Hey there.... I think the POV problem may be with the long section devoted to non-clinical and unscientific concepts like "non-BP", "Reactive NonBP", "trans-Borderline", and ""counter-Borderline". Also, there's a portion of the mainstream that has some doubt about the existence of BPD, and that's not reflected in the article. wikipediatrix 14:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I saw you're in the Bible Wikiproject, could you move the page Lamech, descendant of Cain to Lamech? I merged the info into the former, but Lamech is the more intuitive title.--Cúchullaint/c 02:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Would you please re-evaluate Atomic line filter so that you may update your vote on its FAC page? It's just getting close to the end of the line, and I want to be able to address any objections you may bring up. Thanks. -- Rmrfstar 00:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see you had a run in with Blaxthos some time ago. Could you come and help out with this discussion? To be honest, I think something needs to be done to stop him from screwing up that article. 81.1.73.247 21:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Based on your contributions to the talk page for template:fact, I thought you might be interested in a proposal I have made to change WP:Cite. dryguy 22:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I've seen you try and defend Sydney-based Christian articles before (like Gordon Cheng). Someone's nominated Christ Church St Ives, which is one of the largest Anglican churches on the North Shore in Sydney - we have a few Americans who've decided that they don't want the article at all. I agree with you about the systematic bias against Christianity on WP. Is there anything I can do about this (besides establishing notability guidelines on WP for churches and Christian organisations)? (JROBBO 06:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Hi TBSDY, I didn't notice your note until now. You're right; it was supposed to be in the process of being re-written, but that was back in March. I'm not pleased with it either. I think Viriditas was doing the re-writing, perhaps you could ask him about it. Jayjg (talk) 05:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks for the compliment ;). Sorry it has taken me a while to get to these. I added to III and IV, I'll try to get to V (and maybe even the latter half of the act) sometime fairly soon. Please do double-check and make sure I got the most pertinent parts of each title. -- Jonel | Speak 03:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your userpage speaks on a 'systematic bias' - at one time I thought that was a little paranoid. Now I'm less sure [1]. --Doc 15:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Kuro5hin logo.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. KWH 02:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble is that I think people have been taking the {{logo}} tag a bit too far - The blanket fair-use claim for Logos in general (including corporations and organizations) doesn't stretch in my mind to the header graphic from every website covered by an article.
I'm trying to apply a standard that, to be "reasonably familiar" (per the guideline), the logo must have a decent chance of being seen offline through merchandising (cafepress-type merch doesn't generally count) or billboard ads, or at least on a number of other notable sites (through syndication, for instance). Mind - the logo, not just links to the site. Note: k5 might eke out this level of familiarity through its past fame, I'm not certain.
Alternately, the logo can be interesting for "design or artistic reasons" and/or otherwise the subject of critical commentary, of course. Beyond that, I think it would be more useful to upload a screenshot of the website to illustrate its portrait, if anything. Why would Wikipedia want to keep a database of (copyrighted) logos of websites? Unlike "real world" logos, they will very rarely "help confirm that an article is about the thing (company, organization, item, or event usually) which has that logo". More often, they are used decoratively, often to pretty up an article on a site which would normally be considered non-notable.
Fictional logos are next... these are far overused and are obviously not a "logo" per se but a small bit of graphic design from a book/movie/etc. There are also many others which are uncategorized at Category:Logos. KWH 05:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is really, really great to be back, even without the mop and bucket. This means I can concentrate more on editing and less time on shooing pests and dodging users with bad attitudes. I've already brought over three good-sized articles from two other wikis and I've initiated some cleanup and expansion on some of my past work here. I'm refreshed, revitalized, my outlook is terrific and I've even gotten Jimbo to review my request to him that I be reinstated as an admin. I told him that I thought that half the users on this site think I'm passive/aggressive and the other half thinks I'm nuts. :) We'll see how it goes. He wrote back immediately and said he'd run it by ArbCom. And no, I'm not going anywhere if ArbCom gives a thumbs-down. Thanks for the message, buddy. Stay in touch. - Lucky 6.9 15:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TBSDY, just wanted to say I didn't take offence at your edit of my changes to Germaine Greer. I was trying to add balance, but you were right, the phrasing was obscure and didn't get across what I meant at all. I have tried to add the balance in other more easily understood ways. Phaedrus86 22:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Argh, sorry I didn't realise it was someone decent re-creating the page again. I thought it was vandalism again, so I deled it and protected it from re-creation. Feel free to undo my edits and redirect to vagina if you think that's appropriate (I myself have never heard of the word, and I think I'm glad).--Konstable 12:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the page of Galatasaray i saw a mistake but i cannot revert it becauce the page is under protection , in the Managerial area Yılmaz Gökdel was the manager in 1974-1975 season
could you fix this?
http://www.webaslan.com/kulup/antrenor.php
this is the official site of Galatasaray
here it says that Gokdel is coach for the 74-75 season :)
I was using using Lupin's filter vandalism tool and I came across this page: User talk:Evilsai . I have no idea of what to do or how to approach this. It looks like the user and the IPs who are editing it use it like a noticeboard or chat site. Please reply on my talk page with some help or assistance on how to deal with this. Thanks -huntersquid 13:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very, very confused. Why would you nominate an article for GA status if you didn't actually consider it good? The only reason I can think of is to make a point, and that's pretty clearly warned against in WP:POINT, isn't it? ~ CZeke 02:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...that BDSL is only a letter away from something really, really weird, don't you? Just a thought. Yours, Lucky 6.9 05:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This Wikidefender Barnstar is awarded to Ta bu shi da yu for endless efforts to defend Wikipedia from all the evil meanies and maladroits. Keep up the FANTASTIC work! DavidJJJ 16:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I heard you were a good wikipedian from huntersquid, so I thought you deserved a barnstar. DJJJ 06:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "thick of things" doesn't begin to decribe it. Now the vandals, the random character editors and the title echoing editors all have user names! Oy vey. :) BTW, thanks so much for the nice note. You and SlimVirgin made my morning. Therefore:
Lucky 6.9 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!
This is to inform you that the project page specified above is being considered for deletion. Please feel free to follow the links on the page to participate in the discussion. Thank you. Badbilltucker 17:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ta bu, do you have access to Austlit? If so, could you check it for Matthew Karpin? Is this guy really a noteable author in Australia? See its AfD for why I'm asking... Lupo 07:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Times goatse.JPG)[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Times goatse.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Konst.ableTalk 08:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Time cover relation to Goatse.cx is based on one reader emailing some website dedicated to urban legends. Hence I removed it, it has now been re-inserted which I disagree with. Regarding the AfD, read the AfD, I don't want to be repeating myself.--Konst.ableTalk 04:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity, why did you open an AfD on this article if you wanted it kept? Surely the idea is to remove the Prod tag and add information verifying his notability. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After lots of NPOV problems, I have recently done a major rewrite on the Opus Dei article and am requesting comments on its talk page. I think the new page is better, but there are a lot of single-purpose accounts who have been edit warring with me over it. Could you look over the page and comment on whether the rewrite is an improvment and maybe help out in the ensuing discussion? --Alecmconroy 11:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Cynna Neele Headshot.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Oden 07:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, that article has been deleted and protected from creation, so unless the DRV overturns the decision then there is really no point in linking the article at the GNAA disambig page. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 03:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An article only needs to plausibly be able to exist to be linked to, that GNAA survived for so long under such very intense heat that no other article has been under should leave no doubt in a person's mind as to the plausibility of a GNAA article existing in the future. Thus obviously it should be mentioned on the GNAA disambig page. MathmoTalk 09:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
May we not see a single contribution out of you for at least the next two weeks. It's great being a newlywed. Enjoy it. - crzcrztalk 07:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I've been working for some time on the Alexandr Solzhenitsyn bibliography. I noticed that in July you moved all of the Opus Dei: Bibliography page to the main Opus Dei page and added a redirect. Is this something that we should be doing with the Solzhenitsyn bibliography? Is there a WP policy against having separate bibliography pages? I would appreciate your feedback. Thanks! --RockRockOn 17:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alecmconroy says "We did used to have such a bibliography, but it was deleted by an admin several months ago. As I've said above, if you could persuade the admin in question to undelete it, then I myself wouldn't have any objection to having the Opus Dei: Bibliography page"
Why did you cut the bibliography? It was good, informative. Plus, where is the bibliography page? The new "bibliography-link" section is extremely, pitifuilly poor. I want it back.
Louisar 17:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply, but does it apply to the Opus dei article itself? Alec seems to mean that the severe cutting of the bibliography in the article was ordered by you. I'll talk to him about that. Maybe you can too. Thanks again. Louisar 15:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Btrieve for Windows 95NT Workstation config.PNG[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Btrieve for Windows 95NT Workstation config.PNG. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chowbok☠ 02:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See my reply on the image talk page. —Chowbok☠ 07:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
