text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hate groups and new religious movements

Hate groups and new religious movements
This article was a section of the Hate group article until today. Rather than remove one specific disputed sentence of the article (an allegation by a particular new religious movement that certain of their critics are organized against them as a hate group) one editor, who had already reached his limit of three reverts on that one sentence of the article, decided without consulting any other editors to remove the entire section and turn it into its own article. This version of the article, of course, contained the disputed sentence.

There is certainly such a thing as being bold in editing. However, "Be bold" also clearly states "show respect for consensus". This edit was clearly not done with respect for consensus but in defiance of the fact that the disputed sentence was not supported by consensus. This article should be merged back into its parent article. Splitting off an article is not a valid alternative to "obeying the three revert rule". -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:04, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * (NOTE: Antaeus is incorrect on this. I did not exceed the three revert rule. I am one of the main contributors to the hate group article and did many edits that day, not just reverts. On the other hand, Antaeus, the one requesting this VfD was the one doing reverts only...) --Zappaz 15:24, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Note: Despite my clear description of the sequence of events above, Zappaz creates a second, false version of events that he misdescribes as my account (the familiar "straw man" technique).  Zappaz did not violate the letter of the three-revert rule, by restoring an allegation he wanted in the article three times, and then restoring it yet again.  He certainly violated the spirit of the three-revert rule, by restoring an allegation he wanted in the article three times, removing the entire section without consultation or consensus to a new article, and restoring the very same allegation to the very same place.  What Zappaz describes above, making "many edits" which all contain the restoration of a disputed element, and arguing that those edits do not count as 'reverts' because they are not only reverts, has been argued before and it has been rejected before; they clearly count as reverts in the spirit of the three-revert rule, even if the violator has tried to exploit a technicality.  Likewise, Zappaz restored the same sentence to the same block of text four times.  Does the fact that he moved the block of text itself to a different article between the third and fourth time he did it mean that he never violated the spirit of the three-revert rule?  Clearly not; under that interpretation no one would ever have to obey the three-revert rule as long as they remembered to punctuate every three reverts with a page move or a breakout to a new article.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:28, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Nice try, Antaeus. An apology for your mistatement was expected. Instead you expand with a lame attempt at interpreting the three revert rule. Unbelievable. --Zappaz 22:09, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Your words, Anteaus:  one editor, who had already reached his limit of three reverts on that one sentence of the article [....] decided without consulting any other editors to remove the entire section and turn it into its own article. Should you say sorry...? --Zappaz 22:21, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Not until I'm wrong, Zappaz. You had already reached your limit of three reverts, and when you wanted to do another revert but couldn't without hitting the three-revert rule, you moved the section you wanted to a new article and then said "There, I haven't broken the three revert rule; sure, I restored a disputed part of the text to the exact same block of text as before, but because the block of text is now in a different article, it's not technically a revert."  You may have adhered to the letter of the rule, but you sure as hell didn't adhere to the spirit. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:20, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * But you are wrong, Antaeus, you are. You see, you are assuming that I removed the text block from the article as a way to bypass the three revert rule. Well, that is your assumption and one that I take exception with, because it assumes malicious intent on my part. This is becoming personal for you: your attitude in following me around my edits in other articles to "NPOV" them, your negative comments about my prolificacy, and your accusation against me as in your last comment in the talk page. Antaeus, I have made a decision not to get angry at you, because by doing so I only become your victim. So, I will remain cool and collected, go back to my edits and hope that others will join me in keeping that text in the Hate group article as well as helping me further develop the Hate group article, and this article if it survives VfD or the pertinent section in the New religious movement. After all this is what is all about: editing the best encyclopedia there is, and not engaging in endless debates.  --Zappaz 03:22, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Additional comments by Zappaz
 * Let me correct you here, Antaeus. You keep assuming that the vote on this page is for merging back to Hate group. But you are again wrong in your assumptions. Voters here will decide through this VfD, the fate of this text, (keep, delete, or it to merge into another article, which one.) not you. --Zappaz 19:45, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's extraordinarily weak, Zappaz. If I thought it was up to me to determine the fate of the article, why would I have put it up on VfD for a vote in the first place?  Surely you are not suggesting that I have no right to point out that you took the entire text of the article straight from the Hate group article?  No right to point out that the first thing you did when you created the article was to restore a heavily disputed statement that would have been a violation of the three-revert rule had you kept it in the original article?  No right to point out that at least three of the voters who have shown up to cast votes have made clear that they view that allegation as the purpose of the article?  -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:49, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * If that is the case, it will be more appropriate for you then, to stop speaking of merging back to hate group article, every time you counter a keep vote. Concerning the three votes that are as you say are supportive of the "ex-premie as a hate group" allegation, that has nothing to do with the fact that what we are doing in the VfD page is voting for the whole text not just these four words. --Zappaz 23:21, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Delete: The edit war history is one thing, but the article move is another. Is the new organization useful?  Will it be sought?  I think the answers to both are "no."  Therefore, delete as a stand alone.  No need to merge and redirect, as it's a split already. Geogre 02:22, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, I think it's a valid topic. Not just a valid topic, but one which could have an excellent, fascinating article written about it. The animosity between "cults" and anti-cult groups is an enormous topic. So keep it, and revert that redirect. Everyking 09:51, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, let it fester and grow. Wyss 23:16, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Abstain for the moment  I fully agree with Everyking that the animosity between cults, NRMs and its detractors is a valid subject and needs its own article because the cult article is already approaching 32k but I do not think that the title is good. I propose cult wars (this sounds unencyclopedic but it really is a propaganda war) or Controversy surrounding cults and new religious movements. Move to Controversy surrounding new religious movements and their critics. I have a lot of material in my head and books that can go in that article. The article can contain among others the following subjects.
 * accusations by the anti-cult movement, media and ex-members
 * reliability of the testimonies of ex-members. E.g. scholar J. Gordon Melton categorically refuses to use ex-members' testimonies because he thinks that they are unreliable. (I am an ex-member and I find this highly offensive and prejudiced)
 * Hate groups and NRMs
 * etc
 * Needless to say that such an article will probably be extremely controversial. Andries 18:02, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I like that second suggested title. Obviously the use of "hate groups" in the title would be very problematic for a general article on the subject. Everyking 19:35, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep: The edit war is raging simply because the ex-premies, a group of 20 people don't like to be called "hate group". Fact is that they are being called that, and the reasons clearly documented. The contention between NRMs such as Elan Vital and hateful ex-followers such as the ex-premies is part and parcel of the on-going debate of freedom of religion and the controversy surrounding the use of the Internet for magnifying the relevance of fringe groups as the ex-premies. The whole section was moved out of the hate group into New religious movements and now it is being deleted again from there by the ex-pemies and anoter editor that is helping them. That is the reason why I am placing this back in VfD. I vote keep and title change to Controversy surrounding new religious movements and their critics ≈ jossi ≈ 11:36, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * I would like to note that Jossi has descended to personal attacks here, identifying those opposing his side of the "edit war" as "the ex-premies", "hateful ex-followers". I question how changing the noun in the title from "hate group" to "critics" is going to result in any change in the POV attitude of the text.  To quote from the VfD template, "This request is being discussed to form a consensus whether this is, or could be, an article appropriate for Wikipedia."  If it's not going to be something acceptable to consensus as a section of Hate group, it's not going to be acceptable to consensus as its own article, either. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:28, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I would like to note that Antaeus has taken it upon himself to judge each people round here. I wonder what makes him feel entitled to do that. In his comment above, Jossi is only stating his POV: that the ex-premies in his view are a hate group, and that the ex-premies and one other editor are removing that text. Both, by the way, facts that can be seen in the article's history. He is expressing strong statements aginst the ex-premies. That is his choice. But he is not saying anything against anyone else. Please, read before you shoot!!!! --Zappaz 03:33, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I can not say that I often agree with Jossi but I think that the title that he proposed Controversy surrounding new religious movements and their critics for a future article is better than my proposal. There will be enough material for that future article in a few weeks, I think. Andries 09:09, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Keep and expand somewhere- The current situation is that a short summary of this is now present at Hate group (and still under pressure to be removed from there), and the whole text placed as a section in the New religious movement. That text is also being challenged there by one editor that is only interested in removing text regardless of the value of that text. As one that studies Apostasy] throughout history, hateful behavior of apostates is not surprising. As Everyking says, this is a fascinating subject, and the controversy between emerging religions and their apostates is worthy of exploration. After I complete my work on [[Apostasy, we may end up with enough text for an article just on this subject with summaries placed then on New religious movements, Cults and Apostasy. In respond to Andries about this article being very controversial[sic], I would say, "exactly." --Zappaz 15:47, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC) . Change title to: Controversy surrounding new religious movements and their critics, then the current text can go in its own section called "Allegations of hate group behaviors". Other possible sections: "Reliability of apostates' testimony", "Criticism vs. freedom of belief", "Religious fundamentalism and their criticism of NRMs", "The left and their criticism of NRMs",  This will be a great article.  --Zappaz 16:59, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * The question is whether you should have broken out the text in the first place. Did you consult with any other editors to determine consensus before making the unilateral decision to perform the breakout?  Was the size of the parent article such that it needed such a breakout?  When you broke out the article did it give you permission to restore a disputed piece of text on which you had already hit the limit of three re-insertions?  No, no, and no.  Your claim that you can find really interesting material to fill up your new article is irrelevant to the fact that you started a new article so that you could include material which you could not get consensus for in the original article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:28, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Are you saying that I need consensus to do an edit? What kind of behavior is that? Have you edited an article later? Do you have to ask permission to edit anything? I do not understand you, your reasons and your motives. Sorry --Zappaz 22:18, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * For someone who was just three days ago complained that my edits were "unilateral" because no one who wasn't previously involved in the dispute had stepped forward after an RfC to say "yes, you should do that", you suddenly seem quite unfamiliar with the concept of consensus. You'll note that I had my own refactoring of the article to suggest, a separation of the current articles into Hate group and List of purported hate groups.  This separation has precedent in the articles for Cult and List of purported cults and it actually has a chance to solve the major point of contention on the article, since the people who are fighting your efforts to keep reinserting specific allegations into Hate group have generally supported so far the efforts to put those allegations into List of purported hate groups.  However, your breakout of a new article was definitely not designed to solve the conflict between the two groups, since it only allowed you to insert the exact same bone of contention into your new article (which you could not have done without breaking the three-revert rule if it had been kept as one article.)  So completely far from bringing us closer to consensus, your breakout of an article has resulting in the bone of contention being doubled, since the allegations under dispute are now in both articles! -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:56, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Look Anteus, you shoud have been more forthcoming from the outset. Now that I know your POV (i.e. after reading your words of support of Rick Ross, and your anti-scientology stance as expressed in your user pages, etc.), I undestand much better where are you coming from. So, I have no problems if you want to start an article List of purported hate groups. Go ahead! I still reserve the Wikipedia given right, to to continue developing this text either here with a different title, as a sub-heading in New religious movement, or as a sub-heading under Apostasy. My research shows me that there is  a lot more than just "group X calling group Y a hate group" or "Group X uses the term hate group against group Y as a form of vituperation" as per Gary D.'s comment. Much, much more. Hopefuly others will help me develop this further. --Zappaz 02:03, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * You may think you understand much better where I am coming from, Zappaz. Or you may just think you have an accusation you can hurl against me that will stand up better than your previous accusation of "You're siding with the ex-premies!  That's appalling and disgusting!"  If you were to actually develop this article in an NPOV manner, then I would have no objections.  The fact that the first thing you did when you created a new article was to insert a disputed sentence that you could not have done had you kept things to a single article gives me no faith whatsoever that you actually intend to be even-handed with your new article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:22, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Zappaz, at least I can prove that the accusation that you make against me here is untrue. Hereabove I explicitly wrote that the information should be kept. I only think that the detailed information that you inserted is not appropriate for such a broad, general topic as new religious movements. I think you are a POV pusher on the subject cults and NRMs and I can prove it by the edits that you have made. If you believe that cults are so harmless then why do suggest me to seek psychological help to deal with my cult involvement? Andries 18:11, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Andries, we all have our POVs. That is a fact. Yes, I am concerned with the cloud of negativity pushed around emerging religions by the unikely coalition of anti-cultist, the religious right and the noveau left. I have stated that openly in several ocassions. What I told you was that you may be trying to use WP as a way to resolve your internal conflicts regarding your traumatic experience with an NRM. My advise to you was to seek professional help. That will do you better than edit wars in WP. Regarding this article, I don't care were we put it as long as it stays.--Zappaz 22:18, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Delete. There may be the germ of an article here somewhere, but this a shameless POV dodge. Settle the issue on the main page, break out something later. --Calton 07:31, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Keep and expand - If one judges by the controverys above, this is juicy stuff. My vote is to keep, maybe changing the article's title to something that would allow expansion. --Senegal 00:27, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Hi user senegal - i watched your contrib list -almost Prem Rawat only- You are using a sockpuppet, probably two votes from you here, or more? What an accident that you appear here for voting since you didn't use it after October 11. What_is_wrong_at_Wikipedia_? 66.250.68.55
 * Yes, this is my sockpuppet account, publicly stated here: User:Senegal. Designed specifically to deter trolls like you from harassing me and vandalizing my real user page. Admin: your call if to count my vote or not. --Senegal 14:12, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * It was just as juicy stuff when it was part of Hate group, which is what I'm hoping you will change your vote to a merge back into. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:24, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Delete article and merge content into an appropriate article. If Hate group doesn't fit then send it over to Cult or some religious article. The other alternative is to rename it and make it encyclopedic - Hate and religion (it's not just new movements that hate each other). But splitting an article to avoid settling a conflict is not the way to arrive at the best articles. -Willmcw 00:56, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The section belongs here, and if written fairly, cleanly and in an academic fashion, then how is the public LESS served by an exposition and discussion of the issues? MORE INFORMATION IS ALWAYS BETTER. Be editors, not censors. Richard G. 14:02, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep There is a considerable body of hard, provable material to raise more than a reasonable inference that this Ex-Premie outfit is a hate group, or at the very least, fits the definitions that Wiki editors have already accepted. In addition, the Ex-Premie group have made many statements, here and on their web page that they are a large enough group of people to be taken seriously. They can;t have it both ways. If they speak for "thousands" of people, as their de facto leader John Brauns has said, and, if they are doing a "public service" by their activities, as they have also claimed, then the scrutiny of public exposure is as appropriate to them as it is to their target. In short, "who watches the Watchmen?"
 * Note that Richard G's vote does not address the actual issue, that of whether the article under discussion should have been split off from Hate group. If anything, it is evidence that, despite the protests, the article was indeed created expressly for the purpose of including an disputed allegation against Prem Rawat's critics -- since that allegation is exactly the justification that Richard G. offers for keeping this article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:37, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The discussion in this VfD has evolved Antaeus. You cannot silence good points for developing this article furhter. Several people are adapting their initial vote base on the comments by others. That is a good thing. I would urge you to re-consider your stance and evolve your thinking as well. This text can be seed for a great article. --Zappaz 23:41, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The discussion in this VfD has not "evolved", it has been deliberately dragged off-topic by determined red herrings. The point is not whether the text "can be seed for a great article", because no one is disputing that the subject itself is encyclopedic.  The point is that it was an encyclopedic subject that was already being covered in an existing article, and you found you couldn't control its contents to the degree you wanted without violating the three-revert rule.  You believed that you could get away with re-inserting the same sentence in the text for the fourth time in twenty-four hours as long as you extracted the entire section to a new article.  And your airy waving away of that impropriety with your patronizing "evolve your thinking" is really no more than saying "let me get away with it; I thumbed my nose at Wikipedia but let me get away with it." -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:08, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I can only say that I find your self-righteousness (may I say anal-retentiveness?*) to be rather insufferable. You find it easy to accuse others of malfeasance but fail to recognize your own shortcomings. Could it be that the one "thumbing his nose at Wikipedia" is you? Rather than work to help build consensus it seems that you chose to hold on to your POV so dearly that you fail to recognize value brought forth by voters on this page. I am glad that this VfD is almost over and hopefully spare these endless debates and focus instead on editing. --Zappaz 02:06, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * (*)... the intended implication is that an anally retentive person needs to "loosen up" a little instead of "holding on to it".
 * You are a specialist concernig those matters, i know. What about anal-tattoo? What_is_wrong_at_Wikipedia_? 66.250.68.55

 * Note that Antaeus Feldspar uses this vote page to pass judgement on the reasons for votes that are contrary to his vote. LOL! I we all followed that procedure oh my god! Let people vote and express their POVs in peace. --Zappaz 20:04, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I simply wish it to be noted that Richard G. (or Lexy, if it is again Lexy using Richard's account) does not make a convincing argument for why the article should be kept; if anything, his/her argument shows why it should never have been created. If the reasons given for a vote are irrelevant, then why does the deletion policy specifically state to give reasoning behind all votes?  If the reasoning offered for a vote is flawed, who are you to say that the flaw in the reasoning cannot be pointed out?  Once again, even as you are pretending despite the clear evidence that you had some other motive for breaking out than wanting to reinsert an allegation against the ex-premies, Richard G. is coming along and citing the opportunity to make an allegation against the ex-premies as his/her sole reason to keep the article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:51, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I endorse Richard G's comments. The term "public service" is a smoke screen used by this 'ex-premie' group to disguise the real nature of their activities. For further information, please visit http://www.elanvital.com.au/faq/idx/11/0/ or http://www.one-reality.net Thank you, James R -- User has exactly three edits, this vote and two edits to Votes for deletion/Ex-Premies.
 * Keep In my previous submission on this subject, I provided links to a substantial body of evidence including numerous forum posts by members of the 'Ex-premie' group, and an affidavit accepted as evidence by the Supreme court in Brisbane Australia. The evidence clearly demonstrates that the group's activities, and the statements of its members conform to Wikipedia's Hate Group criteria.

Interesting material that seems to belong within either Hate group or the second half of New religious movement. I don't see any reason to create a new article. (Re)merge -- Hoary 02:24, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)

 * Comment and clarification from user James R The comment "User has exactly three edits, this vote and two edits," has been added to my post above. On October 14th, I received an email regarding this web site and submissions by Jim Heller. The author used an anonymizer, so I chose not to reply, however, my interest was aroused. I maintain a web site, www.one-reality.net, in which I expose the Ex-premie group for what they are (a HATE GROUP), debunk their propaganda, and expose the tactics they employ. My free time is limited. Others were already countering the inaccurate, excessively negative ex-premie spin, so for those reasons I did not contribute to the debate on this web site at that time. I chose to contribute to the discussion for the first time when the subject of ex-premies as a hate group arose. I hope that my contributions, recent and few though they have been, have shed some light on the real nature and modus operandi of the ex-premie group. I will write a more detailed account later in the week. My thanks to Wikipedia editors. Obviously, you have done your best to wade through a mountain of conflicting information concerning Prem Rawat and the organizations supporting his work. I hope that an analysis of the Ex-premie Hate Group will present an easier task. James R

Peter Gordon LLb Note: this is 203.217.39.118's only edit.
 * Delete. Before I would consider this an article worth keeping, I would want to see some evidence that this article is going to develop into anything more than a tactic to avoid achieving consensus in another article.   I don't.  If every article X on which there is a dispute spawns a "Controversies concerning X" article,  Wikipedia will be filled with dumb "Controversy" articles pretty fast.   --BM 17:51, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * BM: It will develop into a full blown article, now or later. See a sample of what it could look like in my scrapbook --Zappaz 19:57, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete for reasons stated by BM. The content appears to be useful and should incorporated in the Hate group article. Martg76 19:59, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * ((((( KEEP )))))Make no mistake this is an original Cyber Stalking Hate Group. Do not allow them to Fadddddddde away. Their tactics are beyond reproach.Scare mongering, Telephone hang-ups, Virus mail - You name it - These guys willstop at nothing!
 * Yet another voter showing up, never questioning that the reason for the article's existence is to promote Elan Vital's allegations against the ex-premies. They're probably correct about that, too.  They're just incorrect that this actually constitutes a valid reason to not re-merge the article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:27, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. The page needs some improvement and perhaps some more material, but the topic seems important enough to carry in the Wikipedia. The controversy over the article proves that it is at least thought-provoking. RyanGerbil10 06:30, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC) (voted moved from main VfD page--Niteowlneils 22:06, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC))
 * Delete. Motives suspect. Niteowlneils 22:06, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. No POV forks. Jayjg 23:56, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Galaxiaad

Welcome!
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Flockmeal 01:04, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Thanks
Thanks for reverting vandalism to my user page before I got to it! --Richard0612 10:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

My revert to Shakira
Whoops, looks like I got a little trigger-happy there. This VandalProof thing is so fast, I had to disable tapping on my touchpad when I use it. Thanks for catching it. Dina 11:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello
Hello there, I'm just apologizing for my editing on the Constellation links. I should of understood and took time to read that this isn’t a place for advertising and I'll take that into consideration.

Yeh they are amazing bands, its great to try and get people together who love the same music. As much as I love Boards of Canada and other electronic artists for that matter I decided to keep with a theme of Constellation Record artists, but that might change in the future!

Again sorry for my mistake and thanks :)

-(Hexagonsun 21:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC))

Humourous
I really liked "the grammar freak and the descriptivist linguist in me are constantly at war"! I might use that, though I'd never claim it as my own. --Guinnog 01:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! It's good to know others have the same problem. ;) --Galaxiaad 18:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Space Invader
I've seen it referred to as both Invader and Space Invader. He seems to sign himself as just Invader, but others refer to him more often Space Invader. I've no real preference over what the article is titled, except obviously for the fact I chose Space Invader. Fine by me unless anyone else objects. --duncan 22:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Elliott Smith
Thank you for your kind words! I hope we can get him on the front page someday! =) Phorque 19:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello
Thanks for your concerns. I think I'll just try to work things out directly with any interested editors as there are likely to be reasonably few of them, and working across a dozen talk pages at once is fairly inconvenient. I did take one of the largest of these categories that I could find, Category:Pages containing IPA, to categories for deletion to see what the consensus was on that matter. See for some discussion on relevant issues. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
For your kind congratulations. Let me know if there is ever anything I can do for you. I still do a bit of AWB/RETF work from time to time. --Guinnog 20:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Userboxtop template
I fixed the problem you mentioned.  Pagra shtak  15:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Tofurky/tofurkey
If a page links to a redirect, it's not necessary (or desirable) to edit that page just to change the wikilink. See Redirect. I've mentioned on the Talk:Tofurky page that the redirect probably shouldn't be there anyway. -- JHunterJ 11:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Yeah, I know. :/ I started doing it (when the move asked me to check for double redirects) and then realized maybe I shouldn't be, and continued partially just for consistency (heh), and partially because I was thinking tofurkey basically referred to Tofurky anyway, and so was a misspelling.  (Though I did see the recipes, it still could be argued that those are imitating the Tofurky product — and besides, did people use the word "tofurkey" before that product, or is it a genericized trademark?)  Looks like your comments on the talk page were made after I did the move.  Anyway, now I believe you're right about the tofurkey thing and I think it was a good idea to separate the pages; I'm just trying to explain my reasoning so as to look a bit less foolish. :)  Incidentally, Talk:Tofurky is still a redirect to Talk:Tofurkey.  Though the comments there kind of pertain to both articles (really they pertain to the old Tofurkey), I assume the best thing to do would be just to remove the redirect.  What do you think? --Galaxiaad 17:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Oops on the derelict talk page redirect; yes, it should be removed (I'll do that momentarily). Turtle Island has trademarked only Tofurky, although they have both tofurky.com and tofurkey.com. tofurkey goes back in the news to 13 November 1996 (Hartford Courant), tofurky to 7 November 1995 (The Oregonian), both in reference to Turtle Island products, so (I speculate) there may have eventually been an issue with getting tofurkey trademarked. -- JHunterJ 17:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Who?
In response to this message: I'm sorry; I have no idea who or what "AMK" is. ^^; –Aponar Kestrel (talk) 23:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

 * ... oddly enough, I was on an anime chat on Napster years ago. That was around the time my laptop died, though, so I don't really have any logs to refer to; and Google does show someone around by the nick "AMKestrel", so I can't really say whether you're remembering me or not. ... um. Would there have been someone by the nom de share of "KhaosLady" on this chat? –Aponar Kestrel (talk) 03:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Baribari Value
Thank you for making this article into comprehensible English. I've edited it slightly and checked that it's consistent with the Japanese article. -- Grgcox 12:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

bash.org
response left on TALK:bash.org. /Blaxthos 22:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Philly meetup
Hi! There will be a Wikipedia Meetup in Philadelphia on 4 November. If you're interested in coming, RSVP by editing Meetup/Philadelphia 2 to reflect the likelihood of your being able to attend. If you have any questions, feel free to ask CComMack's talk page. Hopefully, we'll all see you (and each other) on the 4th! --evrik 16:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Philadelphia Meetup 3
FYI ... Meetup/Philadelphia 3 --evrik (talk) 00:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

percentages
do have any percentages of howmany kids use drugs illegaly

16:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)67.33.205.8 16:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar
I do hope the reason you haven't got dozens of these already isn't that you hate the very idea of them! If so, just take it down. Best wishes, --Guinnog 05:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Why Seth and not Greta?
Congratulations! Not important, but I'm wondering why you changed the made-up name in the example from "Fred" to "Seth" in the Philosophy of Mind article under Interaction Dualism? I'm a new Wikipedian so maybe there's a very good reason that I'm not aware of.

Thanks, MEL1967 04:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

AWB
I saw you took out skagerak from the spell checker. I got a message about awb spelling it wrong, and i thought about it, and it seems that the entry for spellcheck was just causing problems.

Thanks for taknig that out.

Bearingbreaker92 |  Talk 18:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, no problem! --Galaxiaad 23:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Smiley Award
Feel free to place this award on your user page, as a token of appreciation for your contributions. If you're willing to help spread the good cheer to others, please see the project page for the Random Smiley Award at: User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward

 For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Awardoriginated by Pedia-I (Explanation and Disclaimer)

--TomasBat (Talk) 22:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

AutoWikiBrowser and Google Search
Hi Galaxiaad,

AutoWikiBrowser's Google Search function is working again. You'll have to download the newest version, but it's working now. :) Firsfron of Ronchester  01:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you! --Galaxiaad 06:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Neuropsychosis <-> Psychoneurosis
The reference which James used was an old journal, named "California Medicine", which i actually have a print copy of; the neuropsychosis/psychoneurosis thing was one of those old phrases which were used but dropped somewhat later. The paper was printed in the 60's, so it's excusable that the name is interchangable.. still, i'll replace it, as there needs to be continuity in the message presented to the reader. J O R D A N [ talk ] 16:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry -- i meant to change it. James.Spudeman 19:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Signature
Hehe. I'm glad you like my signature. ^_^ -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 08:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

GA for Hydroxyzine
Fancy putting it up for GA? James.Spudeman 18:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank-you
''Just wanted to add to the chorus: your diagram is so cool. --Galaxiaad 08:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)''
 * Thank-you for your kind comment :) --Thoric 23:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

3rr
As I explained on Billywhack's talk page, I have not even reached the 3rd revert. I reverted two times and then added the cn tag and readded it. 3RR pertains to repeated insertions of the same revert. I have reverted twice to one revert and then only once to another revert, these do not compromise 3RR. Also 3RR is about staying civil, which I have throughout this unlike Billywhack. Gdo01 04:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Good work
On all your typo corrections, and thanks for the message you left while I was away. --Guinnog 20:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Arturo Frei
Just to let you know that I've gone and deleted the text you left a note on User:Melromero's talk page about. If you find pages in other languages in the future, please feel free to leave us a note about them on Pages needing translation into English. -Yupik 07:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Philadelphia Invite

 * Could you email me? --evrik (talk) 16:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

?
Richmond, California id like to make a request for comment in the 80 image section please. Cholga saYS THANKS!Cholga is a SUPERSTAR ¡Talk2Cholga! Sexy Contribs 01:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia Pennsylvania
Hello there!

I'm writing to inform you that we are now forming the first local Wikimedia Chapter in the United States: Wikimedia Pennsylvania. Our goals are to perform outreach and fundraising activities on behalf of the various Wikimedia projects. If you're interested in being a part of the chapter, or just want to know more, you can:
 * Contact us on IRC at #wikimedia-pa
 * Join our mailing list
 * Visit our blog at http://wmfpa.blogspot.com

Thanks and I hope you join up!  Cbrown1023   talk   03:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Bupropion ownership, MAOIs
This also bothered me... see Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, and as for the MAOI bit, A and an. Regardless of what letter a word starts with, if it's *pronounced* with a vowel sound at the beginning ("em"), it takes "an". It could be argued that the abbreviation MAOI is only written shorthand, and that in reading it out loud one would actually say "a monoamine oxidase inhibitor", but I think most people would simply read the letters out, so it would take "an". --Galaxiaad 03:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Dear Galaxiaad,
 * I re-read the guideline on the Ownership of articles, and I do not think that it applies to the situation with bupropion. Please check the article’s history. I always try to avoid reversals, even when the edits are questionable from my point of view, if they do not introduce factual mistakes or make the article significantly worse. Unfortunately, this was the case with about a half of the many edits Outriggs made. For example, Wikipedia guidelines encourage formal style of writing, and Outriggs replaced formal “because” by “so” and formal “approximately” by “roughly”.

 * I am sorry that the edit summary “Correcting outrigg's grammar, factual mistakes, colloquialism” bothered you. However, Wikipedia:No personal attacks guideline explicitly permits referring to other editors: “When there are disagreements about content, referring to other editors is not always a personal attack. A posting that says "Your statement about X is wrong because of information at Y", or "The paragraph you inserted into the article looks like original research", is not a personal attack. The appropriate response to such statements is to address the issues of content rather than to accuse the other person of violating this policy.” There no exception mentioned as applied to the edit summaries or the editor’s talk page headings.

 * My mistake was to reverse “an MAO” to “a MAO” since both forms are acceptable. You can find them both used in peer-reviewed and edited by professional editors journals. Americans appear to prefer “an MAO” while Europeans and Australians – “a MAO”. You read the word as “emeyo” while I read it as “meyo”, so it is just a tomahto – tomeito difference not worth the trouble. Since then I changed the article to uncontroversial “MAOIs”.

 * I would like to repeat that I will always appreciate your edits, and I hope in the future to solicit them, if you do not mind.

 * SincerelyPaul gene 19:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week
WikiProject Pharmacology is currently organizing a new Collaboration of the Week program, designed to bring drug and medication related articles up to featured status. We're currently soliciting nominations and/or voting on nominations for the first WP:RxCOTW, to begin on September 5, 2007. Please stop by the Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week page to participate! Thanks! Dr. Cash 17:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Drugs: Do not include detailed dosage and titration information.
Galaxiaad,

I would appreciate your comments on the topic of acceptability of dosage and titration information on the MEDMOS Talk page. Thank you Paul gene 01:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week
Aspirin has been selected as this week's Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week! Please help us bring this article up to featured standards during the week. The goal is to nominate this at WP:FAC on September 10, 2007.

Also, please visitWP:RxCOTW to support other articles for the next COTW. Articles that have been nominated thus far include Doxorubicin, Paracetamol (in the lead with 4 support votes so far), Muscle relaxant, Ethanol, and Bufotenin.

In other news:

 * Bupropion has been promoted to featured status on August 31, 2007.

 * The WikiProject Pharmacology main page has been updated and overhauled, to make it easier to find things, as well as to highlight other goals and announcements for the project.

 * Garrondo is asking for individuals to help review Therapies for multiple sclerosis, as he is considering nominating this article for GA status.

 * Fvasconcellos notes that discussion is ongoing regarding the current wording of MEDMOS on including dosage information in drug articles. All input is welcome.

Dr. Cash 00:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Pharmacology Update
Here's a brief update in some of the recent developments of WikiProject Pharmacology!

 * Aspirin has just completed its two week run as the first Collaboration of the Week! Many thanks to those editors that contributed; the article got a lot of good work accomplished, and in particular, much work was done in fixing up the history section. It's still not quite "done" yet (is a wikipedia article really ever done?), but after two weeks I think it's more important to push onwards with the development of the new collaboration of the week program. I will be fixing up Aspirin in the next few days and possibly nominating it for either GA or FA status.

 * Muscle relaxant has been selected as the new Collaboration of the week until October 2, 2007! This article is currently rated as a "stub", so it's got quite a bit of work cut out for collaborators! Admittedly, featured status could be a long way off,... but still attainable! At the least, maybe we could at least get it up to meeting the Good article criteria? Please stop by the article and help improve it.

 * Resveratrol, having recently achieved GA status on August 16, 2007, is now making a run for featured status. This is quite a fascinating compound. If you can, please stop by its discussion page and leave comments in support of it.

 * Please remember that Wikipedia is not a forum for discussing or dispensing medical advice amongst users. Specifically, talk pages of articles should only be used to discuss improving the actual article in question. To help alleviate this situation, the template talkheader may be added to the top of talk pages, reminding users of the purpose of such pages. Additionally, unsigned comments and comments by anonymous users that are inappropriate may be removed from talk pages without being considered vandalism.

 * There was an interesting article on ZDNet last week about Hewlett Packard licensing its patented microneedle technology used in common inkjet printers to be used in transdermal patches to deliver a time-controlled release of drugs to patients. This information could be added to articles such as route of administration or drug delivery.

You are receiving this message because you are listed as one of the participants of WikiProject Pharmacology.

Dr. Cash 05:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Philly meetup #5
Please look at Meetup/Philadelphia 5 and give your input about the next meet-up. Thank you. This automated notice was delivered to you because you are on the WikiProject Philadelphia/Philadelphia meet-up invite list. BrownBot 21:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

phildelphia
A commons misspelling. Suggestions on how to get it fixed? --evrik (talk) 19:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC) P.S. How much longer are nyou in town?

Meetup/Philadelphia 5
 You're invited to the

Philadelphia-area Wikipedia Meetup

November 11, 2007

Time: 5:00 pm

Location: Buca Di Beppo, 258 South 15th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19102. 'RSVP (view/edit this template'') You have received this message because you are on the invite list, you may change your invite options via that link. BrownBot 22:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Pharmacology Update
Here are a few updates in the realm of WikiProject Pharmacology:

 * The Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week has been changed to Collaboration of the Month, based on current participation levels. It is also more likely that articles collaborated on for one month are more likely to achieve featured quality than articles worked on for only a week or two.

 * The current Collaboration of the Month for November is Receptor antagonist. Please take a look at that article and contribute to it if you get a chance. Ideally, the article should adhere to the featured article criteria.

 * Therapies for multiple sclerosis is currently a featured article candidate. If you are familiar with the featured article criteria, please visit WP:FAC and review the article.

 * Anabolic steroid is the wikiproject's newest Featured Article, having been promoted on October 8, 2007.

 * Theobromine was delisted as a Good Article. The Peer review and GA reassessment discussions provide suggestions on improvement. Muscle relaxant was recently reviewed for Good Article status, but not promoted. Please see the full review full review here for details.

Dr. Cash 22:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Article rename
On the basis of your talk page comment (and another voice and my own opinion) I went ahead and renamed encapsulation (pharmacology) to your suggestion capsule (pharmacy). I also tweaked pill (pharmacy) for consistency. I also updated about 30 links to the original title. MaxEnt (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

typo template
All user pages with the template are automatically put into the U section of Category:Wikipedians on the Typo Team because they are all starting with "User:". Can you fix this? I know nothing about how to create a template, but my guess is that this could be fixed by adding the attribute | to. Thanks, Warut (talk) 10:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jinx.com
An article that you have been involved in editing, Jinx.com, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 14:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Missing topics about pharmacy
Thank you - Skysmith (talk) 10:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sertraline
Galaxiaad, you have a good sense of style, and I wonder if you could take a look at sertraline. I would appreciate any corrections of style and grammar and any comments. Many thanks Paul Gene (talk) 00:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the editing you have done. Do I take it that you do not see any major problems or other things I could fix? Paul Gene (talk) 00:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you again for the thoughtful comments - they helped to make the article better. Now. let them rip it at FAC. Paul Gene (talk) 12:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Drug Policy
Galaxiaad - I saw your comments on the Drug injection page and wanted to invite you to join the new WikiProject Drug Policy. I think that your "H" userbox and interest in pharmacology would benefit the project, and hope to work with you both on it and the page first mentioned. Regards, Shamanchill (talk) 18:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a House userbox, you know... ;) But I'll bite.  Definitely an interest of mine... harm reduction more so than policy but yeah. --Galaxiaad (talk) 21:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I know Hugh Laurie from writing the Gun Seller and from his days as Berty Wooster and Percy on the BBC. I didn't realize that the good Dr. had given you a script for that userbox... ;P Shamanchill (talk) 21:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of drum corps
An article that you have been involved in editing, List of drum corps, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/List of drum corps. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? JimBurnell (talk) 20:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Might take a look
Hello. Just wondering if you would mind taking a look at a collaborative effort I'm trying to start. Any feedback or ideas would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! DxNate, 29 July 2024 User-Talk-Contribs

Typo Team
Hi, Galaxiaad. I'm considering moving the Wikipedia's Type Team main project site from "Wikipedia: Typo" to "Wikipedia: Typo Team". It seems to be the right thing to do. Since so many people use your typo team userbox I wanted to run the idea by you first. Jason Quinn (talk) 23:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Parafon Forte
--Cssiitcic (talk) 20:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Homatropine methylbromide
You changed that to redirect to Homatropine. "Just a salt of Homatropine". This is not true. It is not a salt, but the quaternary ammonium base "Methylhomatropine". It is a completely different drug from Homatropine, as it does not cross the blood-brain barries and has no central effects, only peripheral effects as a spasmolytic for e.g. the stomach of gall bladder. So this redirect is wrong. 70.137.151.84 (talk) 22:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Bergamont

A tag has been placed on Bergamont requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.  Ron h jones (Talk) 19:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Bergamont

A tag has been placed on Bergamont requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you.  Ron h jones (Talk) 22:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library now offering accounts from Cochrane Collaboration (sign up!)
Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization consisting of over 28,000 volunteers in more than 100 countries. The collaboration was formed to organize medical scholarship in a systematic way in the interests of evidence-based research: the group conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.

Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account. Thank you Cochrane!

If you are stil active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)

Cheers, Ocaasit | c 20:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Kranky Records

A tag has been placed on Kranky Records requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. The Dissident Aggressor 13:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Your thoughts?
Timeline of Philadelphia has a discussion about selection and inclusion criteria. Two editors are discussing it, but we have divergent views. More opinions would be helpful. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 13:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paul Stanton (Politician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Libertarian Party. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paul Stanton (politician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Libertarian Party. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Guillermo Dávila (Album Self-Titled) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Guillermo Dávila (Album Self-Titled). Since you had some involvement with the Guillermo Dávila (Album Self-Titled) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Si Trew (talk) 04:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed
Hello Galaxiaad! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II  talk  22:26, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

"9 to 5 (Disambiguation)" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect 9 to 5 (Disambiguation) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 24 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 16:10, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Revia (disambiguation)

The article Revia (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "Disambiguation page not required (WP:ONEOTHER). Primary topic redirect points to an article with a hatnote to the only other use."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

''' This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. ''' Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 09:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:Galaxiaad


text: User talk:68.50.236.23

title: User talk:68.50.236.23


text:
User:Random account 47/Proposal

Global Climate Change Article
A sample of this article is currently available here: User:Benapgar/Global_climate_change --Ben 09:19, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Global climate change refers to a climate change of Earth. There have been many examples of this over history, such as the medieval warm period, and the ice age. etc. Links:
 * Climate change (modified)
 * Greenhouse effect
 * Earth's atmosphere
 * Scientific opinion on climate change (depending)

Past Global Climate Changes
short discussion. Links:
 * Paleoclimatology
 * really do you think this would be a "basic" page, there is much controversy here as well, recall the recent paper that based on the paleo record and astronomical periodicity, and past solar and greenhouse gas variation in the paleo record, concluded that most climate variability was explained by astronomical and solar influences and that CO2 doubling only accounts for about 0.6 degrees centigrade of warming. The study was immediatly disputed and criticised in statement signed by several scientists, although not in the peer reviewed literature.  You don't do the general public a service by dumbing down or hiding the dynamic nature of the science, especially at this time of increased research, discovery and the fleshing out of the theories and the record.--Silverback 04:08, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * There already is a paleoclimatology page. I think that's a perfect place for discussion of that study.

List of known past global climate changes:
 * Permian-Triassic extinction event
 * Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum.
 * Little Ice Age
 * Medieval Warm Period
 * etc.

Current Global Climate Changes
short discussion. Links: (End of page)
 * 19th century to present global warming

19th century to Present Global Warming Article
short discussion. (this page would be somewhat like the current global warming article, and could possibly be put on that page as a separate section). Links:
 * Global warming (modified)

Evidence of 19th to pres. Global Warming
short discussion. Links: short discussion on temperature record controversy Links:
 * Historical temperature record
 * temperature record of the past 1000 years
 * etc.
 * urban heat island
 * etc.

Causes of 19th to pres. Global Warming
short discussion. Links: discussion on current theories of what climate forcings are involved. Links:
 * Climate forcings (modified)
 * Global climate change theory (new page made up of some stuff on GW page)
 * Attribution of recent climate change (renamed 19th century to present global warming causes)
 * Global warming controversy (renamed 19th century to present global warming controversy) (yes both are long names. We need a better name since it likely can't all be included here)

Effects of 19th to pres. Global Warming
short discussion. Links: discussion on current theories of effects of GW.
 * climate model (probably just mention in discussion)

Scientific opinion of 19th to pres. Global Warming
discussion. Links:
 * Scientific opinion on climate change

Politics/Environmental Policy related to 19th to pres. Global Warming
discussion, kyoto, creation of IPCC etc. Links:
 * Kyoto protocol
 * etc.

(End of page)

Climate Change Article
short discussion of climate change. Links:
 * climate
 * global climate change

Climate change factors
short discussion on climate change factors
 * don't you think this would be discussed on the climate change and global warmings pages, they must be really dumbed down in your scheme if they don't mention "climate change factors"--Silverback 04:15, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * This is on the Climate Change page. This is one of the sections on the Climate Change page.

(some of the info on current page, such as solar variation, moved to climate forcings page) Links: (End of page)
 * climate forcings

Global Warming Article
discussion on what global warming is in general, what can cause it (+general scientific controversy), how it is measured. Links: (End of page)
 * global cooling
 * historical temperature record
 * temperature record of the past 1000 years
 * climate forcings
 * etc.

Climate Forcings Article

 * I've also discussed this on the talk page associated with the stub.--Silverback 04:22, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

short discussion. Links:
 * Climate change
 * Global climate change

Difference from Internal Factors(?)
short discussion on difference from internal factors. short discussion on difference from global/local or include in each forcing.

External Forcings
Anthropogenic Forcings
 * Urban heat island
 * Greenhouse gases (needs link to Global warming potential)
 * Greenhouse gases have varied by more than an order of magnitude in the paleo record, why is this in "anthopogenic forcings" or at least not replicated in both? --Silverback 04:20, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Good point.

 * Deforestation
 * What, forest fires never occur naturally?--Silverback 04:20, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * YOU GOT ME!!! LOLOL111111!!

Natural Forcings
 * etc
 * Carbon sink
 * anthropogenic carbon sinks have been proposed.--Silverback 04:20, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 10-4

 * Volcanic Activity (new page or existing one?)
 * Solar variation
 * This is well covered, both the direct and the effects theorectically amplified through modulation of cosmic ray flux.--Silverback 04:20, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * That's fine, a short discussion is all that is needed, then we could link to the solar variation page which discusses it in-depth (I'm sure there is one already).

 * etc

 * It seems we would need a section for both Anthropogenic and Natural causes to distinguish factors such as Deforestation, which can be caused by humans as well as naturally. --Ben 00:27, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Types of Forcing

 * Radiative forcing
 * etc

Most of this stuff should just have a short discussion and linked to the already existing articles. (or new ones) Some of the short discussion could be taken from the existing articles that already mention climate change and put here (and linked back of course as for example, "Deforestation as a climate forcing")

(End of page)

(End proposal)

 * Most of these proposals can go into existing pages, incorporating or reorganizing some of the material there. Some of the mess there is by community design however, and correctly reflects disputes in and politicization of the science.  The modelers are doing yeoman work trying to accurately capture atmospheric and ocean behavior and there should be some way to do a good job without a total reduction to the physics, but they are only part way there and their work is being politicized and used prematurely.  It is an exciting time for the science, but a frightening time for humanity as proposals like Kyoto come forward to destroy tremedous amounts of wealth that could be used to save lives, conduct research, invest in more wealth creation, etc.--Silverback 05:07, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * It involves restructuring. I'm not suggesting changes to the content. Without a hub like this page to discuss the proposed structure, simply discussing it on a page by page basis isn't going to help. I think the politicization should not be incorporated into the science, and instead be discussed along with the science as it is known. As for your negative opinion of Kyoto, I do not think that that should come to bear on the science. --Ben 23:02, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Additional proposition

Global Climate Change/Warming Controversy Article
This page would deal only with the controversy surrounding the causes of global warming.
 * (William M. Connolley 09:43, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)) You mean global warming controversy?
 * Yes, basically what it is like now, but not specific to the current trends, or to controversy regarding the science behind observing and prediciting, but simply to "what forcings cause the world to warm and by how much" kind of thing. The current page is kind of ok, though a lot seems to be duplicated on, or should be on, the scientific opinion page.

Global Climate Change Science Controversy Article
This would be a new page devoted solely to the nature of climate change science and would stick to subjects like the use of different climate models. End Additional proposition --Ben 07:30, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

title: User:Random account 47/Proposal


text:
Le Plessis-Robinson

Le Plessis-Robinson is a commune in the southwestern suburbs of Paris, France. It is located 10.5 km from the center of Paris. , it has 29,100 inhabitants.

History
Plessis was first mentioned in 839 as Plessiacus apud Castanetum, meaning plessis near Castanetum. A plessis was a village surrounded by a fence made of branches. In 1112 the village church was founded, of which the romanesque tower still survives as the oldest monument of Le Plessis. At the end of the 12th the village was renamed Le Plessis-Raoul, after the local lord Raoul, chamberlain of king Philip II of France. In 1407 it came into the hands of Jean Piquet de La Haye, who built a castle in the village, now called Le Plessis-Piquet. In 1614 a monastery of the Congregation of the Feuillants was built in the village. In 1682 Jean-Baptiste Colbert, Minister of Finances under Louis XIV had a pond dug which fed the fountains of the nearby Château de Sceaux. Pierre de Montesquiou d'Artagnan purchased the estate in 1699, and expanded the gardens. In 1790, as a result of the French Revolution, Antoine Moullé was elected the first mayor of Le Plessis. The commune was renamed Le Plessis-Liberté. The monastery was nationalised and demolished.

The commune was renamed back to Le Plessis-Piquet in 1801. In 1848, a guinguette (cabaret) was established in the area as a suite of interconnected tree houses. It was named Le grand Robinson after the tree house described in Swiss Family Robinson, a novel itself named after Robinson Crusoe. Several other popular establishments arose in the area and remained popular until the 1960s. In 1909, the commune of Le Plessis-Piquet was officially renamed Le Plessis-Robinson, after Le grand Robinson. In 1854, Louis Hachette bought the castle and the grounds. He later became the mayor of Le Plessis-Piquet and a city councillor. The village and the castle were ruined in the Franco-Prussian War, but the castle was rebuilt by the Hachette family.

New Urbanism
In 2023 Le Plessis-Robinson is considered as the most significant project of New Urbanism in France. Philippe Pemezec, mayor between 1989 and 2018, started a project to reshape the city, in collaboration with the architects Marc & Nada Breitman, winners of the 2018 Driehaus Prize and part of the New Classical movement. Philippe Pemezec

Transport
Le Plessis-Robinson is not served by the Paris Métro, RER, or the suburban rail network. The closest station to Le Plessis-Robinson is Robinson station on Paris RER line B. This station is located in the neighboring commune of Sceaux, 1.5 km from the town center of Le Plessis-Robinson.

Education
Primary schools include two groups of nurseries and preschools, five standalone nurseries/preschools (maternelles), four standalone elementaries, and Ecole Raymond Aumont.

Secondary schools:
 * Two junior high schools: Collège Claude Nicolas Ledoux and Collège Romain Rolland
 * One senior high school: Lycée Montesquieu

Sites of interest

 * Château park

Twin towns
Le Plessis-Robinson is twinned with the following towns:
 * Woking, United Kingdom
 * 🇦🇲 Arabkir, Yerevan, Armenia

title: Le Plessis-Robinson


text:
Kalayaan, Laguna

Kalayaan, officially the Municipality of Kalayaan, is a 3rd class municipality in the province of Laguna, Philippines. According to the 2020 census, it has a population of 24,755 people.

Kalayaan is in the fourth district of the province of Laguna and can be reached three hours by land from Manila. It is the home of approximately 24,214 citizenry. The municipality is home to a hydroelectric power plant, the only pumped storage facility in the Philippines, the Kalayaan Pumped Storage Power Plant located in Brgy. San Juan, that contributes substantially to the income and an economic activity that is anchored on agriculture. It has complied with Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000 (R.A. 9003) by constructing a Category-I Sanitary Landfill under LISCOP, considered one of its kind on the municipal level in the Province of Laguna, which aims to put into practice the segregation and proper disposal of solid waste for the protection of environment.

Kalayaan is roughly rectangular in shape, with a hilly terrain on most of its eastern side, while relatively flat on its western side. Its highest elevations are from 400 to 418 metres. These are found in Sitio Santo Angel, Malaking Pulo, and Cabuhayan in Barangay San Juan, and Sitio Lamao in Barangay San Antonio. Approximately three fourths of the total land area are with terrain 300 metres above sea level. Its lowest points are from 5 to 20 metres along the western sections of Barangays San Juan and Longos towards Laguna de Bay.

The municipality was formerly called Longos until 1956 when it was changed to its present name.

History
A marker posted in the municipal building of Kalayaan reads: “On this site grew a coconut tree with three branches interpreted by our forebears as the future site of our municipal building; three branches being San Juan, Longos and San Antonio.”

Today, the belief had been realized but digging through historical records, it seems that the place is still made up of the three original visitas of Babaye (now Longos), Abacao (now San Juan) and San Pablo (now San Antonio). Babaye got its name when the Spaniards came and found women washing clothes in the brook. When the Spaniards continued their aim to conquer the land and a little north of Babaye, they saw a place where people dried abaca and named the place Abacao. The Spaniards claimed the mountains east of Babaye and named the village found there in honor of San Pablo.

On March 30, 1946, Executive Order No. 127 which ordered the transfer of the seat of government from Longos to San Juan was signed by Pres. Manuel Roxas. From then on, a part of San Juan became the Poblacion, while Longos, San Antonio and the rest of San Juan became its barangays.

Geography
Kalayaan is located approximately 14º20’ to 14°22’ latitude and 121º28’ to 121º38’ longitude. It is bounded by Paete on the north, Lumban on the south, Laguna de Bay on the west, and Mauban, Quezon on the east. The municipality is 11 km from the provincial capital Santa Cruz, 98 km from Manila, and 59 km from Lucena. It could be reached via the Manila South Expressway and an artery of the national road southward from Calamba and northward from Pagsanjan.

Barangays
Kalayaan is politically subdivided into 3 barangays. Each barangay consists of puroks and some have sitios.

 * Longos (old capital town)
 * San Antonio
 * San Juan

Demographics
In the 2020 census, the population of Kalayaan, Laguna, was 24,755 people, with a density of undefined PD/km2.

title: Kalayaan, Laguna


text:
José Ortega Cano

José María Ortega Cano (born 23 December 1953) is a Spanish bullfighter. He was married to Spanish singer Rocío Jurado. They adopted two Colombian children, one boy and one girl.

He began his bullfighting career in 1973 in Madrid, and had a notably successful year in 1986, where he was very successful in many bullrings. In 1995 he married Rocío Jurado, a famous Spanish singer. He retired from bullfighting in 1998, but donned the traje de luces bullfighter outfit again in 2001 to attempt a comeback, albeit with less success. He entered retirement again in 2004 to take care of his wife, who was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, until her death in 2006. In 2007, Ortega Cano entered the bullring one final time in Olivenza.

He was a contestant on the Spanish version of Dancing with the Stars (Mira quién baila), where he showed no talent for dancing.

On 29 May 2011, he was involved in a car accident which left the other driver dead and himself in critical condition. After a slow recovery, he left the hospital on 11 July 2011. On 24 April 2013, First-instance criminal court No. 6 of Seville sentenced Ortega Cano to two years, six months and one day in prison for reckless homicide and reckless driving, causing the death of Carlos Parra in the aforementioned accident. He entered Zuera prison in Zaragoza on 23 April 2014. After a year and a month in prison he was left out in regime of semi-liberty.

On 27 September 2018, he married Ana María Aldón (his partner since 2012) by civil law in a notary office in Zaragoza. On 31 December 2020, during COVID-19 pandemic in Spain, Ortega Cano, his wife and his daughter tested positive for COVID-19 with notable symptoms after getting infected on Christmas Eve, recovering from the disease few weeks later but with mild sequelae.

In 2016, the Spanish satirical magazine Mongolia caricatured him in a promotional poster as a drunken extraterrestrial against a crashed flying saucer, a reference to the car crash which he had caused in 2011 and for which he had been sentenced in 2013. He sued the magazine alleging an attack on his honour, and was awarded EUR 40 000 in damages. The court ruling was confirmed on appeal by the Spanish Supreme Court in December 2020.

title: José Ortega Cano


text:
Congressional Quarterly

Congressional Quarterly, Inc., or CQ, is part of a privately owned publishing company called CQ Roll Call that produces several publications reporting primarily on the United States Congress. CQ was acquired by the Economist Group and combined with Roll Call to form CQ Roll Call in 2009; CQ ceased to exist as a separate entity, and in July 2018, a deal was announced for the company to be acquired by FiscalNote.

20th century
CQ was founded in 1945 by Nelson Poynter and his wife, Henrietta Poynter, to provide a link between local newspapers and the complex politics within Washington, D.C.

Thomas N. Schroth, managing editor of the Brooklyn Eagle, was elected in October 1955 as executive editor and vice president. Schroth built the publication's impartial coverage, with annual revenue growth from $150,000 when he started to $1.8 million. In addition to adding a book division, Schroth added many staff members who achieved future journalistic success, including David S. Broder, Neal R. Peirce, and Elizabeth Drew. He was fired from Congressional Quarterly in 1969 after festering disagreements with Poynter over editorial policy at the publication, and Schroth's efforts to advocate "more imaginative ways of doing things" reached a boil.

In 1965, Poynter summed up his reasons for founding CQ: "The federal government will never set up an adequate agency to check on itself, and a foundation is too timid for that. So it had to be a private enterprise beholden to its clients." Despite its name, CQ was published quarterly for only one year. Demand drove more frequent updates, first weekly, then daily. CQ was also an early leader in delivering information on a real-time basis, starting with a dial-up service in 1984. Its website dominates the online legislative tracking information market and has been nominated for several awards. CQ has since launched several web-only newsletters with a greater focus on particular areas, including CQ Homeland Security, CQ BudgetTracker, and CQ HealthBeat.

21st century
In 2005, CQ's flagship publication, the Weekly Report, was relaunched as CQ Weekly with a wider focus, including "government, commerce, and politics." A daily publication, CQ Today, also is available every day when Congress is in session. CQ Today's main print competition is Atlantic Media's CongressDaily.

In May 2008, CQ Press was purchased by SAGE Publishing. Although it retains the name "CQ Press" (a trademark of Congressional Quarterly), CQ Press is no longer an affiliate of Congressional Quarterly.

Until 2009, CQ was owned by the Times Publishing Company of St. Petersburg, Florida, publisher of the Tampa Bay Times and other publications. The Times Publishing Company is, in turn, owned by the Poynter Institute, a school for journalists founded by Nelson Poynter. The Economist Group acquired CQ; the deal terms were not disclosed.

Awards
Ten CQ reporters have won the "Everett McKinley Dirksen Award for Distinguished Reporting of Congress" from the National Press Foundation: Alan Ehrenhalt in 1983, Joan Biskupic in 1991, Janet Hook in 1992, George Hager in 1996, Jackie Koszczuk in 1997, Sue Kirchhoff in 2000, John Cochran in 2003, Jonathan Allen in 2008, Matt Fuller in 2015 and John M. Donnelly in 2018.

title: Congressional Quarterly


text:
Talk:Adana

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Adana. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120307044451/http://www.innvista.com/culture/religion/bible/compare/horses.htm to http://www.innvista.com/culture/religion/bible/compare/horses.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.turkcebilgi.net/bilim/cografya/illere-gore-tarim-urunleri-ve-uretim-miktarlari-54480.html
 * Added tag to https://gezily.com/adana-gezi-rehberi
 * Added tag to https://blog.biletbayi.com/adanada-gezilecek-yerler.html/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by İrfanakmehmet53 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dunyagazetesi.com.tr/pegasus-adana-merkezli-diyarbakir-ve-van-ucuslarina-basladi_104937_haber.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110903072359/http://www.adanahaber.biz/adana-buyuksehir-belediyesince-hazirlanan-ikinci-etap-rayli-tasima-sistemi-projesi-210-milyon-dolara-mal-olacak.html to http://www.adanahaber.biz/adana-buyuksehir-belediyesince-hazirlanan-ikinci-etap-rayli-tasima-sistemi-projesi-210-milyon-dolara-mal-olacak.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081209131035/http://www.beer-sheva.muni.il/ArimTeomot.asp to http://www.beer-sheva.muni.il/ArimTeomot.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Constantine III
the hyperlink of Constantine III redirects to the Roman Emperor in the 7th century, which instead should be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_III,_King_of_Armenia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.219.220.5 (talk • contribs)

 * ✅. El_C 19:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Flag of the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia under the Lusignan Dynasty (1341-1375).svg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Flag of the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia under the Lusignan Dynasty (1341-1375).svg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * AdanaClockTower (cropped).jpg

title: Talk:Adana


text:
Governing (magazine)

Governing is a website, edited and published in Washington, D.C., that covers state and local government in the United States. Originally a national monthly magazine, it was published in print from 1987 to 2019. It covers policy, politics, and the management of government enterprises. Its subject areas include government finance, land use, economic development, the environment, technology, and transportation.

History
For most of its life, Governing was published by Washington, D.C.–based Congressional Quarterly, Inc., a subsidiary of the Times Publishing Co. of St. Petersburg, Florida. In 1994, Governing acquired its primary competitor, City & State magazine, and that publication was merged into Governing. In 2009, it was sold to e.Republic.

On August 7, 2019, the magazine announced that it would discontinue publication, with its September 2019 issue its last print edition. At first, it announced an intention to close its website and other operations. However, it later relaunched as a website with a new focus: "what state and local government looks like in a world of rapidly advancing technology." The website adopted a new subtitle, renaming itself Governing: The Future of States and Localities.

title: Governing (magazine)