engaging in uncivil behavior and act with collegial cooperation towards encyclopedia building. Also, I consider metropolitan area of 350,000 to be substantial. You seem very opinionated on this issue so perhaps you should have joined the discussion instead of ignoring the consensus and imposing your personal opinion on the rest of us. I'm not interested in discussing this further, so if you could indicate whether you're willing to move the article to my userspace or not I would appreciate it. I find your approach and attitude quite rude and nasty. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be referring to this edit. This edit was a courtesy to you and the other editors who want the Vineyards to be covered at Wikipedia, and I am very surprised that you would hold that against me. Moreover, there is no need to make a fuss about it, as you can just follow my recommendation and edit the article. If you find it to be an error that you can not correct, you can simply revert my edit. That will contribute to overall happiness, since it will certainly be approved by those who believe the Vineyards lack notability. — Sebastian 20:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Good closing statement

Thank you for the exhaustive list of items. Flatscan (talk) 05:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you - that's what I had to do to fairly weigh the merits. — Sebastian 06:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

What struck me is where you said "AfD is not a vote, but has to be decided on its merits" - I thought AfD worked on consensus, not whatever the supposed rules/proposed guidelines purportedly say, but how they are actually applied in practice. I thought it was headed no consensus, but i'm not gonna lose sleep over the close though, and moving some useful information to the AVA article was a good step.--Milowent (talk) 05:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That's how I interpret WP:GD#Closure: "closing admins are expected and required to exercise their judgment in order to make sure that the decision complies with the spirit of all Wikipedia policy and with the project goal." But I'm aware that some people put more weight on !vote counts, such as this one. I just have seen too many sock puppets, meat puppets, vote stacking and sheep votes to put too much weight on the number of !votes anymore. If there's any number that counts for me, then it's the number of arguments for and against each option. Maybe I should have mentioned that in the AfD, as I did here.

I did spend some thought about your argument, especially regarding the "abundance" quote from WP:WINERY, because it is indeed an arguments that wineries shouldn't be treated the same as other topics. (To be honest, you lost me when you drew the conclusion that it "would probably require a level of general editor expertise that Wikipedia will never have".) But I did consider the aspect of "equal treatment". That's an ancient philosophical argument: What actually is equal treatment? What do you measure it by? I hope you would agree with me that an encyclopedia that spans all time and cultures can not simply go by a criterion such as "there need to be 3 full pages about the topic on the internet". Moreover, this argument is based on a wrong dichotomy: This issue was not a "wine against the rest of Wikipedia" issue, as can be seen that there were very dedicated wine friends on both sides. — Sebastian 06:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

By "general level of expertise", what I am saying is that wine seems to be a subject of broad interest and not many of those interested will be able to understand, agree with, and apply the standards which WP:WINE members are suggesting. But I am glad you took my observations into account.--Milowent (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I see! That's what you discussed with Tomas e. I believe that that's not WP:WINE's fault, but it comes with the territory. There probably are vastly more people who want to contribute to wine related articles without, let's say, 2 credits worth of knowledge, than there are in the area of molecular biology. I can see how that may cause problems. That said, I did not see such a problem in the case at hand; I am not a wine connoisseur, and I had no trouble following the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (wine topics); they seemed to make intuitive sense to me. — Sebastian 18:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Just dropped by so say I agree with Flatscan. That's of course easier for me to say when the AfD was closed in line with my opinion. Irrespective of that, it's obvious that you took the time and effort to read through the quite substantial text and structure and weigh the actual arguments against policies and guidelines on various levels. Since it was an even split in terms of "votes", some complaints can be expected, although probably not from WP:WINE members. Tomas e (talk) 09:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• This close was unacceptable in several ways. It was not based upon policy as WP:N and WP:CORP are guidelines not policies and WP:WINE has no standing at all. The issue thus turned upon the quality of the sources and the majority of editors considered these sources satisfactory. No reasoning was provided as to why the judgement of this majority should be overridden. The impression given is that the closer evaluated the matter himself and closed according his own personal opinion of the topic. This was not assessment of consensus and was quite contrary to the emphatic guidance of WP:DGFA, When in doubt, don't delete. Please reconsider this close. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect Colonel. As evidence by the closing statement, Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (particularly WP:SIGCOV) was squarely in the focus. The majority of the editors who dealt with this article purely on the merits of this article and how it fit in with those policies and guidelines made it abundantly clear that this article fell way short of establishing notability. If this was a local pizzeria, bed and breakfast or garage band with the same type of meager, trivial coverage this would have been a "no-brainer" delete. The only thing that made this close difficult was the editors (ironically not WP:WINE editors) who contended that wineries should be held to different standards than what we hold local restaurants, bed & breakfasts or garage bands too. The closing statement was very thorough and evident that the admin carefully weighed how consensus reflected Wikipedia's actual policy and guidelines, not what people wished special exemptions for. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 12:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Colonel, I am sorry that you feel you can not accept this closure. I am always amenable to changing a decision when presented with facts that I had not been aware of. But the facts or apparent facts of your post either do not favor your request ("WP:N and WP:CORP are guidelines not policies"), or are your unsupported private opinion ("WP:WINE has no standing at all"), or are simply wrong ("the majority of editors considered these sources satisfactory", "No reasoning was provided". If you don't see why these are wrong, please re-read the closing statement, and read the above discussion.) — Sebastian 18:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Just curious - I really can't believe I'm still concerned about this, but I guess I'm pigheaded - but I noticed that in your (excellent) summary of the reasons for deletion on Valhalla Vineyards, you said this article had no evidence for pickup elsewhere. But as I said in my comments, it was from the Associated Press wire, and anyone who has lexisnexis can verify this - it also says "Associated Press" as the byline on that paper. (The vineyard was mentioned in another AP article as well.) To me, the fact that the AP (i.e. not a local newspaper writer) took on the story was a relevant fact. (and, though I can't prove it, i'd bet it ran in a number of papers; single papers are barred from reproducing AP articles indefinitely on their own websites.) anyhow, for my own information: did you consider this irrelevant/non-notability establishing? I hope it's not inappropriate to bring this discussion to your talk page, (feel free to tell me if so) but since you didn't mention it, I'm just curious. --Vivisel (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It is entirely appropriate to bring this here, and it is an interesting question. What impact on notability does it have when a news item is credited to AP (or any other news agency)? I would think that, if that had been established, it would be mentioned at WP:N. Since it is currently not there, it should maybe be discussed at WT:N. (Indeed, if you want to follow that path, I would like to ask you to discuss it there, since there will be more people who know more about this than I do.) I don't know the inner workings of AP; for all I know they may just carry some human interest stories which they sell to local newspapers. Investigating this further did not seem to be a promising path to me, especially when I realized that the other half of the claim, "... and a major metropolitan paper in North Carolina" was patently wrong.

If you could find that article in a major metropolitan paper across the nation then it would constitute one significant coverage. Since WP:N says "Multiple sources are generally preferred", it still would not mean that the article would have to be kept, but there appears to be some wiggle room, as can be seen from the footnote. — Sebastian 19:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Got it - thanks for the response. I would be interested in opening a discussion on this. I'm a relative novice Wikipedean, but I'm interested in these matters of policy. Would the right approach be to just start a new section on the WT:N page? Vivisel (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's the right approach. But since you say you're a relative novice, I have to warn you that there are a lot of experienced editors watching such important policy pages, some of which may have strong ideas how things should be. Since the first impression can make a difference, you may want to consult run your post by another editor you trust before you post it there. — Sebastian 20:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Understood, and thanks for the guidance. I'll be deliberate, measured and careful out there! --Vivisel (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Sebastian I can not believe you have no no clue about The Associated Press, http://www.ap.com/, and their standards for stories. If you actually do not then it seems to me if you were doing do diligence when deciding this case you would have at least looked up the AP. Maybe you should have looked at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated_Press. Now I have not looked at the AFD for this one, and I do not care if the winery is of note or not, but according to my reading of the sacred wikipedia rules coverage by the AP wire service would make the place one of note.

There seems to be a pattern of wikepedia gods having a distinct lack of clues and also having no idea how to find the clues.

-Brett Wynkoop Wynkoop (talk) 05:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, so you haven't even looked at the AFD, and you so far not done a single edit in the article namespace, but you feel that you should attack other editors with insulting remarks? I recommend WP:CIVIL for reading, and have a good day, Tomas e (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

---

I support your closure and believe it was well founded in policy. If this some how makes its way over to DRV, I hope that someone will please inform me on my talk page as I don't track that section of Wikipedia very often. JBsupreme (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review

This case has been submitted to deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_January_6#Valhalla_Vineyards. I am currently busy off wiki and am not following that discussion; if my input is required, please let me know here or e-mail me. — Sebastian 20:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Brooklyn Repertory Opera

Ok one thing I hate about this whole wikipedia crap is that there is no way to have direct communication with someone. So Sebastian how about emailing me directly wynkoop--AT--bropera.org.

Beyond that if you took it upon yourself to do something different with the Brooklyn Repertory Opera article than what the outcome of the discussion was..... which was "no resolution" which according to the sacred wikipedia rules means that it stays then why didn't you just delete the damn thing. I already have it archived elsewhere and it has exactly no need to be under my account.

As to your comment 'article itself contains peacock language, such as "made history" ', I ask can you find anywhere else in any opera house at any time predating June 2010 the role of Ulrica sung by a counter-tenor? That sir is history making in opera, and it was not my edit that put that information into the article. Do you even know what a counter-tenor is? Had you really read the article you would see that was a fact that was backed up by an independent source.

I must say you and the entire culture of wikiland seems to have played into the hand of singingzombie very well.

So I would appreciate some direct private communication with you since you are the one that set yourself up as a god on this matter.....My thought is that the world is better served not having the article on the site at all, but I have no clue how to delete it.

I really have no interest in editing any articles on this site, so while I suppose I should be flattered at your symbolic gesture I have to say why would I want to put in the effort to contribute my knowledge here when any fool can muck up any page and make them totally unreliable. I am an expert in several fields, but I am fairly sure you will not see me contributing my expertise to anything here. If I want to publish things I know on the web I can put them on my own web site. Most of my web sites rank higher in search engine placement than the wikipedia pages on the same subjects, and I know that some fool with an axe to grind like singingzombie will not be able to trash the pages.

BTW singingzombie is a fellow named Theodore Shulman who sang in the chorus of Brooklyn Repertory Opera, and for some reason unknown to me started making threats against members of the company and the company as an entity. Yep I broke the sacred rule of not telling who someone on wikipedia is....who the hell cares!

Just thought of something else....Did you listen, yes LISTEN, to the one citation that was an audio file?

Way too much crap in the land of the wiki.

-Brett Wynkoop

---

You can e-mail me by clicking the "E-mail this user" link in the toolbox. (This is usually in the left sidebar on userpages. You probably need to have e-mail enabled in your preferences for that.)

Wikipedia is not perfect, and it mirrors every human folly. I still believe that, in the big picture, the good more often prevails than the bad, or else we would not have gotten to where we are. But often we only get there only after much drama; in fact, it often feels like an opera! Part of Wikipedia's problem is that, just like you, most knowledgeable people have no interest in contributing. I don't know how this can be changed.

I am not a god; I am subject to deletion reviews, and if you find I made a mistake that path is open to you. But they will not accept arguments like ""; BTW, I have since become aware of a mistake; I underestimated the role of comprimario singers. I would not make that statement now, but I don't think it would change the decision. As for the audio file, can you please be more specific and provide a link?

If you seriously rather have no page than the one I userfied, then you can simply delete its content - that is your prerogative since it is in your userspace - and an administrator will subsequently remove the page history. I would be sad about that, though, because I sincerely hope that your opera has a bright future, in which case we will be happy about the article. — Sebastian 19:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Well you just proved to me that you did not even read the page if you did not find the link to the audio file. Like I said this wikipedia stuff is pretty much so much $#@@!$%^&%$$. You set yourself up as god, but are not even able to totally read the page and find an audio reference that was clearly on the page.

As a simple mortal in the land of wikipedia I suggest a great god such as yourself learn to read the pages he is exercising his god like powers over.

Since you seem to want me to edit things around here maybe I should take a cue from Ted and start nominating pages for deletion just for the fun of watching you folks argue about things of which you have no clue.

Listen to the audio file.....anyone that can read English can find it on the page.

As far as your being happy to have the page at some point in the future I have spent more time on this in the last 14 days than the last year. Not all the edits from 199.89.147.xxx were mine, but they did all come from the BRO offices, so they could have been done by any of several members. To me it is much more important to work on http://www.bropera.org/2009-2010/veil-of-forgetfulness "The Veil of Forgetfulness" our second world premier than muck about here. It is very odd to me that someone as ill versed with the subject of opera, as you seem to be, is the one who decides what stays and goes in a discussion centered on opera.

Do email me when you have found the audio clip (CLUE: EXTERNAL LINKS :ENDCLUE). According to your sacred wikipedia rules this establishes BRO as being a company of note. In case one of the regular wiki fools deletes the page before you go to it you can find an archive at:

http://www.bropera.org/history/Brooklyn_Repertory_Opera.html

That archive will also be where any new information is recorded. Should you in your godlike way ever decide that we are noteworthy you may view the company history at that url.

-Brett Wynkoop Wynkoop (talk) 04:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Ok I just checked and I find nothing in the toolbox area about emailing. You have my email address be good enough to email me. Yep this no doubt means I am a clueless in the land of wiki, but you should at least have some clues on how to use email I would suspect.

-Brett Wynkoop Wynkoop (talk) 05:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:Please hold off archiving WT:SLR for now

Done. Feel free to let me know if things pick back up in the future.--Dycedarg ж 20:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Watching

How do you do this for nay other page ? Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/cgi-bin/watcher.py. — Sebastian 06:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed move

Just a friendly notice that I have formally proposed to move three pages at Talk:African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955–1968). Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

语言

你的语言能力真利害 -- 法语，中文，日语，意大利语都会说！Hopefully you can use them to spread peace around the corners of the globe. Bis später!-Dpr (talk) 23:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

哪里，你是奉承我的。 本来，日语我不会说； 只会看懂一点儿。 Striving for peace is a good ideal; I will keep your words in mind. — Sebastian 23:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hehe. Your Chinese is excellent :) You also learned the "modesty" ;) I mentioned that about peace since I saw your links to the Global Peaceforce and Sri Lanka Reconcialiation. My areas of interest are international law, foreign relations, and inter-cultural communication so I think we have similar goals. Anyway Europeans always speak more languages than Americans; this country has to work harder on that. But if you don't use it you lose it--I took Latin and forgot most of it...My Japanese is about the same as yours, since I can read many of the Kanji :) Grüße--Dpr (talk) 02:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words! Yes, we seem to have similar goals; I would really wish I could combine these interests to make a difference in the world. That Europeans always speak more languages than Americans is understandable; it's so much harder here to keep up learning foreign languages. For instance, most Chinese here know so much better English than I know Chinese; it's much easier to communicate in English. Maybe I should move to Berkeley; the only time that my Chinese was of use here in the US was when I had a chance to help a Chinese woman at the BART counter whose English wasn't good enough to understand why her ticket wasn't valid. — Sebastian 00:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Refdesk metaquestions

With regards to this edit, it would be better to ask questions like this on the talk page, since it's not directly relevant to the OP's question. Vimescarrot (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right; I'll go ahead and remove both of them, and make a note on the talk page. — Sebastian 16:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, someone replied to my post with a pertinent reply, so it wouldn't be appropriate to remove it now. — Sebastian 16:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Answer

I replied to your question here. I hope I didn't miss anything. :-) -- Mentifisto 08:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Replied again and an email also sent, if you can read it for additional detail. :-) -- Mentifisto 18:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

spline drive / pozidrive

you are correct that pozidrive was designed for improved cam-out resistance a compared to the legacy '4-tooth' connectors (aka phillips).

Mostly from my personal experience working on cars, but also supported by my mechanical eng classes, spline and torx operate high torque with less axial force required than pozidrive. I would attribute this to more drive area (perhaps better stated, higher moment of the drive area, since it the teeth have small cross sections but are at a large radius)

I would be surprised if the original patents for spline drive spell out mechanical analysis of spline vs posidrive, assuming there is one I could find, and I'm not going to try to FEA it :)

Anyway, wanted to agree with you in part, but since I don't have any verifiable sources I couldn't think of how to get it into the article.

I'm confident the original statement, spline & torx bests posidrive with regards to camout. WHile I find that intuitive after thinking it over, I could see a person without a mechanical background scratching there head as to why one is choosen over the other.

I'd invite you to help straighten it out :)

(adding to this confusion, there are additional, orthogonal, reasons why these new fasteners appear - such as OEM's wanting something new that no-one has drivers for. Was it GM and torx?)

thanks, Mboard182 (talk) 08:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)mboard182

Thank you for your message! I assume you are talking about the article spline drive, and this edit of mine. This is interesting information; you obviously know more about these things than I do. I won't object if you put that in the article; but I think a more appropriate place for that would be the article on Pozidriv. In the spline drive article, all that's needed is one example, since the sentence only says "such as". — Sebastian 08:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

helm signal

Hello and thank you for the interest. I would myself be interested in further information on what exactly was meant by helm signals. These were referred to in various sources I was quoting, presuming we are talking about the loss of HMS Victoria by collision with Camperdown. My understanding is that they are not talking about ordinary flag signals but about separate dedicated helm repeater signals which indicate the degree of turn being applied. At the time I did find a little bit of information about this, enough to convince me it want nonsense, but I don't recall now where it was. I think it involved balls and cones or something of the sort which could be raised and lowered to indicate what the ship was doing.Sandpiper (talk) 08:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Yes, that's what I was talking about. Happy editing! — Sebastian 21:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Shen Kuo

Hello Sebastian Helm, PericlesofAthens here. I left you a brief message at Talk:Shen Kuo about the proposal to amend the lead section. Have a look. Regards.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi again Sebastian. Although I have yet to properly address your ideas about reorganizing the scholarly achievements section, I believe I have just now put to rest our discussion of Shen Kuo and the magnetic compass. Have a look on the talk page; cheers!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

What did Count Gabriel Habib Sakakini Pasha have?

See [1]. — Sebastian 23:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)*Sorry , I corrected it now. Many thanks. --Ghaly (talk) 16:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

/unwatched

Ooh! I really like your unwatched template. Do you have a watched template, too? I'll have to check, and may steal 'em for my own. <watching for now> - UtherSRG (talk) 18:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I have /replyhere, which fills that niche for me. Related templates are /replyon, /nowatch, and /amenable. — Sebastian 18:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and there's /unwatch, the first of these, IIRC. I'm not using it much anymore, though. — Sebastian 19:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey!

I don't know if you're still interested in this stuff, but I initiated a discussion about Tamilnet on the reliable sources noticeboard. You're input is always welcome. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 14:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Larynx normal.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Larynx normal.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Plasmodium

There are a LOT of historical referencee of these ancedotes s to malaria in famous figures. Oliver Cromwell is supposed to have died of malaria because he refused to use the 'Jesuit's bark' (quinine). Descriptions of malaria at that time may not have been entirely reliable. This situation is changing with the advent of PCR to show the presence or absense of malaria or other diseases in famous persons. Wallace seems to have had several well documented episodes of malaria and sunsequently claimed that his theory of evolution occured to him during one such episode. I included this note in Plasmodium because it does not really belong in the History of Malaria page but is - at least in my humble opinion - of some interest to students of malaria. I will dig out more of these. If you dont this this is the right place for such material I would be grateful if you could suggest a suitable place for them. DrMicro (talk) 10:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course, of course! I have no doubt that there are many historical references. To me, it seems like such information like the "Jesuit's bark" anecdote or Tutankhamun fit best into History of Malaria#Early research and treatment. You may be right that "it does not really belong in the History of Malaria"; I leave that up to your judgment. But clearly it belongs much less in the Plasmodium article! It really is about malaria, not plasmodium. To me, it feels as if we had the story about the Star of Africa in the Carbon article. — Sebastian 05:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Harmonic singer

Hello, I have seen a note you lived in wiki about harmonic singing, so i live my comment. If you whant to know anything more about this kind of singing you can ask me, so i give you any usfull information... I hope I can help. Abraham —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keperson (talk • contribs) 03:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your offer. There's nothing in particular that I would want to know about overtone singing, but if you're an expert in the topic, then it would be great if you could help with the article. Since you seem to not have any editing experience, how about if you left a note on the article talk page, if you have any ideas for improving that article. — Sebastian 19:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Help a new guy please!

I've noticed colors in some signatures, and I have no idea how to do that! can you tell me? ~Monk Preston (talk) 23:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand what Wikipedia is for. Its purpose is not to show off shiny signatures, but to build a high-quality encyclopedia. Before helping you with your own vanity, I'd like to see at least some effort on your part to actually help Wikipedia towards our goal. — Sebastian 17:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not that I'm being vain, I'm just interested in how to work wikipedia, and this Shiny thing waa the first thing that really popped out at me! ~Monk Preston (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

No need to tell me how to change my Signature. I found out how :) now onward to finding out other things about Wikipedia! ~Monk (^Chat _Harrass) 22:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, before I get in trouble, am I allowed to do the below? (You can delete it when you tell me if I can)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

~Monk (^Chat _Harrass) 22:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

E-mail

Sent one your way. Regards, AGK 00:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

When is consensus bullying?

I feel as though I am being bullied out of Wikipedia when all I do for the most part is qualitatively improve articles by adding citations. I have a group of malign editors that have formed a cohort against me. They have searched really hard to find a few matters of dispute out of my 20,000 or more edits that I have made to this Project. I would appreciate some of your time.
B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Tx

For your help on the flotilla page. My sense is that there are a number of socks -- quite an unusual number of editors with little edit history but clear knowledge in wp, editing in tandem as to deletes and comments on the talk page. More sysop attention couldn't hurt.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you; I was going to reply that I'm not too afraid of sockpuppets, because I was thinking of this essay; but then the headline below reminded me that the reason why it worked then was because we did not use 1RR, but a variant of that rule: "Don't re-revert". With that rule, accounts don't matter, only content. So the main reason for creating sock puppets was gone. — Sebastian 22:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I counted 11 editors w/under 600 edits editing in tandem and supporting each other at the talk page. Somethings broken.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

You are not alone in that belief - see WP:ANI#JIDF_at_Gaza_flotilla_clash. — Sebastian 21:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think we should every three months checkuser all people ever topic-banned from the I-P area.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I would prefer if, instead of curing the symptom, we tried to cure the roots of the problem. (1) Instead of worrying about socks, I'd like change the rules such that socks won't hurt us (see above). (2) On an even bigger scale: While we can't bring about complete reconciliation between Israel and Palestine, it is a good goal towards which to work. I think that WP:IPCOLL is a step in that direction, at least with what we here can do. — Sebastian 18:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the idea is a good one. But it doesn't appear to have quite worked out as Seeds of Peace, unfortunately.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Seeds of Peace seems to be a great organization, judging by the article! As for WP:IPCOLL, yes, it's moving slower than e.g. WP:SLR, back in the day when that project was active. Unfortunately, the founder, user:HG, lost his initial enthusiasm quickly and left not long after its start. From the beginning, I would have wished things to move faster there, and it's hard to inspire people with enthusiasm. I guess it's just because that conflict has such big roots, and everyone has an opinion on it. But if you have any ideas for how to improve that, I'd be happy to talk about them. (That could also be by mail, if you prefer.) — Sebastian 02:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding IFF weapon smuggling as background for Gaza Flotilla incident

Self-revert. The section I moved/expanded was HIGHLY relevant since the organization trying to break up the blockage, designed to stop weapon smuggling to Muslim terrorists, had previously smuggled weapons to other Muslim terrorists. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you please be more specific? What edits are you referring to? I am only human, and I may mistakes, too, but I need constructive criticism to be able to fix them. Point blank, unreferenced accusations only make enemies. — Sebastian 22:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The above statement doesn't fit well anymore; it referred to a previous version of the headline, which we since changed. — Sebastian 00:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I modified a section in the "background" section that refers to the IHH's background in smuggling weapons, money and militants to jihadists. Since the blockade is meant to prevent such smuggling from occurring then it is highly relevant to know their backgrounds and motivations in this area and shouldn't be shuffled off to some article that nobody will read. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sorry; it seemed to me that that was about IHH and the Free Gaza Movement, for both of which we already have articles. I don't want to suppress information; I only want to keep it from duplicating. I would just as well have deleted an extensive description of the blockade on Gaza. I tried to be fair by linking to all articles that people from both sides seemed to have felt mattered in this context. I don't have any objections if you add a sentence or two about Israels position wrt IHH and the Free Gaza Movement, but any longer text should be in the appropriate articles. — Sebastian 22:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, sorry if I come off as testy (I'm used to dealing with less reasonable people), but I'm a bit confused about your statement. I didn't include anything about "Israel's position wrt(?) IHH" but rather in the background section I commented that the IHH had smuggled weapons in the past, which is what the blockade is supposed to prevent. Also, I'd actually prefer if you reverted/partially self-reverted at least that part back in since I don't want to break 1rr myself - even though I haven't "really" reverted anyone, I just moved someone else's section, expanded it and corrected a spelling error. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem; I understand that editing this article can be quite stressful; I experienced several edit conflicts myself already, which adds to the feeling of emergency. I will see if I can find the sentence you wrote and put it back in context. — Sebastian 23:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I checked the version prior to my edit[2], and I assume what you mean is Bruguiere's statement about IHH and Bosnia and Afghanistan. I can see how one can draw the connection to what you said above; that would be reasonable. I believe it helps understand Israel's motivation, which is why I suggested a sentence or two about that. (By "wrt", I meant "with regard to".) However, the reference doesn't say that explicitly. If you can find a reliable source that actually says that that was Israel's assessment of the background, then I won't have any objection to putting it there. That said, we need to keep matters in proportion. While I compared the IHH description with the Gaza blockade above, I need to mention that the two are not equally important for the article. A description of IHH's other activities helps understand Israel's motivation, while the blockade is the setting of the article; a basic, brief explanation of it is necessary to understand the whole article. Maybe I'm still misunderstanding you; please let me know if I missed your point. (By the way: How about renaming this section to what you feel the point is?) — Sebastian 23:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

That was basically the section before I modified it. Here was the section after I added the bit about weapon smuggling which was:

He also stated that they were used as a front organization to help smuggle money, weapons and militants into Bosnia and Afghanistan.

The article is specifically regarding this latest incident and presumably implies reasons the IFF would have for inciting violence. I can understand cutting off the first part of the section that didn't deal with weapon smuggling, perhaps a brief, "ties with terrorists" sort of thing since I don't believe their ties w/ Al Qaeda or the plot to bomb LAX are directly relevant. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

By "IFF", I presume you mean "IHH". Of course, Bruguiere's statement is interesting information, but it isn't needed as a background to understand the article, as the Gaza blockade is. Of course it should be in the IHH article, where it will be available with one click. Bruguiere himself says his information is over 10 years old. Please understand that currently thousands of articles are being written, digging up every involved party's history. We need to draw the line somewhere; if we include things every involved party has done over 10 years ago, then we couldn't deny Palestinian sympathizers to include a description of Rachel Corrie's death. Moreover, Bruguiere's statement is not undisputed; we would have to find a way to briefly express a balanced description, which isn't easy and will likely result in more quarrels among editors. — Sebastian 00:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I strongly disagree since I think context is very important in things like this - especially where the intent of the people is to create a propaganda celebre, and to misinform as many people as possible before the truth gets out. I won't revert you or report you breaking 1rr, but I hope you reconsider. Thanks for being polite. Cheers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Where do you see a break of 1RR among my edits? — Sebastian 05:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, glancing at the edit history of the article and your edit summaries it looks like you've removed content 6-7 times which are obviously going to be reverts. Your moves and reinsertions likely also count as reverts. I don't particularly mind since the article is quite "busy" right now, but the concern is that those who aren't following 1rr will dictate content and I believe I saw several other admins engaging in this behavior as well. TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, you may actually be right: "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." If the editor can be a different editor each time, then I did that indeed more than once. But that doesn't make sense; it means, after I did this edit, I could not have done that one anymore. I thought my task as a neutral admin was to make sure that people stuck to what they agreed on on the talk page. I'll have to sleep over that. — Sebastian 08:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I generally deal w/ topics where there is a lot of wiki-lawyering done in order to ban/block others. My idea, and I could be wrong, was that admins generally are supposed to prevent edit warring in such topics, but perhaps this is simply part of the subculture I learned to edit in. Cheers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure, that is one of the goals of admins. But what do you say about the concrete example with the two edits I brought up above? According to your opinion, was the second one a violation of 1RR? I will ask this question (maybe more generally) in a more appropriate place to see what others say, but I'm asking you here, because I would like you to appreciate that it's nice to write in general terms, but when it gets to concrete examples, such general statements can become meaningless. — Sebastian 22:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, regarding those specific edits the 2nd one would be a violation of 1rr. But as I said, I really don't care, we may disagree, but you don't seem to be a prick. Personally I think a lot of the rules around here need to go since many of them are simply abused by POV pushers to get rid of opposing viewpoints. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's one of the rules that invite wikilawyering! And it encourages sockpuppets - see the above discussion. — Sebastian 22:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep, it definitely encourages sockpuppetry. I also think, and I know some people disagree, that canvassing should be allowed. Basically, a lot of people do it, but do it privately so it is near impossible to prove and so "consensus" is formed by those willing to break the rules. I say keep it out in the open for all to see. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Regarding the root cause this legal analysis of the Gaza blockade may interest editors here.--- Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton}_{contributions} 00:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thank you! I don't have the time to read the article just now, but it does seem like a very valuable source for the explanation Thegoodlocust wants to provide. Sorry that I have to be so short; I have to leave now. — Sebastian 01:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I now read the page, and it is really interesting. It can't be used directly, since it is basically just a blog, but it alerted me of the 67(a) claim, which I hope provides some context along the lines of what Thegoodlocust was missing. I will add that to the article. — Sebastian 06:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

What context was I missing? If we really wanted to add some context we could talk about the tons of weapons that Iran tried to smuggle into Gaza in a single ship run - an incredible amount of weapons. I mean, you do agree that Hamas is a terrorist organization right? TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I realize the word "missing" has two meanings. I didn't mean that you were missing something that was there, but that you wanted something to be there that wasn't. I could have written "requesting" instead. — Sebastian 08:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Walky

Perhaps it is the due of some confusion that we are engaged in a not so necessary conversation that I worry might soon become unpleasant. Walky-talky (talk) 03:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yom Kippur War Article

Thanks for the tip about matériel instead of material. I didn't knew it was used as a military term. My first language is French so I thought there was a misspelling. So I read the definition and it was indeed from French language so the "é" is right.

JT9001 (talk) 01:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm glad you signed up, and I wish you fun at Wikipedia. Please don't hesitate to ask me if you have any questions. What I meant about the "é" was that I don't know if that's the preferred spelling in English. It's weird to read spellings like "facade" or "resume", but hey, it's their language, they can do with it what they want. — Sebastian 03:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Sebastian disambiguation

Hi! You wrote on my german Userpage that you propose to install a disambiguation page for userpages that start with Sebastian. Personally I think that this is a good idea since it would help finding those users. I think we should do this both on the English and German wikipedia - and maybe even spread the idea to other first/last name users. --Sebastian.Dietrich (talk) 07:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a nice idea; maybe after a month or so we should know if it works for us, and we can propose it to some owners of other first names out there. Or better yet, start with names that have no current owner. I just checked one popular name, Michael, and found that that name was only used by a banned user. — Sebastian 18:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I just checked the German Sebastian's page; and it seems he hasn't been active since 2008. It might be appropriate to ask him on the talk page and per e-mail, and if he doesn't reply within a reasonable time, just do the edits similar to what we're doing here. — Sebastian 18:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Hallo Sebastian, das halte ich für eine gute Idee und sehr großzügig von Dir. --Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 09:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Keine Ursache! — Sebastian 17:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

So, I changed the pages; any other interested editors please add yourself as you see fit. — Sebastian 17:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

User:VerdaTeo

Hello! Excuse my anonymity but I don't have a wikipedia account. I wanted to let you know that User:VerdaTeo is a sockpuppet account of User:Brandini who is vandalizing articles adding fake information about esperanto to polarize and antagonize people who want to learn esperanto with people who do not. Sorry for bothering you and thank you for your time.--190.50.167.58 (talk) 08:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I see no reason to call the edits of that user "vandalism"; the one I reverted was very likely something the user believed themself. There is no reason to assume that it was in bad faith, and the same seems to hold for that user's other contributions. They are not perfect, but the user made an effort to source them, which is more than can be said of most other occasional editors. For this one, I didn't see a confirmation for the claim in the source, though, and I will tag it accordingly. — Sebastian 21:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Proceed as you wish. I learned about these edits because the guy that did them was boasting about doing them somewhere else. There are no sources in the references he linked for what he added to the articles because the information added is untrue.--190.50.209.89 (talk) 00:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could point me to where he was boasting. Please include a diff. Thank you! — Sebastian 03:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but that's not possible. Good day.--190.50.209.89 (talk) 04:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I must say, I didn't give this much credibility at first, what with all that anonymity and secrecy, but it is getting more interesting - see User talk:VerdaTeo. — Sebastian 07:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Leymah Gbowee

Hi. On August 18 you redirected Leymah Gbowee to Pray the Devil Back to Hell. She seems like a noteworthy person who deserves her own article. Did you simply create a blank page with her name on it and link it to the film? If I wanted to add information to her page, is it possible to unlink it? Thank you! USchick (talk) 02:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I figured it out. Thanks for starting her page! USchick (talk) 02:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Of course, by all means! She does deserve her own article - Google finds over 38,000 pages on her[3]. I have been thinking of doing that myself, but time went by so quickly ... If there's anything I can do to help, let me know, I'd be very happy to see this become an article. (At the very least, it shouldn't link to the film, but to Women of Liberia Mass Action for Peace, which is more directly about her.) — Sebastian 02:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, BTW, here's a direct link to the page in question for your convenience. — Sebastian 02:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Category:Ethnic cleansing

I put category:Ethnic cleansing up on the Request for comments noticeboard. Time to get something moving there. --红卫兵 (talk) 11:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for following my request to notify me. After three years, it'll take me a bit to delve into this again, but I'll do so in the next week. — Sebastian 21:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

nonviolence

I started Wikipedia:WikiProject Nonviolence. Hope you're still interested. Kingturtle (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Wonderful! I'll take a look at it. — Sebastian 21:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

File:116px-United-nations-peace-sculpture.jpg

There is no reason to upload that locally when we have File:United-nations-peace-sculpture.jpg which you can use. If you don't like the size of the image, then try Wikipedia:Picture tutorial, which will direct you how to resize an image. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I replied and gave reasons at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 August 28#File:116px-United-nations-peace-sculpture.jpg, but to my surprise it was deleted anyway — within 25 hours (not 7 days, as is the rule) from nomination. — Sebastian 15:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Image size and server load

Hi, Sebastian. I'm responding here to a question you raised at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 August 28#File:116px-United-nations-peace-sculpture.jpg, because the discussion over there has been closed and apparently I'm not supposed to add anything to it.

You argued that File:116px-United-nations-peace-sculpture.jpg, which has a file size of 4364 bytes, would be better than using File:United-nations-peace-sculpture.jpg scaled down to 116 pixels wide, because the full image is 1.82 MB. While it is true that the full 7.5-megapixel photo is 1.82 MB, the 116-pixel-wide thumbnail (here) is just 7709 bytes, and this thumbnail is cached so that the server has to generate it only once. So your argument doesn't hold water—the difference in server load and bandwidth usage between the 4364-byte image and the 7709-byte thumbnail is pretty irrelevant.

The reason that images in signatures are frowned upon is that including even a small image, say four or eight kilobytes, significantly increases the number of bytes that have to be downloaded, on a percentage basis. For example, my signature is just 48 bytes of wiki markup, which translates into 123 bytes of generated HTML. Adding a 4000-byte image to that would increase the size by over 3200%. Since talk pages may easily include hundreds of signatures, this bloat would have a great cumulative effect.

You also quoted Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance, at which Simetrical wrote, "…you can definitely slow down the loading of pages if you cram them with 100 KB images." This is quite true, but in the case of the United Nations peace sculpture we weren't talking about 100-KB images—we were talking about a 4364-byte image versus a 7709-byte image.

I hope this has answered your questions. Please let me know if something is still unclear. —Bkell (talk) 20:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I already understand the concept of caching; I was just surprised that it changed from what had been accepted wisdom before. (The argument about signatures is a bit more complicated than how you present it; if pictures get cached then a server does not have to handle them again for each repeated signature, but that's going off on a tangent.) My main question was "Where do you get that information from?" In other words: Do you have a source for that? — Sebastian 15:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

See, for example, Wikipedia:Purge#For images, which explains how to force the server to throw out its thumbnail cache and regenerate thumbnails from scratch. —Bkell (talk) 06:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Leymah Gbowee is now an article and I nominated it for Wikipedia:Did you know, check it out! :-) USchick (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Re:Nonviolence

Just to note to say I apologize for leaving the discussion and I will return shortly. I'm in the middle of finishing up a GA review. Peace. Viriditas (talk) 02:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so my account is acting up, but i am Oldforgecrash. Thanks for talking to KingTurle about the crash and the page. I also want to thank you for not lashing out at me for some things i said to KingTurle. You helped work things out, and i am not so worked up and mad at KingTurtle anymore. Just i live in a family where death comes pretty close to home, so i freaked. Thanks again!

Template:Supranational_European_Bodies

Hi, on Template_Talk:Supranational_European_Bodies, you commented that it would be good to have a link to an enlarged version of the template. I created such a link, a page on Supranational_European_Bodies. However it was put up for speedy deletion, for being a sub-stub. If you wish to comment, please do so on Talk:Supranational_European_Bodies. CS Miller (talk) 14:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that. It is partly because of these speedy deleters why I lost my enthusiasm for participating here. — Sebastian 23:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

American Civil Rights Movement

I have proposed renaming the African-American Civil Rights Movement pages. You can participate in the discussion at: Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_(1955–1968)#Proposed_Move Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 23:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)