User talk:Aoidh/Archives/2011

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI

The 2.2 update for the Aria is now officially available in the U.S. Check here: http://www.unwiredview.com/2011/02/26/att-htc-aria-finally-gets-froyo-update/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.13.134.167 (talk) 07:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Re

Again, please reply on your own talk page. This keeps discussion focused here. I did not say that the quote in my comment was what you said. Let me look at it this way: I gave you that revert due to your warnings, and because I did not see that you were an experienced user; the edit count of me has nothing to do with it. And no, I'm not an administrator and cannot block you.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

All I am saying is that your reversion was a violation of policy. As per the talk page guildelines, removal of a comment is taken as proof that the user has read it, so reverting is not only unnecessary, but against the established rules. Please understand that this is not a personal attack, but merely a reminder so that brand new users do not feel threatened and intimidated when clearing their talk page. Thank you, and enjoy the rest of your day. :) - SudoGhost (talk) 00:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your attention on the Vladimir Komarov page. I was not so sure that a blog about an as yet unpublished work was a reputable source (I am new and have Cortical_visual_impairment) and was concerned this was followed up by the same uncited information I had already removed as per the talk page, given there were no objections. I hope my request on the talk page was appropriately worded. Aakheperure (talk) 09:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Article improved

Hi SudoGhost, I noticed you have made an impartial analyze to Murry Hope article. Since then, others and myself users have improved the article with copy-edit and reliable sources, I believe the article it is pretty acceptable now. Would be possible you recheck in and, if you see some serious issue, give me some help? I also apologize for mistakes in copy-edition (I deeply dislike when this happens, but usually I don’t have much time available). And finally if you conclude it is a fair article to Wikipedia, could express your opinion in discussion page (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Murry_Hope#Murry_Hope)? Of course the article it is not perfect, but I think others users can continue improving this contribution for this awesome project by Jimmy Whales. Thanks, Best, Hour of Angels (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC).

User_talk:Vermapriya1986

Thanks for splitting into a separate section. I am sorry that it has come to this but I've reached the stage where I can only consider the user's actions to be disruptive. - Sitush (talk) 16:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

User_talk:celloweb

Hi, I'm needing help to improve the Casey Heynis article to comply the Wikipedia's format. I'm a newbie and I'm not familiar with the Wikipedia features and rules. But the case deserves a correct article since is demanding global attention from the media and social networks. Thanks. Celloweb (talk) 20:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I really don't know how to add the inline references. I'll appreciate any help in order to eliminate this issue. Thank You so much.Celloweb 20:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism

I thought I was fast with picking up the vandalism on Linux, but you managed to get it before I could hit submit. Good eye ;) - SudoGhost (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, having rollback and huggle certainly helps in cases just as this - its a lot faster then manually removing vandalism. :) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 12:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Articles about french town

Thank you for the translations french to english articles.

I see you work of this, it's good.

If you have questions about the french articles or cities (I takes pictures of this in the department 64), I'm avaible !

You can see my pictures here.

--France64160 (talk) 23:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

SPI

Hi, I've just discovered that someone has set up an SPI against you, me and another at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sitush. It is spurious & almost certainly a block evasion - see also Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Govind_Kumar_Singh_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29 & User_talk:Ponyo#Block_evasion.3F. Just a heads-up, as I only spotted it by going through the user's contributions. - Sitush (talk) 13:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Issue resolved - it was a sock. - Sitush (talk) 15:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Off-topic, but...

Hi! I had to take a second to say that I just love your username! (I do *nix sysadmin work and a Sudo Ghost--if ghosts are invisible--is one of the scariest things I can think of!) You've probably seen the XKCD cartoon about the teenager using sudo but, if not, you should look it up. Please pardon the interruption... Take care! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 19:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Oh, and I've seen the xkcd comic, and I love it. :) - SudoGhost (talk) 15:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Just read your user page and saw where you're from. I grew up off Mt. Paran Rd. & lived there for many years. I remember buying car parts at R&R on Buford Hwy. We've driven over a bunch of the same pavement, I'll bet! L8R! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 02:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

SPI heads up

I've just opened an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Vermapriya1986 for the IP edit you have just reverted on Top Designer. Too suspicious for my liking as it is another single purpose account. - Sitush (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'm positive it's all the same person, and it's getting a little old having to constantly re-add tags that he removes. :) - SudoGhost (talk) 15:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Pilgrimage of Grace article

You undid my edit on Supression, it was the IP address, I have since made an official Wikipedia account. I cannot speak for the other names in the section but I know for certain Henry Percy 6th Earl of Northumberland was not executed for any part in the rebellion. He died in 1537, a year after finding Anne Boleyn Guilty of treason. This should be corrected in the article.

Regards Biggsy1988 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biggsy1988 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The reason I reverted the edit was because an unregistered IP removed information from an article without supplying a reason in the edit summary. You mentioned that he died in 1537, which is what the Pilgrimage of Grace article says. "The King's promises were not kept, and in February 1537 a new rising took place..." which is when Henry Percy died. Anne Boleyn was executed in 1536, and while the Pilgrimage of Grace also took place in 1536 (a few months after her death), the section 'Supression' details events which occurred in 1537, including the death of the Earl of Northumberland. Do you have any information that suggests that he didn't die in this time and place? If so, I will be happy to correct the information, but as it stands the information is (as far as I know) correct. - SudoGhost (talk) 16:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

This page specifically mentions his execution as a result of the 1537 uprising[1]. (Sources for that section being Fletcher, A. and MacCulloch, D.: "Tudor Rebellions" 1997 & Bush, Michael: "Durham and the Pilgrimage of Grace" 2000) - SudoGhost (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I have found a reference, The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography states that Henry Percy, 6th Earl of Northumberland died at Hackney on the 29th June 1537. He was not executed. A friend of mine has checked her copy of Tudor Rebellions and it states Thomas Percy, Northumberland's younger brother was executed during the uprising, Northumberland himself was not. I think this may be where the confusion lies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biggsy1988 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

If you could, can you show me what page that can be found on? Thank you. - SudoGhost (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Subscription to the dictionary is required to view the page so sharing the link won't work. However there is also this [2] also details the conditions of his death... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biggsy1988 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The link you provided me should be sufficient to remove his name. If you could, place that link on the Pilgrimage of Grace's discussion page, and cite why you're removing his name, and then remove his name from the article itself, with 'See talk page for explanation' in the edit summary. That way people do not misunderstand why his name was removed. Thank you. - SudoGhost (talk) 20:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks and thanks for the description on what to do. I'm pretty new to this. Biggsy1988 (talk) 20:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem, if you have any other questions or need any help, feel free to ask. - SudoGhost (talk) 20:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Hyhen after "ly" adverb

Thanks for the info and support. There are still two users who don't agree with the MoS, but I'll try this on them. Happy editing! Chris the speller ^yack 00:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Ronn Torossian

From reviewing your work you are a very fair editor can you review please ? 1: Where is statement Torossian is an active supporter of Israel - They appear to be clients, so lead should be removed ? 2: The Forward states something different regarding Our Jerusalem than does the other source on page jerusalem Post to which should be changed: http://www.jpost.com/Features/InTheSpotlight/Article.aspx?id=150936 During what would turn out to be a two-year stint in this country, Torossian was one of three founders - together with fellow Betar alumni and peers, today Likud MK Danny Danon and Kadima MK Yoel Hasson - of Yerushalayim Shelanu (Jerusalem Is Ours), a secular organization promoting the right of Jews to live anywhere they choose in the city of Jerusalem. 3: Rabbi Morris Allen, who heads an organization that exposed fraud in one of 5WPR's clients, called the firm's tactics in defending the client "outrageous, to say the least."[9] If Allen speaks about firm, why on Torossian's personal page ? 4: Torossian is active in supporting pro-Israeli causes, especially those associated with the Israeli right wing. ( THEY ARE CLIENTS - ANY SOURCES SAY OTHERWISE ?)& same goes with christian supporters of Israel - These are clients.

And the article seems to be biased & doesnt mention he has worked for Foreign Ministry and Tourism Ministry of Israel and Likud Party: [4]. has also represented Israel Prime Ministers Ehud Olmert and Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu. http://www.thejewishweek.com/features/confident_comeback He has also trained Israeli government officials for media appearances. http://www.prweekus.com/israel-branding-effort-aims-to-humanize-nations-image/article/56167/ Appreciate your interest and commentary. greenbay1313 (talk) 02:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I will look into this, but I do not promise any actions on my part. This seems to be a conflict of interest on your part, and I will not help an alleged sockpuppet who continuously ignores Wikipedia policies. You seem to be breaking Rule A and B, and then complaining that Rule C isn't being 'followed'.You cannot pick and choose which policies are convenient for you, and considering your alleged close connection with the subject matter, I would assume that any perceived negative statement about the subject would be 'biased' in your opinion. If undue weight is being given to any one subject matter over another, I will discuss it on the appropriate talk page, and let Wikipedia's consensus decide. I will not discuss this matter with you any further. Thank you. - SudoGhost (talk) 04:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 03:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. :) - SudoGhost (talk) 03:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

B&Q...

...what exactly are you trying to do?!raseaC^{talk to me} 20:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Well apparently I'm trying to break the article. :) But no, chalk that up to me not paying attention. I've reverted that silly edit I made, and attempted to open an invitation for discussion on the talk page. - SudoGhost (talk) 20:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I've tried that. And on the user's talk. Not sure it's going to happen. I thought it was an open and shut case, there's little reason to have it in the article but didn't want to get into an edit war. raseaC^{talk to me} 20:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I managed to not break anything this time, so hopefully the other editor will take this opportunity to use the discussion page.. - SudoGhost (talk) 20:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Abhira Tribe

i am trying to correct this factually wrong article but you are disrupting my correct editing.this is against the spirit of wikipedia

I respectfully disagree. I invite you to open a discussion on the talk page, so that people can reach a consensus as to the edits you have proposed. I am not the only one who has reverted your edits, and I have done so because it seems that you are removing valid, sourced information (usually having to do with any positive mention of the British people) and are replacing it with content you feel is more appropriate. In this instance (when multiple users have reverted your edits), it is best to use the aforementioned talk page to explain why you feel these edits should be made, and allow the users to make a consensus either towards or against the changes. - SudoGhost (talk) 04:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

this article showing only one sided point of view of controversial origin of abhira.i am presenting another and morte accepted point of view today.

Again, I ask that you please use the talk page to discuss this before reinserting the changes. - SudoGhost (talk) 05:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

ok thanks for guide.i have edited now with reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ancient indian historian (talk • contribs) 05:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Please help

Okay, so even despite everything noone seems to notice reality. But, come on now, is it really okay for a Wikipedia user to be blocked and then to use another account a few minutes later? See this edit and this one from this blocked user.

If such a black-and-white violation of the rules will be approved then I swear to God this place is useless. I'm totally deleting my account and starting another then. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 06:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Vermapriya

Thanks for picking up on this (again). I see that you have opened an SPI. It is a Duck case but I'm wondering if the SPI has been opened correctly because there seems to be no section for "comments by other users", which usually appears. Any ideas? - Sitush (talk) 04:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure. I was discussing it on the IRC, but wasn't aware that I had opened a new SPI. It may have been the template I placed at User_talk:124.247.246.146. - SudoGhost (talk) 04:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Angelo Rules

Hey. Just edited the Angelo Rules page for accuracy but you have changed it back. What you have changed it back to is incorrect. Why did you change it back? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.177.23.242 (talk) 11:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

If you could provide sources that show the reflected changes, that would help greatly. Please see WP:V for more information about this. I changed the lead paragraph back to its original state because the way it was rewritten was made to sound like an advertisement, which is counterintuitive to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. - SudoGhost (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Please check out the creator's website – www.teamto.com. Super RTL has nothing to do with the production of the series. It's just one of the channels it is broadcast on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.177.23.242 (talk) 11:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Acronym and initialism

I request you to add our site too in the external links section. We did changes as per your comment. Also, you must note that the sites in the list are filled with google Ads in results. Also, the top sites mentioned in them are from same owner and sharing a common database. We may be small, but our results page are clear and no confusion with the Advertisements and results. Also, we gave a description which is our + point over others. Just giving an acronym and few expansions are not enough. Even I can make acronyms!! GBTM - Get Back To Me, CMB - Call Me Back...these are acronyms, isn't it? But you have to mention what's the significance of these acronyms ...and we are doing that!. Hope you will approve our site too. thanks, Acroman007 (talk) 07:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Tagalog from Libre Office

May I ask, why did you remove the reference to Tagalog from the Libre Office (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LibreOffice) article? Libre means free in Tagalog which is the main language in The Philippines.

Ref: "03:09, 20 April 2011 SudoGhost (talk | contribs) m (17,385 bytes) (Undid revision 424961996 by 121.127.6.82 (talk) Libre in Tagalog comes from Spanish) (undo)" Ref: http://translate.google.com.ph/#tl%7Cen%7CLibre —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.127.6.82 (talk) 06:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see the talk page for the explanation. - SudoGhost (talk) 14:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Scruffy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.58.254 (talk) 14:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Scruffy believes in this company. *sniff* - SudoGhost (talk) 14:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Tiki Ghosn loss.

Why do you keep changing your loss to Tiki to a win? The promoter has verified your loss and we have video of your loss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.38.228 (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It has been explained several times in numerous places. The source given for the Tiki Ghosn article shows him losing the fight, which is why it is being changed to match that source, and you have provided no sources or explanation for the changes. Second, the article itself shows 8 losses, and you changing that to a win makes the number of losses 7, making the entire page wrong. Third, it is not "my" loss. My username, SudoGhost, is from the Unix command Sudo, as I am an avid Linux user. It has nothing to do with this Genki Sudo. I was directed to the Tiki Ghosn page from a request at editor's assistance, until that point I had never even heard of those people. - SudoGhost (talk) 17:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Well the link to the video with Tiki's hand raised has been removed by you a few times.This is shown in the edit history. here it is again http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T763_D6SJ2o. I also contacted sherdog. They keep the data base for all MMA fights. They contacted the promoter and Ken Pavia. They have verified that this is a win and are in the process of changing this in their system. You seem to be the only person that is editing this page on both Tiki's and Genki's page. I can provide you with the emails to contact people that can confirm the fight. If you have no personal connection with this matter then you will get the confirmation you need and then leave the information alone.

EDIT: i just looked at the logs again. You are not the one removing the link. How can this be resolved? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.38.228 (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The section in which the YouTube link was placed in an inappropriate place for the link, the video is not necessary. I suggest you wait for sherdog to update the information on the page, and then update the article, mentioning that sherdog was updated in the edit summary. Otherwise the article does not match the source, making the entire article's integrity suspect. - SudoGhost (talk) 21:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Editing the Eurogentec Page

Hi boss, could you tell me why you've just reverted the modification i've done on the Eurogentec page ? The information was correct and referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.197.91.13 (talk) 07:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

See WP:PUFF - SudoGhost™ 07:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

INTJ

When you are reverting obvious vandalism (such as the removal of a sourced section) its not edit warring. cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 01:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Capitol vs Capital

Re Confederate States of America spelling, edit reverts. Everywhere you see these days capital for capitol. Is capital Wiki standard now for capitol? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.246.177 (talk) 06:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

A capitol refers to a building, but when referring to a city it is spelled capital. - SudoGhost™ 07:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Your signature

Your sig is unnacceptable. Change it please. Marchetti 77 (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC).

And may I ask why? - SudoGhost™ 15:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to read. That is unacceptable. Change it or I'll take you to ANI. Marchetti 77 (talk) 15:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't heed this troll account too much, Sudo.--Atlan (talk) 15:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm an advocate of plainsigs myself, and would prefer our guidelines were more stringent, but I agree. This account (Marchetti) is a troll and almost certainly a sock as well. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

No comment on any other account, troll or otherwise, but I do think that putting your username in white text (which is what I see, unless I highlight your sig) makes life unnecessarily difficult for other users, and I would very much appreciate it if you'd change it. See my attempt above. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed it to E0E0E0 as opposed to 000000. My intention was to make it look "ghost" like, not to make it harder to read for anyone, by any means. If its still difficult to see, please let me know. - SudoGhost™ 19:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

That's very nice, thank you. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 01:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Yo

You following me around, bro? Marchetti 77 (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC).

If by 'following' you mean watching two pages you happen to comment on, then yes. - SudoGhost™ 15:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Clarification for WP:REMOVED

I didn't want to clutter up the ANI page with this discussion, so do you know where the official place to get clarification on WP:REMOVED would be? I put something on the WP:UP talk page, becasue I couldn't find any pages for questions for policy pages, so if you know where I could post a request for clarification, I would greatly appreciate some assistance here. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the section you started here is the best place. I'm looking into it now, the only thing I'm seeing that's even vaguely relates is this, but even that is too vague to really draw anything useful from. - SudoGhost™ 06:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

However, from what I'm reading, I'm leaning towards the meaning of that section being that he's allowed to remove it. Mainly because it very recently was worded ...and confirmed sockpuppetry related notices (while any sanctions are still in effect). and was changed to its current version to reflect that it applied to the entire sentence, and not just that last item. - SudoGhost™ 06:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

What's confusing about that is the phrase "any sanctions". Does that apply to the sock, or just the sockmaster? Because sock accounts are always (or at least almost always) indefinitely banned. So, that would make it seem like the word "any" is unnecessary. On the other hand, why include the word "any" in the first place instead of just saying "sanctions"? Inks.LWC (talk) 07:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

How like joinging the club

You edit warred too.

Reverting WP:Vandalism (in this case illegitimate blanking) is exempt from WP:3RR. - SudoGhost™ 16:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Indefinatwely blocked

I hope you can live with this. MartinSFSA (talk) 19:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I tried to get him to explain his removal, but never once did he. It could have been solved easily by just taking a moment to explain the edits, but as it is the edits were vandalism. He (oddly) requested an indef block, and I'm not really sure what to make of that. It is what it is. - SudoGhost™ 19:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

My question: now much damage has he done? Do we need to go through all his contributions and seek consensus on the bibliographies, or has it all been reverted? MartinSFSA (talk)

I believe I've reverted all the removal of bibliographies, as they fall under the definition of vandalism (due to the lack of explanation). Aside from the bibliography removals (and a few other edits) I believe his contributions were good. Which is a shame that he got indef blocked, that certainly wasn't my intention. I was hoping a block would give him reason to stop and explain his edits (as he apparently wasn't going to any other way), instead of constantly removing content. - SudoGhost™ 20:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you SudoGhost for your kind words.

It certainly helps balance out the unhelpful events. Peace Bro !

Penyulap (talk) 20:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Information to share

I'm totally new at Wikipedia, but I need to speak with you privately. Would you email me at (email redacted)? Thank you. :) Fifiseven (talk) 14:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fifiseven (talk • contribs) 13:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd prefer to keep any Wikipedia related discussions on Wikipedia. I'd be more than happy to discuss things on my talk page, and have placed some (hopefully helpful) information on your talk page. - SudoGhost™ 18:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Reverts

Hi. Please take more care with your reverts - this was a perfectly legitimate edit to update some horribly outdated text (see the source, [3]). Granted the world isn't going to end but this is the second time recently you've reverted an edit on that page apparently without reading it. Thanks. – Steel 23:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Cyanogenmod does not "contain the code" to Clockworkmod, and in many typical installs of Cyanogenmod, Clockworkmod is installed in conjunction with rooting. - SudoGhost™ 23:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I have not reverted anything without reading it, and I would suggest you not make such assumptions, as they are not only unnecessary, but does not help a collaborative environment. I'm also curious to this first revert your referring to. - SudoGhost™ 00:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Right,

1. That doesn't explain why reverting to the previous version, which is clearly out of date and should be removed, was a good idea.
2. Cyanogenmod itself may not contain the code to Clockwork recovery, but that's not what it says. The Cyanogen repository does contain Clockwork code.

(ec: The first revert was this one). – Steel 00:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

If you would kindly read the edit summary of this diff, I specifically specified why I was reverting it, something I wouldn't have done if I hadn't read it. "Do no evil" is not Google's informal motto, it is "Don't be evil". I still attest that revert was valid, unless evidence is presented otherwise. For the second edit, I think it may be a case of an edit that could have been worded better for clarity. Did I read the diff? Yes. In my judgement, I felt that it did not clarify or give a better understanding / update the information, but had the opposite effect, that it would confuse lay readers not familiar with the matter (I felt they would assume Clockworkmod was part of Cyanogenmod). The previous version may have been clearly out of date to you, but to me it was the better of the two diffs. - SudoGhost™ 00:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I think that is a valid concern and the paragraph could probably be reworded again to avoid confusion, or removed entirely since it seems tangentially relevant at best. Having said that, information which is maybe slightly possibly misleading is still an improvement on information which is outright wrong. Read the source: "This recovery hasn't been maintained in almost a year" - and that was written in July 2010. It's not a case of being out of date to me as if this is something subjective.
The other edit is a moot point since the current phrasing has satisfied everyone, but 'do no evil' is an acceptable paraphrase of 'don't be evil' to fit the sentence as it was written at the time, "their informal corporate motto to do no evil". There were no quotation marks there to suggest this was the exact motto and it wasn't an attempt to "correct" anything. Your wording of "their informal corporate motto to don't be evil" was poor English but regardless this is resolved now. – Steel 00:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Spamming

bud i wasnt spamming or promoting of any kind i was giving educational resources — Preceding unsigned comment added by MadHaTTer666 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:ELNO. Two other editors have reverted your edits as spam, so it isn't just me that sees it as spam. - SudoGhost™ 02:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Christopher Lee revert

Do you have a reason for reverting my change? The bacon number information in the article is clearly outdated and irrevelant.ColinBlair (talk) 15:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:DEADLINK says Except for URLs in the External links section that have not been used to support any article content, do not delete a URL solely because the URL does not work any longer. Recovery and repair options and tools are available. This is why I restored the dead link, and the information that went along with it. The information is factual, cited, and relevant to the article. That the website no longer exists does not make the information irrelevant. - SudoGhost™ 17:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't delete the information because it was a dead link, I deleted it because it was outdated. If you check the current list at the Oracle of Bacon website (http://oracleofbacon.org/center_list.php) you will see that Christopher Lee is currently 11th on the list. I thought about just updating the link and changing the text but I decided that saying that Christopher Lee was once second on a list which changes every time a new movie is released just wasn't relevant. Do you think someone should edit Harvey Keitel's page to say he is currently second on the Bacon list? ColinBlair (talk) 05:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the information should be updated so that it says he was at one time second on the list (and list when), but I don't believe the information should be removed. However, I think posting that question on Talk:Christopher Lee would be the best course of action, so that other editors can discuss this as well. - SudoGhost™ 05:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Minecraft edit war

I requested to move it to the dicussion page, you continued argueing then warned me against warning. Surely you should be warned for continuing, not me? Jokiros (talk) 21:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, I have placed several comments on the talk page, which you have continued to ignore, and continue to revert despite a request to See talk page. Once again, see the talk page. - SudoGhost™ 21:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually if you check the times you'll see that I requested we move it at 21:12, you responded and warned me at 21:17, I responded at 21:19, you warned me again then you made your first post of the discussion page at 21:20. Don't act like I ignored you're talk page comments and continued reverting when I didn't. Jokiros (talk) 21:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The edit summary I gave was See talk page. This means that a discussion was being written, but instead of waiting to discuss, you reverted without discussion, despite your own request for a talk page discussion. This is edit warring. - SudoGhost™ 21:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

You also participated in edit warring by responding twice yourself. I concede I took part, and should have ceased, but I also argue that you are not guiltless. Jokiros (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC) Also I admit I didn't notice the "see talk page" as I focused on the rest of the post first. Jokiros (talk) 21:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, well that makes sense then. Regardless, there is now a discussion on the talk page, so all seems to be well. :) - SudoGhost™ 21:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, will keep this in mind next time. Jokiros (talk) 21:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I also posted a question on the article's talk page that I would like you to see. Thank you. (Also, indenting comments with :, followed by :: for responding to an indented comment, and :::, and so on helps with the readability of the thread, and allows ease of reading when seeing which comments respond to which statements.) - SudoGhost™ 21:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia

I know how wikipaedia works thank you very much. The edits I was making was a minor fix of a piece of information which was also unsourced. My source is the game itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.14.107.184 (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The information you added is not only untrue, but unsourced. "The game itself is my source" is not how it works, as it cannot be verified that "you once made it to the dam in the dark." Especially as this is mechanically impossible without a light source. I have just added a source, thank you for pointing out that it did not have one. - SudoGhost™ 22:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Groton School

You reverted an edit re: Cannon "Zeke" Hawkins. I am enclosing a link to a 20/20ABC News show http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=124035&page=1 that discusses Mr. Hawkins' years at the Groton School and the abuse scandal he exposed. The reason his name is frequently vandalized is due to this scandal. There are those, faculty included - like the priests of the Catholic Church - that were humiliated and resent deeply any success that Mr. Hawkins may achieve in life. There have been serious attempts over the years to minimize the abuse allegations or the criminal conviction of the Groton School in criminal court via the DA current Attorney General Martha Cokely. State child protection laws were changed in MA as well as other states as a direct result of this case. Please re-add the name to the list of notable alumni. As has been discussed previously, if this name is removed, you need to remove over 25% of the names already included on this list with lesser achievement in life. In fact, one name included is fictional. Thanks. ---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epeabody (talk • contribs) 01:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

If you have issue with the names included in the article, discuss them on the article's talk page. Incorrectly labeling an edit as vandalism and restoring a name when the source does not verify that he attended the school is why I reverted your edit. If you wish to reinsert the name, I would suggest discussing it on the talk page, and using that reference instead of or along with the previous reference, because the reference given does not show that he went to the school. - SudoGhost™ 01:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

20/20ABC News is certainly a legitimate source to confirm Mr. Hawkins went to the school. If you look in the history section of the school, you will also see that Mr Hawkins is mentioned in three of the news articles referenced at the bottom of the section. Why don't you reinsert the name? This certainly shouldn't or needn't be a concern for the talk page. There is one name listed in red that is purely fictional as stated on the page as the name appeared in a book as a fictional character that went to the school. How is this legitimate vs. someone receiving an Academy Award nomination in the student category - an international award? i don't understand your rationale at all. Once before his name was removed by teacher John Tulp who was being investigated by the district attorney's office of Middlesex County for his role in the abuse scandal. I seriously wonder who the person is that is involved today in removing the name? Perhaps he is one of the abusers that avoided criminal prosecution. Until people are willing to face the truth of the matter, abuse will be allowed to continue. Your edit simply adds to the problem. ----

Thank you for taking the time to read my message. The ABC reference is sufficient, the one about the nominee thing is not. As to the 'scandal' bit, I care not one bit, one way or the other. It seems to be covered in the article, so I don't see what the issue is. As to the other names, again, I do not care. If you have issue with them, again, take it to the talk page. - SudoGhost™ 02:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The official website of the Academy of Arts and Sciences is as legitimate as any news source. The nomination was also reported in a number of other publications. What's the problem? And if Wikipedia is concerned with civility, snarky remarks about "taking the time to 'read' message"are NOT necessary. I see at least four other alumni with lesser qualifications with no reference to the Groton School listed: one is fictional, one clearly didn't go, two others show no reference to the school in their listing. Again, lesser qualifications are listed. If I randomly start editing out these names will you be accusing me of vandalism? Your edit is both unfair and in my mind destructive to both the integrity of the article as well as other issues that you don't seem to care about -issues that are both important and potentially destructive to the welfare of others. ----

Again, I'm not concerned with the other names, and neither are you. Your edit history shows one thing and one thing alone: edits related to the 'scandal' at this specific school. Please take the time to read WP:AGENDA, as your comments above seem to suggest you have an agenda against this school. If you had read the message above, you wouldn't have asked me why your ABC source wasn't sufficient, as I explained that it was, which is why I suggested that you read the message. As I said already, take the other names to the article's talk page, discussing it here will get nowhere, as I have no interest in the article. As to my reversion being unfair, the fact that his name is an "issue" that concerns the "welfare of others" suggests that you aren't interested in his nomination, but are trying to keep your preferred information in the article. If you include a source that does not reflect the information given (that he attended the school), that is "destructive to the integrity of the article" as you put it. That is why I removed the entry. No more, no less. Again, I suggest that you fix the source, and update why he is notable. I suggested this to you before, and I'm suggesting it now. And as to the vandalism comment, I again ask you to read WP:NOTVAND. - SudoGhost™ 03:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

As you are a monitor at this site, I felt that providing you with a legitimate source of attendance at the school was sufficient. I have done so with the ABC article. The Web site of the Academy of Arts and Sciences referenced also lists Mr. Hawkins under "Narrative Films" nominations. This is the same Academy Award nomination given to every star in the motion picture business: actors, writers, directors, musicians, et al. As to any "Agenda" as you call it, I have a clear agenda in correcting people that look to bury the truth or those that seek to rewrite history. The Groton School spent over $10,000,000 trying to bury this story. Various students committed violent crimes against other students. It was only the result of arcane Massachusetts laws, subsequently changed, that the most violent of these crimes and the student criminals were not prosecuted. No, I don't really care that you allow fictional characters to be listed as "Notable Alumni." I do care about revisionist history on this issue. When my edit is continually hacked, I have made it my obligation to fix it. Maybe, in your life you will find something that is important to stand up for and be willing to pay the price for it. If this is an "Agenda," so be it, but considering the number of children that have been abused by the Catholic Church [where excuse after excuse is put forth to hide and cover up for abusive priests] and the obscene tale of abuse that existed for decades at this school, please be assured that I do keep track of the edits on the Groton School page. If you are unable to deal with these issues, please refer this matter to another monitor immediately. Again, what I don't appreciate is the attitude you display with regard to my concerns. Epeabody 03:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epeabody (talk • contribs)

It is not to me that you owe a source, it is the readers of the site. The source must be attached to the information given, not to an obscure talk page that readers will not know to visit. And again, I don't "allow" fictional characters, and you're refusal to bring it to the talk page suggests you don't really care either. Nothing you have just said addresses the reasons I removed the name from the article, and also has nothing to do with anything I've said. My suggestion to you is to carefully read WP:COI and WP:NPOV, as violating these may result in your being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. - SudoGhost™ 03:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit War at Anthony Weiner sexting scandal

(Removed inappropriate edit war template)

What you wrote on my page was NOT necessary, and I do not appreciate it. I did not violate anything, like "3RR", as I'm very careful with that. So I don't dig what you just did, snarking this nonsense on my page, and threatening "block" when I only reverted twice, per WP policy. I'm aware that "edit warring" is NOT ONLY "3RR" true, but instead of jumping the gun, and disrespecting me like this, and not giving me the benefit of the doubt, why not write to me like a normal human being, instead of giving that nonsense tag that I'm "edit warring"? Not cool, bro. Also, it could be argued that you were edit warring, by reverting my edit with no real specific explanation or rationale. Hence why you now have the tag on your page. I did not violate any WP rule at all, yet you thought to put that on my page. Not necessary. I would never violate 3RR, so why I assume I would?Hashem sfarim (talk) 03:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

What I wrote on your talk page was a basic template for edit warring, which you were engaged in. You did not violate WP:3RR, but you still edit warred which is in violation of WP:Edit war, undoing another edit to your "preferred" version twice within minutes of each edit. Also, my reversion of your edit is my first, and only edit to that article, which came with a discussion on the talk page, which you reverted without discussion. - SudoGhost™ 03:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The template informs you that Users who engage in edit wars risk being blocked or even banned. not to "disrespect" you, but to inform you that if those actions continue, you may be blocked. It is to prevent you from being blocked, not to attack you. - SudoGhost™ 03:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Well as I said in the edit comment, I posted stuff on the talk page regarding this matter. And I'm still not sure (to be frank) why this is even a debatable issue, the whole Delaware 17 year old girl thing, on June 10th, as this is THE tipping point as to why so many calls today by Dems for Weiner to step down. Whether I personally agree with the calls or that what happened in Delaware was "mundane" (which arguably it was, I agree), or how uptight some Dems are being now about it, is not the issue. The issue is that that was their final straw in many ways. So I don't see how it's irrelevant. And if there was a problem with the wording, as I also said in my edit comments, and in my remarks on the Talk page, was to RE-WORD (per WP policy) not simply to revert or totally remove. That's all I was saying. Hashem sfarim (talk) 03:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar :)

Hey SudoGhost, I just wanted to thank you so much for my very first barnstar! :) I'm so honoured! Hopefully, that Xbox 360 update article can get the kinks out of itself with more citations! :P (I'm trying to see what sources I can find to verify the many claims of the page. Have a great one. Kiranerys-talk 05:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Declaration of Independence. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Nat682 (talk) 22:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Please read the talk page before changing redirects against consensus, and I would strongly suggest you take the time to read WP:NPOV before placing templates on user pages. Not sure you placed the correct template here, and why was a template even placed? - SudoGhost™ 22:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I actually have a god damn clue what the hell I'm doing, if you didn't know. The correct template was placed. So-called "consensus" does not have the power to override one of the founding principles of Wikipedia that was implemented by Jimbo Wales himself. I suggest that you read WP:NPOV yourself rather than treating me like I am a moron. --Nat682 (talk) 22:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Please read the discussion, as well as WP:COMMONNAME. The redirect is not in violation of WP:NPOV, and you've not only not demonstrated that it is, but you've made absolutely NO attempt to discuss the change in any way, despite a discussion to the contrary. I've demonstrated that the redirect falls under WP:COMMONNAME. Also, I suggest you read WP:NOTVAND before labelling an edit as vandalism. Disagreeing with an edit does not make it vandalism. Also, I did not assume your stupidly, and I suggest you not assume otherwise. - SudoGhost™ 23:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that WP:NPOV is important, but it seems to be a case where you believe it falls under WP:NPOV, and assume that everyone else does as well, but chooses to ignore it. If you don't stop to explain the reasoning, nobody will understand your reasoning. On the talk page I linked you, there is a discussion in which I have shown that the redirect falls under WP:COMMONNAME, and that WP:WEIGHT applies in determining WP:NPOV, of which this redirect is not a violation. I ask that you step back and explain the reasoning why you feel this does not apply, and why it falls under WP:NPOV before reverting again. Thank you. - SudoGhost™ 23:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Marking as Patrolled

Hello there SudoGhost. Just a little request. It seems that Twinkle, quite annoyingly, doesn't mark pages as patrolled even when you tag them for WP:CSD, WP:PROD or WP:AFD. I've just come across an article that you'd tagged for WP:CSD on the unpatrolled list. I'm sure you already know, but if you scroll down to the bottom of the article, there will be a little link in square brackets that says mark this page as patrolled. If you click that the it'll get taken off the unpatrolled list and no-one else will come across it. It's not your fault, I know; it's Twinkles. But until they fix it, it'd be great if you clicked that link just before you tagged an article. Sorry to be a pain. Keep up the good work. — Fly by Night (talk) 00:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies, I didn't know that Twinkle didn't mark them. The page had been recreated many times, so I put it on my watchlist, and when it popped back up I tagged it for CSD, didn't think about the fact that it'd be on the unpatrolled list, and didn't know that Twinkle didn't mark them as patrolled. I'll keep that in mind. - SudoGhost™ 01:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know myself until a while ago, when I saw an article I'd tagged still on the unpatrolled list. For some reason it doesn't always seem to add tagged articles to my watch list either… Who knows? Take care. — Fly by Night (talk) 01:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you start dispute resolution?

I can't figure out how to do the code. It is too complicated. Thigle (talk) 16:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem, give me a moment and I'll see if I can set it up. - SudoGhost™ 16:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried Editor's assistance or Requests for comment? - SudoGhost™ 16:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Forget it. This is all too complicated. Thigle (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

To start a request for comment, just add {{rfctag|reli}} to the top of the talk page section you would like a comment on. - SudoGhost™ 16:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Yo there is this crazy guy, 117.198.50.49. Please see the discussion page on Hinduism. This is urgent. This guy needs to be banned. Thigle (talk) 18:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Stop criticizing me and look at what you are doing. You are shouting at others all the time and do not see what others explain clearly. On top of that you describe others as Hindu fundamentalists and vandals etc. It is you who is crazy.-117.198.56.204 (talk) 08:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit summary

Fine I'll use an edit summary. Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. As per the reasons I explained on your talk page, not doing so may lead to edit warring and confusion, as the case was on Vext. - SudoGhost™ 22:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You wont win this mate

I know I haven't breached any rule. Watch out!!! - 187.54.112.238 (I signed it for the user, for archival purposes)

Copyright violation is a serious rule here at Wikipedia. Instead of stopping to explain, you insisted on reverting at Boleto 8 times within the span of a few minutes (in addition to the several times you reverted earlier in the day). WP:CV and WP:3RR are two of the rules you broke in that short time span. As for watching out, thank you for the advice, I will keep the page on my watchlist to ensure Wikipedia's guidelines on copyright violations are followed. Thank you. - SudoGhost™ 00:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for that welcome message. I was surprised to see an orange bar telling me that I had a new message -- I don't know anyone on this website, so I could not imagine who wanted to talk to me. LOL. I appreciate the link-menu -- it is very helpful, and I am going to read through it. And Adoil Descended (talk) 02:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem, glad to help. :) If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message and I'll help out as best as I can. - SudoGhost™ 02:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate that. And Adoil Descended (talk) 02:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Portal 2 'Horrible Person'

The source is wrong; GLaDOS repeats the line. Play through the second chamber in chapter two...oh wait that's original research. So we need a new source. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 02:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I can only go by what the source tells me. Even more important is the information matching the source. If a source does not reflect the information given, it deteriorates the reputation of sources on Wikipedia. - SudoGhost™ 02:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I know, I know. I found it quoted on IMDB, which includes the repetition of "horrible person" but also "I'm serious", which is not spoken. I look at a YouTube video and apparently it's in the closed captioning, which does not match the spoken dialogue. So because of that, and it's a hassle to change out the source because it's used somewhere else, I'm just changing the quote to another in the old source.. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 16:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Payment Method Boleto

Hi SudoGhost, you insistently keep on deleting every page that I contribute. Why is that?Drupalista (talk) 04:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, for one, it appears to be a copyright violation. I am not deleting the page, I am notifying the admins of its issues, and they decide if it shall be deleted or not. It was you that asked me to watch out for copyright violations, and I don't want to let you down. - SudoGhost™ 04:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Home computer

I can't edit my home computer on wikipedia but I can edit from my work computer.Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 12:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Currensy

Please stop deleting the list of mixtapes from Curren$y's Wikipedia article. Though documentation on which mixtapes are official is hard to come by, the tapes are official. I have updated the citation with a link to Curren$y's official Blog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.168.26 (talk) 21:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

How to notify interested users

Hi, is there a way to send message, the way you have notified user:Thigle twice recently? Do let me know please if convinient. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 19:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

If you're referring to the templates, they can be found at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. - SudoGhost™ 22:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Notification of Automated Replies

Hey SudoGhost,

This is a friendly notification to inform you that automated notices are submitted to reported users on the WP:AN/EW noticeboard by User:NekoBot periodically during reviews of the page content to save editors from having to post their own notices and directly link to the report in question. Please see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/NekoBot and User:NekoBot for more information. + Crashdoom ^{Talk // NekoBot OP} 20:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies, I didn't know it automatically notified.. - SudoGhost™ 20:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Dilijan Children's Art school

Hello SudoGhost, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Dilijan Children's Art school, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to schools. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I missed the school part. Thank you for informing me. - SudoGhost 18:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:DRN thread

Hi SudoGhost! This is just to let you know there is a thread that mentions you at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Chinaman (term) - whether to include information on speakers' intent. I know you are only related indirectly, but you may want to check it out nonetheless. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 09:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on the discussion, thank you for informing me. - SudoGhost™ 18:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Xbox 360 system software—'Closed beta' releases

Hey, I saw your reply to the closed beta entry on the talk page as well as your revert. I would like to ask your opinion on if perhaps we should add in a commented out message (the ones that only an editor can see) saying that any closed beta releases added must be sourced? CheersKiranerys-talk 04:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I think if it becomes a repeating problem, that's something we could take a look at in lieu of RFPP. - SudoGhost™ 13:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, we'll see then. And by the way, do you think there's anything that can be done to improve the page? (and wow, sorry for the late reply, forgot to watch page, I think)Kiranerys-talk 09:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Oratory School edits

I see that once again the Terminology and Slang section in The Oratory School entry has been removed, this time by you, for being 'unsourced' and 'not encyclopaedic'. I suggest that these are largely spurious justifications, especially the explanation of that section being 'not encylopaedic'. I think a great many other Wiki users would agree with me that whether an entry is or is not 'encyclopaedic' is largely, and unfortuantely, something of a subjective judgment, despite the word sounding important and profound, and the word itself is curiously amorphous. And I doubt even you would stick your neck out an claim that even much 'information' in Wikepedia is 'encyclopaedic' despite the website's implicit claims.

As for being 'unsourced', that might well be true in a strict legalistic sense, yet you and I both know that a great deal of what appears in print is factually wrong (I know, I have worked in the newspaper industry for more than 37 years), and thus any 'sourcing' by reference to anything in print is all too often just so much hooey. And that applies especially to much of the 'sourcing' in Wikipedia. For example, were I to justify a fact on 'gods' by quoting from one of Eric van Daniken worthy volumes - which on the face of it would be perfectly legitimate - the 'sourcing' would be impeccable in the context of Wiki, but the information would otherwise be worse than useless. So much for 'sourcing'.

I was a pupil at the OS from 1963 until 1968 and can vouch for many of the entries in the Terminology and Slang section. In fact, I added one or two and corrected other (the standard punishment was not 'half-an-hour' as once stated, but a 'quarter-of-an-hour'). Other usages were in use either before or after my time and I am not familiar with them. When I first came across the Wiki entry for The Oratory School, that section was prominent and remained prominent for many years and was obviously valued and thought useful by Wiki users looking up The Oratory School. Then quite recently you, or someone as much a busybody as you, decided to delete it. When it was first deleted, I reinstated it, and it then remained for several years, until it was again deleted. That, until its deletion, its presence in the OS entry had offended no one's sense of what Wikipedia should be and intends to be speaks volumes: that entry gives an extra dimension to the OS entry and fleshes out the pure facts of where it is, its history and its facilities etc. It performs a useful function by giving a very good flavour of the school, it's personality and its ethos. Furthermore, it was - and is - of interest to former and current OS pupils - I know because they have told me - and their relatives and, I'm sure, people who want to find out more about the school, such as prospective parents. And I think that if you were honest, you would find it hard to disagree with that. There is no need to be slavishly gradgrindian about knowledge and information, but that is exactly what you are doing. The entry is not 'controversial' and only someone with rather too much time on their hands would claim as much.

Were you at the OS? If so, when and what was our house? Did you attend a British public school and are you familiar with the importance they all place on their own ethos? Are you British or from America? Or are you from elsewhere? These things are relevant, because if you are not British, you will probably not really know what I am talking about, and, I suggest, are not really qualified to pass judgment on what should and should not appear in the OS Wike entry. I feel your deletion is high-handed and arrogant, and I intend to re-instate the entry. However, I shall not do so until I hear from you, but it is only fair to tell you that if necessary, I shall appeal to whoever rules on editing disputes in the Wiki hierachy. Please email me at (redacted) Pfgpowell (talk) 09:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:TLDR. It doesn't matter that you went to the school. What matters is that the content that you add is verifiable. Verifiability is an important aspect of Wikipedia articles. - SudoGhost™ 15:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I have looked up the Wiki definition of 'verifiability' you refer to and note that on that definition a great deal of what is written in the Oratory School entry should be deleted as it is not verified by a 'reliable published source'. As far as I can see the same would apply to the vast majority of Wiki entries, for example almost all of the entries on Douai College, or the Playing The Game section on the Wiki entry on the game Spoons. Those aren't 'sourced' either, and thus, according to you 'unverifiable'. That only shows how spurious your argument is. So your argument for 'verifiability' doesn't mean that the Terminology and Slang section shouldn't be part of the entry, only that the definition of verifiability is superficially respectable, but in fact spurious.

I have reinstated the Terminology and Slang entry which, as I pointed out, was part of the OS entry for many years despite the rule on 'verifiability' you now claim is so crucial. And why - why - does that entry suddenly offend your sense of Wiki order now? I also note that you couldn't be bothered to email me directly as I asked you to, but simply played the committee game, always the sign of a small mind. I have no doubt you will, once again, delete the entry, as you should have no doubt that I shall again reinstate it, and to save us both time, I should like this matter referred to the Wiki authorities. BTW You don't say whether or not you are an old boy of the OS or even whether or not you are British. Pfgpowell (talk) 07:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Unsolicited Talk Page Stalker comment: "Other stuff exists" is not a valid argument for keeping unsourced information. I suggest that you read about verifiability again because it clearly says that having sources (even incorrect but authoritative ones) is better than first hand knowledge which can't be proven. You may disagree with this, but it is the only way to meet the aim of having an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. --Mrmatiko (talk) 12:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I have not emailed you because I prefer to keep Wikipedia related discussions on Wikipedia, when it can be helped. Mrmatiko summed it up well above, so I will simply say that if you do in fact continue to reinstate it without a source, that you may be blocked from editing. - SudoGhost™ 18:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) See Edit wars for more information. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 00:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

New Plymouth Boys High

I am a student within New Plymouth Boys High. The image is not mine but I have received permission from the school to upload that image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FelixG1995 (talk • contribs) 08:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for Wikipedia's guidelines on obtaining permission to use copyrighted material. Thank you. - SudoGhost™ 08:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I've uploaded a new image of the logo under fair use, could you please delete File:Npbhs.jpg? Preceding unsigned comment added by FelixG1995 (talk • contribs)

I've given Felix some advice on signing posts as well :-) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Sonicsgate

Hey, since you said you were watching the Sonicsgate article, I thought I might ask you for some help. You can see on the talk page and the article what the current issue is about (the cast list). If you or other neutral parties think it should stand, I can live with that.

But if I may drop the sometimes rigid, polite Wikipedia talk for just a moment, can I just point out how ridiculous the article is. An article about a documentary so unimportant that (I think) it should have been deleted (see WP:NF, it meets none of the criteria for inclusion}, is written to look like it was the best documentary ever. No negative reviews. A bunch of awards. A cast list that includes nearly every notable Sonics athlete ever, oh, and the names of the people involved the Sonicsgate advocacy, who also happened to help substantially write (and create) the article. In short, there is a group of people getting away with advertising/advocacy foolishness on Wikipedia, and very little is being done about it. Chicken Wing (talk) 01:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

On Your Latest Revision Of Sri Krishna Article

You have just undid revision 437025499 by 58.106.38.117 in Sri Krishna article. But did not update it in Talk page and your post summary was not in detailed too. So, why did you do undo it - is not clear! Thanks! --Tito Dutta (Talk) 12:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The edit was unsourced and unencyclopedic, specifically "Why the devotees make it so complicated, just read the vedas you will find the truth." does not belong in a Wikipedia article. "Also on 4th canto srimad Bhagavat describes Krishna is an expansion of Narayana." also is unclear. This is why I reverted the edit. - SudoGhost™ 12:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I am politely asking you to concentrate on:

1) Why the devotees make it so complicated, just read the vedas you will find the truth. Ya, I did nnot concentrate on the last line. But, the line seems to be an attempt to quote Narayana/Sri Krishna's comment! 2) And unsourced. The user does not know how to give reference, but check he/she mentioned the reference in the very first line- "- It says in 12th canto Srimad bhagavatam......." Anyway, as you have reverted, of course you had some points behind it. Thanks! --Tito Dutta (Talk) 12:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

And if like to check a different question --Tito Dutta (Talk) 12:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

List of Child Prodigies

I disagree with your removal of Cameron Thompson from the list of Child Prodigies.

Firstly the suggestion that the reference did not refer to the same person is wholly incorrect. There are many articles on the internet regarding him - search google for "Cameron Thompson Maths" and you will find a large number. He is the subject of a TV documentary due out in October 2011 which has been filmed by Princess Productions based in London.

Secondly I fail to see why "Sufiah Yusof (born 1984)" can be included where Cameron Thompson cannot. Suriah Yusof began degree studies at the age of 13 (not 12 as stated in the article - reference does not match Wikipedia Entry); Cameron Thompson began degree studies at the age of 11. Further Cameron gained a tertiary level qualification at the age of 13 (Cert Math) .

The issue here is that the list of Child Prodigies differs from the criteria in some cases. If the criteria is "showed abilities comparable to those of highly skilled adults" then by defintion NO name should be listed simply from entering an exam early. Starting tertiary level studies at a younger age does not show an ability comparable to a "highly skilled adult in their specific field". Taking the example of the 8 year old who started a degree - does this make them a prodigy? In my opinion yes however does this mean that have an ability comparable to a highly skilled adult in that field then no! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.130.50.25 (talk) 10:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk page stalker comment If there are "many articles on the internet regarding him" and they could be considered independent, reliable and significant then be bold and use them. --Mrmatiko (talk) 10:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I would add the additional references but SudoGhost keeps undoing my edits without justification and without comment made to my points above. Lets put my points above out the wider community for discussion instead of instantly removing them.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.130.50.25 (talk)

Then use the article talk page to establish consensus. --Mrmatiko (talk) 10:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

It should also be pointed out that User:SudoGhost said that you were linking to the wrong person using a Wikilink causing a Biography of a living person issue, something that Wikipedia takes very seriously.--Mrmatiko (talk) 10:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The Cameron Thompson that was being linked to is a former member of the Australian Parliament born in 1960, and is currently 50 years old, not 12 or 13. This is in no way the same person. The source that was added did not demonstrate that the person was a child prodigy, just that he was going to take a test. This is why I removed it. More sources have since been added that demonstrate this, but the wikilink is still not correct, which is why I removed the wikilink. I must insist that it not be reinserted, as it does not link to the same person in any way. - SudoGhost™ 01:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

what is the specific section of discourage newer editors?

what is the specific section of discourage newer editors that you refer to at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2andrewknyazev#WP:NOTVAND , please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2andrewknyazev (talk • contribs) 05:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Restoring edits within user talk pages in violation of WP:BLANKING. This is perhaps something you may want to read. There is no reason to restore these edits, and there are in fact policies in place for the sole purpose of what is and is not appropriate to do on user talk pages. - SudoGhost™ 05:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Delhi Belly (film) Continuous IP Vandalism/Spamming

Hello SudoGhost,

I got your name from WikiSPAM page, and I understand from there that you can help us editors in protecting(semi) Delhi Belly (film) page which is constantly facing IP Vandalism/Spamming. Please let me know if I can be of any help.

Fanofbollywood (talk) 07:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, so I don't have the ability to semi-protect pages, but if you go to WP:RFPP you can request the page for semi-protection. (Just curious, can you link the page where you got my name? I wasn't aware of being on any such page, and I'm curious about it.) - SudoGhost™ 14:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

What is wrong now

Hi Sudo,

I have made the changes as requested by JohnInDC (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC), See below.

But now you just reverted it, why?

Text below from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boleto

(Text removed by SudoGhost, as it is just a copy-paste of what is found at Talk:Boleto)

Francisco luz (talk) 18:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:Boleto. - SudoGhost™ 19:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Voltaire Birthday

[4] (Note:Condensed by SudoGhost so that the link does not cause a horizontal scroll issue) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JGIV (talk • contribs) 22:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I posted a discussion of this at Talk:Voltaire, as it is directly related to the article, please discuss this there. Thank you. - SudoGhost™ 23:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the amusing edit summary

Hi SudoGhost,

I got a laugh from your revert on List of highest-grossing films, and wanted to let you know it was appreciated. Princess Lirin (talk) 01:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I try not to joke too much on Wikipedia, but that time I couldn't help myself. :) - SudoGhost™ 02:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

thank you!

thanks for the words that you wrote on my talk page,actually Im from Israel and my English not good anough(I think that you can see this) to write in the English Wiki so I write in the hebrew Wiki,but I hope that one day I would be able too write here too!--Haya831 (talk) 10:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem, and welcome again. :)

If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message. - SudoGhost™ 13:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Inventor of tau as symbol for two pi

I see that you undid my statement that tau was introduced by Michael Hartl and others. I know of three persons who have proposed this independently of Michael Hartl. The first one to propose this seems to have been:

Freiddy. pi & 2 pi. Posted on the discussion forum of MathKB, Jan. 2007.

I have collected more facts about the use of tau and its history at

http://www.harremoes.dk/Peter/Undervis/Turnpage/Turnpage1.html Entropeter (talk) 21:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I reverted the edit because it was an unsourced, possibly contentious change to the article (especially considering the recent AfDs on the person and concept). When you edit a page, above the edit summary it states that "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." As you did not provide sources to verify the information, it was removed. The article's talk page is a more appropriate place for the discussion of content relating to the article itself, rather than this page, where other editors interested in the content of the article will not know to look. Thank you. - SudoGhost™ 22:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Not a copyright violation. Actually is WP:SYNTH

a. Much of what is referred to as 'Hinduism' such as the primacy of the gods Shiva or Vishnu, the ideals of Advaita Vedanta, the Bhagavad Gita, mature concepts of samsara,moksha, various tantra denominations and so on developed after (in many cases centuries after) approximately 500 BCE

b. And much of what we nowadays call 'Hinduism', such as the centrality of the gods Siva, or Visnu, the ideas of Samkara's Advaita Vedanta, the themes of the Bhagavad Gita, Tantric practices, and so on developed after the time of the Buddha.

As you can see the sentences are much more different than just a couple of key words. And besides I cite the source anyway. Paul Williams does not even talk about samsara/moksha. Thigle (talk) 23:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed on the article's talk page, and does not belong here. - SudoGhost™ 00:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Stop Harrassing / Stalking Me

This is a warning. It is obvious harassment, to continue to attack misunderstood statements that I obviously backed away from. Think about it. You restored comments that were 'misleading people', just to criticize me that I was misleading them. That is insane. Thigle (talk) 23:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't leave seven messages on my talk page within 30 minutes and accuse me of harassment. Don't make a statement on an article's talk page and then remove the entire section in violation of Wikipedia policy when you don't like the response. It wasn't harassment when I was commenting in a way that you didn't have a problem with, yet when I make statements you don't agree with, its harassment. You even asked me for help, yet now I'm harassing you. You violated a Wikipedia policy, I restored the section removed, because the section directly pertained to the section above it. Do not harass me by accusing me of harassing you, as I'm not the one leaving multiple messages on your talk page saying the same exact thing you've said multiple times on the article's talk page. Continue, and you will be reported, and may result in you being temporarily blocked from editing. - SudoGhost™ 00:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I would also ask that you temporarily stay off my talk page for awhile, as we seem to be at a disagreement, and its clear that nothing productive will come of this back and forth. Perhaps some time will help solve that. Thank you. - SudoGhost™ 00:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Thigle ANI'ed you here. Kevin (talk) 00:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me. However, because Thigle and I seem to be unable to constructively discuss and edit articles together at this time, I'd like to distance myself from him for awhile, including any articles the two of us have edited together. AN/I is on my watchlist, so I will keep an eye on it, but will try to avoid commenting for the sake of avoiding more aruging. Thank you again for informing me. - SudoGhost™ 00:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out

I recognize the error; thanks for pointing that out. I do so many sometimes that I think my brain locks up. But thanks. Lighthead ^þ 21:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I moved your comment

Hi, SudoGhost. I hope you don't mind but I moved your comment on Fountainviewkid to my talk page (I had that section in both places). Atama, FVK's mentor, is suggesting that I stop making noise about it, so I thought it would help if I removed that last section from FVK's talk page. Hope you understand, and I appreciate your support. I'm sure FVK does, too. Thank you. --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Please accept this invite to join the Conservatism WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to conservatism. Simply click here to accept! – Lionel (talk) 05:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Enjoy your wikibreak ...

... you're a smart feller, says this user who may be suffering a Spoonerism. MartinSFSA (talk) 11:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. And harr harr. ;) - SudoGhost™ 17:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

New Section

my edit was described as (Reverted 1 edit by 64.53.137.232 (talk): Rv. (TW)) and I didn't give the guy a warning or anything so how would anyone think I was calling him a vandal? PTJoshua (talk) 18:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

My apologies. Looking back, I think I got my tabs mixed up, I don't think that was meant for you. - SudoGhost™ 01:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello

I mean this in the nicest way, but don't patronize me. I am fully aware of those essays. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 11:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Your actions were in direct opposition to the policy, not essay, WP:TPO. That you are aware of a policy is not an excuse to violate it. You removed a user's comments on the grounds (according to your edit summary) that the user was new, which is not a valid reason for the removal of a user's comments. Judging by that action, I assumed that you were unaware of WP:BITE and WP:TPO, so I left a message informing you of them. That is not patronizing. - SudoGhost™ 12:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't revert them because the user was new. Read our discussions to understand the full story. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 12:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

So that they are in my talk page archives, your edit summary was "Reverted 2 edits by Office of Disinformation (talk): Due to this new user's recent history, I doubt he has actual investments in this discussion." This was the reason I left you the message, not because of a conversation that happened after I left the message. However, the misunderstanding between you and the other editor seems to be resolved. - SudoGhost™ 19:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

This article shouldn't be deleted

This article shouldn't be deleted . Can't you see the award picture on the left side of the page? http://getabest.net/pdfzilla-download-new-272444.html And this - Editor's Pick - on the right side. http://www.brothersoft.com/pdfzilla-202097.html All of those are third party awards. Wz0911 (talk) 12:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

PDF OCR changed

I have changed the content of pdf ocr. I am surprised that you didn't know brothersoft.com. It is strange that wikipedia don't have a "brothersoft". Maybe I should create it someday. Fortunately, wikipedia has "softpedia", so I use the Editor's view on softpedia as references. I will change it until you agree that PDF OCR shouldn't be deleted. Wz0911 (talk) 02:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I am aware of brothersoft, but the way the website was being used was did not match the information it was supposedly verifying (there was no five-star award listed on the site, the site in fact showed something around two stars out of five). The reason the article is being proposed for deletion is because it lacks reliable third-party sources. All of the sources used either come from the product's website itself, or from websites that sell the product, none of which meet Wikipedia's criteria for independent sources. - SudoGhost 13:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit at Age of the Earth

Changes to the "Age of the Earth" page were completely logical. The age listed is a belief. Evolution and darwinistic thinking HAVE lended to this belief. So why is this always deleted when posted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicalcrossbow (talk • contribs) 04:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

See your talk page. The changes do not appear to adhere to WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. - SudoGhost™ 04:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

More importantly, your changes don't adhere to WP:V or WP:NOR because you have not supported your edits by referencing reliable sources, and as such you are conducting original research - Wikipedia is not a place for original research. Wikipedia articles must characterize the reliable and notable literature on any given topic, and must represent source authors' views in proportion to the weight they hold in the mainstream (per the Undue Weight clause of WP:NPOV. While the age listed may be a belief, it is a belief justified by overwhelming evidence from mainstream science, contrary to a belief grounded in faith. It is erroneous for you to change the lead to suggest otherwise, or to misrepresent the sourced statements that are in the lead paragraph. Putting aside the fact that it is only your opinion that Darwinist thinking has lent itself to belief in an old Earth, theories about an old Earth and theories about evolution are arrived at irrespective of one another, each having its own body of evidence. It is obviously the case that an old earth and evolution help corroborate one another, but you can examine the evidence and arrive at each conclusion separately. Please familiarize yourself with the policies we have linked to before making further contributions to Wikipedia, and particularly to articles you find controversial. John Shandy` • talk 04:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I am offended by the inference that the statement that the Earth is definitely 4.54 billion years old is somehow "neutral". You obviously believe in an old Earth. I do not. I believe the age given is wrong and unsupported by the evidence. But instead of keeping the slight compromise (which, btw, is still strongly in favor of the Evolutionary/Old Earth point of view, I could have done much more and still been within the rules) which I edited into the page by adding the phrase, "believed to be" you chose to ignore my point of view and push your own in favor of being neutral. Neutrality my foot. That article as it stands totally ignores my viewpoint and favors yours. The edits that apparently more than one person has attempted to add would have pointed out that there are differing viewpoints on the subject instead of only stating one side of the issue. This is a perfect example of how our society views a lot of things today. If you are black and you make a clearly racist comment, no one dares contradict. But if you are white and you say anything indicating that the African-American people are not superior, you suddenly become a racist. If you are an Evolutionist and you say something against Creation Science, you are "defending science and freedom of thought". But if a Creationist says something against the Theory of Evolution, they are labeled stupid, un-scientific, religious quacks. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/neutral So much for my attempt at making a controversial page a little more neutral. ReneeSaffron (talk) 17:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)ReneeSaffron

I don't "obviously" believe anything. I strive to keep my beliefs and my edits separate when it would create a conflict of interest. What I do believe, is that Wikipedia's editors have determined a consensus for how articles are to be presented, as there will always be people who disagree with the way any given article is presented. This is shown in what are now policies such as WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV, and WP:BRD. I'm also not sure what you're trying say with the racism and evolution tangents, as neither have anything to do with the editing of that article. If you truly wish to make the page more conforming to what you believe is a neutral article, I would ask that you use the article's talk page to discuss contentious changes, as this is the best way of moving forward from this point. It might also help to read Wikipedia:NPOV/FAQ, as it discusses things relevant to this situation. Thank you for discussing this instead of edit warring on the article. - SudoGhost

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth - meaning what's important is whether content has been published by a notable author in a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. Unfortunately, Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view gets misinterpreted to mean neutral to all sides, when in reality it means neutral to the points of view in proportion to their weight within the available reliable sources because Wikipedia only represents viewpoints published in reliable sources. This policy fully recognizes that authors of sources have biases, and that those biases should be represented in (or channeled into) an article in direct proportion to their prominence in the mainstream (in this case, the academic/scientific community). This means that majority views should be represented as such, and minority views should be represented as such (and if they aren't a significant minority, they don't warrant representation at all in Wikipedia, per WP:NPOV#Controversial subjects). To give a majority view and a minority view equal weight (see WP:GEVAL) would be to interfere with a neutral point of view. This means that, despite that all editors have biases, editors are meant to keep their own biases out and refrain from manipulating or distorting the biases held by the authors of the sources we cite in Wikipedia articles. It would be non-neutral of editors to represent Flat Earth theory as holding equal weight to the Spherical Earth, because in the relevant field, researchers overwhelmingly support a spherical Earth and denounce the validity of a flat Earth. Over time I have noticed that this is either a deal-maker or a deal-breaker for new editors. Unfortunately, these are the standards Wikipedia strives to adhere to. If you can understand why these standards are necessary for Wikipedia content to be encyclopedic, then you're welcome to help us out in articles so long as your edits are supported by references with full citations, and comply at minimum with WP:Verifiability, WP:No original research, and WP:Neutral point of view, which encompass all of the things that SudoGhost has been trying to explain to you. If you do not agree or cannot accept these standards, I respectfully suggest that you might consider starting a free personal blog where you will be able to publish content under your chosen standards and free from interference by other contributors. John Shandy` • talk 18:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

help

please help me with that , I am very new user so I am not able to add this . Thank you .--Bampublore (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: Removed WP:TLDR by (now) blocked sockpuppet. - SudoGhost 10:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

RFC/N discussion of the username "I Jethrobot"

A request for comment has been filed concerning the username of I Jethrobot (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion here. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 22:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

108 article, other Coincidental numbers

Thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia. Can you please clarify basis for your edit of the article 108 (number). There're other coincendences mentioned in the facts secion, such as crash of Wouter Weylandt or water volume expansion. Why do you think Gagarin's flight length does not deserve to be on this list? Thank you. Karatyshov (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The reason I reverted the edit was that the flight being 108 minutes was a coincidence, and not an important or key fact about the flight. I didn't mean it as saying the flight was not important, but if the article were to be filled with every fact that every involved the number, the page would grow very large (to the point of being unwieldy). Certain items are defined and notable for the association with the number. For example, in many schools of Buddhism, Buddhist prayer beads have 108 beads. Every such juzu is this way, and having 108 beads is a defining aspect of the item. However, looking at the related article, the number 108 seems to be displayed twice in the lead alone, so if you want to restore the information on the 108 (number) article, I won't object. Thank you for leaving a message on my talk page discussing this, and again, welcome to Wikipedia. - SudoGhost 21:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Bampublore

I can do no more today due to 3RR but I can assure you that the press release refers to all the contestants using cotton, the show was sponsored by Cotton Council International and "haute couture" is pretty meaningless. The press release makes it clear that all contestants had to produce a range & lists some items in that range. S/he is acting just like Vermapriya even if s/he is not that person. Even signs posts in the same way, IIRC - I will have to check that. - Sitush (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I'm still keeping an eye on it, but for now I'm stepping back and waiting for something to (eventually) happen at the SPI page, so that way things can go forwards with the outcome from that, one way or the other. - SudoGhost 20:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It will happen and it is a dead cert, especially since C.Fred is back in the game and agrees about the deafening quacks. Can I give you a tip, though? It was only after writing my note above that I revisited the SPI itself. If you do spill the beans then you are potentially educating the serial evader regarding how to alter their behaviour for a future evasion. The solution is email, and it is a legitimate solution. Happen in this cae I doubt it matters because the culprit is clearly not learning even after your message, but nonetheless it is probably worth bearing in mind for the future. Basically, if it is an issue of writing style (rather than articles, sources, timing etc) then notifying the precise details by email is likely the best option. Just drop a line at the SPI to say that is what you have done and name who ever it is you have notified. Just my opinion, of course, but I have seen it work very well in some rather awkward situations.

The circumstances are not great but it is good to know that you are still around, and very much appreciated also. We seem to meet in contentious situations! - Sitush (talk) 23:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Well that settles that. The article is currently at full protection, but once that expires the article can be changed back to reflect what the sources actually say. But yeah, I'm certainly still around. If you need any more help, just let me know. I'll be here. - SudoGhost 09:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

United States

Dear SudoGhost,

The map, of which you removed the link is not the same as the maps in the section of the article that you cited. One of those maps shows territorial expansion by date RANGE. The other is an animation of STATEHOOD.

The map in question is a combination, showing both territorial expansion and statehood, in a very concise and accurate way, with a changing caption of the year of each. Not the same thing. I like that map a lot, even though the page on which it is located is very old, like me. Judygreenberg (talk) 13:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

True, but I don't believe the link should go in United States. As the website/image is about the history of the United States, History of the United States would be a more appropriate location for that external link, in my opinion, because the United States article does not cover the timeline of the states, which means the external link provides additional information for information that is instead covered in other articles. - SudoGhost 13:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, I will add the link to the history article, as well. Judygreenberg (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think it needs to be removed from United States and placed at History of the United States, not retained at United States (being that the external link covers something the article does not). - SudoGhost 14:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's not be stingy. Someone who reads the US article, but not the history article, will likely be glad to see that map. Loosen up .. Judygreenberg (talk) 14:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not a matter of loosening up, it's a matter of overcrowding links when they don't belong. The external link covers a topic that is not covered by United States, but by History of the United States. See WP:ELNO #13, "a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject." Since the external link does provide useful information for History of the United States, but not for United States, the link belongs on the more specific history page, not the general article. It is much more likely that a reader at the history page would be interested in that. A reader of the general page likely wouldn't be interested in that type of information, else they'd be at the history page. - SudoGhost 14:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not see a crowd of links in that section at all. That animated map is the perfect and most concise complement to the "History" section of the "United States" article. By your logic, we should remove the History section of that article altogether, and do this for the History sections of the main articles of all countries. Fear not. Bytes are dirt-cheap, and so is bandwidth. Judygreenberg (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Please don't use "by your logic" statements. They're hardly ever accurate, this not being an exception. While bandwidth is dirt-cheap, such is not a sufficient reason for inclusion. Entire articles get deleted because they do not belong, and when the link is being placed contrary to Wikipedia's guidelines for such links, it must be removed.

There is a specific link that the page belongs on, and Wikipedia's guidelines say that the link does not belong on the general article. There is no reason for it to be there. "Just in case people want to see it" and "what's it hurting" are not sufficient. It's on an appropriate article, it should now follow that it will be removed from the inappropriate article. It does not belong. - SudoGhost 15:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it does belong. It is a perfect complement to the "History" section of the main US article, as it summarizes (just like the History section of the US article does) the territorial and statehood history of the US, without going into the great detail of the History article. Let's be reasonable now. Do not remove that link, and do not remove the history section of the main United States article. A summary of the history does belong there, in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Judygreenberg (talk) 15:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe you may be confused as your comments. You seem to have applied your "by your logic" and took it to mean my intention. There is no reason to keep the link on general article that isn't satisfied by it being on the History of the United States article, especially when given the quality of the website, which renders oddly on my Chromium browser on Linux (which is probably due to the website being over eleven years old). - SudoGhost 15:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

If the link could be updated with a better link, I wouldn't object to it being on the general article. This looks better (to me), but may not render correctly on all browsers. If a newer map like the one in the link could be found, that would be best. - SudoGhost 15:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

As a lover of movies, I can see why you like the razzmatazz. The map that you do not like is accurate, concise, excellent. Think history, not Hollywood. Judygreenberg (talk) 16:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

No, what I have an issue with is that the other site does not load properly, and is advertising tacky advertisements for the website's products at the top of the page. The other map is the same, and has the added benefit of not having a comparatively large watermark on the image. Are you saying that the website linked is perfect, and a newer one should not be found? - SudoGhost 23:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I replaced the old website with a newer map that does not have the same issues of the old website (namely the website loading correctly, and advertisements / watermarks detracting from the information) with the added benefit of having additional information for each year on the image listed in links below the image. I think that's a fair compromise, so everyone should be happy. - SudoGhost 23:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Oakwood

Okay, Oakwood is clearly larger than the population given. I got my sources from Factfinder.Census.gov, so all information is relevant. Why don't you check it out for yourself? Also, you were a bit rude. You will not get far in life if you act so cocky. Thank you.Jmaddux23 (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

There was nothing rude in this, it was in fact warranted since you continued to change town's names without discussion, and a good deal of your changes were unsourced. You were changing the names of towns in articles, and inserting overly technical census-area names as the official names of places. This is what I had issue with. Telling me I "won't get far in life if you act so cocky" is not only rude, but uncalled for. Don't change the town names, and don't add descriptions that aren't accurate. Considering the nature of your comment above, however, that is all I will say on the matter. I have no further interest in this discussion. - SudoGhost 23:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Eddie Brock+Venom edit

Apologies to you and the others monitoring my latest acitvities on the pages. My previous edits on the Eddie Brock Page before my last one were only meant to improve my additions based on the suggestions/reasons given. I was only asking on the last edit what was needed doing to make it good for the page. I did not mean to upset anyone.

Can you and all others who were monitoring me, forgive me?

Jdogno5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdogno5 (talk • contribs) 10:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem. I'm sorry if the edit warring template came off as harsh, it wasn't meant to scare you, but just to inform you that you were at 3RR (users cannot make more than three reversions on any given article in a 24 hours period or they are blocked), however I noticed that I myself made three reversions, so I certainly wasn't trying to scold you or anything. I apologize if it came off that way.

However, I do appreciate you trying to improve the articles, but I think the best way to do that from here is to follow BRD, namely to use the talk pages and discuss the edits you wish to make (ideally with reliable sources to verify the changes). That way, there's no confusion, and you don't see all your hard work reverted (which I know can be frustrating to see). Thank you for leaving me a message, and if you have any questions, I'd be happy to help. - SudoGhost 10:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly

	Thank you for your support
	Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. I shall endeavor to meet your and the community's expectations as an admin. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

FYI, I responded on my talk page. I just wanted to thank you for the notice, as it's something I wasn't aware of. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Aoidh. You have new messages at Raeky's talk page.
Message added 11:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— raekyt 11:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011 (a recent edit that you made on Talk:Lexi St George)

--QuickEditor (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

As a new user, you are not aware, but the removal of my talk page comment is not allowed. There was no personal attack, so your comment above is grossly inappropriate. Simply because I disagree with your assessment that "this article can never have this other person mentioned" is not a valid reason to remove my talk page comment. Please do not remove such comments, and see WP:TPO for more information. Thank you. - SudoGhost 23:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Take your own advice! It is not for you to decide if it was a personal attack or not. --QUICK EDITOR 22:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It was, in fact a personal attack. Please see WP:NPA#WHATIS to see what is and what is not a personal attack. According to WP:NPA#WHATIS, "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" is considered a personal attack. Thank you. --QUICK EDITOR 22:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, see below. - SudoGhost 06:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Talk: Lexi St. George

Contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated but an edit that you made to Talk:Lexi St. George has been reverted because it was a misuse of the talk page Talk:Lexi St. George and is in violation of a Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Personal attacks. If you revert the edit that I made again, you may be reported and temporarily blocked from editing on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:Personal attacks for information as to why your edit has been reverted. --QUICK EDITOR 22:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for leaving four different threads for the same talk page comment, however it was not a violation of policy, nor was it a personal attack, and has therefore been reverted by another editor. Please keep discussions in a single thread when concerning the same subject. Thank you. - SudoGhost 07:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

QuickEditor

I see that you have met the bumptious QuickEditor. Right now, s/he is heading for trouble. I cannot make my mind up if it is incompetence, arrogance or ignorance but have so far presumed the last, per AGF. I am keeping an eye on things but missed the one which you spotted. Your continued watching might be helpful. - Sitush (talk) 23:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it may simply be over-eagerness, combined with a slight misunderstanding of certain rules. I think a mentor might be best for the editor, although I've never had any dealings with the mentoring program, so I have no idea how to recommend that. - SudoGhost 23:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It is over-eagerness. Not particularly helped by the chosen subject matter. There is a reason why creating new articles is usually A Good Thing for new contributors. I have not been formally involved in the mentoring program but have just left a note offering to help/act as a sounding board etc. I will have a word with an admin or two regarding whether this is the best approach. In particular, the wanton templating needs to be sorted. after which the policy/guideline issues can be dealt with. Templating in the way that s/he does it merely irritates the recipient. - Sitush (talk) 23:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Both of you are wrong. Sudoghost, it was a personal attack. You said, and I quote, "It is not for you to decide". That is a personal attack. Also, you should take your own advice. --QUICK EDITOR 10:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

If you feel it is the case, you're more than welcome to point out which of these I violated that constituted a personal attack. It is not for you to decide what belongs on the page if independent, third-party sources show otherwise. That is not a personal attack, it is a fact. If you're unable to handle comments such as the above, Wikipedia may not be the best place for you. I strongly suggest that you take Sitush's advice and look into mentoring. Your inappropriate use of templating other users[5][6][7] as well as comments such as this I'm assuming is due to being new here and not fully understanding how Wikipedia works, but continued incivility is considered disruptive, and may lead to being temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia. Again, I strongly suggest mentoring. Please see Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user for more information. Thank you. - SudoGhost 12:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Threatening that I may be blocked from editing (because I removed your edit on Talk:Lexi St. George which was clearly in violation of a Wikipedia policy and a personal attack directed towards me) is also a personal attack. Like you said, it is not for you to decide what happens on Wikipedia. The kind of comment that you left me on Talk:Lexi St. George should have been left on my talk page, that is what talk pages are for, but no, you decided to violate a Wikipedia policy instead. Good day. --QUICK EDITOR 22:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

If you have an issue with it, take it to WP:WQA. You appear to have a gross misunderstanding of what "personal attack" means, and if you are unable to handle being informed that there are consequences for certain kinds of editing, Wikipedia may not be the place for you. - SudoGhost 06:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, the comment I left on the talk page was not a personal attack, and violated no policy. In my comment, I disagreed with your comment, nothing more. The comment was a note for the article's talk page, and was meant for any editor visiting the page, not just you, therefore placing it on your talk page would have been inapporpriate. Informing you that you could be blocking for repeatedly violating a Wikipedia guideline (in this case WP:TPO) is not a personal attack, but was informing you that the guideline existed, and there were consequences for violating the guideline. - SudoGhost 18:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

(Note:QuickEditor was blocked indef., issue seems resolved) - SudoGhost 08:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

DontDateHimGirl.com Edits

Can I talk to you here on this page or on the article page? Either way, I'm going to make an attempt to try both ways as I am new here and not sure. Thanks a lot for reporting me for edit warring. That is absolutely not fair. I had sourced information on that page about who actually owns the site and the company name and everything. It was removed by HidariMigi with information that was not sourced. The Cunningham Group is owned by the site creator's HUSBAND, not HER. A simple check of Florida corporation records proves that. The husband's company was started in 1998, NOT 2008. His company has nothing to do with the site. Yet, you do nothing to HidariMigi when he removes my SOURCED information and reverts it back to him INCORRECT information. Many people want to know how to contact the site. The ownership information I added will help people who need to contact the site for whatever reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jb782 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

You were warned on your talk page not to continue editing without discussion, yet you chose to ignore that warning. WP:3RR does not care if your edits are "right" or not, an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Your statement above is also untrue, because HidariMigi added a source, and your edit removed that source without explanation, and without providing a new source to replace the old one. This is why your edit was reverted, and why you should have stopped to explain instead of constantly trying to change the article. - SudoGhost 23:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the report at WP:3RRNB, although if I had kept the report up, you would have very likely been blocked. I have done this so that you can use the article's talk page to discuss why you have removed sourced content and replaced it with unsourced content, otherwise your edit will be reverted again for these reasons. If you continue to edit war, however, you will be reported and very likely blocked for edit warring. - SudoGhost 23:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

(For archival purposes, I'll note that the user continued to edit the article, manually reverting the edits of other users (perhaps not aware that this was still considered edit warring), so I restored the edit warring report and the editor was blocked for 8 hours. - SudoGhost 00:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC) (User was then blocked as a sockpuppet of an indef blocked user. 08:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC))

Proposed deletion of History of iOS jailbreaking

The article History of iOS jailbreaking has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Cut out of iOS jail jailbreaking and is better in the iOS jailbreaking article.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ~~EBE!@#~~ ^talk_Contribs 20:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Please note that I removed the PROD, as it was placed without an attempt at discussion. I placed my reasoning for splitting IOS jailbreaking on the article's talk page, as per WP:SPLIT. - SudoGhost 20:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I have replyed, but spliting shouldn't be done without consensus. ~~EBE!@#~~ ^talk_Contribs 20:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Not according to WP:SPLIT. If you can provide a valid reason that one section should be half of an entire article, that's one thing, but otherwise there is no valid reason not to split the article. - SudoGhost 20:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of History of iOS jailbreaking for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article History of iOS jailbreaking is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of iOS jailbreaking until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. ~~EBE!@#~~ ^talk_Contribs 20:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Note for archival purposes: The AfD with withdrawn. - SudoGhost 09:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Jizoan Zen Centre

Why are you trying to delete Jizoan Zen Centre? How can anyone object to this if the discussion has been closed!Eternalnothing (talk) 04:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The discussion is not currently closed, the AfD listing is here. As to the reason I listed it at AfD, the article does not appear to be notable, failing WP:GNG, and has not had reliable third-party sources since the article was created over three years ago. If you disagree, you're more than welcome to find reliable sources that show the notability of the subject, but for my part I was unable to do so. Thank you. - SudoGhost 10:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, well now the discussion has been closed. - SudoGhost 11:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

must have been the fastest deletion in Wiki history what is the agenda here really? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eternalnothing (talk • contribs) 14:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The deletion was started on July 28, which was seven days ago. Not the fastest deletion by any means, but rather a standard window for deletion discussions. As to your agenda accusation, there are guidelines that Wikipedia has for articles, and that article did not meet those guidelines. I nominated it for deletion, and I was not alone in forming the WP:consensus to delete the article, meaning other editors viewed the article and agreed that it did not meet the notability requirements. I also did not delete the article, that is done by a third-party administrator. There was nothing malicious in any of these events. - SudoGhost 15:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

actually checking around there are plenty of other groups providing less than that article. the tagging over time,down editing and deletion here was frankly malicious. I'm guessing your team knows each other as buddies so not exactly neutral.Eternalnothing (talk) 15:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The article had three years to gain reliable sources, and never had sources to establish the notability of the article. Wikipedia articles must have the notability of the subject supported by reliable, third-party sources. This article did not have that, so it was submitted for deletion discussion. Anybody is welcome to discuss the article, and it is likely that the other editors saw the discussion at WP:AFD, viewed the article, and commented on it from there. I have no connection to the other editors that commented in the discussion, and there was no grand conspiracy to delete the article. Unless you have some sort of proof to the contrary, please refrain from making personal attacks. Thank you. - SudoGhost 15:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you opened the door with the trite language you used. You may be operating within a guideline but you are using that guideline to pursue interests. Maybe by next year you'll have moved on to some MMO after you get bored here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eternalnothing (talk • contribs) 15:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, please refrain from making personal attacks against me. I don't know what "interests" I'm assumed to have pursued, but I came across the article while cleaning up Category:Unassessed Buddhism articles, saw that the article did not meet Wikipedia's criteria for deletion, and after checking for reliable sources and being unable to find any, submitted it for deletion. Nothing more. As I am a Zen Buddhist, the idea that I'm out to maliciously attack an article about a Zen centre holds little weight without some sort of proof. I understand that you're upset that the article was deleted, but hollow accusations won't solve anything. Thank you. - SudoGhost 15:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Pareidolia

Which part, exactly, of the edit you have not reverted, constitutes an "attack" on the other editor? Has that editor directly complained to you? It's rather surprising that you should suddenly "jump down the throat" of a new ip editor who might have been trying simply to lighten his edit with a little humour. Please could you explain? 109.155.132.18 (talk) 21:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Belittling other editors in edit summaries, whether meant seriously or in jest, is not allowed. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Thank you. - SudoGhost 21:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid your partial retraction of your warning and the explanation you give falls short. Why should drawing attention to the fact that the word "faith" has multiple connotations constitute "belittling other editors"? Why do you regard that edit as "a joke"? Thanks.

I did not retract anything, and neither was it a warning. It was a notification that your "humor" is best kept out of edit summaries, especially when commenting on other editors. I did not regard that edit as "a joke". You did. Comment on content, not on the contributor. - SudoGhost 21:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

First you warned me that I was making "an attack". And then you notified me that I was making a joke. My edit was not a joke. I tried to make my edit summary humourous - that's all. You still persist in your mistaken interpretation that I was "commenting on other editors". If you want to police wikipedia on behalf of other editors, please accept that many of those editors don't even read edit summaries, or if they do they are still perfectly free to take issue with the reverting editor themselves. But I am interested to learn - what does Buddhism bring to Pareidolia? Apart from notifications to perfectly well-meaning ip editors? Thanks. 109.155.132.18 (talk) 22:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Your ability to humor others appears to fall short. I'm not interested in repeating myself over and over. Assuming the ignorance of others is no excuse for sarcastic jabs against them. The "good faith" lol comment was unnecessary, and not helpful in a collaborative environment. That is what is meant by "Comment on content, not on the contributor." In that last part of the edit summary you were not commenting on the content at hand, but on the actions of other editors. You have been notified that your edit summary had an issue. That is all. Take it how you will, but I have no more interest in discussing the apparently critical difference between "humor" and "joke". Thank you. - SudoGhost 22:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

I just now checked in and read your clarification of the real purpose of the talk page. My error. Thanks.--LittleOldManRetired (talk) 04:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Android (software)

I'd already posted a justification to the talk page, specifically referencing WP:NCDAB (which is policy a well-established part of the naming guidelines). Perhaps you might want to consider starting with the talk page yourself, rather than the undo button? Sigh. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Just following WP:BRD. Leaving a message on an old thread and then straight away renaming is not the same as discussing, especially when considering that the previous discussion's consensus was to keep the title as Android (operating system), I would say the appropriate thing to do would be to see if the consensus has changed. I'll leave a message on the talk page. - SudoGhost 14:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

BFM Business

Hello,

Can you correct my mistakes in this article.

Thank you !

--France64160 (talk) 06:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter

Invitation from the Guild of Copy Editors The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their September 2011 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy editing backlog. The drive will begin on September 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on September 30 at 23:59 (UTC). We will be tracking the number of 2010 articles in the backlog, as we want to copy edit as many of those as possible. Please consider copy editing an article that was tagged in 2010. Barnstars will be given to anyone who edits more than 4,000 words, with special awards for the top 5 in the categories "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". See you at the drive! – Your drive coordinators: Diannaa, Chaosdruid, The Utahraptor, Slon02, and SMasters. >>> Sign up now <<<

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 17:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Spam links?

I don't really understand your comments.

Orwell's The Freedom of the Press is already referenced in the article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_farm#.22The_Freedom_of_the_Press.22

Link I provided was to "authoritative" text of that preface as compared to previous version on site. You would prefer a version with errors? Doesn't make sense to me.

I can explain logic of including Ukrainian AF preface also if you like.

Sincerely, Snaptree

P.S. I understand that Wikipedia is using "no follow". My objective is to put authoritative Orwell texts on the net. FYI: None of the Orwell texts on Project Gutenberg are authoritative as they are coming from corrupted 1960s printings. I am getting my material from the 20 volume Complete Works of George Orwell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snaptree (talk • contribs) 20:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The site you were inserting into the articles was a WordPress Blog, and blogs are not reliable sources. If you have a reliable source that verifies the information, by all means include it. But anyone can start a blog and have it say whatever they want; as such they cannot be used to verify information, and as per WP:ELNO #11, blogs cannot be used as external links for the same reasons. As for the uw-spam1 message I left on your talk page, the only edits you have made have been to insert that blog across 53 different articles, which is considered spamming per WP:PROMO. - SudoGhost 20:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

OK. I won't argue with you or the Wikipedia rules. I hope someday someone will compare the corrupt texts all over the net with the real ones on the blog and realise the difference.

FYI: This image was stolen from my site with the site tag (at the bottom of the image) edited out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Road_to_wigan_pier.jpg

This image is not even close to being the cover art for the first edition of Burmese Days:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Burmese_days.jpg

Sorry for the spam links. I will be more careful in the future.

Sincerely,

Snaptree — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snaptree (talk • contribs) 00:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Bold titles

I noticed you took out the boldface on the 2011 Virginia Earthquake and gave a valid reason, but there are still pages with bolding in the lead, that deal with earthquakes. See:

— Tinton5 (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, well if the general consensus is to use bolding in the earthquake related titles, I have no objection to it. I just went with what I knew per WP:BOLDTITLE. Thanks for dropping me a message and letting me know. - SudoGhost 18:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem! I am going to change it back now. — Tinton5 (talk) 18:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

Heya. The edit I made to the article was specifically complaining that the Discussion page was locked. How was I supposed to put that on the talk page!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.143.102.218 (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

If you'd like the talk page to be unprotected, you're more than welcome to request it here. - SudoGhost 02:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Hello SudoGhost! I hpoe you accept this brownie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 07:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Tower bridge gallery

Hi, why do you think that, gallery is not required for the article. There are some really imp. photos like construction of the tower bridge and opening invitation etc. including the tower bridge opening photo series. I feel that these photo contribute a lot of value in the article as most of the people in the world are still in the confusion between Tower bridge and London bridge. Just search "London Bridge" on Google and check how many photo comes of Tower Bridge in this. From all over the world, people come to see tower bridge and if they get a good amount of information on Wikipedia, nothing wrong in this. I strongly recommend to re-add the Gallery in the article......Mvkulkarni23 18:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mvkulkarni23 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not a repository of images. Per WP:IG, the gallery doesn't belong on the article, as it doesn't help improve the reader's knowledge of the article's subject in any way. If you feel it is important to have an indiscriminate collection of images related to the article's subject, Wikimedia Commons is the place for that. Thank you. - SudoGhost 18:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Pls. refer WP:IG once again. It is stated that "the use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject." This is what exactly I have done in the gallery. Even if you write 1000 lines that tower bridge is opened this way and that way, it can be understood only by my images in the gallery. So it is supporting the information given in the article. The gallery is adding the value to the article as it shows the construction details of bridge which you can not explain in the article even if you try. I once again informing you that, I know the usage of articles and galleries and it is again advisable to keep the gallery in the article. Mvkulkarni23 (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 15:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC).

Unfortunately, that's not the case here. It is a random collection of images that does not enhance the reader's encyclopedic knowledge of the article's subject. The gallery can very easily be moved to Commons, and if someone is truly interested in seeing dozens of images of the same bridge from slightly different angles at each and every angle of the bridge raising, they are more than welcome to view the gallery there. Wikipedia is not a complete exposition of all possible details.

There are images of the bridge raised, the bridge lowered, and the bridge being constructed throughout the article, the level of repetitious over-detail presented in the gallery is not required. Readers are not stupid. They can see the lowered image, the raised image, and can see very easily how the bridge is raised, making the first set of images unnecessary. The next set of images is the bridge being constructed. There's already an image of that, these are not necessary. The next few are simply the same image from different angles at different times of the day. Completely unnecessary. None of these "illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images." Making this gallery unnecessary. - SudoGhost 16:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I think, irrespective of a editor, you are not understanding the point. I know what I am doing, and it is not the wish of an editor to remove the images of gallery. The language used by you is also unethical and is not expected from an editor. I am reverting these changes. If you still have issues, you are requested to talk to the admin and give me the right explanation on this. The points you raised are not at all acceptable to me and those are your own personal views as you are still not able answer my justification on this. This is sad. I am saying the same WRONG sentence for you that "Readers are not stupid". They know what they want. I am telling this with my experience in wikipedia as I also know rules and ethics of wikipedia.Mvkulkarni23 (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 17:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC).

User:Mvkulkarni23, please drop this issue. Adding galleries take away from the beauty of the article. As such User:SudoGhost happens to be correct in this issue. Please drop this debate. You may like to add individual images selectively later on. AshLin (talk) 17:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

As hominem attacks against me without addressing the substance of what I said are not welcome on my talk page, thank you very much. "The points you raised are not at all acceptable to me" is not addressing why the images should be on the article. Your comments above about my "ethics" are a very shallow personal attack that unsuccessfully deflects from the fact that you have no valid argument against my reasonings, so you have resorted to attacking the person making the arguments. As most, if not all, of those images were your own images, it seems you may have a conflict of interest in this matter, where you are more interested in having your images on Wikipedia than you are interested in improving Wikipedia. However, you are correct on one thing. Readers know what they want. If they want images, they know how to click on a commons link, therefore your comment seems to be supporting the argument that the gallery is not needed. There seems to be nothing else to discuss concerning this matter, so take care. - SudoGhost 18:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Deletion Nomination for Buddhist legends about Emperor Wu of Liang

Did you complete the nomination? I can't seem to see a nomination discussion page for it. --Nlu (talk) 22:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

There appeared to be an issue with Twinkle when creating it, I'll check and see. Thanks for the heads up, I'll let you know. - SudoGhost 22:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it didn't appear on the AfD list, so I went in and manually added it. Thanks for letting me know. Let me know if anything else doesn't quite look right. - SudoGhost 22:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

You're being discussed at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard

Just a FYI, but you've been listed as a disputant on this board in the contest of Boleto Please stop by and help us resolve this issue. Hasteur (talk) 20:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know, I'll go and reply there. - SudoGhost 20:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

(Archival note: The discussion went nowhere, IP never commented after I responded, closed as stale.) - SudoGhost 03:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

HEY

Hi whats up — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBL00DAssassin (talk • contribs) 04:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, is there anything you need help with? - SudoGhost 05:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

IP comment

I do acknowledge that I edited on said page, but I first wonder why you were even on this page in the first place.

Regards, 98.111.52.174 (talk) 00:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Casey

I don't understand your speculation. Why I was on what page? Software cracking? - SudoGhost 00:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, as it said in the article, Software Cracking is illegal, and I'm just wondering why you were on this page if it is illegal to use software cracking.

Regards 98.111.52.174 (talk) 00:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Casey

I'm unsure what you're implying, but the page is on my watchlist. I see any edit made to certain pages. But just to amuse you, software cracking is of interest to both sides of the fence, those who crack, and those that secure. Many books are written on the subject, those that write those books are not engaging in illegal activity. Interest with the subject does not imply association with the subject. Take care, and mind those edits. - SudoGhost 00:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Reverts

Thanks re: Bön. Sometimes a little IP and a lot of common sense is what this place needs. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 06:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem. I completely agree that the sentence doesn't quite make sense, and as far as "main surviving branch" goes, I don't quite think it's true. Main to a Tibetan Buddhist, perhaps, but maybe not to the other branches of Vajrayana. If it's well sourced I wouldn't have a problem with it being there (but clarified/cleaned up), but that isn't the case right now. - SudoGhost 06:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thorn

Thorn (þ) is on all mobile phones. My daughter told me that she and her friends use it for texting "th". I asked around and lots of people do so. How can I prove this? I don't know. But you can check yourself. Herbolzheim (talk) 00:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. That a group of young friends use it for texting doesn't necessarily equate to it being popular usage in a country, and in order for it to be in the article, especially in the lede, that information would need to be reliably sourced. Thank you for taking the time to leave me a message, I'll look for a source, but from a cursory glance, I'm not seeing anything. - SudoGhost 00:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

There are lots of other things in that Wikipedia entry that are not verified or sourced. There is a strapline at the top that mentions them. Can't we leave my addition in with that caveat? I can assure you that thorn A. is on mobile phones and B. people are using it to replace "th". 82.11.178.239 (talk) 00:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. It is unsourced, but also unlikely. If it were being used as often enough to be included in the article, a reliable source would have mentioned it. I have no doubt that people are using the character, but not in numbers notable enough to mention it in the article. - SudoGhost 00:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) "Thorn (þ) is on all mobile phones." -- Not true. Thorn (letter) is not part of the standard GSM character set (effectively ASCII), so there is no guarantee that the receiving handset could display it! (Most modern handsets can probably use and display it, but older or simpler ones may not be able to.) -- EdJogg (talk) 13:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey - I AM a reliable source. Who is better? By þe time somebody does a post-graduate dissertation on þe use of registers for texting the kids (and older folk) will have moved on! Seriously, who is better? I am well in tune wiþ young folk in London - well, maybe not þe ultra posh (or þe other end of þe scale). I just spent the pm shopping wiþ my twelve-year-old who will text until her phone melts. A lot of linguistics turns on intuition as it is hard to build up a body of data on someþing like mobile texting - þat's what I was told when I did my Dip. Lang. wiþ the OU. Anoþer point is þat maybe þe reason thorn is only taking off now is because it wasn't on older phones (which is a good and fair point, EdJogg). I þink that thorn should be mentioned - þere are assertions elsewhere in W with less to back þem up. No? Herbolzheim (talk) 20:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors are not reliable sources, we cannot take an editor's word on something. Also, phones using GSM are not 'older phones', this list shows that three out of the largest thirty mobile networks in the world use GSM technology. My phone is far from being an older phone, and yet does not have thorn in its character set. Third, thorn is not used in modern English, and this is not a text message, therefore your use of thorn in place of every 'th' is grossly incorrect. If the information is not backed up by reliable sources, it doesn't belong in the article. - SudoGhost 21:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Is it not used in modern English? Well I never. I þought it was. I must get a new dictionary - mine has eth in it as well, and the calfskin binding is wearing thin. Are you a Norman? They didn't like our letters either, and made us use th and c after they got lucky against Harold. OK - Just because your new phone, of which you are probably justifiably proud, doesn't have thorn, doesn't mean that the kids aren't using it in texts. Now, please answer my question - what or who would do as a reliable source given the problems in analysing language useage? Something like a report in a national paper? That would only be based on the hack's perception. Herbolzheim (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:RS shows what is and is not considered a reliable source. It doesn't matter what "the kids" are using in texts, if it isn't notable enough to be mentioned in a reliable source, it isn't notable enough to be mentioned in the article. The kids are free to do as they wish, it doesn't make it relevant to an encyclopedia. - SudoGhost 22:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

An encyclopaedia should be up-to-date and reflect all phenomena. I am surprised that you are not interested in the revival of thorn. That it possibly is being used in texting is very interesting to linguists and historians alike. Texting is a modern means of communicating. I was delighted but that isn't the point. If there is evidence of its useage this should be mentioned in the entry. Of course I know that my assertion alone is insufficient. I just don't know what will suffice. David Crystal who was my OU lecturer for a while would be interested as would Melvyn Bragg, both of whom have written books on the course of English. Herbolzheim (talk) 22:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

If there's a reliable source that supports it, I have no problem with it, however, there doesn't appear to be one. Even if your children and their friends use it, that doesn't reflect a widespread use, and as such shouldn't be placed in the article. - SudoGhost 23:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I know my assertion alone isn't enough. (Although there could be a caveat.) I will consult books and contacts and be back. Herbolzheim (talk) 23:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

-- My apologies, SudoGhost, if I have exacerbated the problem. I am wholeheartedly with you on this. For the record, 'I' did not imply that GSM phones are older phones, only that 'older phones' may only support the standard GSM character set, and hence not display this character -- making received messages unreadable (just like Herbolzheim's posts here!)

Incidentally, these kids using the character like this do not realise that they are not actually saving any message length. Each thorn character will be transmitted as two bytes, as opposed to the one byte for the 't' and one byte for the 'h'. Also, most on-screen qwerty keyboards assume use by normal people and will have 't' and 'h' nearby, (or as 1 press of '8' and 2 of '4') rather than having to select from a special character menu. The thorn will also fail to trigger any predictive text mechanism, which could be used to save their time. When you include the fact that it makes messages almost unreadable, unless kids are attempting to encode their texts from prying eyes they must be mad to go to all this extra effort! -- EdJogg (talk) 12:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem at all, I knew what you meant. Also, I agree with you on the thorn character being unlikely to save time as opposed to a quick 't' and 'h'. - SudoGhost 13:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It strikes me as rather judgemental to infer that only people who are not normal will use phonetic and symbolic short-cuts when texting. Also, I think that clever guys like you two who know about thorn can quickly see that it is being used and work with it. It's far easier that "gr8" "m8" and "@" and the others that I see. As to the logic of the thing, "these kids" don't always apply it. For example, they use their mobile phones when it would be free to use their parents' home land-lines. I think use of thorn in texting should be mentioned if more evidence is around. I am going to move this discourse to the discussion page. Sorry for using your talk page, Sudoghost 82.11.178.239 (talk) 09:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Summaries are not half-hearted

At Dalian, the complaining editor has been silent on the talk page for a good while, so I have every right to remove the tag. The problematic individual statements have been tagged, if not dealt with. And be warned that I don't take any cheek from prejudiced drive-by taggers, so do not go that way. —Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T) 和 贡献 (C) 21:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The tag's removal is obviously contentious. Start a discussion on the talk page explaining why you feel the tag should be removed. If no other editor answers for quite some time, then your statement above would have merit. As it stands, the issues concerning the tag have not been addressed by by anyone, including you, nor have they been resolved on the discussion page, and as there was previously a discussion concerning it, removing it without a subsequent discussion to ensure that the tag's issues are resolved is not the way to handle it. Please at least attempt to open a discussion beforehand. Thank you. - SudoGhost 21:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, in the future you may want to watch your tone. Threatening users with future hostility if they don't comply to your preferred actions is more likely to cause unnecessary problems for you than anything, problems that wouldn't exist if you treated others with a modicum of respect. What you take from others is of no concern to me, I'm here to improve Wikipedia, not to tiptoe around other editors simply because they make comments such as yours. Take care. - SudoGhost 21:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

FlashPunk

I was wondering what I could do to improve my article to add "Notability". I basically took the Flixel page and converted it to FlashPunk, while adding many more things. The FlashPunk page has EVERYTHING the Flixel page plus more. How come FlashPunk is going to be deleted but Flixel gets to stay up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bretboy129 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The article needs reliable, third-party sources to show the notability of the subject. An explanation on what is and is not a reliable-source can be found here, and Wikipedia's guidelines on notability can be found here. - SudoGhost 00:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Editing world's busiest airports

Dear user SudoGhost. I'm just tryin' to add some new information to statistics for 2010 year, because I found a new information about busiest airports statistics and I want to expand the number of airports. I'm not spamming or posting wrong information. All information I'm providing can be found in URL, that I linked on that page. Please don't make me obstacles. Just accept my information. Again, all informatiuon about statistics 2010 you can check in this link. http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1298933&page=7

Sincerely, alisher 1990 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alisher1990 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

As has been explained, forums are not reliable sources, and cannot be accepted as sources. The information is otherwise unsourced, and does not belong on the article. Unless you can provide a reliable source, the information will be reverted. Thank you. - SudoGhost 18:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, this forum is very reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alisher1990 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Forums are not reliable sources, and cannot be used as references. While you are welcome to your opinion, unexplained opinions are not sufficient to include it as a reliable source when established Wikipedia policy says otherwise. - SudoGhost 18:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll find you a new web-pages. Just wait a couple of minutes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alisher1990 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

If I will put a sign "Untrusted source" until other reliable source is provided, can this be accepted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alisher1990 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

As the information is being challenged, the information must be attributed to a reliable published source, per WP:CHALLENGE. - SudoGhost 19:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

And finally, SudoGhost, should I edit this damned page or not? Should I add new information, or not? Because I could't find more sources than this one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alisher1990 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Any information added to articles need to be backed up by reliable sources, especially when changing information that is already backed up by reliable sources. - SudoGhost 20:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I examined all ststistics from airport reports and see, that that statistics is right. So I created the rating of the airports. All links are reliable sources, directly from airports authorities. So, I think, I can edit and expand the number of airports from 30 to 50. Do you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alisher1990 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't explain why you removed sourced content from the other airports. At this point, you need to slow down and use the article's talk page before making these edits. Wait for input from other contributors, which may take a few days to get an answer. - SudoGhost 15:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear SudoGhost, I'm of course apologizing, but why you again and again removing my edits of busiest airports? Just few minutes ago I posted a link where says that Kuala Lumpur airport handled 34 mln passengers with increasig of 14,8%. Why you removing my edits? In my recent talks with you I said that I had compared all official releases from airports. Even if ACI didn't release the list of 50 airports, we can just compare the passengers traffic of all world's major airports and can create list by ourselves without waiting the ACI's press-releases. Again, please don't remove my edits. I'm not posting the junk or spam information. I'm posting a right information directly from airport news or releases. You can just follow this links and check the number of passengers by yourself. Please be convenient to other people. Just check this web-links. That's all. Sincerely, alisher 1990 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alisher1990 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

If you notice at the top of the article, it says "For consistency, the ACI's annual figures are always used in the final presentation and ranking, even where official figures released by airport operators or authorities may fail to tally." This is why I reverted the material, it was replacing ACI's #30 with another #30 based on someone else's count, but the article itself says that ACI should be used. - SudoGhost 20:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

WGN-TV

Hey SudoGhost,

I read the talk page and I agree that the article is too long but I strongly disagree on not inculding any of WGN's reporters. If you look at any other station across the country, you see that reporters are inlcuded to the article. Especially since WGN is a superstation is all the more reason that reporters should be included. I really wish you'd rethink this decision b/c this is important information that is now missing from the article. Let me know. Thanks. TVFAN24 (talk) 23:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I removed only individuals that did not meet the criteria of both the talk page and the consensus at WikiProject Television Stations, that reporters and people listed on the page have to be notable on their own in order to be listed on the page. This was done to avoid bloating the article by giving undue weight to a list of non-notable names. - SudoGhost 23:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: Bodhidharma

Undid revision 448361058 by Viriditas (talk) Doesn't appear to be linked elsewhere, I'm also not aware of any current policy against linking in quotes.

1. South India is already linked in the "Tánlín" section, so it is linked elsewhere. South Indian Brahman, is actually two links, not one: South Indian and Brahmin.
2. On Wikipedia, we don't use policies for rules about quoting, we use guidelines, specifically, the Manual of Style. In this particular case, we use Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking for guidance which reads: "As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader." In this case, there is no link, and there is likely not to be a link in the future referring to a "South Indian Brahman", so the link itself should be removed not just because of the MOS, but because it is not a valid link.
3. We generally reserve a "revert" for vandalism and errors. It is poor practice to revert other editors because you may not be aware of a guideline. In such a case, if you do revert, WP:BRD recommends that after you revert, you make use the talk page for discussion.

If you like, you may start a discussion on the talk page, or consider this resolved. Viriditas (talk) 07:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, I wasn't aware of the linking section of MOS:QUOTE. The reason I reverted the edit was because I didn't see an instance of [[South Indian Brahman]] linked anywhere in the article, which is what the diff showed me, as opposed to [[South Indian]] [[Brahmin]]. I went ahead and reverted my revert. - SudoGhost 08:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

No worries. The only link to Brahmin in the page I could find was the category link. I'm not sure, but I think you could argue that since there is no other link to it, and that the first link appears only in a quote in the "Dàoxuān" section, it might be acceptable to add a link there. A link to South India already appears in the lead ("southern India's") so it would not be necessary to link to anything else. At this point, we are in the realm of editorial preference. My interpretation is that you might be able to get away with this because the link doesn't appear elsewhere:

Firstly, Dàoxuān adds more detail concerning Bodhidharma's origins, writing that he was of "South Indian Brahman stock" (南天竺婆羅門種 nán tiānzhú póluómén zhŏng).[18]

Note the disambiguation of [[Brahmin|Brahman]]. There are two other choices: 1) you could add a link to Brahmin in the see also section, or 2) add a link somewhere in the body of the text outside the quote. It's up to you. Viriditas (talk) 08:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

My knowledge of Bodhidharma isn't as extensive as it probably should be, but if his being a Brahmin is a notable thing (at least notable enough to list him in the Brahmin category), do you think it would be better to make a minor mention of this in the lede, perhaps in the second paragraph, and to create the wikilink there? - SudoGhost 08:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, of course, that's a wise decision, but two things come to mind. At some point, the lead section should represent a summary of the article. If it is important to describe him as a South Indian Brahman, surely that can be done outside of a quote. The problem is that the current biography section is focused more on quotes than on narrative. This can be tightened in many places, with less important quotes preserved, but moved into a note section, with an attention to paraphrasing in the body. It may help a great deal to peruse similar GA/FA articles of the same class to see how other editors have treated similar subjects, and to review secondary source material. However, I agree with your plan to start with the lead as a short term solution, even though other editors might tell you to work from the body first. Viriditas (talk) 08:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a small "library" at the Zen center I go to, I'll see what books they have on Bodhidharma and start from there, because I want to have a strong source to back up what I add before adding anything to the lede. Looking over the Biography section, however, I agree that it seems a little quote-happy. - SudoGhost 09:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Help us t omake the article better instead of deleting it

why you again doing this help us to edit article as i have made significant changes . why you are trying to delete just help us in making article unambiguous it will also give you satisfaction that you have worked for a good cause. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajeshsng (talk • contribs) 04:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

There was already a deletion discussion concerning the article, and the article is identical, or near enough, to what was deleted. The article's subject was determined to be not notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia, and as the article is the same as the deleted one and does not address the notability issues present in the deletion discussion, it falls under the G4 speedy deletion criteria. - SudoGhost 04:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

As a tip, calling me "jelious" and then asking for my help doesn't exactly make me want to drop everything and help. Mais c'est la vie. - SudoGhost 04:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

i am not asking to take tip for word jelious i am asking it as you are doing it repetedly if you think that it has some problem help us t oedit it in such a way that it became a fine article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajeshsng (talk • contribs) 06:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Rajeshsng (talk) 10:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)hi Friend i have made certain changes accordingly with the help of a senior editor, i dont mean to make yo annoyed as it take much time n effort to make a page as you in indian context it is hard to find internet based proof for notability but i have made as much i got i am not related but like that such people also got noticed which are therefore unable as there is no one for them to make article on them.

tell me now how you feel if you still need certian changes you are allowed to make changes. thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajeshsng (talk • contribs)

Asking for help and then vandalizing the user pages of other editors isn't constructive, and such actions are much more likely to cause you to be blocked than to make others sympathetic and help you. However, the article was deleted under the G4 speedy deletion criteria, so from this point I suggest you take My76Strat's advice and go from there. Take care. - SudoGhost 13:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:27 Club#Unsourced entries need to be removed

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:27 Club#Unsourced entries need to be removed. Please feel free to participate and provide any insight or opinion that you feel relates to the unsourced entries in the list. Sottolacqua (talk) 16:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry

Toddy1 has given you a Pork pie. Pork pies are full of meaty goodness, and are wonderfully delicious! On Wikipedia, they promote love and sincerity. Hopefully, this one has made your day happier.

Spread the goodness and sincerity of pork pies by adding {{subst:Pork Pie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message! Give one to someone you've had disagreements with in the past, or to a good friend.

--Toddy1 (talk) 05:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

It's all good, I understand things can get heated sometimes when it feels like someone is attacking an article you've worked hard on. For my part, that was not my intention, I was just trying to establish some sort of consensus on the article so that the IP and other editors would discuss their issues with the article instead of just hitting 'Undo'. - SudoGhost 06:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Do not leave template warnings on my talk page.

and how is stating facts about a blocked user a personal attack? Leave me alone.--Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 07:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

It does not matter that the user is currently blocked, statements like this are uncivil, and have nothing to do with editing the article. If you don't wish for users to place templates on your talk page, the simplest way to avoid that in the future is to not behave in ways that warrant them in the first place. Thank you. - SudoGhost 07:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Unless of course you mean to say that you can prove that their "blatant hatred" is a fact, which seems unlikely. Also, saying that they are "not welcome here" is completely unnecessary. My placing the template on your talk page was merely informing you that such comments are not civil, and are not likely to get the other editor to work collaboratively with you. Please just be more mindful of your comments towards other editors in the future. There was no maliciousness intended in placing the template, the intention was to merely inform. I apologize if there was any confusion about that. Take care. - SudoGhost 08:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

(Edit from blocked user removed) - SudoGhost 22:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Clumpytree has also written to me - I have written to Τασουλα asking his permission to remove the two words that Clumpytree objected to. There is no need for action on your part.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The offending two words have now been removed with Τασουλα's permission.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you SudoGhost, I am impressed by the calm and seriousness you deal with difficult people like Τασουλα, dwc lr, Toddy1 and maybe sometimes me as well. Anyway, I am off now and leave you alone with them at the Wikipedia. All the best in protecting some balance and common sense in this encyclopedia. I would have hoped to part on a more positive note. Best wishes, Clumpytree (ps: you may delete this comment again as well ;) ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.242.51 (talk) 23:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

First off

It wasn't a joke, it was a serious entry for this serious encyclopedia. Second off you have absolutely no means of blocking me so don't make petty threats with stupid template warnings that you obviously haven't even read. TYVM. --Zaiger (talk) 10:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

First off, I don't think for a second that your edit was a serious one, especially considering your past editing history. The operating system you described as "extremely popular in Isreal" is an abandoned project that has not been updated in over four years. Also, if it were a serious edit, why link Richard Stallman to Jews? It wasn't funny, nor is anyone amused. Second off, I wouldn't test your "I have absolutely no means of blocking you" theory if I were you. It wasn't a threat, it was a notification that your behavior was incompatible with the aims of this encyclopedia. Please stop with the joke edits, or you may find yourself blocked from editing. Thank you. - SudoGhost 12:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Removal of link off Christopher Reeve

Hi, could you tell me why the link was removed from Christopher Reeve for www.christopherreeve.co.uk? Thanks Alexei — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theonlytexaspete (talk • contribs) 10:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Certainly. The link was removed because it falls under WP:ELNO #1, #4, and #11. - SudoGhost 10:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree entirely with my you have removed? 1. Certainly adds more that what Wikipedia has to offer 4. It is submitted as a reference not as a promotion. There are lots of intreating images and collections. If mine has been removed why not Chris Reeve homepage or Capedwonder? 11. It is not a blog, fan site, personal website. It is a collection of the life and works of Christopher Reeve. It is exactly the same as capedwonder yet focuses on his whole career instead of just superman?

Alexei — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theonlytexaspete (talk • contribs) 10:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

If you feel the external link should be included, you're more than welcome to discuss it at the article's talk page, and see what others think. - SudoGhost 12:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

why did u post wrong information to yadav page

Hey Sudo, you have posted some wrong information on wikipedias' yadav page which is quite wrong..efforts are underway to update the right information with right fact & references.

I think you hate yadavs that's why you have posted wrong information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohitmicro (talk • contribs) 06:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Other than reverting unexplained removals of sourced content, I'm not aware of ever inserting information onto that page. You removed a good deal of sourced content from the page without any sort of explanation in the edit summary, the article's talk page, or your own talk page, which is why I restored the content. You're more than welcome to visit the article's talk page to discuss these edits. Thank you. - SudoGhost 07:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

REvdel etc on my talk page

Not sure what was going on there but presumably I am attracting some undesirable attention. Thanks for stepping in. - Sitush (talk) 13:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem. I have no idea what that was about either, but it wasn't exactly a cordial message. - SudoGhost 21:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Darknight Detective

Just wanted to let you know that this was discussed at the beginning of the year on the Batman talk page and I was allowed to post it with the proper footnote. Therefore, unless you are a moderator, I plan on undoing your revision within the day. If you disagree, please let me know. Thanks.

BTW, there are numerous comic books from years past where he's referenced as such, though younger fans might not be aware of this. jtmatbat (talk) 09:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Being an administrator (which I assume is what you mean by moderator) has nothing to do with one's ability to edit an article, nor do administrators have more "say" over what happens within an article, they are simply entrusted with tools that other editors do not have access to. The "Darknight Detective" title is one that was rarely used, and nothing more. As such, it does not belong in the lede, which is an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects. As this title is not discussed anywhere in the article proper, it doesn't belong in the lede. If you plan on reinserting the title, I suggest placing it somewhere within the article itself as opposed to the lede. Placing it in the lede gives undue weight to a title that is hardly ever used, giving the impression that this is a commonly attributed nickname, when it is not. This is why I removed it from the lede, as it doesn't belong there, sourced or not. - SudoGhost 13:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

As this pertains directly to the article, I'm going to discuss this on the article's talk page, so that other editors can discuss it as well. - SudoGhost 13:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I can insert it within the article instead. It deserves to be mentioned somewhere and that works for me. You're still wrong about it being rarely mentioned, however :-) - at least during the '70s/'80s it was. Thanks. jtmatbat (talk) 10:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I am out

You have just lost a Wikipedia contributor and somebody who made donations to Wikipedia in the past.

If you think that I am destructive, OK, then I am out.

I will never make any kind of contribution to Wikipedia again and you can be proud to be the reason for it. Congratulations!

It's xxx like you who destroyed Wikipedia.

--DeTru711 (talk) 02:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

SudoGhost, just a question. Do you think that simply calling someone's edits disruptive is very specific?Jasper Deng (talk) 03:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. However, instead of reverting once it is known there is a disagreement, you're more than welcome to discuss on the article's talk page, per WP:BRD. Simply reverting without discussion despite being informed of why your edit was reverted is considered edit warring. If being informed that this is not appropriate behavior is the reason for you to "never make any kind of contribution to Wikipedia again", then there's nothing that can really be done about that. However, I admit that I should have left a message as opposed to using the uw-disruptive2 template, and for that I apologize. However, I would ask that, if you decide to continue to edit, you stop and discuss once it is known there is a disagreement, instead of hitting 'undo'. Thank you. - SudoGhost 03:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

This is all just about fans of a certain browser who keep pretending that their favorite browser is still superior to others (in respect to the Acid3 test) despite the facts having changed. There isn't anything else behind it. I am not willing to deal with these idiots anymore.--DeTru711 (talk) 03:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, editors aren't allowed to do that (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). I oppose your edits to Acid3 (while being a fan of IE and Firefox) because you cited original research - we don't know if it's a fact unless you cite a reliable source. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not the truth. When making a complaint about a section, please use the talk page and not the article (as you did here).Jasper Deng (talk) 03:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been keeping up with the Acid3 article, but you're more than welcome to discuss this on the article's talk page, and provide any references that you have that backs up what you're saying. This would be the best and most effective way of discussing the changes you want to see made on the article. - SudoGhost 03:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

It's ok to make mistakes (@DeTru711).Jasper Deng (talk) 03:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to keep the discussion all in one place, I've commented here, and would ask that any further replies related to Acid3 be made there. Thank you. - SudoGhost 03:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify why I placed the template on the DeTru711's talk page, the user made at least three reversions[8][9][10] on the article within a few hours of each other. However, if I used a template at all, I should have used uw-ew or uw-3rr instead of uw-disruptive2, and for that I apologize, I'm not really sure what I was thinking with that. However, I'll be more mindful of that in the future. - SudoGhost 04:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

in pop culture

the information provided is right. what is the source you have to prove it is wrong? Sathish ! Ramadurai (talk) 06:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Because the source being used doesn't verify the information being inserted. The source says "He has done the character of Bodhidharma", not that "He is playing the character". If this is the only source that mentions this, I'm also not sure it has enough weight to insert it into the article, as it doesn't seem to be a very notable mention. I think it would be best to discuss it on the article's talk page and to wait for a response instead of reinserting it into the article. Thank you. - SudoGhost 06:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The user you just warned

I reported him to WP:AIV and he just deleted the report, I don't care if the report is valid or not but he should at least wait for an admin's attention --ChristianandJericho 10:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Even if completely invalid, I don't think a user should remove an AIV report about themselves, period. Rest assured, I've got my eye on the situation between you and this other editor. I think the best thing for you to do would be to stay calm and ignore the other user completely. I'll keep an eye on your talk page and on the AIV report, and handle anything else that arises. Don't comment on their talk page, don't mess with the AIV entry any more, I'll take care of it as a third party. - SudoGhost 11:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I am extremely grateful --ChristianandJericho 11:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't just be grateful for the advice, try actually following the advice. Opening more and more noticeboard sections is only likely to lead to more and more trouble. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

ChristianandJericho, it was brought to my attention that you're seeking adoption by an experienced user. If you'd like, I would be happy to do so, and to help you in regards to editing and improving Wikipedia. Just let me know if you're interested. Either way, if you have any questions regarding editing Wikipedia, or with any of Wikipedia's policies or how things work, I'd be glad to help. - SudoGhost 11:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

You can always ask questions on my talk page too, though I will leave it to SG to mentor you.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure I'd be happy to have you as my mentor --ChristianandJericho 00:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

CSD

Can you please tag this article because it is too soon as WP:PW usually makes an article about a ppv a month before it happens and this happens about 6 months later --ChristianandJericho 10:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Bounce TV

Thanks for your note about my recent reversion of an edit at Bounce TV. The user who made that edit is an IP of User:Mmbabies who has been IP-hopping to avoid his ban for several years now. Nothing seems to be able to stop him. I would appreaciate any help any admins can give in ridding WP of this menace to the project. -- Gridlock Joe (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

If you suspect that the IP address is being used by a block-evading user, the best course of action would be to report it to WP:SPI. - SudoGhost 22:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Trust me, I've been through it all. SPI, LTA, you name it. I and others have been dealing with this guy for 4 years. He just doesn't get that he's not welcome. And, frankly, I am fed up with continually reporting him and seeing him still on here editing. -- Gridlock Joe (talk) 23:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Bodhidharma

I noticed that the anon adding an internal link to the film seems to be hopping IP addresses. This could be grounds for semi-protecting the page, but you need to demonstrate to the admins that it is vandalism. Keep leaving invites to the discussion on each IP. If they continue to add the material without attempting to discuss anything, then the admins will be more likely to semi-protect it. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 22:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice, I'll do that. - SudoGhost 22:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

By the way...your name makes me nervous. ;) - SudoGhost 22:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Ha, that's a good one! Don't worry, I only go after the mean ones!

It looks like they created another account. They are just digging a hole for themselves by doing this. I really don't see why it is so hard just to type a few words on the article's talk page. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the advantage in creating an account for the sole purpose of making a single edit, and then creating another account to make a subsequent edit. Maybe they think we'll think it is a different person? Regardless, without a source giving the information weight, I really don't think it belongs in the article. - SudoGhost 21:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Glasgow

I'm self sourced, I live right next to the newly built Velodrome and I grew up playing in the now stripped down (due to the Common Wealth construction work) child's park. I still pass the park most days and people who rightfully owned their homes were thrown out so that the houses could be demolished. RepairedDirector (talk) 22:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not permit original research in articles. Content must be sourced from an independent, reliable source to be considered verifiable. --Chris (talk) 22:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I will go and get a complete foreign stranger to testify what I show him and get an official to take a picture then RepairedDirector (talk) 22:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT. A stranger is not a reliable source, and doesn't give the information enough weight to insert it into the article. Wikipedia articles are not a complete exposition of all possible details, but only what reliable sources give proper weight to. - SudoGhost 22:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Victor Slashanov

Just a quick note: that wasn't a non-notable person; it was a blatant hoax if you read through the whole thing. LadyofShalott 02:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, the information in that article didn't appear to make any claim to notability, which is why I tagged it as non-notable. It did have odd statements in it, but nothing that appeared to be any significant claim of notability. I tagged it as non-notable instead of hoax because I wasn't 100% sure about the hoax, and to err on the side of caution, I didn't want to risk offending someone unnecessarily by calling it a hoax on the (very off chance) that it wasn't, when A7 appeared to apply as well. Was I incorrect in labeling it A7? - SudoGhost 02:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, it just seemed really obviously a hoax to me - someone in his family "invented tetanus"... uh huh. No worries! LadyofShalott 02:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I think I missed that part. Oh well. Thanks for letting me know. - SudoGhost 02:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Śūnyatā

It is always a pleasant surprise to go to add a caution on a user's talk page and find that another editor has been there first with the same message. It gives a sense that this great project will not fail or get bogged down in saṃsāra and that the human condition may be better than we thought. It is also life affirming to see the observance of Buddhist precepts among editors. Thank you. Sunray (talk) 17:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of History of iOS jailbreaking for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article History of iOS jailbreaking is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of iOS jailbreaking (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Opticks3 and Sockpuppetry

Hello Sudoghost, I figured I should let you know that Opticks3 mentions the two of us here, where he accuses us of potential sockpuppetry ("From the beginning I began discussions on the talk page due to the polarizing nature of that case. I quickly came 'across an editor named bloodofox and later an editor named sudoghost, possibly the same?, who without discussion deleted or undid my edits/contributions"). Interestingly, mystery user steviemaye (talk · contribs) and Opticks seem to have a special connection. This is also pretty interesting–wtf? :bloodofox: (talk) 22:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I've made a comment on SilkTork's talk page. As to Steviemaye, I'm not sure it is a sockpuppet of Opticks3 just because of the short number of edits and lack of direct response by Opticks3, but if you want to open an SPI I'm sure the admins there could judge that better than I. - SudoGhost 23:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem, and I will do that. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Reference Added for ANTHE article

Dear SudoGhost,

Please check the added reference. I searched and added TOI news published in May-2011. Please review it and remove notability, references and AFD message.

Share your views and let me know if I can help more for the same.

Thanks. (Satya563 (talk) 06:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC))

The reference you added is about Aakash Institute, only making a brief mention of ANTHE. This by itself does not appear to be enough to establish the notability of the subject. - SudoGhost 12:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Please allow IOS jailbreaking tables to be brought back

This was very useful information and there appears to be an outcry by many that is has been removed. At the very least, please don't revert attempts to bring it back. --64.201.246.50 (talk) 21:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

If you want the tables back, then fix it by finding reliable sources. See the article's talk page for more of an explanation of why it was removed. Unless that reason is addressed, it doesn't belong in the article, and if it is repeatedly attempted to restore the table without solving that problem, you'll very likely find the page to be semi-protected again. - SudoGhost 23:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

What's it to you? Is the information hurting you? Does it hurt anyone? Many people find it useful and I think in this case it's much more beneficial to the community to let it slide rather than be a stickler for the rules. Plus, this information changes too frequently to consistently maintain reliable references. --64.201.246.50 (talk) 04:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not the one that initially removed the information. However, Wikipedia requires reliable sources. If information does not have reliable sources, it may be removed by any editor. If many people find it useful, you may want to consider moving the content to another Wiki that not only allows, but encourages such content. You are also more than welcome to create your own Wiki at Wikia. There are many alternatives to Wikipedia that can host such content, and more information can be found here. - SudoGhost 04:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Re:Warning.

You issued me a warning on the grounds of edit warring; while i had made only one revert on the page. Do not take out your insolence on newcomers with such uncalled warnings. Snowcream (talk) 23:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

You reverted twice, not once, both in violation of the consensus on the talk page. Simply because your second revert did not explicitly say "undid" does not mean it is not a revert. You were edit warring. You were therefore notified of this. Don't like it? Try discussing instead of edit warring. - SudoGhost 23:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

What consensus? Where consensus? There was no consensus when the edit i undid took place. The person produced an asinine reason of "per talk page". I see a single piece of rant; and i see no consensus. Why don't you issue a warning to that user? Snowcream (talk) 23:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Very first section. One editor made a suggestion, two editors agreed with it and nobody disagreed with the suggestion, thus the change was made. This was made days before your edit. This is why I didn't issue a warning to that user. If someone reverts you saying "see the talk page" and you don't see what they're talking about, ask them, don't just hit 'Undo' with an explanation or edit summary. This is edit warring. - SudoGhost 23:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Germanic Neopaganism

Hello.

As an administrator with authority, could you protect the Germanic Neopaganism page from frivolous edits? The page has been redirected to [[11]], but a better collective term is Germanic Neopaganism, which has been used here for years

The largest Germanic neopagan group in the UK, the Odinic Rite, uses the term Odinism, and the largest group in the USA, the Asatru Alliance, uses Asatru, so Germanic Neopaganism is the proper rubric.

Thanks --50.41.144.98 (talk) 06:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am not an administrator and cannot protect the page. However, looking at the history of the article and the article's talk page, I think that before move protection is considered, the best course of action would be for you to start a new discussion on the talk page detailing why you believe the page should be moved back, and see if any consensus can be reached for changing it back to the previous title. Wikipedia:Article titles can give you more information on article titles, and if you have any further questions, I'd be glad to help however I can. - SudoGhost 06:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Ah sorry, misread the inclusion criteria. Thanks for your patience and long message. ShadowBB (talk) 09:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Tamil stuff

Hi there. I'm sure you have noticed the increase in edits adding Tamil stuff to the Bodhidharma article. It is getting kind of annoying, really. I believe an anon suggested that the edits may have been initiated by people associated with the tamil film 7aum Arivu. I watched a trailer for it the other day, and it actually shows the English version of the Bodhidharma Wikipedia article. Since the film has not official been released, I would not be surprised if the movie people were trying to edit the page, or at least proud Tamil people.

Did you see what I wrote on the talk page. This should established why preference shouldn't be given to his Tamil name. Actually, it shows that the page needs a major rewrite because the sources do not support the statements being made. Unfortunately, I don't have the time or access to better sources to do so. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 03:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I managed to find the trailer you mentioned, and the Wikipedia article is right there at the beginning. It is a bit annoying, but I think for now all we can do is keep an eye on the article, invite the IP editors to use the talk page, and if it becomes a bigger problem, explain the situation at WP:RFPP and go from there. - SudoGhost 00:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Yah, I started doing that when the anons and new members began to re-add the Tamil name. No one can say that they weren't warned or directed to the talk discussion. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 00:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering at what point we should attempt WP:RFPP, as it's clear this isn't going to stop any time soon, and I'd imagine it would get worse when this movie comes out. - SudoGhost 08:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The movie came out yesterday, so that explains the upsurge in activity. We may want to get the page semi-protected now until it is out of theaters. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 13:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Changes to 2010-2011 statistics

Dear SudoGhost, it's again Alisher1990. I'm writing to you again about making changes to 2010 statistics. Let's finally release the 50 airports. But let's (again and finally) I'm asking you not to use only ACI's statistics. Because ACI still hand't published fully ststistics for 2010. (And probably wouldn't be publish it). Because all official statisctics are pubished already, let's just take the number from all major airports and expand the list. For ex, if Munich handled 34,7 mln passengers, and KUL handled also 34,0 mln, it easily can be found that Kuala Lumpur is 31st airport, because no airport between Munich and Kuala Lumpur. Let's use sources other than ACI. Because ACI's source last time become wrong and mistrustful. For ex, as you can see they don't publishing monthly statistics for 2011 for Guangzhou Baiyun and Jakarta-Soekarno Hatta. Bot both of these airports handeled more than 40 mln passengers, and annual growth of these airports is 10-15%.(Is minimum 10% growth each year). As a result, this list is wrong. So (again) let's use more reliable sources. You always saying that we must use reliable sources. But because CGK and CAN are missing in this list, it can be considered as unreliable source, they just can't drop down from the list? For ex, CGK handled 44 mln passengers and CAN 40,9 mln with annual growth of 15,2% and 10,6% respectively. So, with such huge growth do you think they just can drop down from top30%? They must be approximately in the middle of list of TOP30. But because they are missing, the ACI's list can be considered as unreliable. So, please let's use other sources, more reliable. What can be more reliable than airports' statistics directly from their web-sites?

Sincerely, alisher 1990. P.S. Let's find the missing statistics for Guangzhou and Jakarta for 2011 and correct the TOP30 list for 2011. Please read this message carefully and please respond to my e-mail: (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alisher1990 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

As this is directly related to the article, this should be discussed on the article's talk page and a consensus reached before changing the article. However, your assertion that airports cannot drop in traffic after having growth previously does not in any way prove that ACI is unreliable, and perhaps shows a misunderstanding of what ACI is and how those numbers are determined. - SudoGhost 00:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		For creating Leafpad, a long-needed article, including finding enough third party references to ensure it sticks around! - Ahunt (talk) 23:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I saw a redlink for it at Xubuntu and after gathering some references for it, figured it was notable enough for an article. - SudoGhost 00:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Definitely! I have long thought we should have an article, but couldn't find the refs to show notability. Thanks for starting it! - Ahunt (talk) 11:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Alright, we'll talk.

Why do you insist on taking the paragraph down? It is factual, it holds relavence to his political activities, and I've gotten my info from very reliable sources. Guitaristnate (talk) 06:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Please use the article's talk page to discuss this, as it is directly relevant to that article. Thank you. - SudoGhost 06:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Your Rv

Hi, I may be wrong in this post which you have rv [12]. However, I didn't mean to attack anyone there. It also contains a diff which is relevant to the case in discussion. Ikon ^No-Blast 18:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Nobody accused you of attacking anyone. However, if a user removes a message from their talk page, you don't undo that removal, per WP:TPO. - SudoGhost 18:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing what you did - I've got enough on my plate right now without revisiting old stuff that ANI had already determined was not an issue. - Sitush (talk) 18:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem. - SudoGhost 18:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for guiding me, Sudoghost. It says, If they delete it, it means they have read it, they simply don't want others' to see it. However, matured editors shouldn't do it, just my thought. An established user like Sitush does it! Sometimes ppl should get the chance to hide their faces. Ikon ^No-Blast 18:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The Colbert Report Talk, Thank you

Thank you for your contribution to The Colbert Report Talk. \\(^o^)// See WP:Tea. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello SudoGhost! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan - spam warning

Hi SudoGhost. I read your spam-warning om my talk-page, and put a clarification on my talk-page and the Zen-Talk Page. It was not my intention to put on spam. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 20:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

User:OrtegaJoel

Hi, as an FYI, User:OrtegaJoel created an attack article SudoGhost. I marked it for SD and gave him a l4 warning. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I've had the user blocked and requested that the article be salted.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both very much. I'm not sure what the article contained, but I can't imagine it was good. - SudoGhost 00:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Link spam in List of remastering software

Hi, SudoGhost

Sorry to bother you but I think you might be able to help here. The problem is: A user is constantly adding linkspam to List of remastering software. Software entries that he adds have no article in Wikipedia and no evidence of notability. Naturally, they are not allowed, per WP:LINKFARM as well as WP:STANDALONE, WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTADVERT.

What do you think should be done? Fleet Command (talk) 09:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The page has been semi-protected, which seems like the best short-term thing to do in that situation. Assuming this IP is the same editor that has been inserting the link, it seems that the talk page discussion has resolved the issue. - SudoGhost 00:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks a lot. I did not think my page protection request would be approved so quickly or Jasper Deng respond to my request as fast as he did. (I expected five days delay on both accounts.) That's why I thought perhaps Wikipedia could have used your help. But thank you anyway. Your intention to help is highly appreciated. Regards, Fleet Command (talk) 08:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Concerning edit warring

You give me a warning for posting the truth. Im not starting war and im not talking about you either. You don't need to warn me, thats just going out of your way to start a war with me which is not needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nevoexpo (talk • contribs) 06:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

You made three reversions on the article within a 24-hour period without discussion, this is the very definition of edit warring, which you were engaged in. Making more than three reversions violates a policy we have here on Wikipedia called WP:3RR, and is grounds for an immediate block. This is why I warned you, as you were likely not aware of this. When it is known that your edits are being disputed, do not hit "Undo" repeatedly, but instead please take it to the talk page and discuss why you believe the edit belongs there. Thank you. - SudoGhost 06:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. Putting that aside, the link i posted last offers all the information needed which qualifies the edit i made in the article. Would it be okay for me to undo it now so my edits are shown? Thanks. - Nevo —Preceding undated comment added 06:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC).

That would be violating WP:3RR, and would likely lead to you being blocked. Edit summaries are not used for discussion, but to explain the content of your edit. This does not count as discussion or verification of anything. I would suggest you use the article's talk page to discuss why you believe the information belongs in the article, so that other editors can discuss this with you. Thank you. - SudoGhost 06:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Neutral party view here: I posted it to his talk page already, but I feel he might be a single-purpose account. I asked him to read the article on it, and to also find a THIRD PARTY source on the software's notability. Funnyfarmofdoom _{(talk to me)} 06:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I have replied on your page with a softpedia link and if you were to google ZeuAPP, you would find out its been out for a very long time and its a very popular open source community and program and like i said on my own page, i am not a single-purpose account and i think it is very uncomforting to be accused of that.. otherwise my name would be Zeusomething...--Nevoexpo (talk) 06:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Softpedia is a software repository, not a reliable source, neither is Google. - SudoGhost 06:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I dont understand why you are giving me a hard time however just because you need something else, here is a list:

And i could keep going but honestly guys, this is ridiculous... Just look at those pages and you will understand why its perfect for that article and where i have my proof...--Nevoexpo (talk) 07:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

These are all blogs, software repositories, and youtube accounts, none of which are considered reliable sources. I suggest you discuss this on the article's talk page as opposed to my talk page, as it is directly related to that article. However, you should read WP:RS first to see what is and is not considered a reliable source. - SudoGhost 07:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Its a shame you are being really biased towards me. I want you to know that i think you should stop doing that because its unfair for you and the position you uphold or atleast trying to. You should realize that ZeuAPP is the perfect example of what that article is about and what Richard was trying to promote, you should realize that for the good of mankind, this is just helpful and it is baffling me that you are being extremely biased towards that. Please, stop being so biased and deleting my posts, they are the truth which you will not escape from --Nevoexpo (talk) 07:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I would love to realize that, but in order for that to happen, you have to demonstrate this with reliable sources, something you have not yet done. Until that happens, I guess mankind will just have to suffer. I had no idea that the future of mankind was on the line, or that deleting your personal attacks about my "uptight" "pathetic" and "immature" editing was a truth from which I would not escape. Thank you for that insight. - SudoGhost 08:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thigle is back, continuing to insult.

Thanks, SudoGhost. 20040302 (talk) 09:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem. I meant to remove his nonsense from your userpage after opening the SPI report, but it looks like I forgot. Hopefully he'll catch the hint that if he creates block-evading sockpuppets, every edit he makes will be reverted upon discovery (and they will be discovered). - SudoGhost 09:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank You for the Help

Thank you for the help on the Germanic Neopaganism page. --ThorLives (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the catch on Age of the Earth. I have no idea why TW skipped an edit during the revert, but I should have probably checked the page history to see what it did. Never seen anything like that before. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 04:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Bodhidharma’s Teaching Book online

Bodhidharma was born around the year 440 in Kanchi, the capital of the southern Indian kingdom of Pallava. He was a Brahman by birth and the third son of King Simhavarman. Read More Please anyone add this information on Bodhidharma wiki page

Thanks Hari — Preceding unsigned comment added by Athavanhari (talk • contribs) 10:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

This is one of dozens of differing accounts, a pdf does not make a definitive reliable source that overrides the fact that there are differing accounts of his origins. - SudoGhost 10:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Someone sent me the same exact pdf to my personal email via Wikipedia. I just ignored it. If someone really wants to make their case, they need to do it onsite. I can only imagine what is going to happen to the Bodhidharma article once the semi-protect runs out. I have a bad feeling that it will have to be permanently semi-protected to avoid a massive, never ending edit war. When the time comes, and I know it will, I will use this as evidence (you might have seen it on the talk page). This clearly shows that at least one person is trying to recruit people to edit the page (i.e. meat puppetry) to reflect what THEY want it to say. It's really sad that a fictional movie could stir up so much trouble. From what I've heard, Bodhidharma is only in the movie for like 20 min. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 21:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

OSx86

So you remove mention of tonymacx86 and macman but leave Netkas, modbin, dmitrik,Qoopz Pc and usr-sse2. Your joking correct? I am giving credit to those who developed the tools, just as all of the other ones where given to the names I just named. There was no soapboxing and I was not promoting anything. There are newer methods to install OS X and cleaner methods. I added those in a while ago and somebody removed all of them the other day. There was no reason to keep removing them. They are, all three of them, boot loaders and I added them in the correct section right under Chameleon where they belong. I also had in the LIon section the same info as what is in there now but stating that tonmacx86 did what somebody keeps replacing with what a Russian did. I can give a rats ass now at this point, if you fuckers just want to pic and choose go ahead and enjoy. I'll stick with our wiki and help the people there then.

eelhead 15:11, 6 November 2011 (PST)

You replaced a reliable source with blogspot references and other primary sources that are not reliable sources. Your edits gave the sole appearance of promoting this tonymac, and your account appears to be a single-purpose account created for this sole purpose. This, in addition to the fact that the edits were not reliably sourced, is why your edits were reverted. It doesn't matter that there are "newer or cleaner methods", the information needs to be sourced with reliable third-party sources, especially if you're removing reliably sourced information and replacing it with this new information. If you feel the information belongs in the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page. Thank you. - SudoGhost 02:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I placed back in the information that was there since before July and I didn't replace anything but add to it. The stuff I added in as well was reliable information and as for removing reliable information that did not happen The Lion section was something totally different that stated tonymacx86 info back in July and I just added more facts and that too was removed and replaces with some Russian nonsense. There wasn't any issues with the add ins back in July but there is now lol. Like I said I am done, I took my time and had it all done correct back in July then some random I.P. person removes it all with one sweep even removing the reference website address. By the way my account was made well before I got involved with the 0Sx86 community I only tried to help out with a section I have some knowledge in but thanks for thinking otherwise So what ever, enjoy your policing of wikipedia and dont worry this wont be a back and forth think as this is my last post. eelhead 20:24, 6 November 2011 (PST)

None of the information you inserted into the article was backed up by reliable sources. Blogs and primary sources are not reliable, therefore the edits were removed. If you want the information in the article, it needs reliable sources. WP:V is a core policy of Wikipedia, information that isn't reliably sourced can be removed, especially when you replace information that is reliably sourced. - SudoGhost 03:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	For saying you're sorry as many times as is necessary to get the point across, even if that is far more than it should be. causa sui (talk) 18:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much, your words are greatly appreciated. - SudoGhost 18:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Queries about ratings for Dhammapada translations

Dear SudhoGhost, I recently left the following identical message on two ProjectBuddhism pages that you recently rated, Dhammapada (Radhakrishnan translation) and Dhammapada (Easwaran translation). My message on each page was:

Dear User:SudoGhost, you just rated this article as start class on Project Buddhism's quality scale. To me that seems like a lower rating than it presently deserves, but perhaps I've overlooked something. Perhaps you could be so kind as to indicate what sorts of changes you think should happen to the article in order for it to attain a higher rating?

Many thanks for considering these two questions. Best regards -- Presearch (talk) 03:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

After looking at them, you're completely right. I'm not sure what was going on there, but perhaps it was having too many tabs open and mixing them up while being extremely tired. Looks like I'm going to have to go back and review all of the articles I assessed last night. Thanks for the heads up, and I apologize about any confusion I caused. - SudoGhost 11:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the updatings of the ratings, those make more sense to me. Thanks also for doing about a dozen article ratings, even if there were some errors. My sense is that such rating often is backlogged and is often a rather unglamorous and thankless task, so kudos to you for taking it on. -- Presearch (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've gotten the number of unassessed Buddhism articles down from ~850, but it's taken me since July to do so, because after around 10-20 it gets to feel too repetitive. My goal is to eventually get it down to zero and to make sure it stays low, but at this rate it will take me quite some time. - SudoGhost 19:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow, sounds like a long slog. Congrats on your persistence! Indeed, I hereby award you a barnstar for your persistence! -- Presearch (talk) 20:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	For SudoGhost's valiant persistence in the long and often thankless task of providing quality and importance ratings to previously unrated Buddhism articles -- Presearch (talk) 20:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much, it's greatly appreciated. Here's hoping I can keep it up and clear out that category completely. - SudoGhost 20:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for all your work, and thanks also for correcting my (embarrassing) spelling mistake! -- Presearch (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Bön RM

Hi SudoGhost; I just looked in on the RM again and I see these unexpected issues.  Didn't mean to leave you to answer on stuff; but reality is I wouldn't have done as well myself presenting the facts.  But I hadn't taken into account the wording of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC that:

“ A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.      [Emphasis added] ”

The problem is, even if "Bon Festival" were moved to "OBon" (which reader traffic didn't look to me like it'd necessarily be supported [but the traffic numbers I was getting seemed strange, some zeros; so I'm not sure I trust it], though I expect it might happen if it could be shown to be the "right" name), and even if "Bon Scott" is ignored, (and we just ignore that fact that "Bon Jovi" isn't even on the list), Bon still doesn't have more hits than all the other topics combined.  Given that, I don't even know of a good argument to make, so I haven't said anything to this point.  Not sure if there's anything to be done other than see what happens if more editors respond; I guess it all comes done to wait and see what consensus is, and how an admin interprets it.  Anyways, just didn't want to say nothing while I see you're responding to a couple of others; but also didn't really want to comment more on the article talk unless I think of something appropriate to say.  Let me know if you think there's anything more I can do, since I (like you and Hans) thought of this like a done deal when we three agreed to it, but I guess wider community consensus will prevail.  ttyl — Who R you? Talk 09:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'm keeping an eye on it, but for now I'm going to hold off and see what other editors think first. I've said everything I think I needed to say to get my point across, anything else would just be repetition on my part. I think the more people that comment, the better, and I don't want to try to "convince" everyone of my opinion, I'd much rather hear their unbiased additional input and insight to try to establish a consensus, even if it isn't one I'd necessarily agree with. Maybe someone will come along and have an amazing suggestion that would satisfy everyone. Guess we'll see. - SudoGhost 18:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Must say, I respect the attitude!  ttyl — Who R you? Talk 07:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

November 2011

{{Template:uw-3rr}} LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 16:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

My recent reversion was the only one in the past 24-hours, reverting an editor that is removing content without a valid explanation, citing a consensus that does not exist. Perhaps you meant to use uw-ew? - SudoGhost 16:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh sorry. I misread the person who made this edit as you. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 16:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, not a problem. I see my name in that edit summary, so I can see how it would be mixed up. No worries. However, rest assured, I do not intend to edit the page further regarding this content without a consensus one way or the other. Thank you. - SudoGhost 16:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

As a note, wikipedia has an IRC channel, where I am usually, if not always, available. See WP:IRC. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 16:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Sudo is the one who made that edit adding all those other archaeological findings information. Please do not confuse sudo with me.DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 16:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I may be mistaken, but I don't believe anything of that sort was claimed. - SudoGhost 16:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I have eyes, and as such, I can see that both you (DBSSURFER) and SudoGhost have reverted. Also, SudoGhost, my appologies if you already know about IRC. I just went to my irc client, looked for the nick "SudoGhost", and didn't see you on it. I may have not looked closely enough. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 16:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC),,,,

Questioning Article Revision

Hi. You just undid my revision in the article Capoeira, saying lack of souces. I'd like to explain to you that i believe things i wrote dont have any source, because there is no formal system in the State of Bahia. There is no Capoeira Federation and the studies sees more the past then the actual reality. I wrote what i saw in my life, trough my experience. Its really sad seeing you claiming lack of source when you keep an part immediately after my modifications with no source, and privileging an specific group. My modification had a general content, and, differently of this other part, has no advertising motivation.

Sorry if i did anything wrong here in your talk page, but its the first time i use this. Exper Aguiar (talk) 03:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles require reliable sources to verify information in the article, using your own experience is considered original research, which cannot be used as a reliable source. Information without a reliable source backing it up can be removed by any user. Unfortunately, if no sources exist, the information doesn't belong on the article. As to leaving the unsourced information in the article, I have not yet thoroughly looked through the article, only seeing on my watchlist that you had inserted a large amount of unsourced information into the article. However, I have removed and tagged a good deal of unsourced information from that section. If you are able to find a source for your information, it would help greatly, and you're more than welcome to use the article's talk page to discuss the article. Thank you. - SudoGhost 15:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Hey, why did you undo my revision on the Kongregate page? TheLurkerMan (talk) 03:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)TheLurkerMan

I left an explanation on the article's talk page. - SudoGhost 03:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry for not catching that. Anywho, I understand that my edit was far too detailed, but can't that be considered a good thing? You are correct that most forum communities do have all the said amenities, but Kongregate isn't even a forum community. It's more so a gaming site, and again, I do not see a problem with including detailed information about the community. TheLurkerMan (talk) 03:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)TheLurkerMan

Wikipedia articles are not complete expositions of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. I don't think that level of detail is necessary, especially as it isn't anything that any other forum has. However, I think this should be discussed on the article's talk page, so that any other interested editors can discuss it as well. Thank you. - SudoGhost 03:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

nofollow

Oh irony, SudoGhost: how can I put a nofollow-tag on this subpage? User:Joshua Jonathan/Bodhidharma's birthplace No need to have it visited via Google by fans of a certain ancient kingdom. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You can do so either by inserting __NOINDEX__ at the top of the page, or by using the {{NOINDEX}} template, I believe the template simply adds the previous. More can be found at Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing, if that helps. - SudoGhost 20:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you please take a look at Bodhidharma again? It's hopeless... Joshua Jonathan (talk) 20:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate subpage into real page

Hi SudoGhost. Would it be a good idea to duplicate this page into a real page, an dlink to it in the Bodhidharma-article? ("Some traditions specifically describe Bodhidharma") Or would that be a silly provocation, only attracting further dispute? As it is now, the subpage contains Original Research (namely, some of my conclusions). Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

If the page contains OR and still needs a good bit of polishing before being acceptable as an article, I think it might be best to keep it as a subpage for now, but I do think the general concept of the page is a good start. It might also help to add {{Userspace draft}} to the subpage, as it would let people know that it isn't an article, so they won't be as quick to "correct" the information. - SudoGhost 07:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I added the template, and will polish the page further. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 12:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

why?

why did you delete my name on the list? is telling the truth a vandalism? 121.54.34.84 (talk) 07:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

As I explained here, among other places, the information is unsourced. Wikipedia requires that information added to articles be verified by reliable sources. Otherwise, there's nothing to stop anyone from adding any name they want to that article saying that they / their children / whoever they want is a child prodigy. A name being added without a reliable source verifying that the name added is a child prodigy does not belong in the article. - SudoGhost 08:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Rambo (film)

The user JesseDBaker keeps changing the article without taking part in the discussion or bringing any sources for his changes. Can you please help?--IIIraute (talk) 03:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I've left a comment on the editor's talk page, asking the editor to explain the reason for the edit on the article's talk page. If they stop and discuss the edit, great! If not, you can report them here for edit warring or 3RR (if applicable). However, my advice to you would be to give them one more chance to explain the reasoning for their edit on the article's talk page.

However, if they choose to ignore these requests for explanation and instead revert again, I think it would be best to not undo their edit right away, or you may find yourself blocked as well. I would include something in the "Comments" section asking for clarification on whether or not reverting that edit would be exempt from being considered edit warring due to the edit falling under illegitimate blanking. However, without that clarification I would personally refrain from reverting it again, just to be on the safe side, until other editors visit the talk page and some form of consensus is established. - SudoGhost 04:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for the information. I think that will help.--IIIraute (talk) 04:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Rambo (film)

Hi SudeoGhost, I apologize for not responding soon, I just regestered on Wikipedia, and I was unsure of how to reply to something someone sent me.

As for the Rambo page,

1. I don't see any reason to label it a "German/American" movie, since it's just a movie, it was released all over the world. It was also made by American studios, and just because it also had a German produciton company doesn't make it a German movie also. It's just a movie for crying out loud, thats why I recently deleted the "German/American" part of it, and left it as and action movie, which it is, no reason to get label it as being from one country.

2. I realize that the user left "action film" un capitalized this time around, but I was uncapitalizing that because it's not proper grammar.

JesseDBaker (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)JesseDBaker

The Hundred of Hoo School

I see you have been watching this site- I have refrained in the past from editing due previous personal connections- but I have made a few minor referenced changes. I would prefer it, if some one else looks at the substantive 'press release' that makes up the rest of the article- as it conflicts wildly with their official website. Losing a head teacher to an allegation is not a pleasant experience for a school- and can understand that no-one from inside dares to change the text. Could you have a look at the website and do the necessary 'ślash and burn' and when you are sure that the article is safe- I will help build it up. It seems a great omission that we don't have a UK state school at GA we can use as an example, and most of the others better than a stub are former historic selective schools.--ClemRutter (talk) 03:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

hello!

Why? does a prodigy needs to be famous to be a real prodigy? what? should i call the press and tell them, hey, i study neurology, chaos theory, primatology, surrealism, and many more as a hobby and i started it since i'm 5 by myself to be on the list? as you may think, i'm a 60 year old inside a young man's body, well thanks anyway for replying to the other one, hope you can reply on this? thanks :D -⁰ℨ 19:43, 6 December 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.34.84 (talk)

Wikipedia articles require notability. In order to be on the article List of child prodigies, it requires that the subject being added either have their own article (which must satisfy WP:N), or at the very least be reliably sourced to satisfy WP:V. The information needs to be verifiable. Without that, it does not belong on the article. Please read WP:VNT. Thank you. - SudoGhost 14:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Tom Bombadil

A report has been made to WP:AN3 about edit warring on Tom Bombadil. Please feel free to add your input into the discussion GimliDotNet (talk) 08:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I saw your comment on the IP's talk page, and have just commented on the AN3 discussion. However, thank you for informing me. - SudoGhost 08:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Separate pages on Chán and Zen

Hi SudoGhost. I would like to start a separate page on Zen. See Talk:Zen#Proposal: separate pages for Chán and Zen. Could you please give your opinion? Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow, your timing is eerie. I was just working on gathering references for the Fayan article. :) I'll certainly take a look at the talk page and comment. Thank you for the heads up. - SudoGhost 06:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Very tempting to take Dumoulin and start typing... succes! Joshua Jonathan (talk) 13:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:Biography articles without living parameter

Hi. This currently has ~777 in the backlog. You'd mentioned on the discussion page to let you know if it had accumulated a lot - I've been working on it some, but could certainly use the help! Thanks... Allens (talk) 18:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely, when I get time after work I'll see if I can take a crack at it, if not then this weekend I'll see what I can do to clear out that backlog. Thanks for letting me know. - SudoGhost 18:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Was able to knock out a couple dozen, but will try to do more here soon. - SudoGhost 09:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Bodhidharma

Enough! Joshua Jonathan (talk) 10:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what? - SudoGhost 20:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, too cryptical. But you've already noticed the repeated removal of information. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that. Looks like Ghostexorcist saw it as well. - SudoGhost 18:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

CdB

Hi, SudoGhost

here you can read a message for you at es.wikipedia. Regards. --Bernard (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I have responded there. Thank you. - SudoGhost 22:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Bodhidharma's birthplace

Getting tired of it already? Could you please ad Bodhidharma/Birthplace sources to your watchlist? Here's the reason: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bodhidharma's birthplace. See also the history of that page. Thanks, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: User:MajinPerfect

Re your message: I deleted the article again, salted it, and blocked the second account. Thanks!-- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Ta!

Sudoghost, thanks for providing clarity/ W:3 I am hoping that ProvisionalMPEP and I can resolve our differences amicably! 20040302 (talk) 01:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC) ..doh, there really is only one Thigle. Excellent sleuthing, again!. BTW, I read your (thorough) sock-puppet investigation report, and just on a note, Madhyamaka is (certainly by it's adherents) indeed non-nihilistic, but as you allude to, Thigle has some really strange ideas about what that means.

A signature of Thigle is an idea that Madhyamaka centrally points out dichotomising concepts as being the cause of Samsara, which appears to me to be a non-buddhist idea. That and his 'bundle' stuff. Why didn't I see it? (20040302 (talk) 10:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC))

Well there's certainly nothing wrong with WP:AGF in that situation, and I'm sorry that I basically let you deal with that talk page on your own. I was watching it closely, but until I was sure about whether or not it was User:Thigle, I didn't want to "tip him off" that I was assessing the situation, and if it wasn't Thigle, I didn't want to WP:ABF and potentially scare off a new contributor by (even subconsciously) dealing with them as if they were Thigle.

As for the non-nihilistic nature of Madhyamaka, I'm certainly not an expert on that subject by any means, I just saw (what I saw as) yet another overly specific similarity in the two accounts. I didn't mean to suggest that Madhyamaka is either nihilistic or non-nihilistic, just that Thigle has a very specific way of insisting upon this.

Thanks for being patient with him and dealing with that as you did on the talk page, it certainly didn't go unnoticed. - SudoGhost 11:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

:-D 20040302 (talk)

Re: Talk:Germanic Neopaganism comments

Oh, I misunderstood you were supporting my comment... but either way, I am unsure it is appropriate to comment inside surveys, and I have no policy or reference based reasons. It has been years since I talked to an Asatru priest, and I do not recall if we discussed the topic, and I do not recall discussing it with others until now. I could probably find some reference sources, though I do not know what a policy source is (the policy of some pagan group?) I could likely find some; if you want me to, message me on another Wikimedia sites, which will email me.--Dchmelik (talk) 06:39, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

For setting me straight at the "Your test worked" discussion. I owe you one :) Bulldog73 talk da contribs go rando 07:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Steve Jobs

Hi SudoGhost,

thank you for your message. Did you cancel my entry (Steve Jobs) from the list of "Buddhist practitioners notable in other fields" because I didn't sign my name on the edit page and didn't fill in the edit summary field or because you thought it was wrong to add him?

Sorry to annoy you, but I am new to Wikipedia (at least on the contributing side).

Thanks for your help! - Cobra Venom (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey, welcome to Wikipedia. :) The reason I reverted the edit is because the reliable sources on theSteve Jobs article say that he was influenced by Buddhism, but does not go so far as to say that he himself was a Buddhist. Because of that distinction, it isn't really appropriate to add him as a "Buddhist practitioner" without a reliable source saying he is, as per the editing guideline at List of Buddhists (the WP:BLPCAT policy requires that the person identify themselves as belonging to this religious category, which applies to the recently deceased). - SudoGhost 21:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. I haven't yet read his official biography (by Walter Isaacson), but I know his wedding ceremony was officiated by Kobun Chino Otogawa, a Zen Buddhist monk and on his page is written "Religion: Buddhist". I will add him on the list if I'll have a reliable source (official biography, that is) to prove he really was a Buddhist. - Cobra Venom (talk) 21:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)