User talk:Steven Walling/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Plagiarism

I have a question about plagiarism. I wrote part of this article (from the Shetland Sheepdog page): "Shelties' ears should bend slightly or "tip" at the top to be shown in American Kennel Club (AKC) shows because they contribute to the proper Sheltie expression. The proper ear is to have the top 1/3 to 1/4 of the ear tipped. If a dog's ears are not bent (referred to as prick ears) it is acceptable to help the ears along to the desired position by bracing them into the correct position and leaving them on for several weeks to several months. Wideset ears can also be a problem, often breaking too low down (referred to as 'hound' ears). These are often harder to correct than prick ears, and must be braced early and consistently throughout the first year. It is easiest to train a dog's ears when the dog is a puppy. Beginning at 6 to 8 weeks, the puppy's ears may be taped. Many popular household items used to "fix" ears are things such as moleskin (used on the inside of the ears to incite the ears to stand up and have the tips fold in the proper position), masking tape, fabric glue (used to glue the tips of the ears to the moleskin, or used to create a hair bridge to bring the ears together), and string (also used to make a bridge). There are many other items an owner can buy that are promoted to fix the earset of a puppy. Once that cartilege in the ears is hard (usually by the time the puppy is 6 months old), it's impossible to fix the earset with veterinary procedures.

There are also veterinary procedures to "fix" improper earsets, although no reputable breeder will go to those extremes."

On this website http://www.sherwoodshelties.ca/ , there is this part of the home site: "Shelties' ears are required to bend slightly or "tip" at the top to be qualified to show in Canadian Kennel Club (CKC) www.ckc.ca/en shows. The proper earset is to have the top 1/3 of the ear tipped. If a dog's ears are not bent (referred to as prick ears) it is acceptable to help the ears along to the desired position by bracing them into the correct position and leaving them on for several weeks. Wideset ears can also be a problem, often breaking too low down (referred to as 'hound' ears). These are often harder to correct than prick ears, and must be braced early and consistently throughout the first year. It is easiest to train a dog's ears when the dog is a puppy. Beginning at 6 to 8 weeks, the puppy's ears may be taped and glued to help induce a proper earset. There are also veterinary procedures to "fix" improper earsets, although any reputable breeder will not go to those extremes."

I wrote most of that article-altered it from the beginning to the end (case in point: the last sentence about the veterinary prodecures-they are almost identical. Case in point: all of the words in the parenthesis and quotation marks-I wrote those, in both articles. All the Sherwood Shelties did was to modify it a bit by deleting some words and sentences.

What can be done about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Narmowen (talk • contribs) 23:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

(Edited to add this:) I've compared most of the information on their home page, and it's from Wikipedia, without being acknowledged-they plagiarized so much information. Including all of the following:

Sizing The size of a sheltie (at the withers) can range from being undersize (under 13 inches) to being oversize (over 16 inches.) The average height of a sheltie is 14-15 inches.

There have been reports of a brindle Sheltie but many Sheltie enthusiasts agree that a cross sometime in the ancestry of that specific Sheltie could have produced a brindle coat.

Grooming Shelties have a double coat. The topcoat consists of long, straight, water-repellent hair, which provides some protection from cold and the elements. The undercoat is short, furry, and very dense in order to help keep the dog warm. The Sheltie is usually a clean dog and should only need to be brushed once or twice a week (it is helpful to spray-mist with water when brushing). Mats can be commonly found behind the ears, under the elbow on each front leg, and in the fluffy fur on the hind legs (the "skirts"). Although its coat might appear to be a time-consuming task, a once-weekly, but thorough, brushing is all that is needed, though more frequent groomings will contribute to a beautiful and tidy coat. Shelties 'blow' coat usually twice a year, often at spring and fall, and should be groomed more often at those times. A good brushing with an undercoat rake, which removes the dead and loose hair from its coat daily should reduce the amount of hair that is shed. It is easiest to teach a dog to tolerate, or even enjoy, grooming if they are shown that it is a pleasurable thing from a young age. Breeders usually teach the dogs to lie on their side, be brushed, and then flip over to the other side. Toenails and hair between the pads need to be trimmed every couple of weeks. Show dogs may require more frequent brushing to keep their coats in top condition. Regular brushing encourages undercoat growth, distributes healthful oils produced by the skin, and prevents sores known as "hotspots" which can occur when dead undercoat is allowed to accumulate close to the skin. Most Shelties learn to love the attention that grooming provides, if the routine is started when the dog is still young.

Narmowen 23:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing. If you read the basic intro to Wikipedia - and look just below the edit window on the right - you'll notice that all contributions you make to Wikipedia are not copyrighted to yourself, but they are licensed under the GFDL. This means that not only do you not own your own writing in articles, but anyone is allowed to freely use, alter and distribute Wikipedia content. That's a part of why we're "the free encyclopedia". VanTucky ^Talk 23:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I still think it's rude that they used all of the information and didn't even give a nod to Wikipedia. I'm not offended because I wrote that-I only noticed it because I wrote it. Thanks for the quick answer, VanTucky. Narmowen 23:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: NPOV tag on Jimmy Wales

Just thought I'd show you when and why the tag was placed, it was placed on Aug 29, by SqueakBox, with direction to the discussion at NPOV, and NPOV again, both threads started by Jimbo himself, so I'd guess it was his concerns that prompted the tag's placement. I don't know if the issues in the talk page were resolved, but I thought I'd just let you know when it was placed there. (I just happen to remember because I was doing RC patrol when it was placed, lol) You're probably more familiar with the issues than I am, but I thought I'd try to help, if possible. Perhaps you already knew all this, in which case, feel free to ignore me! . ^Ariel♥Gold 08:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Dahn yoga

I wonder if you wouldn't mind having a look at the above article for me. A new user has been removing sourced content about a controversy surrounding the group and adding a lot of apparently unsourced (but new) info. I have reverted twice, wholesale, but I'd like a 3rd opinion on whether any of the new user's contrbutions should be kept. This group also claims to teach "internal martial arts" for health, but seem to be a green card factory from Korea to the United States (IMHO). Thanks! --Fire Star 火星 14:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I've been away for a few days, there has been a lot of extra work with my new fall schedule. Thanks for your notes. I will muck in as soon as I have some time, Sunday at the latest. --Fire Star 火星 03:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Curious Name

Ha, i came to your user page fascinated by your name, because i thought it reflected me, and wondered if there was a similarity between us. Alas, no. I spent much of my childhood in Vancouver (the big one), and moved to KY when i got married, hence i, too, could be Vantucky; it's interesting to hear your explanation, though ~ i've never run across the phrase before. Cheers, Lindsay 18:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for your support and kind words at my recent successful RfA. I'm sure we'll continue running into each other at RFCN. Let me know if I can help you out with anything. Cheers! -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 04:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Please explain change

Van Tucky, please explain your immediate reversal of my addition to the Dahn Yoga article. The quote cited in the article is clearly from an article by a single author, not a group of former members. My change was meant to rectify that misrepresentation of the quote. Rhetorician magician 04:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Mobutu Sese Seko

I find these challenges using the {{fact}} template, to be disingenuous, to put it charitably. Each of those paragraphs had a citation and picking sentences out from the paragraph and demanding that the citation from the end of the paragraph be repeated for each of those sentences is the sort of mindless sourcing cruft I detest on Wikipedia. If you have a problem with Michela Wrong's work, then state it on the article talk page. Precisely one of your tags has not been removed, the one from a sentence I added after reading about eight difference sources so I couldn't tell you which it came from, but it's such an obvious statement I rather doubt anyone who has the slightest familiarity with the subject would contest it as a contributing influence, though one could obviously make a list of further reasons for U.S. involvement. - BanyanTree 04:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Therapies for multiple sclerosis

Thanks for the proposal. I´ll investigate; however I don´t remember any peer-review paper on the subject. Nevertheles if you know any you can add a brief paragraph to the alternative treatments section. It will be welcome. You can also help reviewing the whole article since it has been nominated for good article and nobody reviews it due to its specificity. --Garrondo 07:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: RFA

Ok, so let me try to clarify.

1. Strong Oppose — Any strong oppose should be thoroughly backed up by diffs, not just some half-informed assumptions.
2. In his opening comments, the candidate shows a very poor attitude that is undesirable in a position that requires one to be an exemplar in the community. — In my and others' opinions, he has a really great attitude. Maybe you and the other more or less regular opposers are just not ready to appreciate it.
3. Being bitter and negative about the RFA process, rather than taking criticism constructively and having the humility to admit that failed attempts may have actually been due to the candidates attributes (rather than the failings of the process) is not desirable. — Not every criticism is equally constructive. Besides, the main reason people opposed his 2nd RfA was because of his refusal to answer the optional questions, which he did now. Did you bother to look through the other RfA at all? Your comment reads a bit like you didn't investigate.
4. Your edit history is completely irrelevant if you can't demonstrate a positive, constructive attitude to adminship. — That has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with what RfA is about. RfA is about trust. Now it's of course easy for you to just say that because of his "bad attitude" et cetera you can't trust him. But then I call bullshit unless you present some diffs.

I'm sorry, there's really not much left to add to that. Unfortunately, there are some folks who oppose far too often, maybe because they know that because of the required 70+ per cent support ratio for a success, any oppose weighs more than a support and it somehow makes their opinion more important or so. At any rate, you might want to reconsider your general way of participating at RfA. So should I, probably, but I haven't given up the inconvenient hope that people can learn.

As far as I can see, there's no reason not to grant EM the tools. Going neutral I could understand because he is the kind of guy who simply wouldn't give the community shit by inflating his edit count or by clever political manoeuvring, and some people simply can't look past superficial things like that, mainly because they are superficial themselves. Opposing EM makes me wonder how superficial people can be, but it's still their own business. However, strongly opposing without providing any diffs of serious misconduct, or any kind of really bad long-term pattern in the candidate's contribs — that just gives me a mild headache. — [ aldebaer⁠] 06:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I will ignore your philosophizing about RFA, except to say that little hints about being superficial border on personal attacks, and that arrogant admonishments to "reconsider my approach to RFA" do not help to make me change my mind. If you really think this is such a great candidate, you might try to convince me of that, rather than flying off the handle with a rant about us bad oppose folks. My oppose is based on the candidate's comments. When they start off their third attempt by whining about the RFA process rather than pointing out how they've seriously improved, then it shows a lack of maturity and the proper attitude to adminship. Someone who can't acknowledge that failing multiple previous RFAs actually might have something to do with their previous inadequacy as a candidate (i.e. show a little humility) is not someone who I trust with the tools. Playing the game of criticizing the process, rather than simply demonstrating the improvements that make you a candidate I should trust, is not something I am going to support. VanTucky ^Talk 18:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry that you didn't like the enquired explanation. — [ aldebaer⁠] 22:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Click there to open your card! → → →

Dearest VanTucky,
Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 96 supports, 1 oppose, and 3 neutrals. No matter if you !voted support, oppose, neutral, I thank you for taking the time to drop by. I'm a new admin remember, so if you have any suggestions feel free to inform me of them. I would like to give a special shout out to Hirohisat, Wizardman, and Husond, for there original co-nominations. Thank you once again and good day.

Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor

Credits

This RFA thanks was inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks. So unfortunatly this is not entirely my own design.

Signpost updated for September 17th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 38	17 September 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Reader survey
Wikimedia treasurer expected to depart soon	WikiWorld comic: "Sarah Vowell"
News and notes: Template standardization, editing patterns, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 03:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandal Problem

Hey VanTucky!

Got a wee vandal problem. It's coming from IP: 64.90.250.32. It appears to be a school library computer in Orange County, NY -- very easy to trace. But, that aside, almost every edit by this IP is blatant vandalism, and there are dozens upon dozens of instances recorded in the IP's history. Thankfully, each time, s/he gets reverted very quickly; so I didn't have to go through each and every one. Strangely, it seems like it's one person (maybe two) making the same types of jokes and doing them repeadetly. Is there any way to nix his/her editing power here? If you check it out yourself, you'll see that this goes way beyond warnings -- it's totally flagrant. I've never dealt with something like this before so I'm clueless! Many thanks. Cheers! ask123 20:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! I didn't realize that random IPs were afforded user pages. But now I can see (via the user page) that this IP's vandalism has been dealt with. Thanks again! ask123 21:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Barneca RfA spam

Thank you for participating in my RfA. I appreciate your taking the time to comment, and plan on learning from the experience and keeping the criticism in mind. If, in the future, you see me doing something that still concerns you, please let me know about it. --barneca (talk) 13:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The now-traditional RFA thank-spam

Click there to open your card! → → →

Dear Steven Walling,

Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 83 supports, 1 oppose, and 0 neutrals. No matter if you voted (I mean, "!voted") support or oppose, I thank you for taking the time to drop by. I'm new, remember, so if you have any suggestions feel free to inform me of them, and if I do anything wrong, feel free to add to the permanent chorus of disapproval on my talk page. Special thanks to Walton^One and Dihydrogen Monoxide for nominating me.

iridescent (talk to me!) 20:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Credits

This design was brazenly stolen from inspired by Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor's RFA Thanks, which in turn was inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks.

Typo fix

Wow, thank you for fixing that typo. How could I have not noticed that earlier? Haha, thank you again very much! =)  hmwith  talk 22:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You're most welcome. VanTucky ^Talk 22:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

RFA Thanks!

Thanks for your participation for my RFA bid and for your support.--JForget 23:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Boerboel

Hi VanTucky and thanks for your note. That is indeed unfortunate. I am just heading to the hospital for a case but will try to intervene on the talk page as soon as I get back. -- Samir 01:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

An RfC is a very good idea. I'm happy to go through things paragraph by paragraph on the talk page. What I've done with other articles of contention is to go through the article paragraph-by-paragraph with everyone over a couple of weeks on the talk page and reach consensus on each issue of contention. I think it would work on Boerboel provided Frikkers is willing to participate in good faith. Let me know -- Samir

I know, give me a second -- Samir 04:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Basset Hound Rescues in USA

Hi VanTucky: I was wondering why the link that I submitted to you was deleted recently.

[[1]]

I keep a current list of all basset hound rescues in the USA. I am assuming it is because I sell books on my website, but there are other commercial links in the basset hound Wikipedia listing.

Thanks for your help VanTucky! Cathy Rudert, from Kentucky! (Bassethoundtown 22:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bassethoundtown (talk • contribs) 21:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

RfA - Amire80 (Amir E. Aharoni)

Thanks for expressing your opinion on my RFA (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Amire80).

I replied to your concerns.

Its closing time is near, so I would be glad if you could review my reply and possibly change your recommendation.

If you have any more concerns, please let me know.

Thanks in advance. --Amir E. Aharoni 13:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Your contribution to anal sex

I noticed the picture at the top of the article and of course removed it. Since the practice is democratically spread across populations with different orientations, the homosexualization of the article is gratuitously provocative and possibly worse. Haiduc 23:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi,

I have been given the sysop tools.

Even though you didn't positively support my self-nomination, I thank you for raising valid concerns. I learn from everything. --Amir E. Aharoni 23:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for helping a newbie!

Hi VanTucky, I just wanted to say thank you for helping someone very green to Wikipedia. I made some huge mistakes. You tolerated me for months and I appreciate it. (Chaps333 00:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC))

RE:Your GA nomination of Roman trade with India

Thanks for taking the time for writing a helpful GA review. The points reflecting the concerns clearly point out what needs to be done in order to improve the quality of the article. My response in form of editing the article to address those concerns would have been swift but I have been down with Influenza recently and have been slow at recovering. Will edit to address the concerns in a couple of days and hope to ask for your opinion if you can still spare the time.
With Regards,
Havelok 11:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Edokter RfA

Dear VanTucky, Thank you for your participation in my Request for Adminship, which ended succesfully with 26 supports, 3 opposes and 1 neutral. A special thanks goes to Rlevse for nominating me. I appreciate all the support and constructive criticism offered in my RfA. Please do not hesitate to point out any errors I will make (unintentionally of course), so I won't make them again. Please contact me if you need anything done, that's what I'm here for! — Edokter • Talk • 12:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

		My RFA
		Thanks for your support in my request for adminship, which ended with 58 supports, 1 opposes, and 1 neutral. I hope your confidence in me proves to be justified. Addhoc 19:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Boerboel redux

Hi VanTucky, yes, I suppose you are correct. I consider what we are working on at Talk:Boerboel as very much a consensus version. Should Frikkers revert against what we are doing, he will have to answer why his edits are improving the article against consensus, and should he fail to do so, he can be reverted on sight. We all realize that your contributions to Boerboel have always been in the best interest, and you are to be applauded for your efforts to the article. Unfortunately, you've hit upon one of the least block-happy admins, but, should Frikkers resort to personal attacks against you when he returns (such as calling you a vandal) despite already being warned, I will view it as a very serious offense -- Samir 00:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Bollingersuks

Well, between us we delivered a mixed message to Bollingersuks (talk · contribs), but maybe it's the right combination for balance. Thanks for fixing that in WP:ORE. —EncMstr 00:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Considering that the talk addition is their only contrib, I don't think a fourth-level warning is appropriate. VanTucky ^Talk 00:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That thought crossed my mind. But considering how hard Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oregon is to navigate to, it seemed unlikely they are actually a novice. If I'm wrong, I owe them an apology. —EncMstr 01:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Cillian Murphy FAC issues now addressed

Since you have opposed the FAC for Cillian Murphy, I respectfully request that you return to the FAC page as soon as you can to read my comments regarding both changes I've made because of your comments but also how your observations were partially inaccurate. It seems like you may have only read the lead section of the article and assumed that the rest of the article was done the same way, since it's hard to call an article with nearly 100 inline-citations egregiously lacking in verifiability. There is a reason there were few citations in the lead, and it has to do with a disputed section of WP:LEAD. I have now swung the article's citation style to the other side of the dispute because of your objections. Please see the FAC page for a more full explanation of all the issues. Thank you. --Melty girl 07:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you know

On 25 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Baduanjin qigong , which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3 ^talk 18:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Fila Brasileiro Message Board

the fila brasileiro message board is not a board for advertising. it is for discussing fila. if you are going to continue deleting my link then delete the other message / forum boards also.

http://members.boardhost.com/filabrasileiro/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinfila (talk • contribs) 00:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

There are no other message board links, and all such links are prohibited by WP:EL. VanTucky ^Talk 00:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Crocs Blog

Thanks VanTucky, that's what I needed to hear. I have twice seen my edit deleted by an anonymous user without explanation and was beginning to get quite annoyed. I was not aware that blog links were not appropriate but now that I do I will cease and desist. User:Bnewsom ^(Talk) 08:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome template

At first I was put back by your question. Why wouldn't you welcome everyone? But, then I thought, perhaps you do not always assume good faith - that perhaps the user in question can be brought out of the depths of spamming and be an editor. Well, to me, there is always hope. So, to answer your question, that's why I placed the welcome template on the user's talk page. Oh, BTW, I also reformatted the talk page per WP:UW Lastly, I am ingoring your last statement per your instructions. Thank you for stopping by. Happy editing! --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 20:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your last comment as turse it may be. But, I respectfully disagree with your assesment. Thank you for stopping by. --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 22:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

for the welcome note and for correcting my emphasis style. For what it's worth, I inherited it from the previous editor, questioned it, and decided to let it me. I know now.

PhGustaf 21:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Murray cod

Thanks for your help on the Murray cod page, it is appreciated. Nick Thorne ^talk 22:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input on the page. I believe I have addressed your concerns, let me know if you think I need to do some wmore work on it. Nick Thorne ^talk 01:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi VanTucky, thank you for prompting me to proceed down the GA path for the Murray cod page. I must admit I did not realise just how much I was getting myself into, but I believe that the result has been well worth it, and the page has now been assessed as GA which is very satisfying. So give yourself a big pat on the back for giving me the idea, I have learnt a great deal through the process! Nick Thorne ^talk 11:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you kindly

Thanks very much for the 'star. I'm glad to know the template will be helpful. Cheers! – Scartol · Talk 01:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 24th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 3, Issue 39	24 September 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Survey results
Wikimedia announces plans to move office to San Francisco	WikiWorld comic: "Ambigram"
News and notes: Times archives, conferences, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 02:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Roman trade with India

I have tried to address the concerns expressed in the GA-review of Roman trade with India and have renominated the article after extensive editing. Kindly take a look here for details. With regards,
Havelok 12:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: F&A

What did you have in mind for adding the DYK to the F&A page? Personally, It really doesn't belong because it focuses mostly on Featured items, new admins and bots. The Placebo Effect 18:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Comfort retriever

Someone created a stub for Comfort retriever. I wikified it some but I need someone knowledgable about dog articles to take a look at it. Since you are, among other things, a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs could you take a look at it and tell me if it is in the approved format? Thank you. RJFJR 15:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Anal sex

I was trying to look at the images when you reverted me. Please give me a little while when in a major edit. I guess I'm not very good with images without seeing them on the screen.

I had refrained from making reversions to the text for several days because of the discussion on the talk page that you can see. The way, the truth, and the light 18:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget you can use the preview button to see how images appear, SqueakBox 18:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Dale Smith (Playwright)

Did you have anything particular in mind when you decided to add the warning about conflict of interest to my talk? I've never made any secret about who I am, and I don't think I've been particularly self-agrandising: I'm just not a big enough celebrity that somebody else would write the page about me! Sheriff Bernard 07:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Fairy nuff - I've read your reasons for the GA rejection and can't really argue - like I say though, nobody else is particularly interested in editing the page because I'm no Stephen King: I'm a bit lost over how to fix the article now if wiki doesn't like me editing it myself. Cheers for giving the article an independent look over, though: just to check - should the redlinks be kept even if they're trying to link to articles that probably won't be written? I doubt anybody but me would write about The Fire Dragon :) Sheriff Bernard 07:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Just a short note to say thanks for your help and support on the Solar power page. Much appreciated! Johnfos 23:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

You're most welcome. VanTucky ^Talk 23:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. Very much appreciated! Mrshaba 02:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Atheistic beliefs!?

So you undid my change on article about Atheism. I changed:

Although people who self-identify as atheists are usually assumed to be irreligious, some sects within major religions have atheistic beliefs, and even reject the existence of a personal, creator deity.

to

Although people who self-identify as atheists are usually assumed to be irreligious, some sects within major religions don't have theistic beliefs, and even reject the existence of a personal, creator deity.

My change was not vandalism and was justified, so I wonder why you did that. Could you explain why you undid my change? And could you list atheistic beliefs? Because I'm an atheist and I can't think a single one of them - except maybe that there is no god, but that is only one belief (and not beliefs as stated in article) and that doesn't apply to atheism in general, but applies only to strong atheism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.198.138.114 (talk) 23:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Ad hominem attack?

"An ad hominem attack on Useight": I'm sorry to hear of this. The context rather suggests that I was the perp. I've reread the comment of mine in which I mentioned Useight, and can't see any attack, ad hominem or other -- but perhaps my stylistic cilia are a bit numb today. Please tell me where the problem lies. Thanks! -- Hoary 02:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Call it whatever you want, but criticizing Useight isn't a method that's going to convince me that a candidate merits my support. VanTucky ^Talk 03:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see -- though I thought I'd criticized Useight's argument rather than Useight. -- Hoary 03:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Edits

Van, Every organization listed under your references in "Labradoodle" is in the business of selling memberships. Why is it we cannot add useful links to our business? Also,under Types of Labradoodle,we added useful content describing the origin of the F1b Labradoodle which we developed and it was deleted.We can prove our statements with pedigrees showing we did in fact develop the F1b strain of Labradoodle. It would seem that Wiki,either knowingly or not descriminates in some cases as to what content will be displayed. I have edited the "type" catagory again in the hopes we will not be discriminated against. Sincerely, Paul L. Buccilli St. Clair Labradoodle Kennels —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bootss1 (talk • contribs) 12:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Links to St. Clair kennels are spam, period. Per WP:EL they cannot be included, and including them as "references" is inappropriate considering you have no editorial review or reliable fact checking. I cannot speak for all of the present refs, but I will check them out and remove any inappropriate ones. The presence of other inadmissible links is not leeway for more. Wikipedia is not a free web host or advertising service, it is a reference work. If you truly are the first to breed F1b labradoodles, then this must be verified by reliable and independent sources to be included. Verification, not truth, is the sole threshold for inclusion of content. VanTucky ^Talk 16:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Policy violating article / conensus not respected

Hey Vantucky!

I've got a small problem I was hoping you could help with. There is an article I've come across, Hindukush Kafir people that violates a million and one policies (NPOV, Reliable Sources, Weasel Words, Discriminatory Content). It also uses an outdate source (from over 100 years ago) that use obsolete scientific theories that are, frankly, scientific racism from the ye-old days of imperialism. Some people on the talk page have even said that the content is copied from it's source. Funny thing, is the source is so old it's in the public domain! (The source is Sir George Scott Robertson's Book titled "The Kafirs of Hindukush" from 1895.) I'm not invested in the article but was thoroughly disgusted by it and had to do something. The talk page for the article has many people arguing with one lone user, Sze_cavalry01, over certain, particurly bad sections. However, Sze_cavalry01 refuses to accept the consensus. Here is a link to the version of the article that Sze_cavalry01 keeps reverting to: Sze_cavalry01's Version. Also, here is a link to the most flagrant section in that old version: Sze_cavalry01's Kafir Characteristics Section (brace yourself, I warn!). The discrimination in this section is so strong it's hard to believe that Sze_cavalry01 doesn't see it. In any event, I don't know how to proceed from here or who to go to. The arguing has gone on long enough. It's in one ear and out the other with this guy/gal... Many thanks for your help. Cheers, ask123 16:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

In consideration of the blatantly racist POV this carries, I would suggest taking this to AIV. An admin would definitely be more able to mediate things. Making a full protection request at WP:RFPP might be a good idea until the conflict is over as well. I'll stop by though, and thanks for bringing this to my attention! VanTucky ^Talk 20:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! Will definitely contact AIV and also request full protection. I tried to explain to Sze_cavalry01 that there was no way he could possibly defend his position, given the policies/guidelines of Wikipedia and the flagrantly discriminatory content. But he was really passionate in his stance, although he didn't really make any empirical arguments in his favor. Crazy, crazy, crazy. I'll let you know what happens. Thanks again! Cheers, ask123 03:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I've left two notices on the Administrators noticeboard/Indicents page but, unfortunately, haven't gotten any responses. Meanwhile, Sze_cavalry01 has gotten more aggressive. Is there any better way to get administrator attention? Post on their talk pages perhaps? Thanks. Cheers, ₪ask123 {t} 17:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a new administrator!

Thanks, Archive 8! Thank you for voicing your opinion in my RfA, which passed today with a unanimous 79/0/0 tally. It feels great to be appreciated, and I will try my best to meet everyone's expectations. If you have any advice or tips, feel free to pass them along, as I am sure that I will need them! Cheers, hmwith talk 21:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:GAR

I have noticed that you are a frequent reviewer at that Good Articles project. good article reassessment is experiencing a considerable backlog problem. There are several articles dating from August that still have not generated enough discussion to close. Could you please take a look at the oldest article and make some fresh comments on them? Please note that some of these have undergone signigicant changes since they first came to GA/R; please judge the article only on its merits as of its current version. If you reviewed an earlier version of any of these articles, please also consider re-reading them and either revise or endorse any earluer comments you have made. Thanks for your help with this! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

RE:Roman trade with India

Thank you,
I'll keep trying to improve the article and your message encourages me to work more dilligently on it.
With Regards,
Havelok 21:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I just saw that the article made it ! I thought that was a remark of encouragement on my userpage and did not know about the review !
Even after the review I'll keep trying my level best to improve the article further. I keep trying on Incense Route even after it passed GA and would rather like to write 5 or 6 good articles for WP readers then to just push POV across a dozen articles.
With Regards,
Havelok 21:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Pug

I reverted your edits to The Chatopug.JPG Image.. I feel an old aged pug has nothing to do the text Appearance section of the article. A front facing young fawn pug however, can show the distinct features on a Pug's face as described by the text in a more in depth manner...Josewiki 21:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Josewiki

Um, in case you didn't notice, there are already facial portraits of fawn pugs. VanTucky ^Talk 21:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Takedown of Folsom Last Supper ad

Just a question about the takedown of the Folsom Last Supper ad, is this picture not current news? Various news organizations have posted the picture. Would this not constitue a fair use?Billyca 01:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You have to add a fair use rationale for it to be fair use. Without one it's copyright violation. VanTucky ^Talk 01:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Man, this is too complcated.Billyca 01:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I know things can be tough at the beginning, but the rules about fair use images are strict for a good reason: so we don't get sued. Try reading: WP:NFC to get an idea of how to upload with a proper rationale. VanTucky ^Talk 01:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 03, 2007

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 3, Issue 40	1 October 2007	About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "Buttered cat paradox"	News and notes: Commons uploaders, Wikimania 2008/2009, milestones
Wikimedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Automatically delivered by COBot 03:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Electronic voice phenomena

This article still has a somewhat stale {{GAReview}} template on it. Has there been any conclusion regarding the controversial reviewer status? From what I can tell content wise, the biggest problems with the article appear to be references (cleanup tag on the references section) and possibly some WP:OR. Some of the stuff on popular culture information at the end also looks a bit like a trivia section as well, so that could be a minor issue (although some of it is cited, so it's not a major issue). I can't see any major issues with edit-warring, though I wonder if we should consider the "review-warring' as going against the stability criterion of WP:WIAGA and just fail this for the time being? Dr. Cash 17:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The debate seems to be not be on-going, at least on the GAN talk. But I would agree that an experienced reviewer, if you don't want to I will, should close the nomination forthwith until the article is stable. A cleanup tag is technically a quick-fail criteria anyway. So if we pose it as a simple quick-fail per that, and keep the debate over the review as a side issue, then I think it would be fair. The article has a devoted following of editors, so it will easily be re-nominated once this has been worked out, and then a proper, uncontroversial review can take place. VanTucky ^Talk 19:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

GAC expedited evaluation

I have had 30 successful WP:GAC evaluations, but do not recall if you have done any. I have never requested an expedited review. Do you have any advice on my request for an expedited GAC review?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Bassenthwaite lake link removal

Hello VanTucky, Could you please inform me the reason that the Bassenthwaite picture link was removed? Is it because of the Google Ads? No offence or "Spamming" was intended, just a useful link to some nice photos. Regards, David AKA Dscottag —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dscottag (talk • contribs) 22:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Please remember to sign all your talk posts with four tildes like this: ~~~~

The link is defined as link spam by Wikipedia's standards because it contains more commerical content than information (that the article does not provide). Secondarily, Wikimedia Commons usually serves as a sufficient gallery, and external picture gallery links do not provide encyclopedic content for the reader. VanTucky ^Talk 22:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)