Contents 1 Welcome! 2 Guide to referencing 3 You may be able to help 4 Welcome 5 George Hayter 6 Barnstar 7 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democide 8 Personal attack and warning template 9 Shape memory coupling 10 Editing apologies 11 DYK 12 Graham Ovenden 13 Your e-mail 14 Salamis Island 15 Salamis 16 Pearce 17 Indo-Aryan Origin of the Jats 18 Parodies of Harry Potter 19 User:PKIOPADDE 20 Nigel Balchin 21 GordonofKhartoum 22 King Kong Appears in Edo 23 Deletion review 24 Art extraordinary AFD 25 AfD nomination of Art extraordinary 26 Maitreya Project Revert 27 Massachusetts State Police 28 Hayter-Bazaine (on the wings of a dove) 29 Thanks 30 Amen to that 31 Frances Lynn 32 Civility reminder 33 Re:Percy Grainger 34 Re: Mifepristone (Bruce Rusty Lang, MD) 35 Times obituaries 36 RS Wenocur 37 Sir Johnston Forbes-Robertson 38 Charles Taze Russell at WP:COIN 39 Wikibreak 40 Our friend 41 Ebiser COIN 42 Tanya Grotter 43 Help, please 44 Talk page messages 45 Norman Bettison Talk 46 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Aaaaa.jpg 47 Recent entry onto my talk page. 48 Eskimo 49 Viktor Rydberg COI/NPOV issue 50 Nice one 51 FÄCT 52 WP:NOR 53 PowerBASIC 54 The Jesus Factor 55 More edit warring at MigrationWatch UK 56 MigrationWatch UK 57 Protection 58 User:Walter Mitty 59 Reply 60 Toni Mannix 61 International Baait 62 Marburg72 63 Whiskey in the Jar 64 Categories 65 Tucker Max 66 Re:Personal Attacks: 67 Any input on this? 68 F Henry Edwards 69 John Tunnard 70 Hermann Görner 71 Mary Anderson (stage actress) 72 Posturewriter RfC 73 Sorry about that... 74 J Bishop 75 Thankyou 76 Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Posturewriter 77 Re: Deletion of sourced material 78 Thanks! 79 Cleanup templates 80 Dumb question 81 Thank you for your fine work 82 CoI 83 RfA concerning Piotrus 84 Message from Jake Sturm 85 Richard Tylman COI notice 86 Fulcrum 87 Spa and SPAs 88 Guido and Da Costa's syndrome 89 COI at Egyptian Yoga 90 Lee Hasdell article 91 Posturewriter 92 COIN/David44357 93 DYK for Maxwell Gray 94 Mysteries... 95 Altered comment 96 Talk page etiquette 97 msg' received 98 Anne Lister 99 Improving the system of tagging for COI 100 Advice needed 101 Scriptural Reasoning again 102 My talk page 103 Posturewriter 104 Shakespeare v. Lawyers 105 Tony Woods 106 Re-edit 107 Re: Badagnani 108 Re Attempted outing 109 poor understanding of communication systems 110 List of languages by writing system 111 Categories 112 Personal attacks 113 RFC 114 Personal attacks 115 The dyslexia project: A new beginning 116 Speed reading 117 Copyright 118 comments on dyslexia arbitration 119 dyslexia and things 120 Organization of dyslexia article series 121 re Keep it simple and up-front 122 Village School (Great Neck, New York) 123 Response to comment on dyslexia project 124 Barnstar 125 discimination 126 Response regarding original research 127 AIV 128 New conversation about issue with the dyslexia articles 129 The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter (September 2009) 130 Frank Leavitt, Dudley Leavitt images 131 Quilliam Foundation 132 AfD nomination of Richard Tylman 133 Oskar von Riesenthal 134 Dyslexia Research paper Collections 135 WP:OR board

[edit] Welcome!

Hello Gordonofcartoon! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Tyrenius 14:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC) Getting started Wikipedia tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

[edit] Guide to referencing

Click on "show" to open contents.

Using references (citations)

I thought you might find it useful to have some information about references (refs) on wikipedia. These are important to validate your writing and inform the reader. Any editor can removed unreferenced material; and unsubstantiated articles may end up getting deleted, so when you add something to an article, it's highly advisable to also include a reference to say where it came from. Referencing may look daunting, but it's easy enough to do. Here's a guide to getting started. Good references A reference must be accurate, i.e. it must prove the statement in the text. To validate "Mike Brown climbed Everest", it's no good linking to a page about Everest, if Mike Brown isn't mentioned, nor to one on Mike Brown, if it doesn't say that he climbed Everest. You have to link to a source that proves his achievement is true. You must use Reliable sources, such as published books, mainstream press, authorised web sites, and official documents. Blogs, Myspace, Youtube, fan sites and extreme minority texts are not usually acceptable, nor is Original research, e.g. your own unpublished, or self-published, essay or research. Simple referencing The first thing you have to do is to create a "Notes and references" section. This goes towards the bottom of the page, below the "See also" section and above the "External links" section. Enter this code: ==Notes and references== <references/> The next step is to put a reference in the text. Here is the code to do that. It goes at the end of the relevant term, phrase, sentence, or paragraph to which the note refers, and after punctuation such as a full stop, without a space (to prevent separation through line wrap): <ref>             </ref> Whatever text you put in between these two tags will become visible in the "Notes and references" section as your reference. Test it out Copy the following text, open the edit box for this page, paste it at the bottom (inserting your own text) and save the page: ==Reference test== This is the text which you are going to reference.<ref> Substitute your own text in this space </ref> ==Notes and references== <references/> (End of text to copy and paste.) Information to include You need to include the information to enable the reader to find your source. For a book it might look like this: <ref> Smith, Timothy: "A Guide to Planets", page 29. Solar Publishing, 2001 </ref> An online newspaper source would be: <ref> Plunkett, John. [http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1601858,00.html "Sorrell accuses Murdoch of panic buying"], ''[[The Guardian]]'', [[2005-10-27]]. Retrieved on [[2005-10-27]]. </ref> Note the square brackets around the URL. The format is [URL Title] with a space between the URL and the Title. If you do this the URL is hidden and the Title shows as the link. Use double apostrophes for the article title, and two single quote marks either side of the name of the paper (to generate italics). The date after The Guardian is the date of the newspaper, and the date after "Retrieved on" is the date you accessed the site – useful for searching the web archive in case the link goes dead. Wikilinks (double square brackets which create an internal link to a wikipedia article) function inside the ref tags. Dates are wikilinked so that they work with user preference settings. Citation templates You may prefer to use a citation template to compile details of the source. The template goes between the ref tags and you fill out the fields you wish to. Basic templates can be found here: Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles/Citation quick reference Same ref used twice or more The first time a reference appears in the article, you can give it a simple name in the <ref> code: <ref name=smith> DETAILS OF REF </ref> The second time you use the same reference in the article, you need only to create a short cut instead of typing it all out again: <ref name=smith/> You can then use the short cut as many times as you want. Don't forget the /, or it will blank the rest of the article! A short cut will only pick up from higher up the page, so make sure the first ref is the full one. Some symbols don't work in the ref name, but you'll find out if you use them. Example You can see refs in action in the article William Bowyer (artist). There are 3 sources and they are each referenced 3 times. Each statement in the article has a footnote to show what its source is. Next step When you become familiar with the process, the next step is to have one section, "Footnotes", with links embedded in the text, and another, "References", which lists all of your references alphabetically with full details, e.g. for a book: Lincoln, Abraham; Grant, U. S.; & Davis, Jefferson (1861). Resolving Family Differences Peacefully (3rd ed.). Gettysburg: Printing Press. ISBN 0-12-345678-9. If you're ready to go into it further, these pages have detailed information: Wikipedia:Citing sources Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style Wikipedia:Citation templates Wikipedia:Footnotes I hope this helps. If you need any assistance, let me know. Tyrenius 14:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You may be able to help

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts#Infoart and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts/Infoart articles. Tyrenius 14:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome

I thought you might have a clue! Still, better to play it safe, I reckon. The arts could certainly do with some help... Tyrenius 23:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] George Hayter

Hello Gordon - I have an interest in the edits you did to the George Hayter page. Could you email me at personal email address redacted Thanks, Steve --Stevob19 23:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		Thanks for help with InfoArt cleanup project Tyrenius 21:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democide

Please do not edit the comments of others, even if you believe the statements in them to be false or misleading. Doing so is considered disruptive to the discussion and an ongoing pattern of such behavior may be grounds for a block. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware I had; I got involved in a messy cut-and-paste and must have lost something in the process. Sorry. You can see from my edit history that I don't do that kind of thing. I see where you mean, and have corrected it. Gordonofcartoon 20:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attack and warning template

You accused me at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:Iantresman of placing a "bogus" warning template. However, I do not see any guidelines for what is and isn't appropriate except for WP:COI. Clearly, Ian Tresman has a conflict of interest in editing articles on catastrophism and Velikovsky, so what's wrong with posting a warning to his talk page? Please respond on my talk page. --Mainstream astronomy 18:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know there was a specific template and thank you for showing one to me. There should be better descriptions for how to do this. I wasn't aware of any procedure for warning or that pointing out that someone is selling self-published pseudoscience is a conflict of interest can be construed as a "personal attack". Where I come from "hawking" is used synonymous with selling, but I researched it a bit and found some people do consider it to be denigrating. --20:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, misunderstanding, then: here (UK) it has a strong pejorative edge to it. Gordonofcartoon 22:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your previous comments. Here are the replacement warnings.[1] Just to make sure, he's also posted the information to a close Arbitration case.[2], other article talk pages,[3], the and even the Physics Project page,[4] I do feel that what should have been a simple warning, has turned into harassment. --Iantresman 23:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shape memory coupling

Thanks for fleshing this out a bit, I've removed the AfD and tagged it with a materials stub. Cheers! - superβεεcat  18:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editing apologies

Thank you for your comment on discussion page re removing warning/information tags on Laura Vlasak Nolen and missing source information. Although it appears I made contribution to that article, I was merely replacing text which I had accidently deleted in my first Wikipedia page-creation outing, for an altogether different article. The text to which you refer/warn was created and edited by someone else -- I only restored the original text. Thank you in any case for your note, which I will bear in mind when I create future pages.

[edit] DYK

On 20 July 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Aspergum, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Yomangani^talk 12:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Graham Ovenden

Hi - there's lots of references via Google, but I can't find a really authoritative reference, so will leave your revert.Tony 13:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Tony

[edit] Your e-mail

Hi. In reply to your e-mail of August 16, I am afraid I cannot do anything since you did not suggest any specific action to take. In the event of any future problems, please use WP:DR or post on WP:AIV, WP:AN3, WP:ANI, WP:SSP etc. as appropriate. Also, I prefer communicating on-Wikipedia unless private information is involved. Thanks. Sandstein 18:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not terrifically helpful. I asked you, in your admin capacity (with information that was private because it a) was personal opinion and b) can only be verified by CHECKUSER) to monitor a dispute and a user where there are long-standing contentious editing issues (like a long-term breach of the WP:AGF guideline). Isn't that what admins are for? Gordonofcartoon 23:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Salamis Island

I cleaned up the article a bit. I would rate the article at mid-importance. However, if you feel that it should remain at low-importance, then go ahead and maintain that standard. Deucalionite 19:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Mid looks good. Sorry to bother you with it, but I thought it should be rated independently rather than by an anon who doesn't seem to be very objective. Gordonofcartoon 20:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Salamis

I'm not sure what can be done if they wont protect the page, but I'll continue to keep an eye on these articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vlaze (talk • contribs) 13:56, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

Thx. I guess they really need someone who can read Greek to cleanup and source them. As you see, the latest is from 85.75.8.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). He/she has added a sourced infobox, but the main texts are still unreferenced and at the level of "It is a nice place with the beaches next to the pine-trees and make an interesting combination". Gordonofcartoon 14:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think he might be back as User:DCBMSNB See Ampelakia page and other pages: Special:Contributions/DCBMSNB ^{El Greco (talk · contribs)} 17:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sneaky with it: brief visit as anon 'bad hand' to remove the merge tags, then back as registered user to continue editing. Gordonofcartoon 18:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Now he's User:Dsjgfwutvgeyxg U, who just vandalized my user page as well as vandalize all the Salamis pages. ^{El Greco (talk · contribs)} 16:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pearce

Hi,

If you wish, you may consider the line obiter dicta. The consensus was clear in any event. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

'The consensus was clear in any event

It was, but I thought the conclusion was supposed to be based on quality of argument, not majority vote. Of the Keep votes, one was an unsupported assertion, and three were based on the same misunderstanding about the ODNB. Gordonofcartoon 16:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The view of majority was not a misunderstanding of the ODNB -- it was an understanding different from yours, perfectly consistent with policy and logic. Your view is not compelled by policy, and was in the minority of one. Hence, the result. My concession to you that you need not consider my extra sentence binding in any sense was simply an effort to avoid needlessly semantic games. The argument and the numbers of your opponents were both superior in that debate; under the circumstances, no other closure of the AfD was reasonably possible. It is to your advantage to accept this truth. Best wishes, Xoloz 19:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indo-Aryan Origin of the Jats

Thanks so much for your suggestion about putting the article on "Request for Comment" - something I had never tried before and didn't know how to do. I have done so now and am waiting to see what sort of response may follow. Cheers, John Hill 10:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parodies of Harry Potter

As far as I'm aware it's called being bold. I feel the approach that best encourages progress is to do something proactively, then if anyone has disagreements, to discuss them properly in the awareness that the onus is on me to sort out any issues that arise, and/or be responsible for putting it back the way it was if consensus decides I was wrong. Asking for consensus before doing anything engenders bureacracy, which Wikipedia tries to avoid. The only thing that requires consensus before change is policy. I'll be delighted to take part in any talk-page discussions which crop up, and I have already ensured that the redirects and WPHP banners are appropriately updated. If there's anthing I've missed I will, of course, be anxious to put it right. Happy-melon 20:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware it's called being bold

True, but that needs to be tempered by thinking through what effects that might have. Main trouble is, List of Harry Potter parodies already exists, and it was convenient to have this overview and some separate articles for major ones - Trotter, Grotter, Wizard People, and Henry Potty and the Pet Rock etc - because merging the whole lot, in full detail, would make far too long an article. Gordonofcartoon 21:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course it does, and of course it did. I am aware of the existence of the list, my first thought was to merge them all in there. Having decided, as you note, that that would produce too long an article, I chose the title "Parodies of Harry Potter" as a suitable substitute. By redirecting the old articles to the individual sections of the new article, no readability is lost. One thing I have forgotten, which I will correct now, is to place a "see also List of Harry Potter parodies" on the new page. Henry Potty was overlooked in my search for parodies, or it would have been merged also. I will now hold for any comments from WP:HP, but if no objections arise I will merge that also, as well as complete the alteration of internal links. Happy-melon 21:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:PKIOPADDE

Gordonofcartoon I am not a sockpuppet. Why you misjudge me ? Please answer to me . - unsigned comment by PKIOPADDE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Answered at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Float954. Gordonofcartoon 13:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nigel Balchin

I see Tyrenius added info on citation at the top of this page. Anyhow, a reply is available back at my Talk page. Rgrds, Ian Cairns 02:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It doesn't cover the point I mentioned, though. I know how to multiply cite; I just wondered if there was some way to indicate a primary reference that's used throughout. Gordonofcartoon 02:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Now covers the point.... Ian Cairns 08:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GordonofKhartoum

Thanks, Gordon. Your comments about Horrobin are appreciated, and your acknowledgement of my non-sockpuppetry! Smiles Brigantian 14:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] King Kong Appears in Edo

RE: Yakofujimato's comment about why this film has to be a hoax (one of many that don't amount to much) - "The suspicious cast listing also includes bizzare, almost comical descriptions such as 'The Hunchback', 'Boy in Soy Sauce Shop' and 'Man in charcoal shop'".

I found this - Oshidori utagassen, thought you'd like to see it, especially as you commented on the character names. Maybe that one's a hoax as well? Pufnstuf 04:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion review

You recently commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychiatric abuse, which was closed as delete. The article has been nominated for a deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 5#Psychiatric abuse. Please feel free to comment on the decision there - as a contributor to the original AfD, your input would be welcomed. -- ChrisO 09:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Art extraordinary AFD

[edit] AfD nomination of Art extraordinary

An article that you have been involved in editing, Art extraordinary, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Art extraordinary. Thank you. BTfromLA 22:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Gordonofcartoon 01:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maitreya Project Revert

Gordon, you just reverted my changes to the Maitreya Project page. Now I am really confused. I am accused of bias and therefore, in good faith, remove the content I have posted on this article, and then you, an accuser, revert my deletions so that the supposed biased content is visible again. Can you please explain? I am tempted to undo this revert and remind you of the three-revert rule policy page if you are tempted to persist, however i'd like to discuss it first.

Simmonstony 22:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I reverted it because there was no consensus to blank most of the article as you did, and with the conflict of interest issues under discussion at WP:COI/N, you should not be making major edits to it. Gordonofcartoon 23:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The general consensus was that the content i added was biased, so i removed that. I fail to see problem there.

The problem is that you should not be doing it yourself. Gordonofcartoon 23:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Gordon. Just for the record, and not trying to upset you at all, I just wanted to point out the following from Wikipedias COI page:

"Editors who may have a conflict of interest are allowed to make certain kinds of non-controversial edits, such as: 4) Reverting or removing their own COI edits. Cleaning up your own mess is allowed and encouraged."

Simmonstony 11:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. This is a relatively new addition to the guidelines [5] that I was unaware of. I generally just read WP:COI/N. Gordonofcartoon 12:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Massachusetts State Police

Good luck trying to deal with those two. They'll just revert you constantly without discussing. SashaCall 22:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure they will. But now it's on the table at WP:COI/N and more editors are getting involved, such behaviour will likely end up in blocks. Gordonofcartoon 22:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I added another IP adress used only to edit the page, and an account used to harass me after I got involved. It might take some more time to grab all of the IPs used just to edit that page, plus the Boston Police Department article. SashaCall 22:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Gordon,

I just wrote a similar note on Sasha's page. I wanted to apologize to you both for being immature, and stupid. I am relatively new to wikipedia, however that is by no means an excuse for my actions. I not understand how serious this place truly is, and will work to improve it, not make it worse. You have my word that I will 1. learn the fair use rule, 2. never revert without discussing, 3. never personally attack/harass another editor, 4. Never create unencyclopedic sections of articles. Finally, I will never edit from my IPs, or another username. Once again Gordon, I was immature, and dumb, and it will never happen again. (I have removed the irrelevant pictures I took and some of the unencyclopedic sections of the article) This apology is sincere.

Regards, Ryser915 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryser915 (talk • contribs) 07:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted! The verifiability guidelines here look at first rather heavy and pointless, but when you get into it, you find that they're the only way to make Wikipedia content reliable when anyone can edit. It does mean, unfortunately, that we often can't use material that's perfectly true (which I'm sure is the case with your additions to Massachusetts State Police). But it's a necessary downside when no-one can check the reliability of personal knowledge. Gordonofcartoon 13:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hayter-Bazaine (on the wings of a dove)

Could this be of use to you ?

Lunarian (talk) 23:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

for the heads up. Bearian (talk) 14:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amen to that

Your post on conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Moneybomb. — Athaenara ✉ 01:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

In regards to John, I really hope that he will drop the legalistic wankery and settle down to be a productive user, but if his behavior on other sites is any indication, that is unlikely to happen. Hopefully he will adjust to the our policies, but I expect this to end in AN/I eventually. Burzmali 01:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Frances Lynn

I think AfD is the most pragmatic solution. I would have proposed it myself, but I try very hard not to do that when I am helping the author. However, this one proved to be unable to understand the help. Perhaps someone will pick it up and turn it into a decent article, but I favour userfication here as the outcome since it is pretty obviously a vanity page. Fiddle Faddle 09:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thx. I agree with you about userfying. Quite commonly newcomers, especially ones with some celebrity, feel affronted that their own authority on statements isn't automatically accepted. It sometimes works to explain that Wikipedia's open editing means Wikipedia has to work on authority of source rather than authority from identity. But as you say... Gordonofcartoon 13:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Civility reminder

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Unnecessary obscenity is offensive to many people.

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. Discussion rather than prejudgment is preferred. John J. Bulten 22:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Assumption of good faith applies only to the point when bad faith has been adequately demonstrated. You were blocked for disruptive editing and breach of WP:POINT.

As I said before, the best advice is that you drop any assumptions you might have that playing the system via technicalities of the rules works here. It may work in Scrabble or getting breaks under the US tax code. But here a quasi-legal approach - gaming the system in ways such as trying to alter the underlying rules to permit inclusion of some content - is viewed as wikilawyering, and will not get you the result you want.

And that includes trying to invoke procedure for trivial violations of policy as counter-attacks against those who have warned you for far worse long-running disruption.

Treat the above as the clear and specific explanation you want of why you were blocked. Gordonofcartoon 01:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I am unable to treat your explanation as clear and specific because it does not cite specific edits nor demonstrate how the edits match your description. Since you brought it up, WP:AGF says: "Even if bad faith is evident, do not act uncivilly yourself in return, or attack others or lose your cool over it. It is not necessary to be a fanatic yourself. Even though it demands a lot of self control and patience, it is ultimately a lot easier for others to resolve a dispute and see who is breaching policies, if one side is clearly editing appropriately throughout .... Making unwarranted accusations of bad faith (as opposed to explanations of good faith) can be inflammatory, and is often unhelpful in a dispute. If bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that others' editing is in fact based upon bad faith, it can also count as a form of personal attack, and in it, the user accusing such claim is not assuming good faith." I still politely await that warrant and evidence.

I am unable to treat your explanation as clear and specific because it does not cite specific edits nor demonstrate how the edits match your description.

That's because you're making a category error. You're demanding an answer in terms like (say) "Bulten's misconduct is a breach of WP:NOR subsection iia in the discussion as unfinished for reasons unknown between User:Testew and User:Cunard in October 2007". That is not where the misconduct lies: the misconduct is your trying to conduct discussion in such obfuscatory and quasi-legal terms. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Accusing me of forgetting my block falls under several categories, but most notably this one, which also applies to talk pages and permits removal of contentious unsourced talk. John J. Bulten (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. Saying you forgot your block was assuming good faith; it would have been bad faith to assume you deliberately chose not to mention it. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Percy Grainger

Hi Gordonofcartoon, It’s not that I doubt the accuracy of Percy Grainger’s idiosyncrasies’s, but the claim that any person is a white supremist in any Wikipedia article should have at least one citation. I would say that each paragraph needs at least one in text citation, especially because of the very bizarre subject matter. If all these facts can be found in Bird, I suggest that they be cited to Notes and references 4. It would be much better however if secondary sources could also be added to strengthen the section. Cheers, --S.dedalus (talk) 22:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Mifepristone (Bruce Rusty Lang, MD)

Hello Gordon, I appreciate your input, suggestions, and editing help. I'm a novice Wikipedia contributor. I've posted some basic info about myself at my User page, FYI. You mentioned "conflict of interest" regarding my posting on RU-486. Again, I appreciate your critique, and any advise or help. Thanks! Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 07:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can help except to point you toward the departments handling this kind of thing. The issue is that the Wikipedia conflict of interest guidelines (see WP:COI) strongly discourage creating articles about yourself and adding material connected to your own direct financial/corporate/professional interests. With the latter, it's especially the case if there's any perception of promoting a viewpoint and/or introducing it into the article with undue weight (i.e. occupying more of the article than its importance merits). You're doing the right thing to raise it at Talk:Mifepristone and allow other editors to assess it. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Times obituaries

Hi, I was intrigued by your comment here that the subject "didn't merit a Times obit". Is there an index of Times obituaries online? Or do you happen to have one handy (on CD-rom or some such)? (What I wouldn't give to have such a resource!) --Paularblaster (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately it depends where you are. In the UK, many public libraries give online home access to subscriber reference databases just on use of your library card number as password. Here (Exeter area) we get all these, including the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography and the Times digital archive (full-text search from 1785-1985). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, how I envy you! --Paularblaster (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

If you ever want anything specific checked out, let me know. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very kind. --Paularblaster (talk) 00:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RS Wenocur

ok, fine why is RS Wenocur not notable -- meets nearly all criteria. Alfred Legrand (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I already gave my reasons at the AFD. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the above, you might want to look at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Alfred Legrand. CM (talk) 18:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sir Johnston Forbes-Robertson

Hi, I remember reading this information about Forbes-Robertson & Mary Anderson over 20 years ago in college. At the moment I can't remember where I read this information. It might have been in Diana Forbes-Robertson's book about her aunt Maxine Elliott. It might have been a theater book or article about Miss Anderson. I've read so many dozen's of books since then and there was no internet at that time for quick catalogging. I may be able to find an internet source(or my original source) for verification. Or hopefully the book I originally got the information. I know I'll remember the book if I see the title. Thanks for your concern about Johnston Forbes-Robertson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.100.208 (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Taze Russell at WP:COIN

Hello Gordon. You've made some comments as part of this COI report. The editor whose actions were commented on, User:Pastorrussell, has joined the discussion. It is possible that concessions could be made now that we have his attention. I don't have time to dig further, so I guess it is up to you if you feel it is of enough moment, to see what further request could be made. Since nobody else has commented, the report will probably be closed unless you have a further suggestion. EdJohnston (talk) 21:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikibreak

Back from break: medical troubles. I may take a while to get up to speed. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 10:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Our friend

Your turn. Thanks for your help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ebiser COIN

Thanks for the help! --Ronz (talk) 17:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tanya Grotter

It's not original research. The author clearly stated that his work is supposed to be parody. This is backed by the Legal disputes over Harry Potter page.

And I was using examples to prove the point. Since when is against Wikipedia to use examples? Don't be so anal-retentive and demand research for EVERYTHING.

However, Wikipedia has a tricky past when it comes to parody. They are unable to tell what's a parody or what's not (for example, they stubbornly believe Epic Movie spoofs X-Men: The Last Stand when they actually spoof the entire film series as a whole), or wether it's "relevant" to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agustinaldo (talk • contribs) 20:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

But the OR is that it's a novel synthesis: advancing a viewpoint at length by putting together a set of examples that have never previously been cited in relation to TG. It's not merely a nitpick, but well against two core policies, WP:V and WP:NOR. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Help, please

Hi, we worked together on the User:Infoart project a little while back. I understand that you edit art and artist based articles. One of the Infoart subjects, Ryan McGinness, which I watchlisted has very recently had a lot of information added. I contacted the editor expressing my concern that the article was no longer as "encyclopedic" as it was, despite the added content. I had a reply acknowledging the concerns and requesting help in including the material appropriately. Since there is a potential conflict of interest noted and as I am unfamiliar with what can be included in a living artists article I wonder if you could advise me or the editor the best group or project to help them with the article? Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd strongly recommend mentioning it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts; they do a lot of this type of collaboration on development. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply to my talkpage. I have forwarded it to Maria215. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page messages

Would you mean {{Uw-chat1}} or {{Talkinarticle}}? -- Avi (talk) 06:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

There is always the classic {{talkheader}}. -- Avi (talk) 07:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Norman Bettison Talk

So you don't believe that expressions of opinion pertinent to the subject matter on talk pages are legit. OK, so that's a valid opinion, and tells me all I need or want to know.

Sign your edits, 86.151.158.135 (talk · contribs)

As I said there, expressions of opinion that are just bellyacheing about issues related to the topic, and of no pertinence to actual edits to the article, are unwelcome per a variety of guidelines: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, WP:SOAP, WP:BLP#Non-article space. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Aaaaa.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Aaaaa.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was just cleaning up re another image of equally disputed source that I didn't originate either. Whatever happens is fine. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent entry onto my talk page.

I'm not sure if you can tell when I reply to a message you left on my talk-page or not, so decided to reply here. I appreciate the attempt to SHOW that Wiki can be edited by anyone by referring me to the Five Pillars....however, rapid-fire & frequent deletion of other editors content by certain individuals who evidently are completely safe from reprimand for this type action proves that's not so.

A prime example is the recent action that I suggested at having a certain admin's actions looked at, for doing this MULTIPLE times to MULTIPLE editors. The alert that I posted was ridiculed & trashed faster than it took for the named admin to find someone to ban. As far as I know, nothing was ever even said to him, even though several other people in the past have also reported similar behaviour from the individual.

So, your attempt to show that anyone can edit Wiki is unfortunately only words on cyber-paper. In real life situations, it doesn't hold water. Hopefully Wiki will realize this sometime in the future & actually start restraining the few individuals who are abusing the authority that has been trusted in them. 67.14.215.240 (talk) 20:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Learn to format your posts properly. You provided a list of situations where Vsmith took the correct action over self-promotional edits. I thoroughly explained that "anyone can edit" is within the constraints of creating an encyclopedia of stated editorial standards. Anyone can edit, but if material is not encyclopedic, anyone else is free to edit or remove it. See "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a vanity press ... or a web directory.". Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I went by the format of several other wiki-pages that Smith isn't interested in policing....each contained an "External Links" section for reference, as do a LARGE percentage of the pages on Wiki. In order to make it exact, I even copy & pasted the format & just changed the data to fit the page.....he deleted the entire section. For a site as interesting as Magnet Cove, I just can't see why an individual who has nothing real to contribute to it, is allowed to constantly keep the article in question as basically a stub. Posting a link to an article that has a large amount MORE information that what Wiki currently offers is not "self-promotion"....it isn't like I make any money when someone visits the place. I've studied Magnet Cove for years & the info on that site is simply a gathering from many sources, put into one place for easy reference for anyone intersted in learning more about it. Doesn't matter now though really. My intention was to gradually introduce the content into the actual page, not just the external link section. With the knowledge that I have about the place, it would have made a fine Wiki-page eventually. But now, seeing how easy it is for a Wiki "admin" to simply delete others contributions as he sees fit, I have no interest in expanding the page. Smith can do it if he wants, since he obviously knows what needs to be on the page & what doesn't. Strange to me thatit's VERY uninformative though. I seriously doubt if any opinion I have will ever be seriously considered....the response to the alert I posted about Smith proves that...but it's a shame that Wiki allows actions that actually KEEP relevant information from being posted....I would think that Wiki should WANT it, since it claims to be an encyclopedia. Maybe some day, some one with a little pull here will figure that out & put a rein on self-appointed content police. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.14.215.240 (talk) 20:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

By formatting your posts, I just mean don't indent paragraphs (I've corrected your above post) because doing so does

 This 

I'll reply at your Talk page. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as your suggesting on my talk page about expanding the Magnet Cove articles, as I also explained, that was exactly what I was starting the process of doing. Smith however, felt the proper thing to do was to revert everything as quick as I could post it. I see no hint that he will stop trashing other peoples contributions & work, nor that there is any interest in preventing him from doing it. It's a shame that individuals are allowed to do this. It keeps usable content off of Wikipedia. I'll keep watch on the pages & see what content Smith ever adds to the very short entries....my guess is none. I'm not going to bicker with him about it and I've already tried bringing his actions to the attention of the community. The reaction to that was pretty much a joke.

Since he has appointed himself as the supreme protector of all geology content on Wiki, probably best to just let him add the content & delete all else. If anyone ever finally gets the hint that he has caused trouble for MANY other editors besides me & puts a halt to his unjustified actions, then I may share what info I have with the community by expanding the pages that he's determined to keep as very tiny entries. Until then, I see no reason to try further.

It's also very curious that a VERY similar entry to my previous one has been made to the page & Smith hasn't touched it....hummm. Maybe he just hasn't had time to find it. Strange....I can change a single word there & he finds it within minutes, deletes it, labels it spam, & issues a ban. Sorry....not interested in playing those type of child-games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.14.215.240 (talk) 19:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It's also very curious that a VERY similar entry to my previous one has been made to the page & Smith hasn't touched it....hummm. Maybe he just hasn't had time to find it. Strange....I can change a single word there & he finds it within minutes, deletes it, labels it spam, & issues a ban.

I added it, and it's not very similar. I added information that was referenced to a reliable published source (a Geological Society of America book). You added a link to a personal website that has very little information and none of it referenced. If you don't see the difference, I can't help you. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware who added it & it's no surprise at all that Smith won't touch it either. As I've said several times already, perhaps SOMEDAY those who agree with actions like this will wake up & see that roaming the halls of a library, tearing pages out of books simply because you don't agree with them, isn't a very productive method of passing on information.

Here's a wild idea too. Wouldn't it be neat if people actually tried to ADD info to Wiki, rather than spending 90% of their time scribbling out paragraphs in the encyclopedia. Of course I'm sure that many self-appointed content-police are after those stars next to their name. It's MUCH harder to actually ADD content than to simply DELETE it, so they are taking the easy way. Smith is one of these & it shows also. He's upset MANY people by trashing their work....usually just answering their "Why??" with a smart remark like "Because". It's sad that others take up for him like they do.....& others that are guilty of the same. That's the idea that I had of Wiki when coming here, from articles on the internet. I hoped it wasn't true, but looks like it is.

There's a HUGE difference between an honest try at improving Wiki, even if it isn't exactly what another editor thinks is right.....and simple spam & vandalism. Smith has trouble telling the difference between the two & it shows in comments made to him. But if that's the way Wiki likes to operate....go for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.14.215.240 (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Some editors are generalists: other specialise. Quality control - keeping substandard material from being added - is just as important a role as adding material. I've explained several times why what you (and the others in question) added was unencyclopedic. If you add encyclopedic material complying with Wikipedia's editorial policies, no-one will stop you. It'd be a lot more constructive if you grasped this rather than continuing to gripe about some nonexistent injustice. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eskimo

I've responded on the talk page. I'm going to be away for several weeks but I still consider this matter unresolved. Whynot77 (talk) 07:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. I agree that the dictionary isn't terrifically informative in that it doesn't say who finds the term offensive. My concern is not so much the accuracy of the sources as such, but whether they've been chosen selectively (i.e. WP:SYNTH) by an editor with an overt view that his personal experience makes him the best arbiter of sources on this topic. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 13:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Viktor Rydberg COI/NPOV issue

Can you tell me if any action is pending on this? The person who is promoting his vanity press books has pretty much turned the article into a joke -- it's now a "Rydberg Tribute" page. There's no point in continuing to try to inject balanced assessments of Rydberg's work, or even to question the unverifiable, do-it-yourself "translations" of old, foreign language works that have been put there, because the editor with the COI is exercising absolute ownership over the article. Rsradford (talk) 19:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response on my talk page. The identity of the anon editor is this case is pretty obvious, since the author of the vanity-press Rydberg books posts from those same IPs under his real name on a number of Internet fora, invariably promoting Rydberg and his books. He's simply trying to drum up more sales by preventing any balanced assessment of Rydberg's work in the Wikipedia article. Before I try to involve more editors, I'd like to know whether it's permissible to look outside Wikipedia to determine the identity of an anonymous troublemaker like this? Rsradford (talk) 12:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nice one

[6]! Ty 00:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FÄCT

I don't think anyone else caught this, but I sure did!  :) A Sniper (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - with all those accented characters available that you normally never get to use, I couldn't resist it! Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't catch it upon first read, but when I did see it I must have giggled for five minutes. Clever. A Sniper (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NOR

Hey, saw you reverted an editor im helping (User:RealWorldExperience) on the PowerBASIC page here. I know nothing about the subject area, and it would greatly assist in this users development, if you could explain to him what was wrong with his edit. Thanks. Five Years 06:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks alot for your input on the issue. Five Years 16:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PowerBASIC

Gordon, I'll be happy to get you the reference materials you need. There aren't tons and tons, but I should be able to get most everything that exists. Stay tuned. PowerCoder (talk) 22:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I try to keep stuff on the article's talk page during medcab stuff, so right under me :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 21:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Jesus Factor

Just a note to thank you for creating the article The Jesus Factor -- Davidkevin (talk) 20:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More edit warring at MigrationWatch UK

As I have tried to emphasize several times the paragraphs I added do not conflict with WP:SYNTH. I already stated my reasons. These paragraphs were accepted as such by a consensus of the editors.

WP:SYNTH states" "Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position."

I am not trying here to build a case using various sources. I am indeed laying out Legrain's position. I can sum this up as follows:

1. The LeGrain article explicitly mentions MigrationWatch and thus when it refers to "intelligent advocates" it is referring to Migrationwatch and other such organizations. 2. x is a type of A. Expert Bob claims all type A have characteristic p. To then say that according to Bob, x has characteristic p is not novel or an original synthesis. The reason for the ban on the synthesis of published material serving to advance a position is because it reflects an opinion that is new. The opinion I quote is that of Legroin. It is not new.

Given that it is not a violation of WP:SYNTH, given that the paragraphs are based directly on secondary sources and given that they are based on the consensus you should not delete them before obtaining a consensus from the other editors. As I stated earlier in Talk:MigrationWatch UK I have sought to create a balanced article that puts both sides of view. The immigration debate is very contentious. The best NPOV path I can think of is to let both sides speak for themselves. That is what I have tried and continue to endeavor to do.Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 04:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MigrationWatch UK

Over at MigrationWatch UK, User:Moonshineblue has done a major edit to the article, which seems fairly neutral, and is accompanied by a patient and logical explanation on the Talk page. Unfortunately ClueBot reverted their change! Could you take a look? I'd always been nervous about labelling this group as 'right wing', and Moonshineblue's new version seemed to address that point carefully. Since you've followed this article more, I'd be interested to hear what you think. EdJohnston (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

No worries. Generally full protection is reserved for a highly active edit war, in which groups of editors on either side are continuously reverting. If the users break the warning, or you want me to informally mediate over any dispute that develops on the talk page, let me know. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 19:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Once again, thank you for stubbing the Lotte Motz article and requesting protection. I am disturbed by the subsequent comment by Jack the Giant-Killer, which suggests that he intends to begin re-inserting his knowingly false, deceptive, and unsupported edits into the article as soon as a mechanism for doing so is made available. Is it possible to get a run-down of how future revisions to the article are to be processed, so I can forestall further malicious sabotage of the sort we have just gone through? Rsradford (talk) 00:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Walter Mitty

Hi Gordon. Yes, contribution by IPs used to evade a block can and should be removed. Thanks for alerting me, Gwernol 21:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

I will remove the archive box. But I really do not want to get involved. Rgoodermote  02:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Toni Mannix

I appreciate your courteous response to my edits on the Lozzi question. What I would like to do is to arrive at a means of making it clear that there is more to the issue than the inevitable conclusion a newcomer might come to by reading the unaugmented statement from Lozzi that he heard her deathbed confession. The fact is that there's an enormous amount of doubt about the veracity of Lozzi's statement. This doubt is not exclusively based on the fact that he dates the "confession" from a time period where Toni Mannix was demonstrably (and citably) suffering from Alzheimer's, but it is the only basis that has a place in Wikipedia. (Comments on Lozzi's general history of unreliability are common but not appropriate here, however well-founded they might be.) With a statement which on its surface is so seriously impactful on the conclusions one might draw, it seems to me important that the statement be contextualized in a manner which does not denigrate the quoted person but nonetheless suggests that the circumstances of the statement mitigate against taking it at face value. How does one provide such context without referring to the illness (noted elsewhere in the article) that might undermine the credibility of either Toni Mannix or Edward Lozzi? It's almost (not quite, but almost) like letting O.J. Simpson's declaration of innocence be the only arrow toward a conclusion presented in an article about the Simpson/Goldman murders. Suggestions? Thanks again. Monkeyzpop (talk) 01:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] International Baait

Hi, I have reverted your change of 30 June 2008. Please refer to the discussion page [7] of the article. Sirius86 (talk) 14:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. I won't revert it again because of the three-revert rule. But equally you removed it on the basis of an unsupported assertion that it's unreliable. If it's wrong, provide reliable third-party sources for better figures. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Marburg72

I noticed that you were wondering why he claimed it wasn't a personal web page. Although perfectly capable of dropping big chunks of Wikipedia policy on various talk pages, and my attempts to explain to him, he has relied on Personal web page for his guidance in this case. [8]. You might also be interested in knowing that there is an RfA concerning him at [9]. Please note that I am not suggesting that you take any specific action (and to explain that statement you might want to look at [10] and [11] where he has raised various acccusations of sockpuppetry (I seem to be the puppet) and meatpuppetry. And then there's [12] - COI complaint by another editor because he keeps adding his personal web page to articles. Doug Weller (talk) 11:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Whiskey in the Jar

Thank you for your contributions here and here. Whether the anonymous editor will accept these arguments or not remains to be seen, but you have certainly made the case against inclusion. Again, I thank you for taking the time. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

Re John Tunnard (and I notice you've done the same with other articles): I can't at this instant point you to the guideline, but it is the convention not to include a regional parent category (e.g. if someone's in Category:English artists, you don't need also Category:British artists).

I just read the discussion at User talk:Koavf#Categories. You may well be right logically, but it simply isn't the way it's done here.

For instance, check out Robert Burns, Stanley Baker and Arthur Quiller-Couch. Although they were all British, the categories solely refer to them as Scottish, Welsh and Cornish. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I need first, however, to state that I cannot write in a serious informative context without being logical. To be anything less than logical is not only to write myself off as a fool, it is also to demean my readers as fools. In the matter of Scottish poets, Welsh performers or Cornish writers, logic does not necessarily apply, as there is no absolute definition of, on the one hand, Scottish, Welsh or Cornish, and, on the other hand, of poets, performers or writers.

That does not apply to the Wiki Category:Britsh conscientious objectors, which can be uniquely defined as "persons with Wiki biographical entries who have been liable to British military conscription and have conscientiously objected thereto". It is not persons liable to English conscription...; it is not persons liable to Welsh conscription; it is not persons liable to Scottish conscription...; none of those concepts have ever existed, because there has never been peculiarly English, Welsh or Scottish conscription.

Having sttempted to use my many years experience working within the British conscientious objection field to build up the Wiki Britsh conscientious objectors category into a reputably reliable resource for researchers of all kinds, I have been disturbed by the vandalising attempts of Koavf not simply to overlay it with meaningless "English", "Welsh" and "Scottish" categories but to repeatedly remove undoubted proven British conscientious objectors, some of whom I have had the privilege of knowing personally, from it.

When I have asked Koavf, who claims a study of logic, to offer a rationale for his new categories, all he has said is, "Personally, I am a bit put out by the very notion of British X categories". This seems to me to amount to an admission of private prejuduce, which should have no place in a public academic forum. He gives the impression that he cannot sleep at night unless he has looked at his randomly selected sub-categories, although what work he is actually doing on them he has never disclosed. All I can do is to leave them to him, and continue to maintain and develop the meaningful British CO category.

If apparent duplication disturbs you or Wikipedia in general, I would remind you that I did not invent the British CO category - I have merely maintained and developed it. It is Koavf who has, without any discussion, re-created the so-called English category, afer it had been consensually deleted, and who, also without discussion, has created the new so-called Welsh and Scottish categories. I see no point in them, and if you can persuade Koavf of the error of his way, good luck to you. In the meantime, I have logically and faithfully restored John Tunnard to his British CO comrades from his temporary narrow "English" exile.

Incidentally, on a more interesting note, all I know of John Tunnard is what is contained in the article. I am a little puzzled by the reference to his having worked as a fisherman during his concientious objection, which would have been unusual. Have you any comment on the accuracy of the statement?

Mountdrayton (talk) 01:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I need first, however, to state that I cannot write in a serious informative context without being logical. To be anything less than logical is not only to write myself off as a fool, it is also to demean my readers as fools.

Well, that's commendable - but it can lead to a lot of wasted effort if you try to apply it to systems that aren't rigidly logical. As I said, Wikipedia isn't internally self-consistent, and you'll also have an uphill struggle if you try singlehandedly to change an established convention (however illogical it may appear). The best move is to explore the category system, see how it works, and follow what you find as the overall classification trend in the particular category area of interest.

Have you any comment on the accuracy of the statement?

It's what the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography says. I couldn't say whether it's accurate, but the ODNB is well acceptable per WP:V. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Since there are now 140 entries in the British COs category, and only 27, fewer than 20%, have been deemed by anyone to be worthy of an English/Welsh/Scottish sub-category, then clearly the "overall clasification trend in this particular category area" is overwhelmingly towards "British COs", which is all I have ever asked for, and I shall continue to work towards this. Accordingly, I have deleted John Tunnard's "English CO" categorisation, and re-entered "British CO", and done the same for certain other entries where people have complained of double categorisation. I hope you will find this helpful.

Thanks for the ODNB source. I shall accept it for what it is worth. The difficulty with ODNB entries is similar to that with obituaries; the writers may be good on the main content, but they are rarely specialists on the technical aspects of conscientious objection, and rarely seek advice on this aspect.

Mountdrayton (talk) 00:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope you will find this helpful.

No. Coming on like Mr Logic and trying to revise part of the category system against consensus is not helpful. If you disagree with it, take the problem to Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion as you've been advised.

I shall accept it for what it is worth

Well, you have to. Read WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true". If you think the ODNB's unreliable, tough. It's a source generally viewed as reliable, and that takes precedence here per WP:V. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tucker Max

Hello. would you mind commenting in the discussion section as to whether you believe the anonymous blog should be an external link? the RfC asked if it should be a source, and outside editors said that it shouldn't be. instead of being removed completely, though, it has been moved to an external link. could you comment on whether you think it's appropriate to keep as an external link? thanks Theserialcomma (talk) 00:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Personal Attacks:

I have not said anything about Blechnic. I don't know what language you think I was writing in, but I have developed my own code, which is what I was writing in. What I actually said was "Reminder: Work on Jamie Howarth's page today". I visit the Mesodermochelys page a lot, ergo it was a convenient place to put the reminder. I sincerely apologize if you misinterpreted it. Mess around with the guy in shades all you like - don't mess around with the girl in gloves! (talk) 05:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Any input on this?

Do you have any input on what to do further about Mountdrayton's continued changes of "English" to "British" in categories and text? It's getting awfully WP:POINTY, in my opinion. I've commented multiple times at your entry on the user's talk page, to little effect. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh, you almost simultaneously posted on my talk page about this ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] F Henry Edwards

See further comment on my talk page.

Mountdrayton (talk) 15:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

See further comment on my talk page.

Mountdrayton (talk) 20:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John Tunnard

Incidentally, on a more interesting note, all I know of John Tunnard is what is contained in the article. I am a little puzzled by the reference to his having worked as a fisherman during his concientious objection, which would have been unusual. Have you any comment on the accuracy of the statement?

Mountdrayton (talk) 01:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It's what the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography says. I couldn't say whether it's accurate, but the ODNB is well acceptable per WP:V. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the ODNB source. I shall accept it for what it is worth. The difficulty with ODNB entries is similar to that with obituaries; the writers may be good on the main content, but they are rarely specialists on the technical aspects of conscientious objection, and rarely seek advice on this aspect.

Mountdrayton (talk) 00:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I shall accept it for what it is worth

Well, you have to. Read WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true". If you think the ODNB's unreliable, tough. It's a source generally viewed as reliable, and that takes precedence here per WP:V. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do not misunderstand me. I merely queried, in as friendly a way as I could, a statement that appeared, on the face of it, odd. You have provided a reputable and normally reliable source, and, clearly, as things stand, I have no grounds for seeking to amend the article on that point. That ought not to prevent me from retaining some private doubt on the matter, and I would have hoped that you would not be offended by my sharing, as a matter of courtesy, that doubt with you. Conscientious objection has been described in some very strange, and, indeed, misleading, ways in some otherwise highly reputable publications, but a number of authors have gratefully acknowledged advice on setting the record straight.

Mountdrayton (talk) 16:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hermann Görner

Thanks for the response, saves me having to issue a warning :)

If you can check the status of the source concerned, it may be that more information on it's on Google Books?

It would be much appreciated if you could help review other links to other scans and digital archives of copyright material. Linking to material whose (C) status is unclear creates risks for the Wikipedia project.

For example there are many links to Google Books in Wikipedia which need checking or redirecting, given that a proportion link to (C) material, where the permission Google has is unclear. Some Google Books links are of PD material , which means such a process cannot be done without a human eye.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mary Anderson (stage actress)

hi, I for many years knew Miss Anderson had a family after she got married 1890. I just didn't know the sex of the children she had or what became of them. I quote many a website that have referenced written sources. Alas even written sources are not always canon if that's what you're looking for. Yes Gillan's website is a labor of love as he states in the intro pages to his website. His site is very informative his data is up to par(else I wouldn't quote it) and we're lucky to have it. Why not try emailing him, he seems friendly enough, to see where he got the information before belittling his site. I have learned a lot from his site in the time I've known about it, learned about other stars I never heard of such as Clara Butt and it's helped me find information much quicker than if I had to peruse numerous books in a school library. Koplimek (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Posturewriter RfC

I have retracted my comments, and I have also decided to extricate myself from this. I have struck down my comments already. Sorry for any inconvenience caused, and I hope I did not derail any efforts here. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 20:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry about that...

I didn't know that there was more than two people that sung it, my bad about that i will leave it alone. Didn't mean to cause no harm, just the Thin Lizzy and Metallica version of the song. Uh, yeah I will leave it alone. Sorry! —Preceding unsigned comment added by HairyPerry (talk • contribs) 18:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see now that makes since now. Well once again I am very sorry about the misunderstanding. Hope you have a wonderfl time on Wikipedia and sorry for the inconvinence ( thats probably speeled wrong) but you know what i mean...thank you for the information, though i really aprreciate it.

HairyPerry 18:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] J Bishop

Looking at the article, edit warring, the afd votes and the contributions of various single purpose accounts, I'm wondering whether there's a case for checkuser.--Troikoalogo (talk) 13:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Worth a try, but I'm always surprised at how difficult it is to get a request granted. The article, Talk page and the two previous AFD discussions all look deeply compromised by SPAs. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably on all sides. I'm sure there is quite a bit of politics involved (although not for me as if I lived there I'd probably vote for him, despite everything. Doug Weller (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thankyou

Just wish to say thankyou for your assistance in creating the AfD for Charles Linden. Regards. Colliver55 (talk) 22:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem; it's a bit arcane when setting up a repeat AFD. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Posturewriter

Hello. The RfC on in which you were a certifier of has been closed. You are encouraged to read the conclusion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Posturewriter#Conclusion. Wizardman 20:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

In a nutshell, if Posturewriter continues to be an issue, the next step would normally be a case at WP:RFAR. However, as he's an infrequent editor who stays on one subject, I would suggest first to propose a topic ban or whatever would be ideal for this situation at the admins' noticeboard. Wizardman 13:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Deletion of sourced material

Great, thanks for helping out with this, much appreciated. (I'm still a n00b concerning WP's policies on this stuff) Ink Runner (talk) 20:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks for your help[13]. I'll keep an eye on it. It doesn't surprise me, and I indirectly asked about this[14], but towhich he replied as if he had nothing to do with the book[15]. If he is indeed the author of the book, then he is spamming Wikipedia to promote a self-published (in both meanings of the word) book. Fram (talk) 09:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup templates

Just to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "{{Unreferenced}}", "{{Fact}}" and , "{{COI}}" etc., are best not "subst"ed , (e.g.Norman Cota, Jr.). See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 13:32 30 October 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Dumb question

By any chance, would you know why Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_October_30 shows that I've proposed Vienna fingers for DRV, but Wikipedia:Deletion_review doesn't? (And for that matter, why the one below mine in the first link also doesn't show)
Thanks for any help you can offer in understanding, or even just for the time if you're also stumped. ^_^ arimareiji (talk) 00:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for speaking up; I'm still stumped as to how using the listed "subst" could have done that. But now that it's fixed, it's a moot question and I'm happy. arimareiji (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I hope I can stop giving occasions that necessitate your help, following which you deserve thanks again - that would be the best thanks of all, I think. But until that occurs, I'll have to award you the extremely-unofficial text Barnstar of Helpfulness, Mentorship, Resourcefulness, and Saving a Noob from Giving Himself Migraines. ^_^ arimareiji (talk) 20:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for your fine work

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Thank you for your fine work on Vienna Fingers. Your editorial input has been peerless. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CoI

Wrt the bull going on, on that other page - I'm reminded of Paula Begoun, who I admire a great deal. For years, she wrote devastating rebukes of the crap some cosmetics companies put in their products, rebutting their claims using accurate hard science. (I've got a degree in chemistry, and can vouch for how ridiculous some of those claims were.) Eventually, someone came up with the idea that since the cosmetics companies had decades to start using the most effective and least harmful ingredients on their own, and hadn't, she might as well start putting such products out herself.
This had a really good side - she did, and they were not only far better but also extremely inexpensive. She didn't have to come up with new gimmicks and fads every few months, each one more "REVOLUTIONARY" than the last, or use convincingly expensive but worthless ingredients.
It also had a bad side - she became hypersensitive to criticism that she could no longer be impartial, and stopped calling bullshit on any but the most outrageously-false claims in her cosmetics guides. I think this was a horrible mistake; she bloody well has the right to call out snake-oil salesmen in her own books.
But if she came to Wikipedia, I'd have to regretfully but strenuously oppose her if she tried to repeatedly cite her own book rather than use unquestionably-neutral sources. Even though I think she's the very best possible picture one could paint of someone who has financial CoI but is still verifiably truthful. And by comparison, I find it hard to attribute the same good qualities that I would to Ms. Begoun. arimareiji (talk) 02:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfA concerning Piotrus

Greetings, I've just presented evidence at the current Request for Arbitration concerning Piotrus. As your name was mentioned in this evidence, I thought it only right that you be informed. Victoriagirl (talk) 19:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Message from Jake Sturm

Look, I just don't have time for this. I have already spent over five hours dealing with Miranda and her deletions and defending my entries. I have other responsibilities. I was just trying to make Wikipedia better, these references would be useful for the Wikipedia users, they meet the Wikipedia requirements, they are in the approprite places, but this is just too much work. Putting it into discussions, responding, etc. would be probably hours more work and I just don't have the time now to deal with this. It is really unfortunate that the users of this site will not have access to these reference materials, many of which won the highest journalism awards.

Thank you for your involvement and help. Perhaps someone else will eventually find the articles and add them back in. I suppose it is true, no good deed goes unpunished.

JakeSturm (talk) 22:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Tylman COI notice

Greetings, I thought it only right that you be copied on this notice. I'm so very sorry for having brought your name into this - please, please do feel free to ignore.

Greetings, You may recall participating in a Conflict of Interest notice concerning Richard Tylman earlier this year. I have presented evidence from this COI at a current Request for Arbitration. In doing so, I notified Gordonofcartoon whose name was mentioned in the evidence. It has been suggested by Poeticbent that I should have notified all participants… hence this notice. Kind regards, Victoriagirl (talk) 13:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fulcrum

You wrote: Thanks for filling in those references. It'd help, however, if you didn't break existing references in the process: the simpler it is to verify, the better, and if there are reliable online sources, no reason to go to older offline ones or remove useful links, such as the Google Books link for "Six Years: The Dematerialization of the Art Object from 1966 to 1972". Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I answered on my talk page but thought I should ask here too: Can you put the online source back? I don't know where it came from, but will try to find it, if you can't.Fvlcrvm (talk) 20:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I think I found it:

Google Books Lucy Lippard’s book

but now I can't remember where it was! Fvlcrvm (talk) 20:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spa and SPAs

Hi there - I've just started a sockpuppet report for the various SPAs we discussed during WP:Articles for deletion/Spa bath. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Guido and Da Costa's syndrome

Hi Gordon,

If you've the time, I'm putting together a evidence for an AN posting on GDB; based on comments from several contributors and JIMBO HIMSELF (BUM-BUM-BUMMMMMMMMM!!!!!) I am urged to hurry; as a result, I don't have time to do the analysis I'd like to on User_talk:WLU/RFC#Da_Costa.27s_syndrome. May of this year, Guido was working on the page. I don't have time to see if a similar, unsupported POV-push against consensus was happening there that happened on the CFS/ME pages, but you were working on the page at the time. Is there any chance you've got the time to put together an analysis for me? Post it in the section or the bottom of the RFC if you'd like (again, if you have the time). I've also left a note on WhatamIdoing's talk page 'cause she'll had the experience.

Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] COI at Egyptian Yoga

Thanks for your help. I had a feeling the initials were related, but I couldn't solve the puzzle. Just the Y for Yoga.  :) Happy New Year. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lee Hasdell article

Hey, could you consider stopping by the Lee Hasdell article? ClaudioProductions rewrote the entire lead without explanation, and I reverted him back to a version myself and another editor were OK with on the talkpage. Some more eyes on the article would be awesome. Thanks :) --aktsu ^(t / c) 00:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Posturewriter

At this point, your best step would be to file a case at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration, since nothing seems to have come out of the RfC. Wizardman 14:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] COIN/David44357

Responded to your post. Please advise. Thanks for the help. Lahnfeear (talk) 04:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, well that would explain it. It's been a few years since I was last into editing :) Thanks, Gordon. Lahnfeear (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] DYK for Maxwell Gray

On February 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Maxwell Gray, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mysteries...

[edit] Altered comment

No problem. I saw who it was. Just as well to check though for your good reputation to be maintained! 14:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page etiquette

Ok, to be fair I have no added a link to this "related" discussion as well. Also it applies to you as you cut and pasted my reply, moved it to a new location, cauisng it to appear as an "unsigned comments" because when you moved it you also removed context and made it appear a random edit - which it was not. Also the last reversion you un-bolded my edit to my post where I indicated that I had struck out the link and why. Thank you. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't nitpick. I made a mistake in forgetting the bot handles it eventually, but that doesn't absolve your initial error in striking out someone else's comment, compounded by reinstating that strikeout after having been told more than once that it's not allowed.

Also, if you want to quote me, fine. But it's viewed as forging comments to paste them in without indicating them to be a quote [16], and I'm perfectly free to delete that (so no further nitpicks about my altering others' comments). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] msg' received

Many thanks for email re article Scriptural Reasoning. I've never tried to get a dispute resolved by admin, esp, in the case of a disruptive editor. Any guidance apppreciated. Thelongview (talk) 14:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Best move is first see where the COI goes (often this does bring a bit more editoral focus to an article). But Wikipedia:Dispute resolution is the standard scale of options. It needs to be stressed that misconduct reports and procedures emphatically aren't a tool to win disputes by getting rid of an opposing editor; they're raised to protect Wikipedia and its editing process, and do need to focus on what damage an editor may be doing. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reply - noted. I agree completely. I'll wait for the COI to play out. Incidentally, Philknight initially did some mediation, but withdrew after Scripturalreasoning posted threats about publicising inflammatory material. Seraphimblade did not respond to a request for a third opinion (his page has a busy tag, though). Toddst1 declined to comment on the grounds of TLDR. The talk page is not an appetising prospect for uninvolved admin. Thelongview (talk) 07:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Anne Lister

OK, I added a reference. But the first one is the diary of Anne Lister herself. And the facts can be found in the whole french literature about Pyrenees (if necessary, I can give titles). Very funny, in France, she is always called Ann, not Anne, and absolutely not a word about her sexuality! Morburre (talk) 13:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morburre (talk • contribs) Sorry!

[edit] Improving the system of tagging for COI

Hey Gordon. Reluctant though I am to join policy discussions about the COI template, I have an idea for a new option. Suppose it were like an AfD nomination, and there was a template at the top of the article that pointed to an active WP:COIN discussion? Then after the COIN discussion was archived, the COI banner would be taken off the article. There could be a template like {{oldafdfull|...|...}} that was put on the *Talk* page as a memento of the closed discussion, showing the outcome. Those debates that closed without the article being clearly fixed would cause the Talk page to go into a category: Category:Wikipedia articles with possible conflicts of interest, which would be a Talk category rather than an article category. What do you think? EdJohnston (talk) 03:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I came here to leave you a (friendly) message but have contributed to the discussion on EdJohnston's talk page instead. -- samj _in^out 04:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Advice needed

As you have noticed, Viktor is back, and I think what he is doing constitutes harassment. See User talk:Andrewa#This User's Abuse of his Admin status, deliberate posting of proven misinformation, and my general reply at User talk:Andrewa#General reply.

Some of his recent edits are valid and constructive, but there are others which are POV and not easily reversed without reversing the others too.

I've looked at WP:ANI and WP:AN but neither seem applicable. Advice needed, I'm afraid I have little experience dealing with such matters. Andrewa (talk) 16:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

On second thought and the advice of another editor, raised at WP:ANI#Viktor van Niekerk. Andrewa (talk) 19:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no harrassment here, at least not from my side. This is a contents dispute Andrewa should address that rather than making false allegations. This is not the first time he has done so:

Here, here, under Sources, he makes a false accusation against me that: "Viktors' site fails criteria 4 and 11" of the WP:LINKSTOAVOID policy. Note, site (singular) and with reference to my site www.tenstringguitar.info. In other words, Andrewa has falsely accused me of breach of article 4 "Links mainly intended to promote a website" and 11 "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority".

Firstly, my website is a non-commercial scholarly resource about the instrument invented in 1963 by Narciso Yepes. Everything there can be verified from published interviews/articles in music journals, textbooks on acoustics, and published sheet music, with only the exception of a few things passed directly from Yepes to Fritz Buss to myself. (These autograph manuscripts are a valuable resource in themselves.) Calling this website a promotion of itself rather than of factual information about Yepes's invention is an unfounded attack.

Secondly, the site (singular) is not a blog, personal webpage, or fansite, nor is it a discussion group. So there also Andrewa ha made a false accusation.

The unfounded claims of harrassment or attacks are but the next step in a pattern of unfounded claims Andrewa has made in an attempt to ban me from wikipedia so he can express his own POV.

What we should be doing is considering the CONTENT. In terms of the content, I am trying to avoid WP:LINKSTOAVOID and other misinformation. Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 05:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Scriptural Reasoning again

Dear Gordonofcartoon. Things have been much quieter over at Scriptural Reasoning of late. I would value your opinion on my latest, quite wide-ranging edit of the article, designed to put to bed remaining worries about referencing, NPOV, and COI. I have asked some questions about the new edit at the bottom of the talk page, and would be grateful for any responses, should you have time to pop over. --mahigton (talk) 22:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You're probably right. It's a loose terms which is often questionable. (Gillhiscott (talk) 14:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC))

[edit] My talk page

Uh. Who exactly are you? Bulldog123 00:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll reply when your signature provides a link, as it should instead of being disruptive as I and many others have explained. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Why do I feel this is an alternate account of someone I already know. Bulldog123 15:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Posturewriter

Hello Gordon. I'm a bit concerned that you might be on a wikibreak. Anyway, please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Active, which has an entry for User talk:Posturewriter. As an admin I can see all that wonderful stuff, but I know that other people can't. Since you followed the whole Posturewriter saga in much detail, would you be willing to add your own opinion in the DRV? The idea of Delete is to say 'Let sleeping dogs lie.' The idea of Keep is 'We might face this situation again.' How do you weigh those conflicting imperatives? I have not yet registered my own opinion. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

on a wikibreak

I am, but I'll leave a note there. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Shakespeare v. Lawyers

Re: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Is a lawyer in COI when whitewashing the Lawyer article? you can see your ref proposed at Talk:Lawyer#First sentence of "Cultural perceptions". Ironically enough, Shakespeare spent his last years in retirement doing usury and lawsuits against those not paying him back (though our Shakespeare's life article is thoroughly whitewashed of any mention of that.) — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 21:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Woods

In reference to your edit on Anthony Woods http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_woods

How is a reference made directly to the Army Pay chart and housing information not reliable? How is a direct link to Harvard's cost page not reliable? I have used primary sources to describe costs. This is directly in accordance with the Wikipedia’s policy on primary sources.

"Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casprings (talk • contribs) 15:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

But you've collated those primary sources to advance an argument not made in a secondary source, which brings us back to WP:SYNTH. I've replied in more detail at your Talk page. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Re-edit

I will attempt a re-edit that doesn't put facts together. However, some facts do have relavance to statements within the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casprings (talk • contribs) 16:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Badagnani

You reopened a closed discussion on my talk page. I would be happy to continue the discussion if you addressed my points, but you can't and won't. Therefore I will no longer be discussing this with you. As a result, I've removed the discussion from my talk page and invite you to do the same. Viriditas (talk) 12:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I chose to respond because of your incivility and personal attack. Fine, if you choose to dismiss my considered perception of the situation. Whatever his (over-rated) contributions - I say over-rated because of the general lack of sourcing and his failure to accept general standards of what constitutes a reliable source - Badagani is a disruptive editor whose edit pattern shows many features of WP:TE and who has repeatedly made false accusations of misconduct against editors who impinge on his WP:OWN. Good editors don't collect this kind of block history. You yourself say the path he's choosing to go down has a dead end. The sooner he gets there - or gets enough heat to persuade him to stop following it - the better for Wikipedia. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI: I've started a 3RR report here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Badagnani__reported_by_User:Ronz_.28Result:_.29, where I linked your recent warnings to him. --Ronz (talk) 17:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess I'm not going to report him for starting to edit-war anymore. Now if only we can prevent all other editors from interacting with him, there would be no behavioral problems at all. No solution yet offered for handling his content problems though. --Ronz (talk) 01:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Re Attempted outing

I have a communication disability Auditory Processing Disorder, which also causes me to be dyslexic. I have no idea what you are talking about, it appears to be writen in WIKI speak which i find very difficult to understand.

dolfrog (talk) 13:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

In short, then: don't post real names of editors. It will get you blocked. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] poor understanding of communication systems

From your recent category delations you would appear to have a very poor understanding of how communications systems have evolved, and whu some may have a neurologicla problems with accesing these communication systems.

First Notation. we are currently using a notation to communicate with each other. More specifically the Visual Notation of Speech And those whop have neurologicla problems accessing the Visual notation of Speech are defined as being Dyslexic So those who are dyalexic and those who are researching dyslexia need to understand the full nature of thge problem which included understanding the structures and the required neurologicla abilities required to acces these notations.

Second Writng Systems. Writing systems are sub categories of Notation for the Visual Notation of speech, which have mainly developed on a nominal geographicla basis which could be explained as part of the evoluntation of man and how humans moved out of Africa to explore and populate the rest of the land areas of the world. There could even be some neurlogicla reasons why some chose the routes they did, whichj could explain the different structures in their writing systems. Which would explain why dyslexics in difdferent writn system my have different nuerologicla reasons for being dyslexic.

I have tried to find a way to find the Request for Comment butr again WIKI has succeed in making this option almost impossivle to find for someone who has my communication disability. If it wre not for the need to have Dyslexia and Auditory Processing Disorder (APD) properly defined on the WIKI system I would not even bother to use WIKI as it is totally discriminates against those who have my disability APD. All text and no pictures/ diagrams and overly complext textual articles and guide pages and guide lists my prefernse of the presentation of text cxan be seen on the APDUK web site http://www.apduk.org/ and how we prefer list pages to be present ed is best demonstrated on my own Dyslexia Links web page http://capdlinks.homestead.com/Dyslexia.html This all about a different neurlogical way of thinking which is completely different to some of the more frightening wiki support anf guide list pages Wikipedia:Community portal just one example

So can those who have communication disabilities have more understanding from the WIKI system You may also like to see User talk:EdJohnston # 21 The problems arising from the dyslexia project dispute. and Category talk:Notation Trying to find a solution

dolfrog (talk) 14:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

first a copy of your entry on my page just for me to use for reference ______________________

    If you say so. But I'm sorry: to be blunt, you are wasting your time if you hope Wikipedia to be restructured in such a radical way as http://capdlinks.homestead.com/Dyslexia.html to cater for your particular difficulty - at the expense of its accessibility to everyone else.    There are some things that can be done. As discussed with EdJohnston, it might be possible to give more colour/font options to make reading easier. But other aspects - such as the overall text format aimed at readers with normal reading ability - we're stuck with.    I have every sympathy; I have visual difficulties myself. But this is not just about format; you appear unwilling/unable to work within the system as it stands (and a major part of that is, accept others' advice when you are out of step). If this is the case, I can't help you. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC) 

___________________________-

At this point in time I would not expect WIKI to have to techology to to follow the needs of those who have APD just yet as APD has only recently begun to be globally recognised, that is an issue for the future when gfraphics etc become used by others more frequently whcich will happen in time

The Visual issues as discussed with EdJohnston are become acepted practice for most information providing web sites, and i have followed the advice of EDJohnston which was easy to follow, and amde a contribution to the Village Pump taslk page regarding this issue. I am aware of the technicla limitation that currently exist but hopefully technologicla advances will make these issues easier to accomodate.

The problem i have is time, I do not have the time to try to understand the complexities of the WIKI system which with my communication disability would make contributing to wiki impossible. So I have to try to edit the dyslexia article and dyalexia project on my own unfortunately. I would love to have easy access to someone who tries to understand the nature of my disability and help me understand how WIKI works, and to work on the WIKI realted issues I have problems with such as categorisation I thought i understood that from waht i had read in the WIKi guides but obviously not, but i need advice and support with these issues.

I am ona strict time schedule to revise or contribute to the both the dyslexia project and the Auditory Processing Disorder article. My area of so called expertise is with rgard to thew content of these articles and the problerms i ma having with WIKI structures is just crerating dealys i could really do with out.

I am always open to advice and suggestions from others but i do not respond to well when others apear to not wish to understand my perspective, which can be dificult due to the nature of my disability.

I am aware that all at wiki are volunteers, but being a volunteer does not prevent you from trying to understand and support the needs of others who may have some type of communication disability.

I still have not ben able to find out how to use the Request for Comment the instructions are confusing for me. just provide a loink to the talk page so I can add my request, WIKI is so unhelpful like that a maze of text to find the bit you need.

I did ask for help when I started my venture with the Dyslexia article using the perscribed help thingy but I got no response so i havbe just had to muddle through on my own and you can probably see some of the miss understandings on my part that this lack of help has caused.

dolfrog (talk) 16:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of languages by writing system

Hi Gordon. Just a note that I would have agreed with your position on the proper categorization of List of languages by writing system. At this point, I think we've tried to be helpful to Dolfrog but he has his own set of goals, that may or may not be compatible with ours. Wikipedia is what it is, and it is possible that not everyone will find themselves able to contribute. EdJohnston (talk) 01:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

first I am trying to make wikipedia more accessable for dyslexics who make up 10% or more of the population, and the national dyslexia associations find wikipedia dysleixa unfriendly, to the point of discriminating against dyslexics in the failure to provide the recommended selection of background options that those who have visual dyslexia or scotopic sentivity sysndrome require, this could easily be done by provide a few dyslexia friendly skin options in the WIKipedia preferences

I have no such aims for my own disability Auditory Processing Disorder, as the technology is not yet avialable.

However Where the administrators seem to fail is in understanding the complex nature of dyslexia and how it relates to a wide range of issues. And with out understanding these scientifically proven issues you delete my contributions without providing any citations to prove that i was wrong and this applies to categorisration as well. There have been not cited evidence to prove that i am wrongbut if youread the dyalexia project articles you will find a great deal of cited evidence to pprove that I have been correct in all my contributions. And that real problek is your lack of understanding of these issues, and the lack of understnading of these facts by editors of other related articles who fail to see the wider issues for their own narrow reasons.

So is WIKipeadi a globla encyclopedia or does it just represent the opinions of its administrators who have little interest in trying to understand complex issues.

from my experience so far of WIKIpedia there is no attempt to be an encyclopidia but more to be defenders of of mob opinions unsupported by scientific research. I could be wrong, and i would love you to prove me wrong. But Gordons actions regarding phonlogy seem to prove me right.

My only agenda is to have articles and categoroes supported by scientific citations and to avoid personal opinions, yet when challanged the perosnal opinions seem to win everytime on WIKIpedai in my experisnce so far.

dolfrog (talk) 03:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

On that basis, I'm going to have to decline to help you. You say you don't understand how the system works, yet you're not prepared to trust the judgement of editors who do. It must be around five/six now who have confirmed the view that your Dyslexia category additions are wrong: nothing to do with scientific evidence, but how Wikipedia categories are organised.

Having communication problems - which I notice don't stop you telling us at length how we should do things - is no excuse for wading into an unfamiliar environment, breaking its rules, then refusing to back off until you understand those rules. I was happy to try to help, but this has now graded into disruptive editing. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

waht you fail to understand is that the only way i can operate is to "wading into an unfamiliar environment" because i am not getting the support i need. I asked for help by putting the help notice on my talk page, but got no response what so ever.

The on ly intervention i have got is wheni make a mistake trying to work around the alien environment, and very littke understandsing of ther nature of my disability from editorsd who make changes to waht i have dome without explaination or asking why I made that mistake, no very few have tried to suggest alternatives to achieve what i need to do using the so calledf WIKi best practice. All I have got so far mostly is criticism for having a communication disability.

and what feel is personal abuse and discrimination, but I am used to that.

I have tried on many occasions to try to find solutions the the problems but mnay of my attemts have been ignored by the so called WIKI experts. Who from my perspective have an attitude problem they are always right and everyone else is always wrong.

From now on I carry on editing the dyslexia project, and let the others do their own research and discover how dyslexia relates to their specialist topic in their own time, I have more pressing thing to do that get stressed out trying to communicate with those who do not want to listen.

Have a good life

dolfrog (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

you really have no idea waht you are doing just deleting all i have done regardless just proves my point, you have no idea what disruptive editing is, and you have no idea how Dyslexia realtes to these See Also issues just showing your own lack of knowledge, of the topics so no wonder Wikipedia is such a mess.

dolfrog (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not deleting "everything you've done"; I'm deleting Dyslexia categories from articles where it is inappropriate (you'll notice I've left alone the majority where it's relevant). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a question what makes you such an expert on these issues that you know waht is appropriate and waht is not. As far as I am aware you have no specialist knowledge regarding these issues and you have never asked me why I added these pages to the dyslexia category. So you would appear to be acting blind without having the full information. But that as you say is the WIKI way of doing things you always know best.

dolfrog (talk) 10:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Categorization. Categories have a hierarchy based primarily on what the subject of the article is or directly about; not what it's related to. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

OK Dyslexia is about different writng systems, dyslexia is about ortography, dyslexia is about notations but due to you lack of knowledge on these issues you can not see the connections that is not my problem but yours. You need to learn about these issues before blindly making changes which you do appear not to be technically qualified to understand. You appear to be an andminister working blindly in the darkj making uninfpormed very poor guesses. WIKI is about learning from others, the problems too many think they knowe it all and fail to learn from anyone else, and do not want to discuss areas of overlap from their small specific field of expertese.

So unless you understand the complexiries of dyalexia you have no idea waht you are doing and are acting more like an ill informed vandal rather than a user who is prepared to discuss the issues and learn.

dolfrog (talk) 14:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

Every Wikipedia article should belong to at least one category. Similarly every category (except Category:Contents, which is the root of the hierarchy) should be placed in at least one parent category. Disambiguation pages belong to special categories (see Disambiguation); most redirects are not categorized, though there are exceptions (see Categorizing redirects). For the categorization of pages in other namespaces, and categories used for project management purposes, see Project categories below.

An article should be placed in all the categories to which it logically belongs, subject to the duplicate categorization rule stated below. It should be clear from the verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. Use the template if you find an article in a category that is not shown by sources to be appropriate template if the article gives no clear indication for inclusion in a category.

Normally a new article will fit into existing categories – compare articles on similar topics to find what those categories are. If you think a new category needs to be created, see the section What categories should be created below. If you don't know where to put an article, add the template to it – other editors (such as those monitoring Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories/uncategorized) will find good categories for it.

Categorize articles by characteristics of the topic, not characteristics of the article. A biographical article about a specific person, for example, does not belong in Category:Biography. (For exceptions, see Project categories below.)

An article should never be left with a non-existent (redlinked) category on it. Either the category should be created (most easily by clicking on the red link), or else the link should be removed or changed to a category that does exist.

The order in which categories are placed on a page is not governed by any single rule (for example, it does not need to be alphabetical, although partially alphabetical ordering can sometimes be helpful). Normally the most essential, significant categories appear first. If an article has an eponymous category (see below), then that category should be listed first of all. For example, Category:George Orwell is listed before other categories on the George Orwell page.

What categories should be created

Categories should be useful for readers to find and navigate sets of related articles. They should be the categories under which readers would most likely look if they were not sure of where to find an article on a given subject. They should be based on essential, "defining" features of article subjects, such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc. Do not create categories based on incidental or subjective features. Examples of types of categories which should not be created can be found at Wikipedia:Overcategorization. Discussion about whether particular categories should exist takes place at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion.

It should be remembered that categories are not the only means of enabling users to browse sets of related articles. Other tools which may be used instead of or alongside categories in particular instances include lists and navigation boxes. For a comparison of the uses of these techniques, see Categories, lists and navigation templates.

Categories appear without annotations, so be aware of the need for a neutral point of view when creating or filling categories. If the composition of a category is likely to be controversial, a list (which can be annotated) may be more appropriate.

Before creating a new category, check whether a similar category does not already exist under a different name (for example, by looking on the likely member pages or in likely parent categories).

Categories follow the same general naming conventions as articles; for example, common nouns are not capitalized. For specific rules, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories).

For proposals to delete or rename categories, follow the instructions at Categories for discussion.

Subcategorization

Although there is no limit on the size of categories, a large category will often be broken down into smaller, more specific subcategories. For example, Category:Rivers of Europe is broken down by country into the subcategories Rivers of Albania, Rivers of Andorra, etc.

A category may be broken down using several coexisting schemes; for example, Category:Albums is broken down by artist, by date, by genre etc. Intermediate categories may be created as ways of organizing schemes of subcategories. For example, the subcategories called "Artistname albums" are not placed directly into Category:Albums, but in the intermediate category Category:Albums by artist.

Not all subcategories serve this systematic "breaking down" function; some are simply subsets which have some characteristic of interest, such as Best Actor Academy Award winners as a subcategory of Film actors, Toll bridges in New York City as a subcategory of Bridges in New York City, and Musical films as a subcategory of Musicals. These are called distinguished subcategories.

The identification of distinguished and non-distinguished subcategories is important for the application of the duplicate categorization rule. It is useful to state in category descriptions whether or not a given category is a distinguished subcategory of a parent category. Use the templates to specify the particulars. If no such information is present, determine the status of a subcategory by common sense and observation of the way existing articles are categorized.

Categories which are intended to be fully broken down into subcategories can be marked with the template. This indicates that any pages which editors might add to the main category should be moved to the appropriate subcategories when sufficient information is available. (If the proper subcategory for an article does not exist yet, either create the subcategory or leave the article in the parent category for the time being.)

To suggest that a category is so large that it ought to be broken down into subcategories, you can add the template to the category page.

Subcategories defined by ethnicity and sexuality are often classed as distinguished. For example, Category:African American baseball players is a distinguished subcategory of Category:American baseball players, as this category is not broken down systematically by ethnicity. See also Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality.

Remember that subcategories will often belong in at least two parent categories. For example, Category:British writers should be in both Category:Writers by nationality and Category:British people. When making one category a subcategory of another, ensure that the members of the first really can be expected (with possibly a few exceptions) to belong to the second also. If two categories are closely related but are not in a subset relation, then a link to one can be included in the other's category description (see below).

have a look at the bold text and see if you are working to this frame work I think not.

dolfrog (talk) 15:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Not all subcategories serve this systematic "breaking down" function; some are simply subsets which have some characteristic of interest

Yep. But it comes down to a judgement call on whether there is sufficient thematic connection - within the general consensus about the way Wikipedia handles categories. Dyslexia isn't a category for List of languages by writing system for the same reason that Category:Blindness isn't, even though that's even more an impediment to reading and writing. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

How wrong you are. Dyslexia is about having problems with writing sysstems and nothing else, Dyalexia is about having problems with reading, writing and spelling in writing systems. If there were no writing systems there would be no dyslexia.

Please get your fact straight, as i have said you need learn about the topic before you make arbitory and unqualified decision, and a two to one vote in the mediation process weas about anumbers game and nothingtot do the with a reasoned discission of the issues, sort of mob rule. And the mediator had no understanding of my communication disability and how this is a problems in that type of produral discussion.

15:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless, Dyslexia is not an appropriate category for List of languages by writing system. And I very strongly suggest you stop your personal insults. Dougweller (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Category:Writing systems. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Enough with the abusive edit summaries [17]. It has already been explained to you how the category setup works. Dyslexia is not a writing system. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: User talk:Gordonofcartoon [18][19] If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

You started the npersonal attacks I am just defending myself and other Dyslexics.

Dyslexia is about not being able to use writng systems due the structure of the various writing system which do not match dyslexics neurlogicla abilities. So this has everything to do with writing systsm bit you appear unwilloing to learm about these issues.This notr my problem but more an attitude problem on your part.

You would appear to have no understanding of dyalexia what so ever as has been indiacted by your poor quality actions. Now if you were to learn about these issue you may become qualified enough to make the decision you are currently making with out having an full understanding of waht you are doing. You need to have a globla view of issues and not the very narrow view of things which have been demonstrasting recently. I have mnetioned this in the category section above.

You and others have been questioning my understanding of dyslexia, which like the members of the list of writing system said, a is an insult to my experience and expertese on the subject. So until you have a good grounding about dyslexia you are contimually insulting my intelligency by your inappropriate actions.

So you are making personal atacks on me by the inappropriate actions you are making.

It works two ways but you only want to see things your way. Which may bring into question your ability as an administrator

dolfrog (talk) 15:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Bored now. I've opened a Request for Comment on this categorization issue: see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Language and linguistics, which directs discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dyslexia#RFC. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

Have I got it right now dolfrog (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It would be better to undue this edit [20]. An RFC is primarily to find out what other uninvolved editors think, not to expound what editors already involved think; and it's central to the procedure that the question is posed neutrally, without "framing". Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The main problem has been a general lack of understanding and reading of Recent Dyslexia Research, so unless The research is made available then it is not possible for others to commnet on this topic So I have take out what you could call framing content and just left the research and a reminder of WIKI guidance which should not really frame the discussion more provide information useful to the discussion as points of reference. There should also be similar points of referemce from the other sides of the discussion so that a balanced view can be obtained. But justy having casual commnet with no reference to the research etc is just a waste of time and really pointless as the real topic of discussion is being ignored, and it just become a matter of personal opinion rahter than a discussion about citable scientific research, which I what I thought WIKi was all about.

dolfrog (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

If you are not an administrator how come you are handing out warning to toher users surely that is a abuse of you pistionas an ordinary user like the rest of us or have you some other unknown status in the WIKI power structure I am not as yet aware of.

There is some question about your warning on my page by others so may be you should reconsider your position. And begin to expalin yourself more in terms that those not familair with wiki jargon can understand.

dolfrog (talk) 20:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyone is allowed to give warnings.

Telling an editor that they aren't qualified to hold an opinion on a topic is a personal attack in my view. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

If the editor inquestion had readand understood the relevent research then He would not have made the comment they did. You can have an informed opinion and an uninformed opinion, and demonstrating a lack of understanding of the documented research leads to an uniforemd opnion, and that was the inference of my commnets. Not that thye were not entitled to an opinion.

Another way to look at this, is to ask what qualifications they have to make a considered opinion, as say in a court of law with expert witnesses, or are you asking the man in the street to make an informed comment about a very complex issue.

I have no idea what qualification that editor had to make those comments.

The whole issue is now quite arbitory as I have found another means to linking to the specific article in question. but no one seems to want to discuss how to resolve these issues only issue warnings.

I am just trying to get more clarification as to who does what on WIKI the whole system appears to be a complete mess, you could not run a not for profit, voluntary organisation or even a company like this. It is a maze of burocracy (i can never spell that word)

dolfrog (talk) 21:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You've been repeatedly told that the current practice for the category system is that Category:Dyslexia is only used when the article/category is significantly about dyslexia. The research is completely irrelevant, as is any editor's capacity to understand it. They do, however, understand perfectly well how the category system is applied. If research showed silvery moonbeams caused dyslexia, Moon would still not be in Category:Dyslexia. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Well you seem to love make personal attacks againt me, and it was you who started all of this. I have only ever had to defend myself from your attacks agianst my integrety, knowledge and experience. You have never discussed the issues or asked to see the peer reviewed research thast support waht i have done. You have acted on your on opinions and failed to read the research from my side of the debate, I thought WIKI was not about personal opinions but about facts supported by research, which so far you have failed to even look at.

So yes from my perpspective you have been acting in bad faith, and ignoring the research done to create the dyslexia article and its latest revision, while you prefer to relay on the opinions of those who have no idea of the nature of the reaserarch involved. Not very WIKI.

dolfrog (talk) 02:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Consider this analogy. I come round to your house and start emptying my waste paper bin in through your letter box. "No, no," you say (rightly). "The letter box is only for post." I tell you the problem is your ill-informed opinions, because you haven't read all the research that shows waste paper is made of exactly the same chemical elements as envelopes and notepaper. Would you need to read that research? Or have I simply failed to understand how the categories of waste and post work? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

you are not making any sense, you are not aming the right comparison at all, you keep on failing to understand I have not bee nas you say emptying my waste paper bin through your letter box at all.

You have been drive the wrong way down a one way street, and i am just informing you of your error and that you need to change your direction of travel The problem is that you do not want to make any change for reasons beter known to your self.

You make irrational and ground less discisions, and you are unwilling to look at the research which proves you to be wrong.

So you could be described as having your own bigotted opinions and you will discriminate against any one who can prove you to be wrong.

dolfrog (talk) 13:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The dyslexia project: A new beginning

Hi All

I have added some new sections below which have come from various talk pages in recent days but all realted in some way to the dyslexia project. So I have added them all below, in the hope that we can all begin to add our own input as one person working alone can cause also sorts of problems as can be seen above. I will post a copy of this to all who I think may wish to the new begining of the Dyslexia project and a copy will appear on your individual discussion pages ( I hope you do not mind). The oringinal copy of this can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dyslexiathe talk page of the main project article you will see revise project template, the changes on the tamplate is the addition of a Project pages section, which includes the orinal project pages and the new STAGE TWO page which is hopefuly the new starting point. the STAGE TWO page has the dyslexia article as it is now. And we can tinker with it without changing the actual article itself and discuss and issue we may have before making further changes to the article itself.

dolfrog (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope. I won't deal with you unless you unconditionally accept that if multiple editors tell you that you've done something wrong, you are wrong. Agree to - and act by - that, and I'll help you. Tell me I'm not qualified to judge because I haven't done the research, and ... anything else I'd like to say to you here would be a major personal attack. And I want an apology for the personal attacks. I don't care if you have communication difficulties; they don't stop you learning not to be a dick.

I read the Controlling the Chaos article you recommended, and if it's an accurate description of the issues of APD, it's deeply incompatible with working on Wikipedia. We can't offer you control of any article/situation. Gordonofcartoon (talk)

"I read the Controlling the Chaos article you recommended, and if it's an accurate description of the issues of APD, it's deeply incompatible with working on Wikipedia." By the above statement are to suggetsing that Wikipedia discriminates against the disabled. If so this matter should be reffered to the administrators, so that this type of attitude can be eliminated to stop this discrimination

dolfrog (talk) 01:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a number of non-negotiable rules of conduct. If your disability makes you unable to work within those rules - particularly if it manifests as something like problems accepting that you can't have sole control of articles - it will be viewed as plain disruptive, whatever that disability might be. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 04:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

non-negotiable rules can equal disability discrimination. Which in your case would appear to be the case. may be you should seek clarification regarding WIKI and Disability Discrimination, as it from my recent experience, it is only you who appear to not be flexiable to accomodate those who have a communication disability, and wish to exclude all who may have such a disability. Eveyone else, including WIKI administrators, appears to have moved on may it is time for you to catch up. dolfrog (talk) 12:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

There is an area of dyslexia which i know very little about, which is the Visual Process Disorder, which I am aware exists, as i have meet others who have these types of problems but i have know research or anything to prove it exists, and have no real idea where to start. It coulb be reralted to Scoptic Senitivity Syndrome (Irlen syndreome) , again I have no experience of it and have not found much peer reviewed research about it. The only reason I ever got involved with the dyslexia artilce was becasue present lack of understanding of dyslexia, and the lack of wiilingness of the dyslexia industry to move with advances in research, casues a big barrier for the recognition of Auditory Processing Disorder, which is the underlying neurological cause of my dyslexia. Cognative Nuerological causes of Dyslexia is where dyslexia research has evolved to in the last 2 years. but the dyslexia industry whicxh included most dyslexia support agencies are stil reluctant to accept the theories of dyslexia which was the research of the last decade or so, but are still promting the position of the 1970 and 1980s, which supports most of the remedial programs that try to promote or sell , and then there are the miraiad of books. The further i researched the dyslexia article the more complicated it became, and I really did not want to do the writing part of the editing only to do the research. But i found that all of the other editors had eith left, conflicts of interest, or did not have the time to participate. I do no the limitations that my disability imposes on me, but i found myself in an impossible situation, do nothing and the barrier would still exist or do something in the hope that i eventually get the support i need. And those wyou have mentioned got tyhe same invite, above, and i have been working on the suggestions they have made so far, and added them to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dyslexia dolfrog (talk) 02:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Since Gordon's talk page is on my watch list, I need to put in a comment here. Eveyone else, including WIKI administrators, appears to have moved on may it is time for you to catch up. Not true in my case, since I'm an administrator. I concur with Gordon that all editors are expected to work within the rules of conduct. EdJohnston (talk) 13:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

my comments are based on all of the other editors I have been successfully working with including other administrators who seem to be able to work with those who have my disability. But for reasons best known to Gordon and may be yourself you do not wish to make the neccesaary accomodations to tyr to understand the communication problems I have and the problems this causes me when tring to work in an alien environamt such as wiki, which would appear to have rules which could be in breach of disability discrimination. From orther orher contributors this debgate has been concluded for over a week now, but Gordon seems to want things his own way so may be he wants to control this hois way for his own reasons which agwouls not be in the spirit of co-operation, especially with those who have communication disabilities. I have nothing further to add, as this is brcoming silly, and a hypathetic WIKi discussion which should be resolved may be by a meeting of all of the WIKi adminstrators as part of a review as to hgow WIKi support those who have communication disabilities, and using the specialsit methods of communicatioin which are different from the rest of the world of communication. This would appear to be a failure in WIKI and rules that govern WIKI.

dolfrog (talk) 15:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Gordon, I'm talking to you this time. I'm afraid that Dolfrog is starting to sound like a broken record, since he repeats the same arguments over and over. Unless he can come up with something new, I'm no longer interested in responding. If Dolfrog can convince *one single administrator* that the comments Gordon and I have been making are not correct, I invite that administrator to post on my talk page. I'm done talking to Dolfrog himself until he comes up with something new. EdJohnston (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Speed reading

Hi Gordon long term speed reading will be recognised as a coping strategy use by those who have my underlying cause of dyslexia, and those who are Visual-Spatial Learners. but hat articlefirst needs to have al the realted issues combined into one article, most of which are the same or similar thing but using a different name. Also you could do with an archive for this page, the easiest I have found to install is the ClueBot III just copy and paste the the sample code and then customise your own settings save and the bot does the rest. dolfrog (talk) 15:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

OK; but as I said, currently the article makes no reference to that. I keep meaning to get around to archiving... Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You might like to have a look at the research articles / papers which have just been added to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dyslexia/Dyslexia sub-articles you may have more than a passing interest in the some of the arts in the Genetic section of articles. hopefully there will be more on Visual processing in the next batch dolfrog (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

"I'm seeing far too many primary sources there. The medical sourcing guidelines WP:MEDRS stress the use of secondary sources - review papers, position statements by medical bodies, etc - to reduce the risk of "spin" to a topic by any editor's personal choice of sources"

I do understand what you are saying, but this is an area where I have problems, because I have to speed read everything to cope with my dyslexia, I sometimes miss bits of detail first a or even second time around. So I go straight from problem to solution without understanding or following the steps that most others use or need to use to get the same results.

(So to me it appears that i am continually having to wait for the rest of the world to catch up, which is not an attack on others because i need others to fill in the intermediate steps for me. This is better described in some articles from Australia some of we have on the APDUK web site, it is more about coping with APD than APD itself. the article I find most useful that describes me is I think in pictures , you teach in words that was the first article I read that actually described me, I was 45 years old when i first read it. All those years of frustration.) dolfrog (talk) 11:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Those links are interesting, but they don't describe the problem here: that you're jumping straight to solutions that are wrong, and aren't the same as other people would come to. I've just looked in detail at Genetic research into dyslexia, and there are major problems: chiefly, copyright. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

So how would you correct the problems, usually in the past from my experience you have just deleted what has been done, so this time can you try to do the things that i am not able to do which is to reword the presentation of the information to avoid copyright problems. On the issue of geting the wrong solution I not sure who you have been in contact with but obviously they have a por understanding of Auditory Processing Disorder, which is a major underlying neurological cause of Dyslexia. Dyslexia for me is merely a side issue, from my perspective Dyslexia only requires informed scientific clarification so that I can move on the my main aim of clarifying the Auditory Processing Disorder Article. But that can not be done until there is a realistic scientific Dyslexia and sub article, and as I have recently found out scientifically realistic and neutral Reading and Reading Instruction articles. The whole range of these articles should be part of one overriding WIKIProject, which should also include Writing systems and orthography. The further I research into wiki to find the so called experts on these various issues, the more disenchanted I become due to their lack of understanding of how their specialist area of knowledge is key to other issues; they all seem to have tunnel vision and seem unwilling to learn. dolfrog (talk) 02:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright

Why don't you re-write the the wiki article content so that they do not breach, copy write, instead of just deleting the all the relevant information. Are you an editor or a censor, as i have said I have a communication disability, and you are only highlighting the limitations that my disabilities impose on me, and not helping another editor around his disability. dolfrog (talk) 03:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I give up with WIKI it appears to be full of too may unhelpful editor who do not want to help other editors less able then themselves dolfrog (talk) 03:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Dolfrog, I'm sorry that you're frustrated, but you need to remember that it's not Gordonofcartoon's job, or anyone else's, to re-do your work so that it complies with Wikipedia's major policies (e.g., copyright laws and WP:No original research).

Gordonofcartoon is a volunteer, just like you, and me, and everyone else. He has zero responsibility for your work, your problems, or your disability -- or mine, or anyone else's. His time and energy is just as limited and precious as yours, mine, and everyone else's. If Gordonofcartoon doesn't want to stop working on things that interest him to spend hours and hours fixing your mistakes, that does not make him (or any other editor) selfish, self-centered, unhelpful or anything else.

You might find that you do more good by doing one small thing very well instead of trying to instantly change everything. You might also find that you get more help if you put more effort into not offending other editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This is more for Gordon as i have already left a similar messages on WhatamIdoing' talk page have a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dyslexia/Dyslexia sub-articles if you can find another editor to be the wordsmith for the Dyslexia project, the progress can continue to be made, but when it comes to WIKI and re-presenting research in text i have real preblems which no one wants to help me work around. So for my own health I can not run a project the size of the dyslexia project on my own any more dolfrog (talk) 05:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

No-one is going to help you in the way you want: mere editorial tidying of material they think is conceptually wrong to add (for instance, wrong category, unnecessary articles created, and text based on your own selection of primary sources).

I'm tired of hearing about your communication difficulty: it's not the problem. It's your incivility and statements of bad faith; your permanent assumption that you know better than all of us prejudiced dullards; and your continuing to edit in ways against advice of multiple editors. Those are all your choice, not some symptom of communication disorder. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You may be tired of hearing about my communication disability, but i have to live with it every day of my live all of the time, and it is not very nice. Your unwillingness to want to help is the problem. my incivility is only in return for the incivility to me, which you may not understand because you do not have to live with my disability. The bad faith was started by you and others and i have only responded, may be over the top but it is only a response to the bad faith of others. I have been getting on with many other editors many of them are administrators so why you continually have this failure to be civil i do not know. There are only two editors you and Whatiamdoing all the other editors have understood my limitations and work with me so why can't you?? This is all about your lack of understanding of my communication disorder, and your refusal to make any accomodations to help. dolfrog (talk) 16:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

your reference to "your permanent assumption that you know better than all of us prejudiced dullards" if you would bother to read the number of research paper i have had to read in the last 2 months regarding the dyslexia and the causes of dyslexia reading etc, you would consider those who refuse to do their own research in a similar light. If you do not do the research you can not even claim to have the right to have an opinion even with regard to consensus, because real concensus can only be provided by informed opinion, and if you do not read the research documentation provided than you should not entitled to participate in the related consensus debates. I was once a dullard, but if you research a topic you learn about the topic in great depth, the real problem is that others do not seem to want to educate themselves to the same extent. I am still learning, and hopefully so are WIKI dolfrog (talk) 16:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] comments on dyslexia arbitration

Thank you for your concern, but since one of the individuals concerned has taken it upon himself to delete any and every contribution I have made to wikipedia I have little choice, there is no reason to exhaust other more reasonable approaches when the other party resorts to this kind of behaviour.

--Cityzen451 (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

What is lost is everyone else's time in dealing with a request that hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding.

That is very unfiar and biased perspective, you show little or no concern for my time that has been wasted, all the work I put into prior contributions that were deleted for no reason at all, thank you for interest but I have serious doubts about your motives.

Cityzen451 (talk) 18:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

As you wish. Others can judge. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] dyslexia and things

To Both Gordon and WhatamIdoing

Thank you both for your contributions to the recent Arbitration.

With regard to dyslexia in the UK and may be elsewhere the dyslexia industry (those who have a finicial interest in selling dyslexia related products, and proving support) have not been explaining the real meaning and implications of the documented Research of the last decade or so but only making scant reference to the new research by heading only, For example each time there is a new gene recognised as potentially a cause of dyslexia the news is reported as Scientist have identified the dyslexia gene or something similar. The implication from this being that there is only one gene responsible for dyslexia. But if you dig deeper there has been research since about 1989 confirming a genetic link to dyslexia, and research scientists have two or more chromosomes and about 3 or 4 Genes which can each be a factor in causing dyslexia. So why is the motive for concealing this information. To maintain their financial status quo, be it their income, funding, or sales, depends on dyslexia being a single condition in its one right, so that they can claim that all they do is for all dyslexics. What the research over the last decade of so has been demonstrating is that Dyslexia has at least visual and auditory cognitive neurological causes, and more recent research has been highlighting Attention issues as well. This why the research from Germany and China is so important because these countries are almost dyslexia industry free. The Arbitration issue which we have all been apart of highlights the tip of the iceberg of the range of the products that the dyslexia industry has to offer. But if research becomes common knowledge, as it should be, then all of these products should have to be classified as to which groups of dyslexics each product may help, and even which groups of dyslexics it could do harm. The people who suffer are the dyslexics and their families who pay out good money for these products in the hope that they will provide some benefit, most buy blind, and take a very good chance of wasting their hard earned cash.

My insider information can only related to Auditory Processing Disorder, especially in the UK, as I am founder of APDUK and was Chairman from 2002 - 2005 and Vice Chairman 2005- onward. So I have heen in regular contact with the leading APD researchers in the UK and around the world. But I am an outsider when it comes to dyslexia and my research of the last six months (2 months in relation to the WIKI article) has been very revalationary as to the scale of the miss information which has be allowed to exist. dolfrog (talk) 01:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Organization of dyslexia article series

Hi, Gordon.

I understand your frustration.  :-)

Have you had a chance to take a look at the original re-org proposal? It's here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Dyslexia/Proposed organization

If you have a few minutes, take a look and tell me if that looks like a reasonable reorganization plan to you.

Rosmoran (talk) 02:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] re Keep it simple and up-front

I have replied on my talk page dolfrog (talk) 02:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Village School (Great Neck, New York)

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Village School (Great Neck, New York) (2nd nomination). Thank you. Alchaenist (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

[edit] Response to comment on dyslexia project

From the Dyslexia project ______________________________ I'm not sure; I think we need to get away from this death-by-sandbox approach in favour of the normal Wikipedia process of direct editing of articles, discussion of their own Talk pages, and use of the Wikiproject as a loose to-do list. I'm going to proceed on that basis. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 09:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC

_________________________________

Hi,

I think you may have misunderstood me. I'm not an advocate of developing articles in a sandbox. Working in live articles is most definitely the way to go, otherwise you're essentially hiding in-progress articles from potential co-editors.

Do you not see some benefit in trying to come to consensus on an overall organization of the information, so that we are not working against each other?

My experience in Wikipedia is that, when there are a number of editors actively involved in an existing article of significant size, it is helpful to try to come to some consensus about the overall content and organization of the article.

Is your experience very different from this?

Best,

Rosmoran (talk) 20:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thx: I've commented at your Talk page. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I could not agree with you more about the Orthography and Dyslexia article. I'm trying to address this on the talk page and am hoping we can nudge it in the right direction. Thanks for participating actively!

Best, Rosmoran (talk) 00:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Gordon

like this Note that WP:MEDRS stresses the use of secondary sources such as review papers. An unsystematic collection of primary papers is not terribly useful for article sourcing. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC) you are very good at criticising the work of others but not that good at trying to help resolve the issues you identify, so may be you should get more involved and try to help out rather than just passing comments from the side lines dolfrog (talk) 21:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

From your commnets at the top of this thread it would appear that you have very litterl idea of the complexity of the issues involved, and how as editors we need to discuss the issues and explain the more recent events so that we avoid an editing war spread over the main dyslexia article and the many new sub articles. You are new to the dyslexia project, and have not been through the editorial problems we have had in the past, doing as you suggest. The other issue you have to take into account is that many of the editors are dyslexic and have problems using using words in normal text and communication begore you add the multiple complications of WIKI. So may be you need to be more understanding of the limitations of others and try to provide more practical and helpful advice, and not just quoting the laws of WIKI. Dyslexics could be considered as permanent newbies as their communication disabilities never go away, so stop biting the dyslexics dolfrog (talk) 21:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I sympathise, but in that context I really don't care what your problems are: if you can/will function within Wikipedia policies and guidelines, good. If you can't/won't, you know where the door is. I'd be less hard-line if you weren't wading in telling the rest of us how to do things while pleading Wooden Leg. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to work within Wiki policy guidelines, and I am finding that you are not trying at all to help only to hinder. I am not trying to tell you how to do things, I am trying to find out how WIKI works waht the structures are etc in ways that i can understand. So for expample the explanations provide by User:GTBacchus use plain English which I can understand, and follow logical lines, which can not be said for your comments littered with WIKI jargon, and no full comprehensive explanation in plain English.

So far you have stalked me around WIKI highlighting the deficits of my disability, with no attempt to help or support what I am trying to do which is improve the dyslexia article. You have never asked for any explainations of waht I am trying to achieve or provide any help doing the type of editing that i am not able to do namely copywriting. So from my perspective you have been running a campaign of victimisation and not providing good faith. dolfrog (talk) 00:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Dolfrog,

You explained what your goals many times, to many editors, on many pages. Gordonofcartoon is perfectly capable of reading those other messages. You don't have to repeat to him exactly what you've said to others. To believe that he doesn't know your goals because he didn't specifically ask you to repeat that information with "Dear Gordonofcartoon" at the beginning of the same sentences is rather strange.

You may be selling your capabilities short. If you can write a clear explanation on the talk page, you can certainly write the same clear sentence in an article.

And, once again, Gordonofcartoon has zero duty to help you. If you can't edit Wikipedia to your satisfaction, then it is not another editor's job to provide you with special services, extra help, or other accommodations.

Have you walked next door and demanded that your neighbor accommodate your disability by writing what you want in Wikipedia articles, regardless of whether your neighbor is busy with other things or feels inclined to help you? You have exactly as much right to demand help from Gordonofcartoon as you have a right to demand this help from your next-door neighbor. This is not a professional workplace. It's a volunteer group. If you want help, then you need to figure out how to win friends and influence people instead of demanding help like a little kid demanding candy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

		The Citation Barnstar
		Thanks a lot for your help at The Sea-Wolf! All the best, Kayau (Talk to me! See what I've done! Sign my guestbook!) 07:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] discimination

from my talk page

If you can write 700-word essays justifying your edits, you haven't got a communication problem. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC) This just a further demonstration of your failure to understand the nature of my communication disability, this is now becoming your preferred form of self imposed ignorance. Which translates into pure disability discrimination on your part. dolfrog (talk) 09:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I've no interest in your communication disability beyond whether it affects your ability to work within the Wikipedia policies and guidelines that all editors have to work by. If you choose to participate here, you're assumed capable of working within the system. Anyway, communication problems don't force you to assume bad faith: as I've said, that's your choice. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You were the first one not assume good faith, and i have only ever had to respond to defend myself. It was you who went around WIKI undoing all of my work without explanation, and in bad faith, stalking my every move. So had you been more polite and amenable then noe of this would have happened, you started to insult my intellegence, and failed to explain what you were doing.

And as you live in the UK you will know what Disability Living Allowance is, well I receive the middle level due to my communication disabilities. You will also be aware of Disability Discrimination Acts and how the are now Part of the Human Rights commissions remit. I expect everyone to try to understand the disabilities of others, and not to discriminate against their disabilities whether in the work place, at home, socially or anywhere else. This not about anyone job, it is common morality. So if you volunteer that is not excuse not to help others less fortunate than yourself, as some would imply dolfrog (talk) 02:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Response regarding original research

I don't know if it's "in the plan." My experience is that the most productive way to manage this kind of thing is to work through problems, issue by issue, as they come up, rather than trying to address personality differences globally. One spends less time "going down ratholes," if you know what I mean. You should, of course, do what you think is best. :-)

I understand the difference between primary and secondary sources, and obviously you do, too. I think if we keep watching and participating, we should be able to keep things on track.

What do you think? Rosmoran (talk) 06:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you think that I'm POV pushing?

Rosmoran (talk) 01:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, good. I'm as prone to self-deception as anyone, so I'm glad to at least *appear* to be objective. :-) Rosmoran (talk) 15:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] AIV

Is for vandals that have recently edited. It's not the place for sockpuppet reports, especially not for IPs that have not edited in weeks. I can hardly block an IP that made one edit on July 1 and that's it. The IP has likely since been reassigned, since the guy who used it for that edit appears to have a dynamic IP address. Enigma^msg 08:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] New conversation about issue with the dyslexia articles

Hi, there. I just started a new conversation on the Wikiproject dyslexia talk page about our attempt to provide a worldwide view in these articles. We could use as many people providing feedback as possible. Please read and respond, if you can.

Thanks!

Rosmoran (talk) 21:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter (September 2009)

The Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter
The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter Issue 1 (September 2009) Content News and announcements Want ads Feature: Article rescue as a team effort Featured editor: MichaelQSchmidt

[edit] Frank Leavitt, Dudley Leavitt images

I have added photos of two Bliss-Leavitt torpedoes from United States Navy photographs to the Frank Leavitt entry. As for Dudley Leavitt, there is an historical marker at Center Sandwich, New Hampshire, which I have eyeballed, but have not been able to get a photograph of -- yet.[21] There is also a full-length portrait of Leavitt in the New Hampshire state house at Concord, which unfortunately I have not found an image of.[22] And I haven't been there lately. I have uploaded photos or images of most of the other Leavitts about whom you enquired. Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 02:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Quilliam Foundation

You have commented that a version I restored is tendentious - can you please highlight those parts that are tendentious so they can be removed. The short version you refer to does not contain much valid research. Thanks in advance. Jk54 (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Richard Tylman

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Richard Tylman. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Oskar von Riesenthal

As promised, I just tackled the German article version. Thx for motivation. -- Funkhauser (talk) 09:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Excellent: thanks also. Now Oskar is in Wikipedia, we might see a decline in the "Otto" misattribution. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 13:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I think so, too. And sometime soon, Jaegermeister will change their label, hehe. -- Funkhauser (talk) 09:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Dyslexia Research paper Collections

When you are finally proved wrong will you put the link back please, and please stop stalking me around Wikipedia. You are beginning to become annoying. dolfrog (talk) 03:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not stalking to correct a pattern of misguided edits. By the way, you've been repeatedly warned about personal attacks and bad faith, and I see it has started again (User talk:Ninahexan, User talk:DKqwerty#Dyslexia Article). If it continues, this time I'll take it straight to a user conduct RFC, which is long overdue. You've been given a lot of leeway because of your stated problems, but it really has to stop. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

This pattern of edits does have to be corrected. You probably need some help, though, Gordonofcartoon. It's clear you are not communicating the most basic points to this editor. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, not an open source for publishing this reader's research selections. It requires community consensus to edit an article, including what additional reading and sources are appropriate, in the article. I'm going to post on AN/I and ask someone to help you with this. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 03:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Gordonofcartoon, I posted a thread at AN/I. There are just too many problems with these links, particularly if the user has added them to many other articles.[23] --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 03:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thought you might like to see the recent media dyslexia debate started by Medical News Today they published my reply to their article dolfrog (talk) 04:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] WP:OR board

And so you see, I have gotten the similar response that Blueboar got trying to push WP:MOS edits just mentioning that manual of style has struck the manner of response. GoC there are always two sides of the story when and if the time comes I will present my side, however this process will go on and on, I have tried to back out of many of these conflicts, if you take a look at the Talk:R1a pages there have been rhetorical and hostile questions that I have not responded to, he did not stop this, I did. I simply ended the conflict by not posting on the page.PB666 ^yap 02:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC) paola has aded this memoory is a big part of ur brain also it help u alot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.29.64.253 (talk) 22:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)