User talk:Pairadox/Archive 2

Welcome to my talk page

• If you post a message on this page, I'll reply on this page.
• If I've left you a message on your talk page, I will watch it for your response, so please reply there. RESPONSES LEFT HERE WILL BE MOVED TO YOUR PAGE.
• Please sign and date your comments by inserting four tildes (~~~~) at the end.

_{Talk page box taken from User talk:Danelo, who got it from User talk:Adambro (and modified it a bit)}

In recognition of your useful and helpful deletions, and in compensation for the unwarranted warning templates they earned you, I award you this brand-new one-of-a-kind Compensatory Barnstar. Happy editing! Eleland 00:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Pairadox, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

		The Invisible Barnstar
		Thank you for your continued work and assistance on User:SQL/Reflist, referencing and generally cleaning up articles that have needed attention for a long time. Your good work will go unseen unless someone disagrees ;) Jeepday (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		In recognition for your major edit of Patton Boggs LLP removing the self-promotional style of the article and for wikifying the article, as well as for having responded so kindly and constructively to my initital misplaced criticism Mschiffler (talk) 02:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

William M. Branham

If we omit the comments about "ChristBranham" from the EL section then I think the article will need another paragraph to explain what is considered "mainstream" and what is not. Is it the form of expression that concerns you or are you opposed to any brief explanatory notes in the EL section? Personally I think these can be a helpful guide to readers. My comment was not meant as a rebuttal but to inform readers that this particular link represents a very small minority view. My personal view about whether it is right or wrong was not implied. I can explain this more fully in the article with references but it hardly seems warranted imho. Rev107 (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Any comments beyond a simple, brief description of the link is inappropriate. If you wish to add another section of paragraph to the article, it would need to be properly sourced to reliable third party sources. Of course, the entire article needs a lot of work to bring it up to that standard - there's far too much reliance on primary sources, no section that shows he was in any way a controversial figure, and pretty much reads as an extension of the man's ministry instead of a NPOV Wikipedia article. Pairadox (talk) 21:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that "a simple, brief description of the link" is acceptable to you. However, I am still left wondering just what can be said that will not be deleted. The points that are most relevant imo: (1) this group ascribes divine status to William Branham; (2) their view is very atypical of the vast majority who follow the teachings of William Branham. Would you be willing to suggest a brief description that you would find acceptable? Your other comments are noted, and I agree. I will attempt to address some of the issues you have raised.Rev107 (talk) 07:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly? My first instinct is to just remove the link entirely. Barring that, I think the article would have to be expanded to include "fringe" offshoots before the link itself has any relevance. If you go decide to remove it, you may want to copy this entire section from my talk page to the article's talk page so there's a record of the discussion that led to that action. Pairadox (talk) 07:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I am intrigued as to which of my comments elicited the response; "Honestly?"  :) Thanks for the tip about copying your talk page to the main discussion page. Rev107 (talk) 07:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

That springs from my reluctance to remove links from religious articles when I don't know the more intricate details of that sect/denomination/branch. Pairadox (talk) 07:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Your Help with Editing "Adult-child sex" is Appreciated

I noticed that, due to rising tensions surrounding the ACS article and its current AfD, and because of disregard for proper Wikipedia procedure and policies by a number of regular editors and admins, you have decided to withdraw either permanently or temporarily from editing associated with this article. VigilancePrime and TlatoSMD have chosen to take a similar course of action. This saddens me, because contributions by upstanding Wikipedians such as yourselves are very helpful in the improvement process of controversial articles such as this. Your assistance will be greatly missed, if you choose to leave or hold back on editing the ACS article. Considering prior repeated attempts by select editors to ignore and violate Wikipedia policies and to do whatever is possible to destroy this piece, your civil, well-balanced, and rational editing will definitely be needed, no matter the outcome of the AfD. Although I realize that it is difficult to contribute when so many violations and incivilities are taking place, I urge you to return to this article as soon as you can. I will personally be happy to see you return, and I'm sure the article will be the better for it as well. Best regards, ~ Homologeo (talk) 05:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Re Saddleback Church

You took out reference to the worldwide recognition of the church. It is a true statement but I guess I'd like to know how to support it correctly. The church has been written about in dozens of well-known magazines like Time, Newsweek, Der Spiegel, etc., its senior pastor, Rick Warren is the author of one of the world's highest volume selling books (Purpose Driven Life - over 26 million copies for a single book and this is just for English. It is published in over 70 languages.) Should one really go to the trouble of citing all of this just to make that statement of world recognition? Thanks for your help. CarverM (talk) 05:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

To clarify: I removed the unreferenced sentence "Saddleback is currently one of the most well-known and influential churches in the world."

This sentence has a lot of problems. First, and probably the most minor, is that "currently" has no meaning and no place in an encyclopedia; Wikipedia:Avoid statements that will date quickly. Secondly, and more critically, you are also drawing a conclusion from the available facts. You assume that because it's gotten lots of coverage that it is well known and influencial. In order for such a statement to be included, you would need to find a source that definitively states it is one of the most well known and influencial. A few reliable third party sources at that, because exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Also, if you attend this church, I would direct your attention to the conflicts of interest guidelines. Pairadox (talk) 06:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do attend this church. I've read the conflict-of-interest section and understand what it is trying to do. However, can't one who knows the subject well still try and be objective and write a section that is encyclopedic in style? I'm not sure who wrote some of the stuff in this article but it needs quite a bit of work to be accurate and informative. So, couldn't I update it and then let the Wiki community ensure its NPOV? A corollary question: what does one do when an article contains criticism by someone obviously trying to denigrate? For example, I'm not clear on why the Obama issue needs to be in the article, it's not encyclopedic? Again, thanks for the clarifications; I'm new at this. --CarverM (talk) 06:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Since you are relatively new, I wanted to make sure you were aware of the COI guidelines; many newbies aren't. One way to ensure your additions are as NPOV as possible is to only add material that comes from reliable third party sources and cite it properly. You mention lots of potential sources above. For that same reason, removing properly sourced material is problematic - you're probably not going to have the necessary NPOV to see what is and what isn't POV. (In this case the source is a press release from Saddleback itself, so even they must have thought it worth addressing.) I'd suggest you bring your concerns to article talk page (and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Christianity if you want a larger audience) and let other editors weigh in and make the changes. Pairadox (talk) 06:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there a way to see if an entry, like Saddleback Church is mentioned in other articles? CarverM (talk) 04:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I did an update of The Purpose Driven Church on my User:CarverM/Workshop. I would appreciate it if you could take a look at it and advise me on if it's appropriate. CarverM (talk) 06:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, can you tell me what the reason is on Saddleback Church for the protected template for References? Is this a normal practice or was this done for a special reason? THANKS. CarverM (talk) 06:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave comments about the draft on the talk page User talk:CarverM/Workshop. The protection is for the template itself; since it "transcludes" onto virtually every article, there's a strong desire not to have it messed up. Don't worry about it; you can still use it, you just can't change the template itself. I've already added it to your draft. Pairadox (talk) 06:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Wonder Man

The claim you have reinserted falls down on faulty logic, as discussed on the Talk Page. Asgardian (talk) 08:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The only "claim" is that a fictional character made a specific statement. That is backed by the citation. Faulty logic only appears when viewed from an in-universe perspective. Pairadox (talk) 08:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It was established in the Avengers issue that Wonder Man is far superior to Ms. Marvel. I will tailor it to read Sentry only.

Asgardian (talk) 08:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Trek

My apologies, friend. I had the wrong tab open and reverted the wrong one. I'll attempt to be more careful in future; my intention was to actually remove the whole description, rather than your one edit to it. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 08:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem, these things happen. I agree with removing the whole description, just didn't feel like being that bold when it's likely to be added by fanboys again. Pairadox (talk) 08:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism revert

Thanks! ^Avruchtalk 22:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

De nada. Pairadox (talk) 22:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The mains street singers

It's a high school choir, and there were no sources other than the choir's own website. Plus, the article was a direct copyvio. The title's not protected if they want to take another shot at it and provide sources. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 02:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah; the copyvio would indeed rule it out then. Thanks for the quick reply. Pairadox (talk) 02:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I can talk again!

Pair, now that I am "allowed" to talk again, I just wanted to drop by and say "hi".

Hi.

If you have any thoughts or comment on anything over the last week, I'm really in desperate desire for some outside perspective on all the issues that have been following me around. You've been great for perspective before and I appreciate any insights you may have. Or just plain randomness. Whatever. (Should I watch this page or my own talk page for a reply? Oh wait, I seem to remember some blindingly obvious box on this page somewhere... if only I could remember what it said...!) VigilancePrime (talk) 06:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC) :-)

Once I realized what a train wreck it was becoming, I made the decision to get out of the path of harm and just watch with a morbid fascination from the sidelines. Pairadox (talk) 06:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I tried to get out of the way. It followed me! I thought when I extricated myself from the ACS and PAW group (i.e. Squeak & Co.), I'd be in the clear, not having to deal with punitive unequalities and personally-directed viciousness. I was obviously wrong. The good news? Now I'm doing it again. Maybe it's a matter of steps. I just am a little frustrated that I have a block history now because one admin has a frustratingly low tolerance for passion from me while keeping an excruciatingly high tolerance for the vile treatment from others like Squeak. Ah well. In his mind he was probably justified, and I'll accept that much in what's left of Good Faith Assuming that I may still have lying about (and with a little Super Glue, it'll be fine). VigilancePrime (talk) 06:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Overzealous Reverter?

This initially started over on my talk page, but something in the edit summary for Jas Mann caught my eye after the fact. "Overzealous reverter", I believe you said. That seems like a bit much, now, doesn't it. Being overzealous would imply that I'm getting some sort of satisfaction from having to revert those edits - not so. All I was trying to do was to keep out the conflict of interest caused by Villaskylight, who went so far as to send me an e-mail stating they were Jas' personal assistant. When reverting I normally try to review the diffs to find any worthwhile edits that have occured in the interim so that I can integrate them post-rollback. I clearly missed the positive edits in this instance, and as I said before I clearly do apologize for that. I wasn't trying to cause you any grief there - not at all. DJBullfish (talk) 08:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I wrote that edit summary before deciding to post a comment to your talk page. It was, in hindsight, over the top and failed to account for any mistake you may have made while looking at diffs. I think we all get can get overzealous at times, as shown by that summary. No offense meant. Pairadox (talk) 08:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

All's good. No worries. Have a good day. DJBullfish (talk) 08:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me regarding my edits to the Pisces article.
I'm not a total noob anymore, but still a little wet behind the ears, so I'm grateful for the guidance.

pixiequix (talk) 17:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm probably going to change a few things back, because I think the opening was a bit stronger before, but really appreciate your efforts. Pairadox (talk) 17:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That's cool.

Obviously you can use whatever sources you'd like, as long as they're reliable, but I wanted to recommend the two links that I cited as references. Here and here. They're both excellent resources, filled with lots of well researched information.

pixiequix (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Chris Auckland

Hi and thanks for the message. To clarify I don't think he is notable at all (i.e. does not meet WP:BIO) and if the article was listed at AfD I would support deletion on those grounds. However, speedy deletion criteria A7 is a lot narrower than WP:BIO and only requires a assertion of significance. The relevant grounds for deletion are "..does not indicate why its subject is important or significant" The article did indicate why its subject was important (a councillor on a parish council, chair of a political group); the question of its actual importance is a separate issue that PROD or AfD should consider. I tend to only use A7 for articles such as "Mr. Johnson is a geography teacher at Hillview School" where there is clearly no attempt to establish significance. I hope this helps. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 04:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Express Yourself!!! (Invitation to Fun)

• Pairadox, I would like to invite you to come on a fun trip with me as I write, hopefully together with a few "friend Wikipedians", some future (?) WikiEssays. All in good fun, and I think it'd be a great outlet for some of the recent nervous energy and excessive typing some of us have done on recent debates. I have some formatting laid out and invite you to Be Very Bold in contributing to the articles if you feel so led. It's all meant to be in the spirit of good fun and collaboration, kinda like a mini-WikiProject or something. Check the "proposed" essay topics out here. You can also add your name to the "contributors" or even "planned contributors" (if you can't add now but plan to soon/eventually) list at the essay talk page. You'll see it's all laid out pretty simply. Yes, drop-down... just like an Advent Calendar... I know... I Hope to See You There!!! VigilancePrime (talk) 05:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC) :-)

Remind me... do I wait for a reply here or on my talk page? I can't see anything anymore because of that bright, blinding orange banner...! :-P

---

James Brody

I would like to know exactly what is wrong with my page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassandrasfisher (talk • contribs)

Discussion can be found at the target for the merge, Talk:seaQuest DSV. Pairadox (talk) 07:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

db notice

No problem, happens to all of us.  :) NawlinWiki (talk) 06:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, Pairdox, I come to here to say something. I thought that you support the wrong version and are not neutral to meditate the article. But after reading some discussion at the talk page, you have tried to solve the conflict between the two party. I didn't really mean to label you as a vandal, but to you, my summary made the impression as such, so I sincerely apologize to you for my misunderstanding. I admit that I confused with rv and rvv. I thought rvv means "revert the revert" (two step prior version). Thank you for letting me know not to make a mistake. Bye--Appletrees (talk) 10:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. That really means a lot. :) Pairadox (talk) 10:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Opinion Valued: VP/D:SB

IAW Wikipedia:Canvassing, the following Friendly Notice is a "Neutrally worded notifications sent to a small number of editors."

• You may be interested in a current MfD discussion. This message is to inform you of the discussion. There is no attempt to indicate on which side of the issue you may or should "vote" or comment.
• Recently, the page User:VigilancePrime/Doc:SqueakBox was nominated for speedy deletion by SqueakBox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). When that speedy was undone, the user brought the page to MfD.
• Based on your past edits and comments, you may have reason to comment or contribute to this discussion. Please do. Initial comments on this issue were left here.
• If this message is in error and you do not have an interest in such a case, please forgive the intrusion and bother.

Best wishes and happy editing! VigilancePrime (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for bringing that policy to my attention. You probably helped me avoid a serious problem. I am sometimes overzealous, and I frequently get myself into hot water, as you will see if you look at my talk page. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:[1] No prob, it's a common misconception about user talk pages and blanking. Pairadox (talk) 03:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ashley Cole

The article did not say that he had an affair it says that tabloids reported that he had an affair; this can be verified by the tabloids reports. There has been quite a lot of media coverage of the tabloid reports themselves and the events surrouding them by sources usually considered reliable [2], [3], [4], [5]. The article wasn't claiming that the accusations were true, it was just documenting that accusations had been made and as shown above, those accusations have been documented by reliable sources. Whether to include the information in the article itself is an editorial decision but I think the sourcing is sufficient. I do think there is a difference between saying that "X had an affair" and "X was reported to have an affair" as I think in this instance the latter can be reliably sourced and verified (whilst the former cannot). Having said that I'm not going to re-add any information as I now think it would probably be unnecessary recentism (links to essay). Guest9999 (talk) 04:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia shouldn't be used to repeat rumors, which is essentially what that sentence did.[6] If it can be reworded to focus on the effects of the initial reports, such as the banning of a reporter from a news conference, that would be fine. (Although, to be honest, at least one of the sources you provide above seems to be naught but a rumour in itself.) Pairadox (talk) 04:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I'm sorry I acted hastily in reinstating the material. Guest9999 (talk) 05:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. :) Pairadox (talk) 05:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks!

I've gotten four barnstars, but not that one. And I have so wanted one of those! Thank you very much. Doczilla (talk) 12:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks pretty good over by the fireplace. Seriously: Thanks again! Doczilla (talk) 12:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

My apologies regarding Nancy Pelosi article

I will stand down. Thanks for the defense. Jw120550 (talk) 09:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

A note about Rev Melissa Scott's adult video career

I recently had a small paragraph removed from the Pastor Gene Scott page that made mention of his widow, the Rev. Melissa Scott who now runs his ministies. It told about her adult video history back before she met Reverend Scott. It was removed as being "non-constructive". I believe it is very constructive to mention her stint as an adult video actress for Vivid Video under the name Barbie Bridges, as it informs people of her past so they can better decide what type of person she is, so they will have all the facts when they're trying to choose whether to join her ministry. There were 4 Google sources that verified this info as true. I also have the nude pictures of her as proof, though I won't post them here. To not add it seems a little like censorship, and I thought that Wiki was a means of gathering all the facts? Thank you. Iambigwayne (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC) (UTC)

The problem wasn't the info, it was the sources. Groups.google doesn't meet Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source. Pairadox (talk) 18:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Leo Yankevich

Hi, Pairadox--

Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Czarnykon (talk) 11:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the citation tag; as the links at the bottom of the page do constitute the use of the modifier "considerable."

Czarnykon (talk) 11:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No, actually, they don't. Considerable is a comparative term; a list of links to his work shows nothing of how he compares to others. Pairadox (talk) 11:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I see your point. I have rewritten the sentence.

Czarnykon (talk) 11:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Not quite

Not quite. I'm not wondering so much from the perspective of someone tapping an admin. Rather, I'm wondering what the admin ought to do if the admin is the one spotting the sock. "Discretion of the admin" seems vague to me. Doczilla (talk) 11:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ultimately my question has more to do with the admin's freedom in using checkuser rather than freedom in blocking.Doczilla (talk) 11:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Not all admins have checkuser access? Doczilla (talk) 11:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we've got evidence listed at User_talk:Creepy_Crawler#Copy_of_previous_evidence_for_the_history, and it's still not nearly complete. Good lord, that person has used a lot of socks. I just pointed the latest incarnation out to ThuranX. Doczilla (talk) 12:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

And with CC, the problem gets compounded by the fact that records don't go back far enough to connect current users to the original CC (who wasn't the original anyway) via checkuser. Checkuser has to be used instead on the most recent confirmed sock, and when some admins get the checkuser request, they just say the records don't go back far enough and fail to check the most recently confirmed puppet, thereby dragging out the whole process. Doczilla (talk) 12:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Here it is:[7]. (With Days of our Lives, reality shows, celebrity pages, dates, and related categories . . . it's the Creep. Doczilla talk) 12:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC) Okay, I need to get some sleep when I insert an edit in the middle of my name. Doczilla (talk) 12:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The overwhelming amount of information on that evidence page can be daunting. Sometimes that's what keeps me from reporting the sock. Also, I've been concerned that if the same user (in this case, myself) always reports the puppeteer, it could come across as some kind of personal vendetta. Therefore, I try to give other people the opportunity to report CC. (And now my broken arm is hurting because I've been typing this too rapidly, so I am going to have to call it a night.) Doczilla (talk) 12:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I saw the big orange banner. I just didn't want some of what I had to say to appear in my own talk page's history, for several practical reasons. Doczilla (talk) 03:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sock charges are grave.

It's always easy to accuse someone of being a sock when you don't like the history of the edits he or she has done. Kindly desist from making sock charges, as it is unfair. Czarnykon (talk) 11:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, what? I think you're confusing discussion threads here. Pairadox (talk) 11:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hoo boy. Okay, here's why I ask: ThuranX, Wryspy, and I are constantly spotting socks of User:Creepy Crawler. We have never turned out to be wrong, but it's such as hassle every single time and that user does a lot of additional damage before finally getting blocked. I don't know what Czarnykon thinks I might be talking about. Doczilla (talk) 11:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Again: subtle charges of sockpuppetry. Bad manners. What I am concerned about is improving articles. I see your point and have removed any ambiguous pov statements from the article on Leo Yankevich. As to your suggestion that I claim to be an admin: nope I don't. I just prefer to stick to the rules, which even admins break. Czarnykon (talk) 11:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Czarnykon, Doc and I are discussing something totally unrelated to you. Pairadox (talk) 11:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It is easy to confuse user names. Sorry. Czarnykon (talk) 11:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Argh.

Gah, I suspected that this guy had at least some experience, knowing what BLPs were and all that. I don't see anything in the block log, am I looking in the wrong place? He seems bent on my protection rationale - not the best, but hey - even though it would've been protected for a BLP dispute anyways. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 07:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Is that the right IP address? I don't see a block in the log. If you're right, then it's a sock getting around a block to harasss an admin... Dreadstar † 07:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Frak; I don't see it now; maybe I looked at the wrong tab? Sorry, folks, I may have cried wolf on this one. Pairadox (talk) 07:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It's alright, I've got a coupla messes on my hands, if you find it that would be great, if not, it's no big deal. He said it'd be his last post on my talk, so it may have just sorted itself out, without unnecessary drama. Thank God. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 07:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Pandora Jewelry

Rather than just slapping it with a tag, can you please explain why you think Pandora Jewelry reads like advertising? I thought I had done a good job of keeping things neutral, and everything in the article is taken from verifiable sources. Feel free to comment on the talk page or here or whereever.... PageantUpdater talk • contribs 16:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Rather than just removing a tag, perhaps you could wait for a reply or address the issues raised by that tag? Since you created the article, it's likely you won't see what another editor will.

It's a very well crafted article in many respects, but it still reads like advertising. There's the detailed products list, right down to a price range. There's the hype in the lead about their growth without a section in the body of the article that corresponds to it, nor any perspective to that growth. The tone of the entire article is one of unmitigated praise, right down to the PR-like mention of charity works. Pairadox (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Well why don't you have a go at reworking it then? And I repeat, if you're going to slap something with an "ad" tag, why not be so kind as to explain on the talk page? I don't want to sound overly defensive but I think you're being slightly silly on this one. A few more points:
  • So you're writing an article about a range of jewelry, but wouldn't include what the actual products were?
  • The point of including the pricing is to convey the idea that there is an extremely variable price point (i.e. people can choose how inexpensive or expensive they wish to go)
  • The growth comment was something I picked out of an article which did not give any more context so how could I add anything. You'll see that it is referenced.
  • A completely NPOV sentence about things they sponsor is considered "PR hype" (to paraphrase you?) PageantUpdater talk • contribs 17:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• One other comment... I didn't take your tag lightly. You will see that I made numerous revisions to the article after removing it. I wouldn't mind getting a third party opinion on this, actually, because although the article is new I just don't see what you're seeing regarding the tone :P PageantUpdater talk • contribs 17:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Continued at User talk:PageantUpdater

PDC Book

I'm far enough along, although not finished, with the intial update to the The Purpose Driven Church. I am taking your advice and trying to dig up some positive, representative book reviews. (Although, there is several hundred on Amazon.com. How would one reference them?) Could you take a look at my Workshop page and tell me if I'm missing anything? I'd like to post it as is and then update it as I get more information. Thanks for the help. CarverM (talk) 01:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel up to right now, but I will look it over this weekend. Pairadox (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for making the Reference visible. I was just researching how to do that when your edit popped up. So much to learn! CarverM (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Sorry I wasn't able to pull it together to review your work before it went live. Hopefully people will read the talk page before savagely editing it. :) Pairadox (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Obituaries as sources

Just one comment on the obituaries as sources: most obituaries are written by family or friends (surely wouldn't be independent sources), but I believe that news obituaries are sufficient. Of course, that's different from the question of MULTIPLE sources, since some of the articles that you listed have no sources except a single obituary. Davidson is an obvious exception, since she had six sources listed when I looked at the article. Nyttend (talk) 00:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Rfc on "Intellectual controversy" section of Oxford Round Table

I have made a request for comment [8] on the "Intellectual controversy" section of the Oxford Round Table article, which I notice you edited today. Would you like to participate? --Tony Sidaway 02:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I noticed, and while I essentially agree with your suggestions, I wanted to let the RfC draw in a few other people before commenting on it myself. At this point I think a broader range of opinions would serve to move this forward better than (yet another) comment from me. Pairadox (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack

when i say i will slit his neck and drown him, then give me a warning, dont give me one for saying not to remove merge tags otherwise give one to him--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 03:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I gave you a warning for calling him a hypocrite. Any further personal attacks against anyone will be met with additional warnings. If they continue, a report to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts will follow. Pairadox (talk) 03:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

-_- dude hypocrite is not an attack, so get off my back--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 03:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't understand that "hypocrite" is a comment on the contributor, not the contribution, and is an attack on their integrity. Pairadox (talk) 03:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

FFS look at hypocrite, read it? good, now get a life and stop bugging me--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 06:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed the line, "Hypocrisy is frequently invoked as an accusation." And profanity is hardly making your case. Pairadox (talk) 06:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

FFS look at hypocrite, read it? good, now get a life and stop bugging me--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 07:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

add another personal attack tag on my page and you will need to put a personal attack tag on my page, I have not posted and you keep fucking with me, just lay off me—Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue eyes gold dragon (talk • contribs) at 07:44, 3 February 2008

DONT EDIT MY FUCKING POSTS--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 07:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

i dont understand why didnt YOU report me?--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 10:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Because I don't tend to take comments personally. Once I saw that Vig had filed a report, however, I wanted to make sure there was a broader perspective for admins to consider. It shouldn't be all about your comments to me. Pairadox (talk) 10:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of claims made by Zeitgeist, the Movie

• I just created this page a week ago Friday (Jan 25) and so far I have been the only editor of this page, but I would like to avoid having it deleted in the hope that other editors will collaborate on it with me.

• I want to let you know that many things have changed regarding this article since you voted to have it deleted.

• I have fully read and responded to every Wikipedia guideline that I have been referred to,
• I have modified my plans for the article and changed the way I view the subject in order to fit within those guidelines,
• I have explained my position and my goals in detail on the AfD for the page,
• and I have completely blanked the talk page of the article since most of the concerns about guidelines involved the talk page and not the actual article.

• I am sure you will find that I have made a great effort to contribute to the usefulness and quality of Wikipedia, and that my actions are motivated by a desire to improve Wikipedia and to keep Wikipedia neutral.

• I believe that the only guidelines my article can still be accused of violating are those concerning "notability" and "lists of random facts" and being that this is such a young article, I urge you to revisit the article, the AfD for the article, as well as the article's talk page, and make sure that you still feel that the article needs to be deleted right now.

• Thank-you for your time, and I appreciate your efforts in keeping Wikipedia clutter-free!

Sincerely,

VegKilla (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Policy

Regarding List of Hispanics from the United States, when you say, "We generally don't inlcude redlinks in "List of" articles," could you cite the policy please? --evrik ^(talk) 06:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Ideally each entry on a list should have its own Wikipedia article but this is not required if it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. And I'm so glad you asked before reverting for a second time, without bothering to incorporate the corrections I made at the same time. Pairadox (talk) 06:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• • "...but this is not required if it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future." My reading of what you just quoted justifies leaving the names there. --evrik ^(talk) 16:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a reasonable expectation. Did you look at what I removed? One was a name spammed across several different articles (which is what caught my eye), the majority of others were reality TV show participants. Unless you personally have plans to write up these articles, I don't think they have anything close to a reasonable chance of being created. So, like I've seen other editors do with the other Lists on my watchlist, the redlinks are removed. This is also standard procedure on all dates and months - redlinks are removed on sight. Pairadox (talk) 20:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[9][10][11]