User talk:Scarpy/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Alcoholics Anonymous

Hi craig. Please take note, whatever that was above (three revert warning) was nothing to do with me. I am contacting you in the hope that we can reach some for of consensus on the AA article. My hope is that we can work together in order to reach some consensus on the article. Clearly, we come from differnt POVs, and to say the least we will never agree. Therefore, I am hoping that we can work together to be able to agree that there are differnt POVs on many issues on this subject, and that we can both look for research that represents them all. I am prepared to backtrack a bit on my previous opinions, if you are too. I just hope that we can both admit that there are published sources that say various things about AA which we both may disagree with, but which we can work together to ensure have proportional representation on. Please contact me to let me know that you agree with me on this (if you do). I think that David Mack would also be a "useful ally" on this matter. I also think that independant arbitration would be useful.

Seriously, dude, this could turn into some edit war chaos unless we try to work this out. Do you have better things to do with your time? I certainly do? Get back to me? I think we can work together. I pray we can (or would, at least, if I believed in god.....!) 82.19.66.37 21:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Complete Reference

Hi Craig- This reference found on Disease theory of alcoholism "Article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, by the Joint Committee of the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence and the American Society of Addiction Medicine. 1992" doesn't specifically identify the article to which it refers. Therefore, readers are unable to read it. It would be most helpful if you could find the author, title, journal, etc. so as to make it a usable reference. Many thanks..David Justin 21:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

User talk:71.13.157.139

Do we really want to "welcome" anons whose edits on the day you're issuing the welcome are exteremely offensive vandalism? Corvus cornix 21:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Ohh.. I've seen worse. I changed the welcome template. -- Craigtalbert 23:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen worse too, I just don't think they deserve welcoming. Thanks. :) Corvus cornix 18:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Peter H. Gilmore

Edits like this could be considered vandalism. An article that has existed for years on a notable person, who heads a notable religion, do not fall under criteria for speedy deletion. Please refrain from using poor judgment with edits like this in the future. --David Shankbone 21:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Second warning

No it does not. That isn't a criteria for speedy deletion. It might require having a source tag on the page, but you are clearly making a WP:POINT here by focusing on satanic articles, and you are violating several WP policies and guidelines. If you continue to do so, I will request admin action. This is a second warning. --David Shankbone 21:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I've alerted the admin board

You aren't doing this in good faith. If "reasonable people can disagree" as you say, then you should do AfDs, not speedys. You are vandalizing, and I've alerted the admin board to it. --David Shankbone 21:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You should know better. These people are notable, there are sources, they are published authors, they lead a religion. You don't have to like it, but you can't try and stop people from learning about them just because you disagree with them. Frankly, that type of editing deserves a long block, because it is anathema to everything we do on this project, which is to educate and information share. You have been here too long to feign ignorance of policy and procedure, and there are sources on each page. You should have known better. --David Shankbone 21:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Some of these articles have a claim for notabily, for example Peter H. Gilmore, in cases like this AFD is a more appropiate step for deletion. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I will stay off your talk page when you don't nominate sourced articles for deletion and hurt the project. --David Shankbone 22:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Peter H. Gilmore, for one, where there are five interviews with him. And if there aren't sources, we don't delete. We put put source tags on them. If people don't source them, we put PROD tags of we do AFDs. You are abusing speedy tags on a topic you don't like, and I would oppose this as much as I would for any other subject. --David Shankbone 22:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

There are reliably sourced interviews (New York Press; CBC) There are others if you Google. He's also a published author, and the head of a notable church. These articles have existed for a long time, and don't merit one admin making the decision to keep or delete. It's a community-based decision; and you are attempting to rob the community of that. --David Shankbone 22:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You've already been told by two long-term editors that CSD (and none of these meet the criteria laid out there) is inappropriate and AFD is what you should do if you really question them. So, I'm assuming we have nothing more to talk about. --David Shankbone 22:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Then bring them up for AfDs. I personally don't care if they are deleted, some of them. I want them to go through proper channels. Just because Caribbean didn't laboriously research each and every article doesn't mean she think some deserve to be speedied. You seem to have some kind of issue with letting the community decide, instead of just you and some random admin. Which is totally not Wiki. --David Shankbone 22:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

How many in AA

Good edit. I'm happy as long as the "Global Community" bit is out. PhGustaf 23:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Tuesmornrally.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Tuesmornrally.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.