User talk:Vanished User 1004/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

A quick question

Well, I see you archived my cookie...So, I have a question. How exactly do you archive parts of your user talk page? The Dark Knight ★ of Wikipedia 00:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I see. So, where would I find the archive bots? The Dark Knight ★ of Wikipedia 01:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Apparently idle chatter about TLDR/wall-of-text

So they delete notable and verifiable topics based on canvased votes these days.?

Oh well, I suppose it is a bad sign indicating things going down hill for Wikipedia. Yep same guy was writing wall of text and editing it. I just wanted to make one comment.

That is when both sides are using WP:TLDR reasoning, I wonder who wins. You will notice that in the original argument, WP:TLDR was actually cited already cited, and was then somewhat used to rebut it in your shorter argument. Not really sure how to score a debate, when both sides are claiming WP:TLDR? LOL

Have a nice day.130.86.85.158 (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"So they delete notable and verifiable topics based on canvased votes these days.?"

Generally not. I haven't seen it happen lately.- Sinneed 15:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

"how to score a debate"

Ah, you thought there was a debate! Sorry, no.

The purpose of discussion is to allow individuals to express their views, and possibly to sway others to their own view, or to find the views of others... and other purposes.

The Great-Wall-of-Text is not effective either to convey information nor to sway others. If that was not your intention, then the opinion of others that it was too long should not matter. I confess I am at a loss in trying to understand why you have posted here.

If you are seeking guidance: do not use the wall-of-text method if you want to sway the opinions of others: it will fail consistently.

I can't really imagine anything else you might accomplish here.- Sinneed 15:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Vanished User 1004. You have new messages at HappyInGeneral's talk page.
Message added 18:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you! HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Can I?

Can I, can I, can I (as in I hope you will not mind) ... use the wise man post on my talk page? I absolutely love it! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

See here. Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Maybe there is a better way to fix the deadlinks, see Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#Preventing_dead_links_-_idea --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

TickleMe Plant

Thank you for your thoughtful comment to help end the conflict. Your real life story about not being able to find the Ticklish Plant is exactly why I still feel feel that those names are important to list. A person searching for Ticklish Plant is more certain to know that they have found what they are looking for when you see the name that you searched for in the article. I hope one day someone with clout sees this importance. However, you explained that redirects will bring people to the page of information that would be helpful to them. Thank you for your help I appreciate your time. Will you know if someone tries to vandalize remove your redirect? I hope so. Legume (talk) 23:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia

Sorry to keep bugging you. I just wanted to let you know that in case you haven't already noticed, I'm brand new to editing Wikipedia. I'm still straitening out all the nuts and bolts if you know what I mean. I'm doing my best to put correct relevant information on all the pages. However, I might not do the right or best edit. It's actually a good thing that you've deleted my edit. That way I know not to edit it back in in the future. Also, could you please post your response on my talk page? Thanks! This will probably be the last time I ever bug you. Btw,am I doing this right? Turquoise 101 (talk) 05:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

RE:your message

I agree half-way, though I wonder why I can be accused of vandalism w/o the accuser being similarly reprimanded. "vandalism" is the gravest personal attack one can use around here. thanks Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 13:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Vanished User 1004. You have new messages at SilkTork's talk page.
Message added 13:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you in advance. HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Favor

I've come across your name during Recent Changes Patrol a lot, so I know you're probably busy with other stuff, but if you could now and then keep an additional eye on what is now History of Falun Gong, that would be greatly appreciated. As you have seen, even users like me can "lose it" sometimes over there, and I'm not even the worst case scenario (I hope). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 14:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks interesting. I have it on my watch list.- Sinneed 14:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Persecution of Falun Gong

No offense, and I'm sorry to revert you, but I would have pulled the tag irrespective of which side of the debate in this matter. HappyInGeneral is a Falun Gong WP:SPA with a history of disruption, and I saw the tag as one such attempt to derail the XfD discussion. I appreciate you are working on the article. He has never seen fit to place a tag on any other article irrespective of the level of activity (nor I, for that matter, because it's unnecessary most of the time), so I suspect the tag was placed there purely with political motives completely unrelated to your efforts. I will not undo if you revert me again. Cheers, Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

information

The information must be in the source. And please wp:edit summaries.24.105.163.18 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC).

Signature

Hmm, I never thought of putting the HTML inside the wikilink. Makes it appear much cleaner in the edit window. I may have to steal that =P --King Öomie 00:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello again!

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Sorry, I hope I didn't hurt you too badly. Just was angry and had to do that to someone...are you okay there? Oh, by the way, thanks for the advice on archiving. The Arbiter^Ѫ_★^Ѫ 00:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

TennCare and mixed metaphors

Would you prefer "were also brought under TennCare's umbrella on a sliding scale payment basis" (language from the Tennessee Encyclopedia source cited in the article)? --Orlady (talk) 18:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Please stop your counterproductiveness if it is that.

Please stop your counterproductiveness if it is that. Have a nice day.--Yearwhen1 (talk) 23:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You'll need to give me a bit more of a hint. What are you talking about?- Sinneed 23:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see, you were vandalising and adding personal nastiness at a school article. Go away, please, after reading and understanding wp:BLP.- Sinneed 23:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

And 'e's out!- Sinneed 23:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

Reflinks worked out really well, see for example the Sarah Palin page history. Also now I've compiled a list of fixers that I know of so far, please feel free to let me know of more if you know! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 22:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the trout

The Arbiter^★_★^★ has given you a fresh piece of fried chicken! Pieces of fried chicken promote WikiLove and hopefully this piece has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a piping hot piece, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

Spread the tastiness of fried chicken by adding {{subst:GiveChicken}} to their talk page with a friendly message, or gobble up this chicken the giver's talk page with {{subst:MunchChicken}}!!

Sorry about the trout. LOL. The Arbiter^★_★^★ 23:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, how did you make that box that appears when you edit the page? Like, the one that says, Hello, and Welcome...? The Arbiter^★_★^★ 02:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Arbiter (talk • contribs)

Please eat the chicken, it's starting to spoil. The Arbiter^★_★^★ 00:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply

As any editor here who knows me will say, I don't hold back my thoughts and opinions. You admit on your page that you are politically incorrect too. Yes, I think people who assume schools are automatically notable are morons. Everytime I see someone say "Keep, schools are notable" in an AFD, I want to punch that person. There is no policy or guideline to support that claim, and existing ones actually say schools are subject to the same general guidelines as all articles. That AFD should not have been speedy closed, and the admin should not have flat out lied in their reason (the admin closed it, the nominator did not withdraw the nomination). I would have said Delete because that school is clearly not notable enough to have a article. TJ Spyke 04:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Good

Hello Sinneed, LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 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. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Good. Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit war on article about Brazil

Hello, Sinneed! I am going to copy and paste what I wrote to Atama, if you don´t mind: "For the last years I have been contributing with the articles about Brazilian history, as you can see on my profile and on my discussion page. However, I decided to help and improve the section about Brazilian history in the article about Brazil. The older text was full os mistakes or was sourced only with website information. I simply replaced it with a much improved text sourced with the works of the most renowned Brazilian (Sérgio Buarque de Holanda, José Murilo de Carvalho, Pedro Calmon, Heitor Lyra, Hélio Vianna, etc...) and British (Charles R. Boxer and Roderick J. Barman) historians."

"I have not finished yet, as I have worked only on the section about colonial and imperial Brazil (there still the republican era to write) and I am being accused by the user Opinoso of being a monarchist and of being biased. It is unbelievable that book sources about the subject is not good enough and a website is! And I took great care to use many different authors (as you can see on the bibliography)."

There it is. If you carefully read my "discussion" with Opinoso, you will see that he is taking in account his personnal opinion only, his belief about Brazilian history. What should be taken in account then? Opinoso's opinion or the work of those historians? Did you read the old text and the one that I have written? - --Lecen (talk) 16:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

My response on your talk page was to this post at Atama's talk.- Sinneed 16:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello! Yes, I tried to do that, but Opinoso reverted all mey edits without bothering to ask other users of their opinions about it. For the last days I was writing the new text and warning everyone about it on the discussion page. Several edits by other users were done meanwhile in the article, including some to correct a few spelling mistakes on what I wrote. None complained over the text.

Opinoso´s reasons make no sense at all. Take French history, for example. If someone write down that during the reign of Luís XIV, the Sun King, France became the greatest power in Europe, but by the middle 19th century, it had fallen into second place by Germany and suffered with political anarchy. French third republic was a complete mess, but that does not mean that monarchy is better than republic. Or take a look at Germany history: under the German monarchy, it had become Europe mainland´s most powerful nation and fell into a period of anarchy and later dictatorship during the Weimar Republic and III Reich. It also does not mean that monarchy is better than republic. Those are just historical facts about each country. Since the 1950s both France and Germany has taken their places as world powers and their political systems are now stable. The same has happened with Brazil since the middle of the 1980s, does that mean that Republic is better than monarchy? Again: no. User Opinoso is well known for becoming "owner" of articles he (un) contributes on it, as in the case of the article about the Brazilian people. You asked me to try to reason with him and discuss point by point. I already did that. Just take a look at the discussion page of Brazil. What can I do? Anyway, thank you for your time. - --Lecen (talk) 17:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Why have you changed what I did? I have not put any new information that could be considered controversial, it´s a pragraphy that is smaller than the one that it has replaced. It just tells exactly the same as the older paragraphy, with the adition of telling about the the territorial expansion. The way it is does not explain how Brazil got its nowadays borders. What the older paragraphy says about sugar economy in decadence, tax burden, Tiradantes revolt, bandeirantes exploration, all is there, with sources based on history books, not websites. - --Lecen (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I have removed several sentences that were too redundant in the section, that is, not overly important to understand the matter. Do you think is better now? - --Lecen (talk) 00:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I just saw Opinoso´s last edits. Well, they are absurd and unnecessary. But he won. I am not going to work on this article anymore. I erased more important information so that he could add his nonsense. What he added shouldn´t be there, at most, in the demographics section. But is is full of absurds, as usual. Anyway, thank you for everything. Good luck! - --Lecen (talk) 01:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Brazil

Hello! Please, I need your help to deal with an issue that has appeared in the article about Brazil. See it in here. Thank you very much. - --Lecen (talk) 19:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Moved an essay of yours

I have moved User talk:Sinneed\ButImNotShared to User talk:Sinneed/ButImNotShared. The subtle difference in title meant that your essay was not in your user subspace, but was rather on the talk page of a nonexistent user named Sinneed\ButImNotShared. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Kripalu

Had been looking forward to your work with John Carter on this article, but am so far disappointed.

Calamitybrook (talk) - that was at - 02:55, 6 November 2009

I fear I have no idea what you are talking about.- Sinneed 02:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Please don't post on my talk page

I really appreciate your conformance with my wishes!

Thank you so much!!!

Calamitybrook (talk) 23:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

ASTRID 2 particle storage ring

I don't mind your revert. I was just merging some stubs. I don't know what an SA is but I can just put a mention of this with a "see main article" type of thing, in the article I just created. I will look on the talk page of the article. I forgot it has one again :). Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 04:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI peripheral ANI mention

Hi Sinneed, you are not being discussed, but I did provide a diff of one of your edits to prove I wasn't you. (I know that sounds strange.)

See Wikipedia:ANI#Roman_Polanski_interpreter_or_referee_needed and note the strike-out in the second paragraph.

The claim was that I (Proofreader77) had been demonstrating WP:Own over the tag up top of Roman Polanski. There was also mention of an "annoying" conversation on the talk page, which I determined was probably this one.

Bottom line: you are not under discussion, and I can't imagine you will be, but want you to know that the matter of the top tag was mentioned in a negative characterization about me, and I illustrated that it would have had to been you—which resulted in some striking out. Your name and the link remain as rebuttal to the now stricken sentences. I think that covers it. Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 06:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Just thought I would thank you!

The RfA for Atama reminded me of our interaction on Talk:World of Warcraft, and in retrospect I want to thank you for your kind words towards me and the end result of our discussions. I don't think there is anything better than a passionate discussion to gain concensus, with a friendly ending! So, once again, thank you, it is nice to see friendship between editors. --Taelus (talk) 12:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Odd edit from anti-school activist (heading added by Sinneed)

Sineed, your not being very helpful on the talk:family foundation school site. Everyone is focusing on the content. We are trying to be neutral and understanding to both sides, but you seem to not be focusing on the content that is there including the abuse allegations. If a facility has such an uprising of abusive conditions being alleged by over fifty alumni, that needs to be part of the content. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise for a school like FFS, wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral FREE ENCYCLOPEDIA. By omitting content, like you are doing, you are clearly showing bias and not allowing valid content to be included and you are doing a dis-service to wikipedia readers. Please stop doing that Flyboi9 (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Your missive contains a number of errors and stated or implied falsehoods. You should review and understand how you are failing to follow the guidelines I have provided for your, then follow them. If you continue down this path, you will eventually be unable to edit.- Sinneed 20:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello again!

Hey, can I use that parable of the man, the boy, and the donkey on my page? I love that story. Oh, by the way, I succumbed to temptation and used the bots to archive my talk page. The Arbiter^★_★^★ 02:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course you may. :) I do not believe it is a copy, though it is based on a similar traditional story. - Sinneed 03:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! The Arbiter^★_★^★ 22:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Re : Quick Way to Revert

Hi Sineed this user has made lots of Vandal type edits, and has been blocked. Is there a quick way of reverting his edits. I have tried to do some but simply have not got the time. Thanks --Sikh-History 17:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Might be worth asking at the ANI thread for a mass-revert, but I really don't know. I am sorry I did not know enough about the subject to quickly be able to ask for a block... but I just don't.  :( - Sinneed 17:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

User Proofknow‎

s/He has done 5 of the same reverts. I've warned him about 3RR.Can he be blocked for the reverts before the warning?Cathar11 (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I have opened a 3RR violation thread at wp:3rrnb, probably the editor will be warned sternly.

I think we both agree the deleted section belongs, but needs work. If you are interested, perhaps you would propose new wording on the talk page? The article is not badly harmed over the short term by having the content ommitted, and it would be a show of wp:good faith to propose an alternative, even though the deleting editor declines to do so.- Sinneed 00:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Last edit

Sinneed - sorry about that (I was just trying to add some substance). Your changes work for me! Apologies Staff3 (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Kripalu

Thanks for formatting. Very helpful Calamitybrook (talk) 01:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome.- Sinneed 03:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Please limit discussion of Kripalu edits to that article's talk page. :In fact I request that you refrain entirely from posting on my talk page. :Thanks. Calamitybrook (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

December 2009

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at talk:Proton therapy, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Stop now. Mdphd2012 (talk) 23:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Warning the editor for abuse of template.- Sinneed 23:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear fellow user. Please refrain from insulting editors and then chastising them for displaying similar behavior as you did on talk:Proton therapy. From your edit history it appears that you are a professional at having other users blocked. Keep up the good work! And feel free to slap a few more templates on my user page. Mdphd2012 (talk) 23:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Opened ANI thread. Editor returned from block and immediately returned to disruption.- Sinneed 10:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Sockpuppet

Please add your comments here Thanks --Sikh-History 09:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry friend, been up 20 hours. I'll try to look at it when I have slept. :) - Sinneed 10:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Greetings!

Just thought I'd introduce myself, since it seems we might have got off not on the best of feet. You seem to be doing quality work, and I commend your humility. Please don't take my edits harshly, and I will keep it in mind to keep a cool head while editing. :-) Peace and prosperity, Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 21:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas, Vanished User 1004! At this time of year, I would like to extend seasons greetings to the Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past year on Wikipedia. I wish you a wonderful holiday season! The Arbiter★★★

Lazy revert

Regarding Biocentrism, I looked briefly and couldn't find the discussion you mentioned. But I find it highly doubtful that the compromise you mentioned included missing closed parentheses, extra spaces, unnecessary ellipses, etc. Here's an idea: Rather than saying "some of that looked good but sorry" and undoing five minutes of work with a ten-second revert, maybe I can interest you in taking a moment to see what edits you do accept, and then making those changes to improve the article? Is that too much to ask? I know, that takes more than ten seconds. But in being lazy you just made the paragraph look sloppy again.

By the way, the Deepak Chopra link is dead so I'm removing the quote. I expect that you won't revert it just because I didn't clear the edit with you first. -Jordgette (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking at what I think is the talk-page section you're referring to, I don't see a lot of argument about any of the things I changed. I see that the paragraph was proposed and re-proposed until there was consensus. So, does that mean the paragraph can never be changed again, even to fix typos? I wasn't aware of this Wikipedia policy....

If you do take a moment to restore some of my typo fixes, then I request that you consider what actually was and was not discussed on the talk page. -Jordgette (talk) 20:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You wrote:

Making large-scale edits all at once places later editors in the situation of either reverting ("throwing the baby out with the bathwater"), editing in detail to fix things, or leaving as-is. Each of us makes a choice, and clearly mine was not the one you would have made. I understand, and I am sorry you don't approve. [on my talk page]

Fair enough...when I have some time later, I'll go through the discussion, and then I'll make individual edits to the paragraph to clean it up (again). I will do my best not to go against the consensus that was established, so in return I ask that if you choose to revert any of the edits, you'll reason fairly and appropriately in the edit summary. Please understand that I'm trying to improve the article in good faith. I hope my judgments won't be disregarded simply because I wasn't party to a discussion four months ago.

In my defense, though, I've made large-scale cleanups to many paragraphs and articles in the past, and this is honestly the first time someone has unilaterally wiped away my work with one click. As an actual (print) editor for many years, I really do not like seeing multiple typos re-introduced to anything after spending time to fix them. I hope you can at least understand why I protest. -Jordgette (talk) 22:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits on the Human Rights foundation page. I am trying to sort through what appears as a civil war between editors and you appear to be quite the champion for proper editing!Verdadseadicha (talk) 00:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

You Are Overstepping The Mark

First you incorrectly warn me, now you are reverting incorrectly without joining the discussion. I have notified an Admin about you behaviour. You should know better. Regards --Sikh-History 14:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Warning, as so many times before, appropriate. Stop edit warring. Make your edits in detail. Stay to the sources, rather than to your own strongly held and expert wp:POV.- Sinneed 14:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Err no Sineed, for some reson I cannot warn you on your talk page, so it looks like I am the person doing the bad things. Regards --Sikh-History 14:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Deferring to your strongly held opinion: arguing is pointless.

"for some reson I cannot warn you" - but you did warn me: "You are overstepping the mark" etc. That would be a warning. Whether I accept your point of view or not, I have read and understood your position.- Sinneed 14:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Akhand Kirtani Jatha

I have not yet understood the detail of the content dispute you are engaged in but I must ask you to:

• refrain from characterising good faith edits as vandalism just because you disagree with them[1]
• leaving 3RR and other "warnings" on other peoples talk pages when you are just guilty of the same.

I see that there is the start of a discussion to resolve the differences on the talk page of the article. I would urge you to participate in this in a measured and civil fashion and see what compromise/consensus can be reached. If I see any more edit warring and/or misplaced accusations of vandalism I will have no hesitation in starting to apply blocks, page protection or whatever it takes to stop it. Now please, go to the talk page of the article and settle your differences there Nancy ^talk 14:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

1 - If you reread, you may find that I did not.

2 - My objection is to having the edits rolled back as vandalism.- Sinneed 14:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

You incorrectly warned me on my talk page. Regards --Sikh-History 14:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I defer to your strongly held opinion.- Sinneed 14:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I hold no opion, but expressing the opinion of 4 authors on this subject that know better than you and me. Regards--Sikh-History 14:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

"You incorrectly warned me on my talk page." - that would be opinion.- Sinneed 14:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Both of you please stop this bickering. We're here to build an encyclopaedia not to score points and have the last word. Nancy ^talk 14:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Disengaging at this point.- Sinneed 14:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably sensible for a short while. As I have just said on my own talk page, maybe in future it would be better to go to the article talk page as a first resort not a last. A simple edit summary along the lines of "reverting change, taking to talk" would do the trick and would prevent the situation deteriorating in to an edit war/slanging match which is just a waste of everybody's time. Nancy ^talk 14:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Posted a long reply there, no need to repeat. SH is truly an expert... with all the upside and downside that entails.- Sinneed 14:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Xmas

I'm bowing out to enjoy my Xmas with my family. I really don't want to be involved in bickering Best Wishes, and Merry Christmas. --Sikh-History 14:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

All the best. Have a safe and happy holiday season.- Sinneed 14:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

re: Talk:Hononegah Community High School

Thanks for the input at this talk page. I am trying my hand at assessment, and as such try and be careful to give a good explanation, and to mark it as "provisional" until I get some more input. I think I may almost be ready to do this more on my own, and it is back up like you provide that helps give me some confidence. Thanks, and happy editing! LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Lauren Bernat

I recently recreated the article as Wii Fit Girl and was quickly reverted due to the previous AfD. However, I feel that the version I wrote clearly addressed the complaints of the article being about someone who is famous for only the YouTube video, in spite of the fact that she has been sued for the video, the lawsuit being covered by several news media outlets such as Fox News, she has appeared as a spokesperson for Electronic Arts' EA Sports Active, and has spawned several homages and "copycats". Perhaps the original version that was deleted seemed to be covering a person who was only famous for one thing, but this one I think clearly shows that she has done more than just be the Wii Fit Girl. If you could give your opinion on the matter to me, that would be excellent. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Dollars

I explain the edits. The edits are consistent with Wikipedia's Manual of Style (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29#Currencies)

This is what the Manual said.

Use the full name of a currency on its first appearance (52 Australian dollars); subsequent occurrences can use the symbol of the currency (just $88), unless this would be unclear. The exception to this is in articles related entirely to US-, EU-, or UK-related topics, in which the first occurrence may also be shortened ($34, €26, and £22, respectively), unless this would be unclear, and in places where space is limited such as tables, infoboxes, and parenthetical notes. When there are different currencies using the same symbol, use the full abbreviation (e.g. US$ for the United States dollar and AU$ for the Australian dollar, rather than just $) unless the currency which is meant is clear from the context.

Readers don't need to be told that a university in the U.S. uses U.S. dollars and not Nicaraguan córdobas. That would amount to patronizing users. Similarly readers don't need to be told that in England, Oxford University uses British pounds sterling, and not Egyptian pounds.Iss246 (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

No, you did not enter an edit summary. I understand the argument. Since WP runs on wp:consensus, and since it seems a number of individuals are reverting these edits, I encourage you to follow a different course of action, but that is just one opinion.- Sinneed 19:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It is true that I did not include an explanation at Loyola University Maryland. I am sorry. I thought my explanations to the two Wikipedia editors would be sufficient justification. I explained my position to two Wikipedia editors, one of whom raised the Manual of Style, and prevailed upon them. I underline the point that that the Manual of Style is consistent with the changes I made. Moreover, I object to including links to explain minutiae such as Oxford uses British pounds, and not Lebanese pounds, or a college in Baltimore, Maryland uses dollars, not Nicaraguan córdobas. There is plenty of important material for Wikipedia to cover.Iss246 (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It is adequate. We just disagree. Indeed, there is too much important work for WP editors to do, not to have their work removed because it is not required. Thus, please leave our edits in. I have made a proposal at the MOS to change the document to make it clear that the explanation on the units, while not required, is acceptable. I expect to make that change, as there seems no reason not to allow the clarification of units. - Sinneed 19:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I appreciate that we disagree. I didn't see the issue raised in the MOS discussion. If you decide to make your view known to the editors, I recommend that you also make my view known. My view is that we should not include information that patronizes users. I refer to information that informs users through a link that Oxford's endowment is in British pounds and a Baltimore university's is in U.S. dollars. Including the pound sign and the dollar sign are sufficient given the context. In other words, we don't need an explanation of monetary units next to the endowment figures as long as we use pound signs, dollar signs, Euro signs. I prefer to leave the MOS intact. It works satisfactorily. Thanks.Iss246 (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I prefer to leave the MOS intact (and it will be intact after my proposed addition). My view is also that we should not include information that patronizes users. We simply disagree.

But I don't see it working satisfactorily: it seems unclear to you as I see it, and you seem to believe it is unclear to me, and to several other editors in various articles. To me, the wikilinks you are removing are useful, and allowed but not required. To you, they are undesirable, as the link "patronizes". You may make your opinion known here. I will not speak for you.- Sinneed 21:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

List of Freemasons and Reflist

On 11 September 2009, you left a message at User talk:Dispenser/Reflinks to say that Reflinks wasn't working with List of Freemasons. I wanted to let you know that I ran Reflinks on that page and formatted many of the references. I hope that helps. I am not Dispenser, the author of Reflinks; I just came across your message while leaving Dispenser a message. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Reflinks can be found at http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/view/Reflinks -- Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Your help requested for the Biocentrism page

Dear Sinneed, You were invaluable to creating the new "Biocentrism" page. You did an incredible job, as reflected in the expoential increase in number of people who have since used the resource (over 2,000 people on some days). Unfortunately, somebody changed the main biocentrism page. Does one individual have the authority to make this decision? Over 90% of material and entries on Google and other major search engines refer to biocentrism in the scientific/cosmological sense of the word. And the audience profile of the "Biocentrism" page (for Wikipedia as a public resource) tracks precisely to articles that appear periodically about biocentrism (the scientific theory). The decision to change this shouldn;t depend on one person's bias and/or prejudices (or whether they personally like the idea or not).Do you know how this can be corrected? Any help would be appreciated. - Staff3 (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Because of what I see as the tendentious nature of many of the edits on Lanza-related articles, I had dropped this from my watch list. I have restored the main Biocentrism article to it, and made a comment supporting the change tentatively. It seems appropriate, as I see it. - Sinneed 20:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Video game vs. computer game

Actually, all computer games are video games, so I think my moves were warranted. Either way, I don't see how they were contentious. Computer and console games refer to a specific platform, and the articles are platform exclusive. "Video games" refers to all electronic games. And as for the (gaming) disambiguations, they are too broad unless they refer to other types of games besides video games, such as Quest (gaming).--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I think you should start a discussion on WP:VG instead because I doubt those pages are highly frequented. But "video games for the blind" are an extremely small subset of video games and do not contain those gameplay mechanics mentioned in the articles. And as for text-based games, the video game article states, "However, with the popular use of the term "video game", it now implies any type of display device.". It doesn't necessarily have to look like a moving picture.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you take a Look at this

Hi Sineed, could you take a look at this please, and the issue 3swordz has with it, as I maybe a little biased. Thanks --Sikh-History 18:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Gerald Ford portrait

Hi Sinneed. I noticed you removed the official White House Portrait of President Gerald Ford after I placed it in the Presidency section of that same article. The President's portraits are among the most distinguished in the world and it is relevant particularily to the Presidency section of the article as it is the portrait that is commissioned by the President for the White House corrodors. My question is why did you remove it from the article when it has a very just use in to be there. Thanks, Mruserbox (talk) 11:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Article talk on article talk pages. wp:edit summaries may help as well.- Sinneed 17:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Terrorism

Hi Sinneed,

I have been discussing about terrorism for years to no avail. Nobody knows the bibliography nor wants to consult it. Everybody keeps saying trivial and coloquial things that go nowhere. I decided to abandon the discussions in the three pages where was going on. I left these messages for people who can come in the future, not for the editors who where now there. I was alluding to the fact that the debate must be based on scholar literature and not in impressions taken from daily press.

But you are right. Respect to others is paramount and I am nobody to judge why people is always disagreeing with scholars and world renowned academic experts.

I apologize also to you. Sorry.--Igor21 (talk) 18:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Immature PA (section head added by Sinneed)

Dude, really. It's THAT important to you that people don't think Maddox is a sell-out? Really? Even though it is all over the internet and even he posted commentary on his own redditt? Get a life, you raging tool. Addicted to Wikipedia? Guess what you were able to accomplish with that? You won a Wikipedia battle with someone who decided it is not worth laboring over. I hope your mom brings you dinner down to the basement while you play World of Warcraft. Sess44 (talk) 06:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Above is in reference to Maddox (writer) edit. Warned.- Sinneed 17:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You're a pussy and a cunt. Ooooooh, Wikipedia warned? Gutless coward. Two thousand years ago you would have been stoned to death. I don't give a shit if I get warned or banned. I don't live on my computer the way you do. While you're sitting at home feeling like a big shot because you edited a Wikipedia page, I am out enjoying fresh air and enjoying life. You are pathetic and you make me glad abortion is gaining popularity. Kill yourself and video tape it so the whole world can get joy out of it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sess44 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 24 February 2010

Deadlink

Please fix deadlink in VRML by using Internet Archive replacement, I cannot, because article is protected. 79.191.247.179 (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Done! :) And thank you. - Sinneed 20:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Please label added reference by "Media Machines Management" name which is its title, because it now shows ugly number in brackets. Generally, I for deadlinks of any sort, propose you always use Internet Archive available at http://www.archive.org site. 83.10.103.195 (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

No, thank you. Generally, I for deadlinks of any sort, propose you fix it. The {{deadlink}} and {{editsemiprotected}} flag exists so that interested editors will be prompted, as in this case, to find the replacement link. In any event, any time you find such a dead link and cannot edit the article, {{editprotected}} or {{editsemiprotected}} on the article talk page will likely accomplish the result you seek. All the best, and happy editing. You might also go ahead and log in to your main account, and fix it from there. All the best, and happy editing.- Sinneed 15:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Edited for error, with appologies. - Sinneed 16:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I tried and I get "This page is currently semi-protected and can be edited only by established registered users" so please fullfill my request. Thanks. 83.10.103.195 (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

No. Good day. And ... log in to your main account before posting here again. The article talk page is not protected, feel free if you are interested to use the tools I reminded you of, above.- Sinneed 15:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you unprotect VRML and X3D - I have no account and for single edit I will not create it. 83.10.103.195 (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Request to take part in a discussion about retention of an image

Hi there is a discussion going on at Talk:Star_Wars_Episode_VI:_Return_of_the_Jedi#Retention_of_comparative_photo_of_digital_manipulation on whether to retain an image, it seems that the discussion is stuck between two editors only, it would be great if you could chip in. LegalEagle (talk) 09:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Kent Emmons Wikipedia Page

Hi Sinneed,

Thanks a lot for replying I do understand there are some rules and regulations to be followed and I do understand that Wikipedia is not about fame and popularity.Its just we had been trying to post the page from long time and every single moment the content is being deleted .I would like to tell you we are not doing it for fame and popularity.

We are putting this content on Wikipedia, just want people to know more about Mr.Kent Emmons.

Secondly the content has been provided to us by Mr.Kent Emmons itself as I had told you in my previous talk.Mr.Kent is also even keen to know that why this is happening.

Hope you will understand what kind of status we are on right now.

It was really nice having a conversation with you.I will appreciate if you could help us further in this case.

With Loads of Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shikhakaul (talk • contribs) 05:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Sumedh Singh Article

I will purposefully stay away from editing this article for few days. Now that it is under your scanner, I believe it is in right hands. Thanks for help and advice. I do not know the WP regulations as well as the Admins. That is why I had sought help in first place to prevent the edit war. Please assume good faith about any perceived mistake. It part of the learning curve. Thanks again.--History Sleuth (talk) 00:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Remember I am not an admin. I don't think you need time away from teh article and encourage you to continue your work. IMO you have made good contributions, I just can't support all of them... I can't even support all of what *I* do after I read it again.- Sinneed 00:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sinneed...I have responded to your message on my user page. I have also proposed a few edits on the Discussion page of Sumedh Singh Saini article. Please give them your attention at your earliest convenience. Thanks.--History Sleuth (talk) 04:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

From ATPerrin

Hello Sinneed!

It seems you have edited several of the pages I have edited, and so I was wondering if you are also from the Northern Kentucky/Greater Cincinnati Area or if it was just a coincidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ATPerrin (talk • contribs) 02:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I have been there, but my editing interest is a combination of clicking "random article", searching for information for whatever (and fixing whatever I can), and following vandals or edit disputes. Your note caused me to check, and I have edited over 6,000 different articles, including talk pages and project pages. All the best, and happy editing. :) - Sinneed 15:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds a lot like me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by ATPerrin (talk • contribs) 02:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Terrorism Article

Hi Sinneed,

I'm looking to establish a consensus on an addition to the terrorism article I'm proposing. So far I've taken into consideration several suggestions, including one from Bonifacius, saying it should be inserted under definition of terrorism#Scholars and recognized experts on terrorism, after the quotation from Vallis. I think this would keep the original article from being too unwieldy, while correctly classifying it as a more academic distinction.

Also, regarding your previous objection, there is a good degree of media coverage on the topic, and it is emerging as an important theoretical distinction that affects the discussion considerably, especially vis-a-vis counter-terrorism policy. I was hoping I could include you in the discussion, and benefit from your opinions. Ultimately, I'd like to get you on board with the addition, including your modifications or ideas to the proposed addition.

Uclabruin1 (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Uclabruin1

MoveOn Organization

Hello Sinneed. Thanks again for your help with the MoveOn article. I have posted on the MoveOn talk page and want to know what you think. Thanks! DD2K (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

COI

I'm not saying you have a COI because you have an opinion. You have a COI because you believe that you originated the term mob, as you have self-documented. The psychology of this leading to your current behavior is so obvious as to be cliche. —chaos5023 (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The above was in response to the following at User talk:Chaos5023, which was itself a response to a wp:PA at talk:Mob (computer gaming):

wp:AGF, wp:COI and wp:edit war

Not everyone with an opinion has a wp:COI. Remember to wp:AGF, and to be cautious of wp:PA. It would be better to say "It seems you might have a COI.", for example. Or to ask. Finally, when in an edit dispute, leave the flags in, and discuss. wp:edit warring your changes into an article, and most especially warring warning flags out, is bad.- Sinneed 15:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

This is at Mob (computer gaming), sorry. - Sinneed 15:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

To that, I replied:

I did not say that. I did not imply it. If you or any other editor inferred it, you erred.- Sinneed 15:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You may safely answer here as I will watch, if you wish, or you are of course welcome on my talk page.- Sinneed 15:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

All the above has been deleted at User talk:Chaos5023. - Sinneed 21:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Baldly throwing around the wp:PA characterization is a bit much, but whatever. I did indeed delete the above; as a matter of policy I delete things from my userspace that make my day worse than it had been when I look at them. Apparently you're going to make something of it. Also whatever. —chaos5023 (talk) 03:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

"Baldly throwing around the wp:PA characterization is a bit much" - not at all.- Sinneed 03:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

So this is, what, documentation of the case you're building about what a bad person I am? A little ammunition stockpile? Cute. —chaos5023 (talk) 04:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

No, this is recording the rest of a conversation where an editor posted an incorrect warning on my talk page, and in an article talk page.

(outdent)- Sinneed 05:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

From what I can tell, I was wrong about the COI. It don't see you having claimed to have originated the term "mob", only to have personal knowledge of its real, true derivation that its sourcable origins are actually a bowdlerization of. Still seems like a pretty obvious line from there, to having your version taken out because it's unsourcable, to a long-standing pique that means everybody who wants to make any change to the article must meet the most rigorous conceivable standards of sourcing and NPOV, since if your OR and POV can't go in, nobody's can. —chaos5023 (talk) 05:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

"real, true" - read again. And yes, it was wp:OR...in 2008. Usage. Not derivation. Suggested reading wp:NOR and wp:AGF. Talmud: We see the world not as it is, but as we are. In a sense, you are correct. In 2008 I came to understand the wp:OR did not belong in Wikipedia... though your drawing a line from learning to vindictiveness is again, a wp:PA. Stop. Now. This would be a second warning for wp:PA.- Sinneed 05:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm irritated by the authoritarian language, but I'll get over it. I don't honestly mean to be attacking you by describing that line, but rather calling your attention to something in hopes that you will chill out. Do you know what this whole process is like from my perspective? It's like I was blithely going along, fixing up articles, and suddenly in this one article there was a troll lurking under the bridge that leaped out at me and started doing this incredibly vigorous legalistic stuff, as if I were trying to edit in articles about the Middle East or something. From the way you talk the rest of the time, it seems bizarre and unlikely to me that you'd want to be that guy, the obstructionist editor you talk about in your rather thoughtful "WP-WP_editor_COI" article. So it's just like, what's going on, dude? I dunno, maybe I'm just crazy. —chaos5023 (talk) 05:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

"chill out" - you might review the talk pages, here and there, and note any all-caps, bolded text, personal attacks, multiple exclamation marks, and read your "chill out" again. You might also review your edits, where you removed compromise wording and inserted your personal truth, and review your "that guy, the obstructionist editor" thought.- Sinneed 06:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Further, if you study carefully, you may be able to discern that the compromise wording I and others had in the article, before you began your POV-push to put the unpublished truth into Wikipedia, did indeed still contain information that failed wp:V or was clearly wp:OR: The statement that it probably came from Dr. Bartle's usage, and the supplying of the 1980 date from the email correspondence. But you removed those, though no one objected to them, that I have heard. Perhaps you might read your paragraph above, with your actions in mind. You might also review the sheer bulk of {{CN}} tags you have added to the article, and read your paragraph again.- Sinneed 05:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Mmm... are the CN tags a big deal? We have the whole "needs sourcing" thing up top, which I thought we could get rid of with additional cites, but you disagreed and wanted all statements sourced, so it seemed like it'd be helpful to be able to clearly see which of the statements are unsourced. I'll get rid of them if it's going to cause some kind of trouble. —chaos5023 (talk) 05:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't take out the 1980 date because I objected to it, I took it out in the attempt to placate the angry troll PERSON WHO IS JUMPING ALL OVER MY CASE, by "hewing to sources" as you demanded. It has often been obscure to me exactly what you're unhappy with, especially when you strenuously object to one piece of OR or POV and not another nearby. On at least one occasion I've removed both only to find that you didn't mind the second one. It's pretty confusing. The article didn't say what you're indicating about "probably coming from Dr. Bartle's usage" before I started editing. —chaos5023 (talk) 06:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

"but you disagreed and wanted all statements sourced" - That want exists only in your mind, not in mine.

I said "So what do we need to do in order to get us to the point where we can remove the refimprove from this article?", you said "Find sources for the unsourced bits?". Doesn't that, y'know, mean "all statements sourced"? —chaos5023 (talk) 06:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion: find sources. Action: add more tags. I see a contrast here.- Sinneed 06:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

"I'll get rid of them if it's going to cause some kind of trouble." - Not trouble, just needlessly uglies-up the article. You are the adding editor.

Hmm. Okay. I am not in favor of needless uglying-up. I'll kill them. —chaos5023 (talk) 06:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) - Sinneed 05:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Re "real, true", it keeps showing you saying 'So, bad news, NO, MOB does NOT mean "MObile oBject" or "Mobile OBject". That is a "prettying up" like "SLUF" being "Short Little Ugly Fellow" and "BUFF" meaning "Big Ugly Fat Fellow".' however many times I read it. —chaos5023 (talk) 05:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is a difference between an article page, and a talk page. And, again, I supported the removal of my newbie-editor wp:OR from the article, and sincerely thanked the editor who came through and did the work, and am sorry the editor did not return. And someone, back in 2008, pointed out wp:sarcasm to me after I made that and similar smart-ass remarks.- Sinneed 05:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I give up

Okay, with this thing where you're throwing procedural warnings at me because I used "angry troll" in reference to the distressed and confused way the situation appeared to me, I guess I just can't talk to you any more because I'm putting myself at risk of offending you all the time, which I guess has some nebulously horrible set of consequences. Sorry I did anyway. You seem like a good guy in your overall philosophy. Best wishes. —chaos5023 (talk) 06:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

At the very worst, the only consequence here is that we can't edit. Here, the only thing that would happen would be that an admin would tell me I am being a horse's ass, and tell you not make wp:PA, even when the other editor is being a horse's ass.

I would encourage you to focus on the edits, not the editors.

To stick to the sources, and if that isn't practical, seek compromise on the talk page.

Not to remove article tags added by others without wp:consensus.

To ignore the motivations of others entirely, focus only on what they do, not why.

Not post in all caps.

Not use derogatory terms in reference to others.

Not post when angry. I try not even to edit when angry, it colors my thinking.- Sinneed 06:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I am certain that that is excellent advice. —chaos5023 (talk) 06:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I hope it is good advice. People who seem much smarter and wiser than I have told me all those things, and I try to follow them. With mixed success.- Sinneed 06:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Appreciate your feelings

I can appreciate your feelings on the matter at the JP article, but please do not remove sections or text made by other users, regardless of how you feel about it. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines clearly states this is only acceptable if it is blatant vandalism. Other text should be left as is or archived. What happened with that user is also in no way impacting our discussions on the article - in fact, it looks like those nicknames are going to be restored as consensus has made a good case. Your edits and comments have been very beneficial to that article and I would hate to see you get into hot water for removing other's comments from the talk page. -OberRanks (talk) 14:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see wp:talk, and the advice from 2 uninvolved editors concerning your behaviour on the talk page. Please rest assured that I will be in no hot water over removing those remarks. I will remove them if restored. If you would like, I can open a thread at wp:WQA, but you already have input from the community on the fact that the remarks are not appropriate.- Sinneed 15:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Per your objection, I have archived your inappropriate remarks. Please do not do this again.- Sinneed 15:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi Sinnead, this is 3swordz, you helped mediate a tiff between me and Sikh-History a while back regarding Harmandir Sahib. We've hit another roadblock in the "Jatt Sikh" article. Your help would be appreciated.

For context regarding the matter, it's on his talk page under the same heading. First things first, would this news article be acceptable for sourcing in the wiki article: Caste System Among Sikhs in Punjab by ratan saldi http://www.asiantribune.com/node/18221. i've seen articles like these being used for citation frequently (same type of article as the previous argument) and Sikh-History had no problem citing from it until he did a 180 and deemed it unfit when I looked through it and quoted it correctly. Sure it's not academically ideal but it's pretty good for South Asian article citation standards, and it is mostly definitely not pro-Jatt.

If you deem it completely worthless and explain, I will try to accept it; otherwise Sikh History needs to be cool with it and cool it with the smears. He's got it in his head that any description of Jatt Sikhs is Jatt showboating and nothing else (and in his words the info will provoke "phallus-comparing" between Jatts and non-Jatts, his main complaint), and has been calling me a racist for no reason.

The info I was maintaining simply dealt with Jatt agricultural ownings, and their proportion to other Sikhs (he thinks "at least half" and "50-60%" are not majorities) He is only wary of an uproar/"big-up" contest. I did not add this info or the source, but I think it is very relevant and want to maintain it. I have succeeded in having him fix one of his own major screw-ups, though he credits other editors for pointing it out. Anyway, your help would be appreciated. Sorry for the hassle. Again, for context, it's on his talk page under "Jatt Sikh."3swordz (talk) 10:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Mediation

A mediation request has been filed at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/John J. Pershing. It will be necessary for you to visit the page and sign your agreement to accept mediation in this section. Thanks! -OberRanks (talk) 16:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no, that is not the case. Can't say "I Agree", and I don't disagree, so I won't respond there. I hope I can help with the discussion, but until there is new information, I don't even know how I can do that.- Sinneed 16:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Can I take your name off as one of the involved parties? -OberRanks (talk) 16:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes you may, I have no objection.

I fear that mediation will be no more successful than efforts have been so far. MK seems dedicated to getting a preferred version into the article. You and Base seem dedicated to being confrontational with MK. Until that changes, I expect poor progress.

I am very dubious of the appropriateness of the infobox listing, but am open to the idea, should someone produce sourcing that indicates this is a nickname under which he is widely known. Otherwise, I see it as (however unintentionally) just giving voice to hatemongers under the cloak of the wp:pillars "Not Censored" bit. Also Parkinson's Law of Triviality may apply.- Sinneed 19:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Sunny Leone

Just want to give you a heads-up as a frequent editor to the Sunny Leone article that it has been given a review to see if it could be called a good article. Unfortunately, it failed, but the feedback from the review is available at Talk:Sunny Leone/GA1, which gives concrete advice on how to improve the article. Tabercil (talk) 03:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I saw that. I was rather shocked to see it nominated.- Sinneed 04:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I nominated it kinda on a lark, more to see where it stood on the quality scale than anything else. The fact that it failed didn't surprise me too much, but it does give some concrete direction for work on the article. <G> Tabercil (talk) 04:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, well, I read that after I posted it and reallized it sounded a bit hard... I think it is a nice B article but turning it into a GA, I couldn't see right away. ;) - Sinneed 04:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

John Pershing

I just want to go a bit further to clarify, as there seems to be a misunderstanding between us. I am not "speculating" about the motivations of editors. I am just going by what they have written. Of those that are opposed to displaying the nickname in the infobox, there appear to be two camps. One does not wanted it included because it creates undue weight, with which I disagree. The other does not want it included because it is offensive, with which policy seems to disagree. I'm just trying to clarify which debate we're having.Mk5384 (talk) 01:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I am truly at a loss to understand what you're saying. Again, I am not speculating, but going by what others are saying. You seem to feel that this is a taboo subject of discussion, and I don't get it.Mk5384 (talk) 12:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I have been as clear as I know how, and am sorry my remarks have proven unhelpful. All the best, and happy editing.- Sinneed 16:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

As much as I would just like to forget about all of this, the debate about the Pershing article seems far from over, so I would again, like to attempt to clear this up. I have gone out of my way to be anything but disruptive. Since the article was unprotected, I have made a grand total of 1 edit (or 3 including the 2 to correct punctuation), and on the talk page I have been nothing but civil. I have taken statements made by other editors, and have agreed or disagreed with them, whilst giving my reasons why. Now if you disagree with something I have said on the talk page, then by all means, disagree with me. But please stop telling me what I am and am not allowed to say. I hope that this is now resolved between the two of us. And likewise, all the best, and happy editing.Mk5384 (talk) 17:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

"But please stop telling me what I am and am not allowed to say." - As I have not started doing so, I cannot stop telling you what you are or are not allowed to say. In any event, I am moving on, and do not plan to discuss this any further, as it seems unproductive. I am willing to continue the conversation if you wish, however.- Sinneed 19:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

If you're done with this conversation, that's fine by me. It's a shame that there seems to have been a gap in communication between the two of us that we couldn't bridge. Oh well; no harm no foul. All the best.Mk5384 (talk) 04:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yay!

I got my watch list under 300 400 entries. Yikes.- Sinneed 21:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Another attempt at JP

Just a friendly notice that there is further discussion occurring now at the John J. Pershing talk page. -OberRanks (talk) 17:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. All the best, and happy editing.- Sinneed 17:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

PETA talk, issues

Hi, thank you for your input on the WQA forum. Since the section appears to have been closed, I'm not sure if I can provide additional comment there -- I would have only added that the incivility seemed more from a cumulative effect rather than isolated incidents, so diffs would seem innocent enough without context. As I've since stated on the PETA talkpage, I may have overestimated the level of animosity among editors (it seemed like two editors were ganging up on a third, and that one of those two then continued the fight with me). I've been slowly catching up on archived discussions where I now see a genuine effort at cooperation for the most part. Thanks again. PrBeacon (talk) 06:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

South Korea

Thanks your concern. But, some of its 'word' are hoax. eg. US divided Korea?[2] Really? and article using many hoax-like words. 660gd4qo (talk) 19:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

No. The word "hoax" does not apply. Talk page on article talk pages.- Sinneed 19:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy note

You are receiving this message because an RFC has been initiated at Talk:John J. Pershing#RFC about a matter on which you may have commented in the past. Thank you, –xeno^talk 15:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Sovereign Grace Ministries

Hello Sinneed, this is a message from an automated bot to inform you that the page you created, Sovereign Grace Ministries, has been marked for speedy deletion by User:75.76.64.80. This has been done because the page is a blatant advert that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article (see CSD). If you think the tag was placed in error, please add "{{hangon}}" to the page text, and edit the talk page to explain why the page should not be deleted. If you have a question about this bot, please ask it at User talk:SDPatrolBot II. If you have a question for the user who tagged the article, see User talk:75.76.64.80. Thanks, - SDPatrolBot II (talk) on behalf of 75.76.64.80 (talk · contribs) 05:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Erm. 2 x problems. I didn't create it, and it isn't tagged. Weird.- Sinneed 05:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Known bot problem, it is being repaired.- Sinneed 12:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion discussion of The National Association of Professional Women

See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_April_29#The_National_Association_of_Professional_Women. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Your re-prod of Victor Cline

I see that you added back a prod to Victor Cline, an article that you yourself had previously prodded and for which the prod was contested. Please don't do that. The prod process only allows an article to be prodded once. Regardless of the reason for contesting it, and whether or not you agree with the decision to contest it, it cannot be prodded again. If you still feel it should be deleted, you need to use AFD instead. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to have wasted your time with this error, I should have checked the edit history, obviously should have AfD instead. Fixed.- Sinneed 16:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

ok - Profitoftruth85 on Sikh extremism

Ok, wrong choice of words. When I said offensive I meant to say you were being dismissive of a notable event. I shouldn't have said you were callous but you are never very clear in your objections so its hard to understand what you are trying to say. Also, I didn't know you thought me and Sikh-History had the same point of view...thats just wrong. If you don't think my sources are credible lets talk about that, but I am not projecting anything, I learned of the event through wikipedia in the first place!--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 20:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

"dismissive" - No. Psychological projection maybe.

"you are never very clear in your objections" - False.

"I didn't know you thought me and Sikh-History had the same point of view" - If you know that, you know incorrectly. I'll wait for the disputes between you to settle.

"I am not projecting anything" - You are assigning motives to others. Stop. Whatever your reasoning, it fails you, and seems to make it hard for you to understand. - Sinneed 20:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

edit the article to remove pov then.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 20:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I did. You objected. Then you expanded upon the PoV. The article is adequately tagged to warn readers of the PoV. Perhaps an interested editor will undertake the changes.- Sinneed 20:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

go play everquest then--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Editor warned.- Sinneed 20:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Please don't post on my talk page - O boy would I love our conversations to end

I believe I've made this request previously. I haven't read whatever it was you put there recently, and don't plan to. Thanks for compliance in this matter. - Calamitybrook (talk) 16:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The above was in response to:

Because you persist in discussing me, I have, as promised, returned here.

Please follow wp:talk page guidelines. Specific areas follow:

Please do not make remarks such as this "If you think of self as responsible editor..." followed by your personal point of view as to how I should handle my talk page posts again. If you feel you simply must, please do so at wp:WQA, wp:ANI, or my talk page, not on article talk pages.

Please indent to standard.

When editing out content you have put on the page, strike it through, rather than removing it, unless it is problematic (vandalism, wp:PA, etc.).

Please do not add text above a response, it is confusing. When it is needful, be sure to say so both in the edit summary, and in the text.

Please also see wp:POINT. If you find a need to indent my posts to standard, please do, but please don't indent them to your own strange (and warned about) personal idea of how WP should be indented.

If you would like, I can open another thread at wp:WQA to see if another editor might be willing to provide you with guidance on these areas.

I continue to encourage you to follow wp:dispute resolution, and to consider a wp:RfC, since you find my edit summaries, warnings, article tags, and talk page posts here and on the articles unhelpful.

Perhaps you will find input from others more useful this time.- Sinneed 04:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It would delight me if this exchange (which I will, as I have said post to your talk page) were our last. Should you honestly choose to end these conversations, simply do not reply, and do not mention me. Any such reply or post to which I choose to reply, I expect to reply to on your talk page. Again, I would love never to communicate with you again. But if you choose to communicate with me, please count on that happening on your talk page. Good day.- Sinneed 01:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Anything you put on my talk page, please be assured, isn't read by me.

Relevant talk should be on relevant talk page.

Otherwise, you are, in effect, merely talking to yourself.

Please stay off my talk page.

This is my third request. I'd be very gratified if you can follow this simple instruction. Calamitybrook (talk) 01:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It would delight me if this exchange (which I will, as I have said post to your talk page) were our last. Should you honestly choose to end these conversations, simply do not reply, and do not mention me. Any such reply or post to which I choose to reply, I expect to reply to on your talk page. Again, I would love never to communicate with you again. But if you choose to communicate with me, please count on that happening on your talk page. Good day - Sinneed 01:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism - nothing to see here

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at First Flight High School. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.--71.87.159.117 (talk) 20:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow, tsktsktsk, I rechecked what you have done. This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at First Flight High School, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --71.87.159.117 (talk) 20:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I smell dirty wp:SOCKs. :) Article locked to protect it from meat/sock assault. wp:SPI case opened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Daniel L. Barth as simply protecting the article will not protect the project, it seems.- Sinneed 20:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)