Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:50, 1 December 2010

This user has autopatrolled rights on the left. (verify)

Archives

(6/07-8/09)

This user is a participant in WikiProject Albums.

This user is a member of WikiProject Lacrosse.

This user is one of the 400 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your edits to bring Ian Kinsler and Scott Feldman to hopefully a GA status Ositadinma (talk) 21:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag arbitration-related

Encouragement

Please persevere through all the drama surrounding The Shells article and Rjanag. I believe such drama drives many good editors away, and I don't want it to happen to you. You do good work and I appreciate it. - Draeco (talk) 00:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 13:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

		The Resilient Barnstar
		For your your valiant efforts to defend The Shells (folk band) article with your reasoned arguments and perseverance, and for taking conflicts in your stride and continuing undeterred with your good work as a Misplaced Pages editor. Illegitimi non carborundum. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 01:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI--Rjanag; Rjanag Arbitration

With heavy heart, I have reported Rjanag at the ANI here based on what I believe was grossly uncivil behavior during the Shells affair. It is neither a personal attack against him nor a favor to you, but his behavior compelled me to act. As an involved party I think you should know. - Draeco (talk) 06:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your note. My heart too has grown heavier the more the relationship between the nom and the closing admin reveals itself.

As you know, now that that ANI has closed, I've opened up this Rjanag arbitration. Quick question as to your comment there. You indicated that you don't recommend de-sysopping as he didn't abuse admin privileges. My reading of WP:ADMIN, as I quoted it there, was that de-sysopping is one possible appropriate treatment of an admin who displays consistently or egregiously poor judgment, or who seriously, or repeatedly, acts in a problematic manner or has lost the trust or confidence of the community, including repeated/consistent poor judgment, breach of basic policies (attacks, biting/civility, edit warring), "bad faith" adminship (gross breach of trust), and conduct elsewhere incompatible with adminship. Did I miss something (in which case I should amend my request), or do you read it differently? Or perhaps just have a more lenient approach than WP:ADMIN? Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Apologies

This may be too little too late, but I have left you a message with my apologies at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement by Rjanag. Thank you, rʨanaɢ /_contribs 18:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Full reply @ Rjanag Arbitration

• I'm saddened that you did not do so many weeks earlier. But only after being completely unrepentant through dozens of requests/incidents involving me and others, an AN/I, an arb request being filed, evidence pouring forth regarding your extraordinarily close relationship with the closing admin, and arb voters indicating that they do not agree with your pooh-poohing of the matter. And even yesterday you were saying you do not need to apologize. It certainly makes it look as though rather than being heartfelt, this has more to do with your desire to avoid the scrutiny of an arbitration.

Finally, on further inspection, your "apology" is barely an apology at all -- as you fail to admit and to apologize for your persistent incivility, untruthful statements, bullying, wikihounding, gaming the system, edit warring, and knowing COI. Further inspection also reveals that your behavior spreads over a number of matters, and impacts a number of editors. They deserve better. My full comments can be found at Rjanag Arbitration. --Epeefleche (talk) 07:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

A word in your ear

I participated in the first Shells AfD in question. AfD is a frequent stomping ground of mine, and I find it extremely common to see articles like The Shells to be put up for AfD, and just as common to see them deleted as a result of them not satisfying the basic notability and sourcing requirements of WP. Sometimes creators/editors who fail to accept that. There is occasionally dogged opposition to a deletion, which you demonstrated to see the article wasn't deleted, leading to bitter fights which may get personal. The Shells AfD was certainly one of those. I believe the tone set by Rjanag in the AfD was not appropriate, effectively winding up people who would have supported the deletion on the merits of the case alone that prevailed eventually. While I applaud you for your tenacious fight to keep the article, I believe that the lesson to be learned would be to strive for improved sourcing and better writing of an article to avoid the common pitfalls which lead to deletion. I have been upset when articles I have contributed significantly were put to AfD, because it's a natural tendency to want to look after one's baby. I know the above from Rjanag is not the unreserved apology you feel you deserve. But hard as it may be, I hope you will not take the deletion too personally. Perhaps one day, The Shells will be a notable band... I hope you will stay around for when that happens. Ohconfucius 04:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. We can have different views as to the AfD merits. We're not alone--just look at the votes at the two AfDs. That's fair. And needn't be uncivil. I've created nearly 200 articles in my years here, and made more than a few thousand edits, so I have a bit of a sense for notability.

I credit you, however, for agreeing with those of us who believe that the tone set by Rjanag in the AfDs was not appropriate. Not many have crossed the aisle, stood up, and made themselves heard on that point.

Also, his misconduct included misstatements. That does not lead IMHO to the best decision-making by those who are trying to make a decision based on facts, not misstatements.

Many editors noticed his misconduct. At least 20 discussed it with him in the past few months, with communications ranging from complaints to warnings to AN/Is. Those 20 editors from what I can tell are essentially unrelated--joined only by their common concern over his misconduct.

As to the "ownership" point, I don't get the sense that Draeco brought the Shells AN/I, or that the other editors spoke up about the conduct that led to the Shells and the other AN/Is, because of "ownership" issues. Quite the opposite. Rather, they think as I do that misconduct is bad, they care about this project, and they believe that misconduct of this sort adversely impacts the project.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• I sympathise. With all your experience, he still managed to wind you up. In my previous dealings with him, he's been pretty no-nonsense, occasionally blunt; he's never been abusive, but one can sense what lurks below the surface. I don't know what's got into him. I'll make a mental note but I'd rather not have to spend time looking into it for now. Happy editing! Ohconfucius 02:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• It's not every day I see an admin write one editor: "You can go f_ck yourself" , use the same choice words to another editor, and also write "if you bring them to ANI … you will get bitch-slapped so fast it'll make your head spin … You f_cking moron”. --Epeefleche (talk) 03:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

No you don't. Whoever let the lord of the jungle out? ;-) Ohconfucius 18:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		I award Epeefleche the special barnstar for his work on Nidal Malik Hasan's article and for defending the article from POV motivated edits.--Gilisa (talk) 10:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

		The Current Events Barnstar
		Great job in updating Anwar al-Awlaki article. --Firefly322 (talk) 06:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		...is awarded to Epeefleche for major clean-up above and beyond the call of duty on the Inner Temple Library article. Well done! The article will likely survive AfD thanks to you and your addition of quite a few references, among other things! Even an 1897 New York Times article!!!! Fantastic! --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Rudy York

I added a footnote pointing to York's HR Log at bb-reference. York hit his 50th on 1938-06-15 which was the 51st game of the Tiger season. York had 107 career games before 1938. So the latest he could have hit his 50th was career game #158.DavidRF (talk) 09:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Help me here ... how do we know it was the 51st game of the season? And we have an RS saying something else--does this fall into the cat of a violation of Misplaced Pages:No original research? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Aafia Siddiqui

Some terrific work there on Aafia Siddiqui Bachcell (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Great work on Aafia, It's more factual now!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.219.88.140 (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Working Man's Barnstar for the Moazzam Begg article

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	for your additions, editing, and Herculean clean-up on the Moazzam Begg article! It is truly impressive. -- Randy2063 (talk) 04:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Moazzam Begg and Cageprisoners

This link is now dead: http://www.cageprisoners.com/campaigns.php?id=818 -- it's not in archive.org.

I could have said this in the talk section of Begg's article, but I wanted to add here that I'm wondering if Cageprisoners may be cleaning up some of their tracks.

I came across this link two years ago. It's a discussion board. On that page they talk about 21st Century Crusaders. The only thing really notable is that it had a link where you could download the entire film. As you can see, the page is now password protected, as is the one taking you to the film.

In light of the disappearing pages, I just used webcitation.org to archive the ones that we have linked in the article that weren't yet deleted. I haven't cited that in the article yet, although that doesn't necessarily matter at the moment. Webcitation has a function to tell you whether or not it's been archived.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Najibullah Zazi

Hi there. Just a quick note: Great job editing the article. It now looks complete. Thanks! Tuscumbia (talk) 14:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Ressam group; goal -- the subject "should be pleased to see they have a WP article"?

http://books.google.ca/books?id=E1_SxOuUHmIC&dq=%22abu+jaffar%22+terrorism&source=gbs_navlinks_s From page 320 onward] has some great information on the various players in the Ressam group. You could add the reference to almost each of the articles, as it discusses each of them. Sherurcij 06:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, my friend. Shall take a look. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW, do you think the Montreal mosque (Assuna ... spelled various ways in English ... attracts 1500 to Friday prayers) is worth an article?--Epeefleche (talk) 07:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm generally fairly inclusive when it comes to churches/schools having articles; unless they written largely to "smear" the group. So if you're going to include a "list of notable persons who attended", be sure to balance it out with some positive stories from the media/books as well...basically, the group should be pleased to see they have a WP article...not angry. Sherurcij 06:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's not precisely the way it works, is it. We don't write articles to please the subject. Otherwise, for example, all criminals would rightfully have their articles deleted. What we do, which I'm happy to do with your help if you like, is reflect what is in the RSs. In other words, if x percent of the material in RSs is material that they would be happy to see, we should make certain that x percent of the article is of that ilk. Agreed?--Epeefleche (talk) 06:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Taking your advice

Taking your advice, I've rolled back my own edit. That aside, please respond to me instead of blanking this message. I have been civil with you, why can't you return the favor and discuss this with me?— Dædαlus 05:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I should have checked the history of this page, and for failing to do so, and assuming bad faith, I apologize. It is fine if you remove this message of course, now that I know. Again, I am sorry. I hope you can forgive me. I understand the need to not have clutter, I just wish that I was so insistent upon it that I could manage to clean my room. I'm actually considering a wikibreak because-(this will continue in email, if you don't mind). I'm experiencing too much stress. I'm even considering changing my 'oppose' to a 'support' regarding the interaction ban with Mb. I don't want there to be an indef ban, but considering things, and .. other things, I may just resolve to, instead of reverting their edits, responding to them, instead, I will simply report the edits to the admin who placed the original 24 hour ban, and let them decide for themselves. If this user continues to personally attack others, then they will get sanctioned.— Dædαlus 06:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

street

I initially made the edit on a "gut" basis; I've been around the Internet a long time (pre-web), and have seen "facts" like that have very bad outcomes, e.g. an acquaintance who had an armed activist drive cross-country and show up at his workplace, which another person had mentioned in an abortion-related forum the two were active in.

Following your serious query, I went looking for policy.

• First, WP:BLP: "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy." The remainder of the policy is also relevant, particularly "When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced." and "Misplaced Pages also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, and omit information that is irrelevant to their notability."
• Second, WP:NOT: "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". I judge that the street name is not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia; the edit comment is based on one of the 5 pillars.
• Third, WP:NPOV: the nutshell "Articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias." On a proportionate basis, how important is the street he lived on?

Studerby (talk) 21:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for the response. I was guessing it was a gut basis. Nice work in doing such a professional job looking for support for the gut feeling. My gut reaction is that different people have different gut reactions, and (moreso elsewhere, admittedly) I sometimes see editors cloak their gut reactions in similar verbiage. As I said, I'm not passionate about the issue in that particular case. My view in general is that if RSs report it, it generally meets the above, just as the name of the former spouse of a suspected killer or their current relatives would meet them if reported in RSs, or the place they are employed, or the city or state or country in which they live (all of which are routinely mentioned in all such bios, without any discussion, and could be attacked as inappropriate in the strictest reading of what you cite -- this is, after all, clearly only a question of degree, as the general place they live is routinely deemed relevant), etc.. The same issues arise in all such instances. Just my opinion. But we don't have a tussle on this particular edit, just an intellectual inquiry. I think based on your research, your response, and my response, it still ultimately comes down to editorial judgment, and in the event there were a tussle on another article there would be a consensus discussion.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. "Editorial judgment" inherently can't be codified, and we're all going to use our gut from time to time - no one has time to research and cite policy for every single edit. However, I also just went back to the version I edited; neither RS referenced in that paragraph has the street (at this moment), so the information was also unsourced, apparently. I'm suspecting that somebody interpolated that from the criminal complaint, which is NOT an RS for all purposes - it's a primary source, inherently one sided, etc.; certainly not subject to the "editorial judgment" that a proper secondary source uses. I generally shy away from controversy, but I think policy on this is absolutely crystal clear and this is one edit I'd go to the mat for, if it was needed.

In the cases you mention, where RSs have included reference to relations or acquaintances of the article subject, I suspect you'll find that those individuals have usually involved themselves in the reporting by becoming information sources on the topic. You won't see very many statements in current event reportage in RSs like " married Jane Doe (born 1955 in Boston) in 1967, had children John (1970), Janette (1971), Chang and Eng (1973) and divorced in 1974. He subsequently married and divorced Floozy Mcsleazy, a pole dancer, in 1980, and cohabitated with a Ima Nicegirl from 1985 to 1992." Instead you get, "His wife, Jane Doe, said: 'Billy-Wayne was such a nice quiet person. I can't believe he kept a collection of human ears in our garage.'". The wife's name is then relevant to the notability, as a source of reported information relevant to the notability of the subject. Or there's some sort of at-least-arguable relevant-to-the-story event involving the relative; in the article under discussion, a protective order and the inability to serve divorce papers arguably are facts that tell us something about the subject's life relevant to his notability; folks with "issues" are thought to be more motivated to do things outside the norm. However, in the reference cited, the wife also injected herself into the story and made several statements in support of subject; that only the negative material relating to the wife is included is an obvious WP:NPOV problem, and which rather seems to undermine any "include all the facts" argument. Studerby (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Cookie

Fiftytwo thirty has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

This cookie is for coming back so nicely to my somewhat harsh message. Thank you. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Eric Ely

Thank you for your Wikignome-like edits. What do you think, substantively? Bearian (talk) 21:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm puzzling over why the article is up for AfD, frankly. Does the nom dislike you? I'm just poking around the article for the moment and looking at the sources, and curious what others have to say.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

As you can tell from my comments at the AfD, I found Greg L’s analysis somewhat short of what I think you are entitled to when someone reviews your article at an AfD, and suggests deletion of your article.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The Socratic Barnstar

		The Socratic Barnstar
		I was very impressed by your rebuttal to an administrator that wrote, " is an admin ... I'm sorry but in any conflict between the two of you that requires weighing the relative commitment to the goals of the project or of the project's mores, I'll be backing ." -- Rico 03:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The Rescue Barnstar

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For helping to save Eric Ely from sure deletion. Bearian (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

New York energy law

You seem to be everywhere. Thanks for the minor edits. Bearian (talk) 20:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Jon Scheyer GA

Congratulations on the GA. Here are my suggestions for conversion in June:--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Jon Scheyer
Scheyer vs. Long Beach State (December 29, 2009)
College	Duke
Conference	ACC
Sport	Basketball
Position	Guard
Jersey #	30
Class	Senior
Major	History
Nickname	The "Jewish Jordan"
Career	2006–10
Height	6 ft 5 in (1.96 m)
Weight	190 lb (86 kg)
Nationality	American
Born	(1987-08-24) August 24, 1987 (age 37) Northbrook, Illinois
High school	Glenbrook North High School, Northbrook, Illinois
Career highlights
Awards
Honors
2006 Illinois Mr. Basketball 2006 All-American (McDonald's, Jordan, PARADE) 2x Duke team captain 2x All-ACC Tournament First Team (2009 & 2010) 2009 ACC tournament MVP 2009 ACC Academic Honor Roll 2009–10 All-ACC First Team 2010 Consensus All-American (second team); 1st team: Lowe’s Senior First Team and Wooden (10-man team); 2nd team: AP, NABC, TSN, USBWA; 3rd team: FOX, YS 2010 Award lists: Robertson (Top-16 finalist), Wooden (Top-10 finalist), Naismith (Top-30 midseason), Cousy (Top-6 finalist), Lowe's Senior CLASS (Top-10 finalist) ACC single-season minutes record (1,470; 2009–10) 2010 NCAA Championship 2009–10 ACC statistical champion (free throw percentage, three point shot/game, assist/turnover)

Jonathan James "Jon" Scheyer (born August 24, 1987, in Northbrook, Illinois) is an All-American 6' 5" guard, who was selected by the XXX with the Xth overall selection in the 2010 NBA Draft. He led his high school team to an Illinois state basketball championship and the 2009–10 Duke Blue Devils to the 2010 NCAA Basketball Championship. He was a prolific high school scorer who earned numerous individual statistical championships in Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC) play, ranging from free throw percentage and three point shots/game to assists/turnover ratio.

A high school All-American, he once scored 21 points in a game's final 75 seconds of play in an attempt to spark a comeback. The 4th-leading scorer in Illinois high school history, he led his team to a state championship in 2005 and was named Illinois Mr. Basketball in 2006. He chose Duke, for whom he moved over from shooting guard to point guard towards the end of the 2008–09 season, and was the Most Valuable Player (MVP) of the 2009 ACC Men's Basketball Tournament.

In his senior year in 2009–10 as Duke's captain, he led the team to ACC regular season and Tournament championships and to the NCAA National Championship. He led the championship team in points per game, assists, free throw percentage, and steals per game. Scheyer was a 2010 consensus All-American (Second Team), a unanimous 2009–10 All-ACC First Team selection, and was named to the 2010 ACC All-Tournament First Team. He played the most consecutive games in Duke history (144), and holds the ACC single-season record for minutes (1,470 in 2009–10) and the Duke freshman free throw record (115), shares the Duke record for points off the bench in a game (27).

Scheyer was drafted by the XXX with the Xth pick of the X round (Xth overall, if 2nd round) of the 2010 NBA Draft. If there was a trade to get the pick to select him mention it here. (He is represented by XXX if he has a famous agent like Rob Pelinka or something).

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, thanks

This user helped promote Jon Scheyer to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

2010 Times Square car bomb attempt

You've been doing incredible work on this article and I wanted to make it clear how much I appreciate your work on it. You've been prolific in editing the article, and adding in relevant information, and while I've followed this story myself, in all of your edits I've not disagreed with you once (maybe I missed something... or maybe I thought the police commissioner should be facing the other direction....). Thank you, and please keep up the good work. I'll try to help as much as I can. Shadowjams (talk) 10:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar suggestions for Jimbo

I've never given out a barnstar. But I imagine Jimbo deserves one for this.

Can anyone suggest which template I might consider using? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Replacing Passengers with Activists

Interested to know the reasons for replacing 'Passengers' with 'Activists' on the Gaza flotilla raid. . The change does not seem very Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view. Firefishy (talk) 23:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Passenger is a "set" used to distinguish between crew member and others who are not crew members. But it is less descriptive of the role of the people and their purpose than is the term activist. Most passengers are not activists, and it is not the activity that the term passenger brings to mind. But here the purpose of the activity was one of activism. The preferred approach is to use the most descriptive term that is accurate (we could also use the less descriptive term "people", but wouldn't for the same reason).--Epeefleche (talk) 00:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Cool, thank you for the explanation. -- Firefishy (talk) 08:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Lacrosse

Hi, I noticed your contributions and thought you might be interested in joining WikiProject Lacrosse. If you are interested in contributing more to Lacrosse related articles you may want to join WikiProject Lacrosse (signup here). --Yarnalgo _talk to me 17:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy

I find it facinating that Nableezy, just coming off his lengthy topic ban, makes this very provocative and contentious edit without so much as uttering a word on the discussion page. Technically, he didn't violate the letter of the law but he certainly violated its spirit. Your thoughts please.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts are that if someone gets a ban that specifically says it includes not being allowed to revert vandalism, then that someone immediately announces that he's going to ignore that part of the ban, then actually goes and ignores it, then when the issue comes up before the people who put the ban in place they do nothing, that someone would probably feel he can get away with anything. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree w/No More Mr Nice Guy. Sysop Sandstein, who railroaded the close of the Nableezy complaint -- after Nab had effectively told Sandstein to go f_ck himself w/regard to Nab's ban, and that Nab was going to do what he damn well pleased and intended to violate the ban -- encouraged poor behavior with Sandstein's own happy (or intimidated?) acceptance of Nab's belittling of Sandstein. I mean -- under the circumstances, if you were in Nab's place, what reason would there be to have even the lowest level of respect for that sysop, or be concerned that he would enforce wiki rules against you? Nab is reacting quite logically, under the circumstances.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Threeafterthree; Block

Just indeffed Tom for disruptive editing per your report. Thanks, FASTILY 01:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. One down; it's a start.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Got a moment?

Hi. I noticed that you just answered a concern for a user over on the wikiquette alert page. Could I impose on you to take a look at my entry and advise accordingly? Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• Got your thoughtful response and I thought I should thank you here as well. I'll do what you suggest right away. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind comments!!!

-- φ OnePt618 φ has given you a pie! Pies promote the kind of hearty eating that puts a smile on your face and a sustaining meal in your stomach. Hopefully this pie has made your day better. Spread the goodness by giving someone else a pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy eating! Spread the goodness of pie by adding {{subst:Wikipie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Seriously, you made my day. Thanks and I hope we can cross paths on here again soon!-- φ OnePt618 φ 06:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For turning this into this. Fences&Windows 13:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

List of Jews in sports

Consider adding Sam Stoller to the list. He was an NCAA sprint champion and a remarkable man. Cbl62 (talk) 23:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Triple Crown Stats

The infobox does allow for up to six statistics, but those should be used in only the instances of players with records of some sort. This was discussed.--Muboshgu (talk) 03:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a conversation that has been had for years. I see a number of the usual participants didn't see or take part in this one. I've just added my thoughts. I think your original comment was spot on -- I remember the days well of only batting average being mentioned in print or TV, but those are long gone. No harm will come from allowing editor discretion. It is retrograde to suggest that BA should be reflected, and OBP or SP or OPS not.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Tx

It's no problem. I'm an article writer myself, and I can certainly understand the frustration if one spends hours upon hours on a single article, only to see someone come along and destroy most of it effortlessly. The trimmed article got rid of exactly how much I thought should've gone away: 10%. Spasm was deleting content because of a petty grudge, which is unfair to the subjects of these articles. I have tried to use the GA-Class article Billy Pierce as a model to expand baseball player articles on Misplaced Pages, and he brought it up out of nowhere threatening to hack that down to start class as well, just because Pierce was "less important" than Mickey Mantle and Hank Aaron and therefore has too big of a file size. He failed to mention that those extra KB in the Pierce article was attributed to 100+ reference citations. He seems to leave out a lot of facts whenever arguing his side of thing. Oh well. Two months+ from now I'm not going to put up with his crap if he does it again. Vodello (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Long Island Council of Churches

This is an automated message. I have performed a web search with the contents of Long Island Council of Churches, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.ncccusa.org/ecmin/licc/Old_LICC. This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. CorenSearchBot (talk) 22:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Review Request

It is a small world. Your DYK link for Cordoba House led me to the December, 2009, Times article--your source for the phrase, "its location was a selling point for the Muslims who bought the land." Although I don't recognize the building at all from the pictures, I shopped there when it was being operated by Sy Syms. I still have a couple of his coat hangers from that single trip in the early 1980s.

Curiously, Syms died last year, just about the time that Abdul Rauf was announcing his plans for Cordoba House--I don't think that was the cause.--Komowkwa (talk) 02:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Gerald Garson

On August 6, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gerald Garson, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Gerald Garson

Not familiar with American issues but got lead to that article and very impressed. I want to add it to your page, but too complicated. Do you mind if I watch your discussion page?

		The BLP Barnstar
		For a major effort on enlarging Gerald Garson. Cheers. Luckymelon (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on the school webcam lawsuit article

Thanks for your work on Blake J. Robbins v. Lower Merion School District‎. Blue Rasberry 04:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Cordoba House

On 17 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cordoba House, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Courcelles 00:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Raheel Raza

On 22 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Raheel Raza, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Long Island Board of Rabbis

On 22 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Long Island Board of Rabbis, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Assassination

In my opinion there is no consensus shown for a separate page for the term targeted killing. If you want to create a new page then first lets hold an RFC on talk:assassination and see if there is a consensus for such a page, because at the moment it is not at all clear that there is. The reason for this is that it can be argued that it is an euphemism for assassination. If the consensus is that it is then creating a separate page is a POV fork. -- PBS (talk) 02:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

We already had that discussion on the talk page of assassination. A clear consensus was shown. The material in the targeted killing page is over 100K -- we are not of course going to make that a subset of a page that people say it does not even belong in the first place. There is zero question it is notable in and of itself -- a google search will show you that. There is absolutely no reason for it not to have its own page. Blanking the page because you do not like the consensus is not acceptable either. This is not a place for POV blanking of the page; nor would a prod or an AfD hold water. This has nothing to do with forking -- as the article sources make clear, and the consensus discussion makes clear. Idon'tlikeit is not reason. "It can be argued" -- that's certainly not a reason. Why in the world would you seek to cover up information regarding a subject of great public interest? Really -- what is your motive? Your comments go beyond wikilawyering.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I have created an RFC. If there is a clear consensus then it will be reflected in the RFC. Rather than argue it in different places. lets see what the outcome of the RFC is. -- PBS (talk) 02:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't strike me as a good faith RFC. There is a clear consensus shown. You assert -- against reality -- that it is not clear. You are wasting peoples' time, and being disruptive.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

There is not a clear consensus shown and if there were to be one then it would be reflected in the RFC. Let the RFC play out and if there is a consensus then we can have a page. -- PBS (talk) 03:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

As I said, that's absurd. There was a vocal, extended, talk page discussion of the issue with a clear consensus. You seem from what I can see to have a history with this article. Be that as it may, it shouldn't cloud what is as clear as can be. There is no need for the community, having discussed it, to have another discussion now that the first has been concluded. Just because you don't like the result. There is no need to delete a 100K article with 150 footnotes, because you don't like the result. The RFC should be ignored or rolled up -- the discussion has been had.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

In reverting my edits to targeted killing you have used the phrase "Reverted 1 edit by Philip Baird Shearer identified as unconstructive to last revision by Epeefleche." The link under unconstructive is to Misplaced Pages:Vandalism. I refer you to the section in How not to respond to vandalism and the bullet point: "Avoid the word "vandal". In particular, this word should not be used to refer to any contributor in good standing, or to any edits that might have been made in good faith. This is because if the edits were made in good faith, they are not vandalism. Instead of calling the person who made the edits a "vandal", discuss your concerns with them. Comment on the content and substance of the edits, instead of making personal comments." If I were not a party to this dispute with you, and another editor bought such behaviour to my attention after a warning if you persisted I would block your account until you agreed not to accuse another editor of vandalism, when such edits are made in good faith. I suggest that in future that if you are in a content dispute with a fellow editor that you think very carefully before you accuse another editor of vandalism. -- PBS (talk) 03:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

PBS, first of all I ask you yet again to stop edit warring and to stop blanking the 100K page and attendant talk page. Second of all, inappropriate blanking is indeed vandalism. Third of all, the scrip chose the specific words--if you don't like it, take it up with the scrip writers. It is the standard language. Fourth, good faith is an assumption that you are in a position to rebut. You've done a fine job rebutting the presumption with your bad faith edit warring, etc. I suggest that you, in the future, stop deleting 100K articles with 150 footnotes without a good faith reason, stop edit warring, and stop accusing editors of using the commonly used scrips to be used for deletions without good reason of entire articles.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

What is the name of the template? Either you are using it inappropriately, or the template is incorrectly linked. -- PBS (talk) 04:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

What is inappropriate? You deleted an entire article without legitimate reason. That's vandalism. You are also edit warring. I've asked you many times to stop both types of misbehavior. You are also violating wp:admin.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Please tell me what is the name of the template? In what way do you think I have been violating WP:ADMIN-- PBS (talk) 05:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

If its the warning template we're talking about, it reads "uw-delete ". If its the wp:vandalism admonition on the same, you can find it at wp:vandalism, which in the very first example of what vandalism is describes blanking -- which was precisely what you were doing. As to wp:admin, I would bring your attention to the following: "Administrators are expected to lead by example .... Administrators are expected to follow Misplaced Pages policies .... sustained or serious disruption of Misplaced Pages is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status.... if an administrator finds that he or she cannot adhere to site policies ... while addressing a given issue, then the administrator should bring the issue to a noticeboard or refer it to another administrator to address, rather than potentially compound the problem by poor conduct of his or her own.... Administrators who seriously, or repeatedly, act in a problematic manner or have lost the trust or confidence of the community may be sanctioned or have their access removed. In the past, this has happened or been suggested for: ... edit warring, ... etc) ... Failure to communicate – this can be either to users (e.g., lack of suitable warnings or explanations of actions) ... Repeated/consistent poor judgment." BTW, have you now read what I pointed you to (more than once) in the article and in the prior discussion, that answered your prior question?--Epeefleche (talk) 06:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I hope that you will take a look at the wikibias website.~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by RockvilleMD (talk • contribs) 15:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Byron Krieger

I really do not understand why you keep putting his place of birth in the lifespan brackets. It does not belong there. Can you please explain your edits, because your edit summary is not sufficient. So what if he competed for the United States? The actual place of his birth (Detroit, Michigan) is not particularly notable - in fact, considering that he did compete for the US, that makes it not particularly notable. If he competed for another country, then maybe it would be worth mentioning, or if he was born somewhere else... but an American competitor being born in the United States is nothing notable. Canadian Paul 14:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I got your "will reply soon" email almost a month and a half ago... I think that's more than a reasonable amount of time to wait for a response... Canadian Paul 05:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Morgan Stanley Smith Barney

nice work Decora (talk) 17:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Targeted killing

On 20 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Targeted killing, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

If I can help...

...with the sourcing of Targeted killing as per that conversation at WP:RS/N, let me know. Bigger digger (talk) 02:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

What a kind, generous, offer! Of course -- feel free (if you think it would be helpful). Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Didn't quite make it today, got a bit side tracked. But you really need to stop fanning the flames that PBS feeds on. There's no need to return repeatedly to the RFC, which will close in its own good time. The conversation at the reliable sources noticeboard could've been wrapped up quite quickly if you'd have said "ok, here are some page numbers". Or ignored it. You would have had to add the page numbers eventually (I figure if you didn't he would add dated fact tags and use that as justification to delete the info after a week), so why not just play his game? He's going to make you play it anyway so you should play in the easiest manner you can. The rules are skewed massively in your favour, and he must enjoy all the pointless forum shopping and pointless debating. Say your piece, do what's necessary, and let time take its course, as we all know there's no deadline! Sorry if this is a bit teaching you how to suck lemons, but I think for your own wiki-sanity it might need saying! And sorry not to reply to your email, but I don't have a suitably anonymous email address set up and don't think it necessary. Best, Bigger digger (talk) 02:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Off2riorob

Thanks for the comments! Did you mean to support 1RR or 2RR? Your first post says one, but you say two in the second. In any event, thanks for the thoughtful replies! --TeaDrinker (talk) 07:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Geim

Hi, Just to let you know that you were mentioned here. (Unlike some other noticeboards, the edit notice doesn't require notifying users that are mentioned.)

Possibly WP:Requests for comment/Biographies would've been a more appropriate venue.

--Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

New biographies of living persons noticeboard design

I've create a new design for the biographies of living persons noticeboard that simplifies the reporting process and makes the instructions clearer. Could you take a look at User:Netalarm/Lab 3 and provide some feedback on how to improve it or take it live? Feel free to submit a report there. Thanks. Netalarm 04:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Off2Riorob

Hi -- I have noticed your comments about this editor in a few places, including Scottmac's talk page. You might have noticed mine as well: , on the Ed Miliband talk page, the Geim page, and here. RFC/U requires that two editors have raised concerns with the user directly, on his talk page. I have already done that (the first link above, which he simply deleted). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes -- As Scott had been intensely involved with both the AN and the Geim page, I thought it would be quite appropriate to afford him the ability to take appropriate admin action. Unless he was too involved already as an editor, as may be the case (though he seemed to be involved in pleading Off2's case (as an editor), which likely would have allowed him to take some action). Scott has not responded. At the very least, especially given Scott's silence, I thought I should give Off2 the opportunity to consider my concerns with his behavior (whether or not I pursue an RFC/U ... which, as it turns out, is something that Scott has mentioned as a possibility as well). So I've just left word for Off2 as well.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I have not taken any admin action as regards Rob. And I have not "pled his case" either. I archived a thread because I believed that the voluntary agreement covered the most pertinent points. Others were free to disagree with that, or indeed revert my closure. Closing or opening a thread is not an admin action, and if I'd been reverted I would not have closed it again - that would be for others to decide either way. As for Robb's actions, I've not examined them at all. However, it might be best to ask some neutral editor to do that. Generally raising behaviour questions once you are in a content dispute (and particularly one as vexed as categorising BLPs by identity) is more difficult. You will not be seen as objective. If you've concerns about my admin actions, feel free to raise them with me, at the moment I'm not sure I've taken any.--Scott Mac 15:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Scott Mac -- perhaps I misunderstand RFC/U, but I would have thought that the point is precisely to request comments from neutral observers. True, I would not be perceived as objective about O2RR at this juncture -- so the the point would be to request comment from others who would be perceived as objective. Is this not how it works? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was only suggesting that getting someone uninvolved to mediate might be useful.--Scott Mac 18:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Israel.2C_Palestine_and_the_United_Nations

I left comments. Thank you for the heads up. Can you find my name in the link? ;-) Bearian (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Hahaha. Yes I did. Congratulations! I believe one of my colleagues may have taught there while you were there. I pinged you and DGG on this, as I thought it might interest the two of you. One point on your post, that one of us might address. Do you think it would be helpful to clarify the degree of fact-checking and re-checking involved in a law review? That, to my mind, is part of what makes it such a reliable source ... it is beyond that which we see, I imagine, in many other RSs, and goes to the heart of the matter. Also, do you think we need clarification at the guideline, to avoid this sort of confusion by others in the future, who know little of what a law review is, but are not dissuaded in the least from commenting as to whether it is an RS?--Epeefleche (talk) 22:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yemen-Chicago Plot

Thanks for your work on this article! It's developed a lot since I created it a couple of days ago. There's an extra layer of depth now that I wasn't able to provide with just the BBC articles I was using. – Novem Lingvae (talk) 06:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. And many thanks for starting it, and doing such a good job at that. (Hopefully someone will be able to find us a relevant picture or two that we can add as well). A pleasure meeting you. Best. --Epeefleche (talk) 06:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The article is looking great! I've nominated it to appear on WP:ITN. The discussion is at . – Novem Lingvae (talk) 22:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Good call, as to ITN--I am unfamiliar with it.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

ITN: 2010 cargo plane bomb plot

On 2 November 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article 2010 cargo plane bomb plot, which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

-- tariqabjotu 16:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Yay!!! – Novem Lingvae (talk) 21:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah dude, I'm watching the page views too! Really I just started the article and you took over after the first day. Every time I refresh the page history there's like 20 new edits by you. Good job man! Talk about just diligently reading every newspaper as they put out an article on the issue and incorporating the new facts. I look forward to collaborating on IR articles in the future. :D – Novem Lingvae (talk) 06:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

		The Current Events Barnstar
		For fantastic work on expanding the 2010 cargo plane bomb plot article and helping to get it featured on the front page of Misplaced Pages. Great job! – Novem Lingvae (talk) 06:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Geim article

Hi,

I posted a proposal for a cleaner version of the bio. I'm not sure if you check the talk page (plus it was moved up by a few anon. comments) so I though I'd notify you here. Basically, it compresses redundant info. and puts sources in refs. Like, instead of saying something like "The Forward and RussianInfoCentre and Physics World reported that..." it would say ""Several sources (link to footnotes) reported that..." That way it just seems a lot more professional, and the flow improves significantly.

Please check it out, and make any suggestions if you want. Regards, --Therexbanner (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Tx ... will take a look when I have a moment. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

In concept, it is certainly fine. But it may be that some who are not as quick as you are may need additional assistance.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I've addressed it in the text, with your notion and those expressed on the tp by others as the guide. Different working, but same concept and I hope it addresses precisely the point you range.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Awlaki

"that in the 2010 cargo plane bomb plot, packages containing bombs were addressed and mailed to historical figures from the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition?"

That's interesting. Unfortunately the article isn't eligible for DYK because it was on ITN, though it's in much better shape than a lot of other article there. Anyway, wondering if you saw the CNN feature on Awlaki today? I saw it advertised but went to vote so didn't get to. Grsz 04:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't see the CNN feature. Tx for the head's up -- where would I find the ITN/DYK rule?--Epeefleche (talk) 04:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

For whatever reason, links are squeezed in here. Also note the "Additional rules". Grsz 04:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

RE: Your email

Thanks for the heads up, I don't think they will succeed but it's good to know they're planning it. Did you let Jayjg know as well?Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 08:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• No -- only you. Jayjg and I have made complaints about each other at AN/I. To put it delicately, he is not really an editor I choose to converse with.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

jewish

Why don't you gey over yourself and leave living subjects alone, three Christian Grandparents makes him a whole lot not jewish, all the world can see he is a single quarter jew, the size of which is a minor genetic issue. Also if you are unable to discuss like adult and insst on adding silly templates to my talkpage then stay off my talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 14:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Your understanding of the matter seems, with all due respect, to be perhaps on par with your spelling in your above missive. In any event, please respect core wikipedia policies such as verifiability, consensus, and the Project's general distaste for disruptive editing. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

If you are going to cite verifiability, best to read the sources. The RIC did not say he was Jewish, but "born to a Jewish family". I've corrected the text to reflect the sources accurately.--Scott Mac 14:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

This brings to mind a conversation we once had regarding the possibility that you might be tag-teaming with an editor. I'm trying to recall his name. Also with regard to the propriety of you acting both as a sysop on an article and as an editor on the very same article, which raises perhaps questions under wp:admin.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

What the fuck? What is this? Are not we all supposed to working for neutral verifiable content accurate to the sources? I saw a dispute between the two of you, and rather than jump in with blocks and templates I thought the best way to settle was to examine the sources. What's your problem with that?--Scott Mac 14:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

On my talk page, I would appreciate it if you would make an effort to find some other language to express yourself. Children view this page at times. It's a robust language, and in it you may well find similarly satisfactory expressions that they would find perhaps slightly less offensive. As to the substance of what I am saying, I assume your understanding of my comment is such that I need not provide diffs, and discussions of Arb Committee applications of wp:admin, and reference prior AN closes, and the like. This isn't an AN/I or an arbitration -- we're simply seeking to communicate with each other. So I imagine further explication is not necessary here.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I changed the material to reflect the given sources more accurately. The previous version seriously misrepresented the sources. Would you rather I had left the inaccurate version?--Scott Mac 16:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring your rather energetic exaggeration, I'll limit myself to suggesting that the beginning of your answers lie in WP:ADMIN and the arb cases decided applying the relevant principle.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I've no idea what you are on about. If you think I've misread the sources let me know. Otherwise, I think I'll just let it go.--Scott Mac 18:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

opinion/feedback requested

At the Jan Schakowsky article I am arguing (on the Talk page) that an Infobox field for "Religion" should be completed with the term "Jewish." I am being told that no, "Jewish" is not a "religion"—"Judaism" is. Could you respond to me on my Talk page. I need a second opinion, so-to-speak. Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 04:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Is the point that is being made that Judaism is only a religion? And if someone is Jewish, it could apply to the Jewish religion (e.g., I am of the Jewish religion) and/or the Jewish ethnicity (I am ethnically Jewish) and/or the Jewish nation (I am part of the Jewish nation, the Tribe of Levi)?--Epeefleche (talk) 06:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The infobox has a field. The field contains the word "Religion". On the Talk page of the Jan Schakowsky article is this section. It contains a variety of sources. It is my contention that those sources would support the inclusion of the term "Jewish" into the field for "Religion" in the infobox. Do you agree? If you disagree that's OK too. Your reasoning behind any stance you take would of course be of interest to me too. Bus stop (talk) 12:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

You may wish to participate

User:Wuhwuzdat has made a very WP:Pointy deletion nomination of List of management consulting firms after two of his wholesale deletions of article content were reverted and explained here. Since you participated in the 1st AfD, I am notifying you of the 2nd AfD in the event you wish to participate. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Civilian casualty ratio

Did you purposely chop off the lower page, or are you by chance editing by phone?  -- WikHead (talk) 00:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Tx for pointing it out, though I see another editor fixed it in accordance w/my edit summary. Neither, as it turns out -- just a SNAFU. Apologies.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Warning

If you are going to continue to edit here, you need to both understand the letter and spirit of the biographies of living people policy and accept it. If you continue to disrupt article talk pages arguing the consensus can override BLP, I will open a user conduct RfC on your behavior. Yworo (talk) 18:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious? Your comment is absurd. OK, first of all let me warn you for a wholly inappropriate warning. Take that, given the inappropriateness, as a final warning. Level 11. It goes to 11. Second, there is nothing at all disruptive in what I have done. If you think there is, I urge you to bring it to a noticeboard immediately, and submit yourself to sanction if your bullying inappropriate warning is found to be absurd. Third, you don't display in your comment a firm grasp of what a talk page is used for. Fourth, you don't display a firm grasp of the importance of consensus. Fifth, you don't display a firm grasp of BLP vs. wp:cat. Sixth, you don't display a firm grasp of the proper use of warnings. Seventh, of civility. Eighth, you appear to be trying to threaten me with sanctions for expressing a legitimate view which -- quite frankly -- IMHO is more legitimate than your view. I urge you to bring this to a noticeboard, as I would be happy to have the community comment on what I view as your less than appropriate behavior.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Blabbing about consensus as if you knew what it meant is pointless as consensus can never override BLP. Yworo (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Others' understanding of BLP can always override your understanding of BLP. And please desist with your incivility. Again, I urge you to make your threatened report, and submit yourself to scrutiny by the community at the same time.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I've been scrutinized before and am not afraid of it as I've done nothing wrong. Yworo (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Then please make the threatened report. Your threat was inappropriate. Your incivility is not appropriate. Your personal attacks are not appropriate. IMHO. You've made your threat, and I've invited you to follow through on it so that the community can provide you feedback on whether it was appropriate.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll get around to it; however, I made no personal attacks, nor was I uncivil. I merely told you that I thought your behavior was disruptive to Misplaced Pages. And I believe that in good faith. I'm not the only one to think that. You are always welcome to discontinue the disruptive behavior. Yworo (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

We have starkly different opinions of the appropriateness of your behavior. And mine. I look forward to you making your threatened report, as I have been unable to explain satisfactorily to you why your threat was not appropriate. I would hope that community input would better clarify to you why your baseless threat, your incivility, and your personal attack are not appropriate. Please let me know when you have subjected your behavior to that scrutiny, as I would be happy to participate in the discussion.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Please feel free to provide a diff of the alleged personal attack. In fact, if you really think I've been incivil and attacked you, please take it to the Wikiquette noticeboard. It may be a while before I get around to opening an RfC/U. Thanks. Yworo (talk) 20:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Ahah. I see. Not only was your threat not appropriate. It was pure, empty, impotent bluster, when you considered that it would lead to a review not only of the fact that it was wholly without merit-less, but also to a review of your behavior, as evidenced in this string. I would urge you to desist in baseless threats, personal attacks, and incivility. Please take this as a final warning with regard to such behavior.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

As you've still not substantiated your baseless accusations, same to you. I will file the RfC/U if your inappropriate behaviour continues. Yworo (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see my above comments. Res ipsa loquitur. Given your behavior on this page, I ask you not to make entries on it in the future, other than to alert me to any reports relating to me. Have a great week.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Covenant Aviation Security

On 1 December 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Covenant Aviation Security, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Transportation Security Administration officials tipped off Covenant Aviation Security employees to undercover tests of their luggage screeners at airport checkpoints? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

1. Cite error: The named reference nytimes1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. Saloman, Deborah (April 7, 2010). "Blue Devils' Advocate Sounds Off". Southern Pines, North Carolina: The Pilot. Retrieved April 8, 2010.
3. Cite error: The named reference sport was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
4. Bannon, Terry (December 16, 2007). "He's caught off guard; Scheyer adjusting to new role as sub for No. 6 Blue Devils". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved March 15, 2010.
5. "Duke Blue Devils Basketball Statistical Database". GoDuke.com. Retrieved April 4, 2010.
6. "Sherron Collins Named Wooden Award All-American". Wibw.com. April 1, 2010. Retrieved April 2, 2010.
7. Corcoran, Tully (April 3, 2010). "KU's Collins an All-American". The Topeka Capital-Journal. Retrieved April 23, 2010.
8. Cite error: The named reference allacc was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
9. "Accolades Pour in for Scheyer, Singler and Smith". GoDuke.com. March 16, 2010. Retrieved March 16, 2010.
10. Powers, Scott (April 2, 2010). "Making memories – After three NCAA disappointments, Duke's Scheyer living his childhood dream". ESPN.com. Retrieved April 4, 2010.