User talk:Jaysweet/archive 2

Here's Verification

Here ya go: http://buffalo.bizjournals.com/louisville/stories/2006/11/13/focus1.html God Bless, Jonathon —Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathonPCooper (talk • contribs) 23:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ready to be adopted

Iam going to put Screamo back up there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skateremorocker (talk • contribs) 21:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calbanisian

Considering that AFD was a year and a half ago, there's really no point in re-opening it; it would be better to start a new one. >Radiant< 15:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln!

Yes it was an obvious CSD, but vandals kept deleting the CSD and PROD tags, so I had no choice other than make an AfD discussion to draw more attention to it. JIP | Talk 18:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doreen Bird

It may be, I don't know; we've had the article for a number of years. I think the best route would be WP:AFD for this one. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doreen Bird Article

I noticed that you commented on my work on the article related to Doreen Bird to the administrator that basically removed 90% of what I had done. They have also commented to me about requiring citations etc, which I understood you might give me some assistance on.

Whilst the article did indeed already exist, it was in many ways INACCURATE and not offering a detailed enough account in my personal opinion, despite an early minor edit I had made.

As a former student and close personal friend of Doreen Bird, I am in the unique position of actually being able to provide detailed and ACCURATE information about her life and work regardless of citations. Unfortuntaly there are few reference points for actual personal knowledge and as an internationally reknown figure in the dance world, I found it astounding to find that all the extra information I provided on Doreen Bird has been removed. Can you support me on this please as I find it disgusting, especially considering the amount of effort I had put in.

I'm not stupid, but to remove it in that way was vicious and I was looking forward to asking your advice to help me make it more wikipedia friendly. Please request to the administrator to re-instate my article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazy-dancing (talk • contribs)

Doreen Bird

I notice you have put a comment in about notability.

I don't quite understand what this term refers to, but can only assume it is regarding the relevance of the article.

Doreen Bird is particularly worthy of note on Wikipedia, due to the fact that she has a long and distinguished career as a dance teacher and later as a college principal. Within the professional dance and theatre community, she is an internationally recognised figure, particularly with reference to the fact that some of the worlds most famous singers dancers and actors in the West End, TV, Pop Music and Broadway trained with her and at the college.

She is also particularly notable for her close ties with many other notable dancers and tutors of her time as well as dance companies and theatre shows including the Royal Ballet, English National Ballet, choreographers, directors and producers (eg. Gillian Lynne, Susan Stroman etc, who themselves already have detailed articles on Wikipedia). I do not understand why Doreen Bird should be treated any differently from her peers, especially considering that she has now passed away.

It angers me greatly that my contribution to the article was earlier removed in place of one which is not accurate and believe that in attempting to create a historically truthful encyclopedia, that I should be given some more help in getting things right.

If anyone is willing to take the information I have and make it work for the site then great, but please don't disregard what I have to say. I'm not being funny about it, I'm just stating my case for the benefit of accurate knowledge and will make every effort to ensure that the Doreen Bird page is worked on.

As you may already notice, I have moved a great deal of the colege related text elsewhere and will adjust to the Doreen Bird page to relate directly to the woman herself and include links to other reference points on Wikipedia, but this wil take me time, but I am willing to put in the time and effort if given the opporunity, without being snubbed.

Hope you can help, it wowuld be very much appreciated. Crazy-dancing 13:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doreen Bird (Again)

Thanks for your comments. I am trying to take as much of the advice in as possible, but am still struggling to understand how to actually reference a source on the article. Despite the fact that most of my knowledge is my own, I know lots of places where some if not all of the information can be verified, so your help in knowing how to do this correctly would be much appreciated.

For example, I did add a link to a Uni of Greenwich press-release at one point (now in the discussion), which can verify some of the information, but how do I actually add that as a source into the text of the article its-self, without making the article all segmented and badly flowing?

You will probably notice, I have made a few edits to my excessively flowery language, but it's ongoing and I will do my best with it, but again, I hope you will be kind enough to alter it more if you think I'm still being a bit biased. I will probably be offended, but I will get over it! Am going to have a bash at the page on ballet at some point, which in my opiniong does not have a lot of information about ballet as it is in the modern day, but unfortunately very few other subjects interest me.

If my article and associated information survives. I will certainly expand on them and impart (referenceable) knowledge about some of the subject matter that is not already on Wikipedia, but I have to confess I have always jumped in at the deep end, it's my nature.

Thanks, look forward to talking with you soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazy-dancing (talk • contribs)

Dolphin

The features section of this is not meant to advertise in any way. It was included to prevent the article from being deleted through lack of information —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prcjac (talk • contribs)

Further to your response I will try and find 3rd party sources regarding this script. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prcjac (talk • contribs)
I hope you don't mind my removal of the prod concern boxes. I have attempted to find information as outlined on the articles talk page, if (as you probably will) you still wish to mark it for deletion, go for it, unless of course you can find any relevant information for the article. Thanks Prcjac 18:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Estophobia vs Russophobia

Hi! You voted for deletion of the article Estophobia. Are not the same arguments applicable to Russophobia as well?--Mbuk 07:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Medusa and gorgons in popular culture

Hey, regarding the Medusa and gorgons in popular culture article, I just wanted you to know that the primary source Medusa: Solving the Mystery of the Gorgon is actually viewable online through Amazon.com's "Search within the book" feature. TAnthony 22:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your question

The positive "Keep" icon is the {{check mark}}. VanTucky ^(talk) 21:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Thanks for the CSD#R1 lesson!

No problem! Thankfully, R1 is one of the very few cut and dry criteria left. Cheers, Resolute 20:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chimp Chapman

My hope was that they would become bored with no one attempting to stop their hoax, but they kept adding continually more ridiculous content. I finally deleted it as vandalism because it became apparent that it was an attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. This was mostly because they never came to the discussion to seriously refute anything. I still feel that hoaxes should be treated equally until the intent of the creator is shown to be insufficient for assuming good faith. Happy editing. Leebo ^T/C 21:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your position. It's just that in my mind, the initial text of the article told me there was no good faith there.

Also, I have a pet peeve about folks removing {prod} tags from an article they created without making a legitimate attempt to address the concerns. I consider that vandalism in and of itself... --Jaysweet 22:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that this was one of the more blatant hoaxes I've seen, but there have been ones I thought were ridiculous nonsense that ended up being verifiable. It's a line that is tough to cross and I sometimes have to deal with people who choose to take advantage of my handling of it. I'm prepared for that when it happens though. Leebo ^T/C 22:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your positive comments about the Doreen Bird article. I can't take all the credit as I've had lots of help, particularly for douglastmajor, who has my eternal gratitude. Hope I can continue to improve the article and any suggestions you have will be much appreciated. Am now focussing on the related Bird College article, which I trying to do alone as much as possible. I think I'm doing well so far, but if you think I need a shove in the right direction or a bit of a tweak, please let me know. Am really pleased wiht progress that has been made, its great that everyone including yourself jumped into help once it was clear that I was struggling, but it has made all the difference and I think the result so far has been 'faaabulous'!!!! Thanking You Crazy-dancing 10:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Global Warming Games

How dare you remove my db-tes... just kidding :) Good call, and I appreciate the comment. I agree with your AfD assessment as well, I'll keep watching it. Cheers! - superβεεcat 21:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It must be winter SOMEWHERE - superβεεcat 21:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Estophilia

You queried whether Estophilia should be AfDed on User_talk:Digwuren#Estophilia recently. The Estophiles are a significant topic in Estonian history. I like to draw your attention to the following sources:

Online Encyclopedia reference: [1]
Book reference: [2]
Online Britannica quote: "Written literature began in the so-called Estophile period (c. 1750–1840) with moral tales and manuals written by Balto-German enthusiasts for the native language and culture." [3]
Another book reference: The History of Estonia, 2nd edition, by A. Maesalu, T. Lukas, T, Tannberg, et al [4] (ISBN 9985-2-0606-1) Quote from section beginning on page 167: Estophiles and the first Estonian intellectuals: "The growing interest in exotic and minority peoples in Europe launched the Estophile movement in Estonia. The Estophiles - Baltic Germans interested in Estonia - studied the Estonian language and culture, published fiction of considerable artistic level, newspapers, textbooks for schools, and founded various scientific societies....."

BTW, according to this book, the Estophile movement pre-dates and is distinct from the Estonian National Awakening which is detailed in a different section. Note too that the original stub [5] was subject to an AfD, due to the nominator's ignorance of Estonian History [6]. As you can see, this was eventually developed into a good article. Martintg 00:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Champ

LOL! [7], [8], very funny edit summaries! Good work on ferreting out the "Dirty Harriet" material! Dreadstar † 16:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HAY

HAY DONT DISS OCKENBOCK —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolcat007 (talk • contribs)

heh.. Im in ur Fark gittin ur jokez. --Jaysweet 18:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When using certain templates on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:uw-test1}} instead of {{uw-test1}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. Thank you. — Rlest (formerly Qst) 18:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CSD slipups

Yeah, I miss every once in a while. You wikilinking the rapper was enough to establish notability (even though I am old enough to think that "notable rapper" is an oxymoron), so I won't try to find a better fit. I had never heard of her, and the article didn't make me think I should have. I go through batches of 1000 articles at a time, so I get a little bleary. Kww 00:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drudge

I'm glad someone else is expressing bafflement over that user. I have been butting heads with him for about a year. He basically pushes hard to include anything negative, and pushes just as hard to remove anything positive from either of the Drudge articles, to the point of even attacking obviously reliable sources as unreliable. If you look at his long term edit history, he only edits on a couple of topics. His edits to the Libby article were a little out of his usual range, but if you look at the content of those edits, you may gain some insight. I've basically given up on arguing with him, and after a couple of reverts, I just call an RfC. Even in the RfC's he tries to make it all about me, how obsessed I am with the article, etc. I would guess that he has never looked at the totality of my edit history, and compared it to his, otherwise his tongue would cleave to the roof of his mouth when he calls me obsessed. - Crockspot 16:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super Bowl LIV

I created Super Bowl 54 to appease you.--CastAStone|^(talk) 20:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanking you for information!

Hello sir!

I am thanking you for alerting my attention to this new deletion process. I was being under the aware of prod being the proper method to nominate article for delete. I am not vandal - I want improve wikipedia by deleting false ham article. I have not hear of this meat in my entire life. I am sure it is not notable enough for this great encyclopedia!

Thank you, and I will follow proper procedure from now on! Thank you! 67.60.57.82 02:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page comments

I could not disagree with you more strongly re your user page deletion comments. Its a good idea if you dont try to hassle Xavier's reputation here on wikipedia as given your previous comments..... 23:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I have responded to Squeakbox on his talk page, however, for those who may be reading this page, I would like to clarify that I was not proposing the deletion of anything. I merely observed that XavierVE's user talk page was fully protected (a good idea considering the user in question is currently indefinitely blocked, and has been at the center of frequent controversy) and suggested that his user page be fully protected as well. I made the mistake of admitting that I was tempted to vandalize the page myself (which I absolutely did not do and would never do, thank you) and apparently SqueakBox misinterpreted that as a threat to vandalize..? Or something? --Jaysweet 23:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, you refactored your comments very well and I have total confidence in your anti-vandal stance. And if we disagree over deletion, well each side has equal validity on that issue from what I can see, SqueakBox 23:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Catch A Predator

I don't see why it should rub you the wrong way. This article like all the articles related to pedophilia/sex offenders are fertile grounds for vandalism. I'm correcting vandalism all the time. I was about to correct my edit, because I did do a search for the named individual and found out that indeed he did die. Fighting for Justice 19:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fighting, best to assume good faith, it certainly did not look like vandalism to me, SqueakBox 19:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, WP:AGF. It's pretty cut-and-dry. I'm also correcting vandalism all the time, and that doesn't by any means make me feel compelled to use phrases like "likely vandalism." Hell, if someone puts extra letters or deleted a few words, if it's a first offense I'm likely to give them the "test edit" message rather than the "vandalism" message, as per WP:BITE.

Also, I want to point out that while pedo/sex offender articles are indeed fertile grounds for vandalism, I have also found them to be fertile grounds for anti-pedo activists to get a little, ahem, shall we say, ahead of themselves. I've seen a lot of vitriol spewed at good faith editors in regards to that article. I know the intentions are good, but too often I see WP:CIVIL going right out the window... --Jaysweet 20:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking for me to apologize then you're in for a long wait. I told you already that I was going correct what I did. I can't do anymore then that. Considering the fact that anyone in the world can edit in wikipedia makes it hard to sort through what's genuine or vandalism. Sometimes vandalism can be subtle. THe only thing I can promise is that next time I will search for information regarding an edit that I'm not familiar with. Fighting for Justice 20:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm less bothered by the revert than I am by the assuming-bad-faith edit summary. Given WP:BLP, I don't necessarily think you were wrong to delete the unsourced info until a source could be found. I just thought it was unnecessary to drop the V-word without being certain. Anyway, I'm not looking for an apology, so I'll drop it now. If you want to get a last word in after this one, I'll let you have it ;) --Jaysweet 20:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Atkinscult

Do you mind if I delete this page to save myself the trouble of archiving it? WjBscribe 20:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DG

I think the usage of the anonymous IP (probably utilized to avoid scrutiny from ArbCom) is going to be the more blatant of the violations,and then the issues of civility. If you post to the ArbCom discussion, I will definitely support you. I think the fellow needs the stick, as the carrot doesn't appear to have any effect. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he didn't deny it; he simply evaded answering the question. That way, if he was shown to have been using the account, he couldn't be shown to have lied about it. He has been specifically told not to edit under duplicate accounts, and the one in question, 71.203.223.65 has a substantial history behind it, something you wouldn't ordinarily see with someone who simply forgot to sign in (most IP addresses aren't that static). He's rather screwed up here, as admitting to it is a violation of the RfC and ArbCom restrictions placed upon him, and denying it would get him banned outright. He has even created yet another account using this anonymous account, as seen here, anon 82.38.177.222, who has also contributed to the Jack the Ripper article. So what we are essentially dealing with here is someone who is creating at least two different anonymous IP addresses to edit within the article, and the edits and comments of one (71...) his DreamGuy account eventually defends.

I had noted some of the edit summaries in the last section of the ripper article Discussion regarding unprotection, but here are the specific diffs showing anon user:71's contributions and then DG's reentry under his primary account:

As user:71.203.223.65

September 15, 2007@17:59 - reverting to "last good version"

September 21, 2007@08:32
September 25, 2007@08:52
September 26, 2007@11:46
September 27, 2007@17:08
September 27, 2007@17:10 - created account 82.38.177.222

(posts from anon user 82.38.177.222 occur in this gap - see below for posts to Jack the Ripper article under that anon IP)

As user:82.38.177.222

September 12, 2007@15:56 - this edit is actually vandalsim of the Scrubs (tv series) article
September 27, 2007@16:43
September 27, 2007@16:44

Again, as user:71.203.223.65

September 29, 2007@14:56
October 18, 2007@12:33
October 20, 2007@09.59 - edit summary: "Reverting back to last good version... absolute nonsense that some editor would blind revert changes to approved version of page just out of spite"
October 20, 2007@10:03 - post to my User Talk page, referring to "blind reverts"
October 20, 2007@10;06
October 20, 2007@10:07
October 20, 2007@10:16 - created discussion section entitled "Blind reverting"
October 20, 2007@10:24 - posting replies to own user talk page. Note the similarity in language to that of DreamGuy_2.
October 21, 2007@16:19 - edit summary "reverting back to last good version -- got some editors here who insist upon ignoring long standing consensus out of misplaced ownership or anti-IP editor status or something"
October 21, 2007@16:21 - article discussion attack "not paying attention"
October 21, 2007@16:23 - article discussion again, "blind revert accusations"
October 21, 2007@16:29 - article discussion yet again, referring to 'prior consensus', 'blind reverts', how I need a "crash course" (in editing, I presume), and bizarrely, how the user recalls me and Colin working the article at some point in the past (don't think I was on my watchlist until very recently)
October 21, 2007@16:31 - article discussion again, referring to "prior consensus"
October 21, 2007@16:32 - article discussion again, referring to 'prior concensus' and how colin needed to seek a new consensus, but points out that it "won't happen"
October 23, 2007@14:54 - blanking user talk page of comments and complaints over behavior

At this point, user 71.203.223.65 went silent. During the first of the edits by this anon user, DreamGuy's account was silent (ie., no edits from August 24th until October 22nd), After DreamGuy's account became active, he frequently posted around the same times as user 71..., in one instance only 10-15 minutes apart (here and here).

As the civility of the responses as well as some of the exact wording was utilized by both anon user 71.., and DreamGuy_2, it almost positive that these two users are in fact the same. I have not heard back the results of the CheckUser I filed a few days ago, but considering the backlog, itmight be a while. Repeated requests asking if DG was in fact the anonymous user went specifically unanswered. It should be noted that not all of the diffs of users 82... and 71... are contentious, but it is my reasoned belief that they aren't meant to be such, but instead hidden 'supporters' of DG's edits, to be utilized in providing 'consensus'. However, writing styles as confrontational as DG's are pretty hard to mask, and the similarities between the two are both remarkable and unmistakable.

Additionally, DreamGuy_2 has engaged in edit warring in the article (both under his primary ID and the two anons), reverting the versions of the main article until it was locked by admins. Furthermore, he has continued to make accusations, personal attacks and in generally raising the bar for uncivility. His uncivil behavior and edits under his DG account begin less than 10 days after his ArbCom restriction.

As per his ArbCom restrictions, DG is:

"subject to a behavioral editing restriction. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below."

As well, he has been repeatedly asked by admins and editors to not create alternate accounts to edit from, as per both ArbCom as well his his first and second RfC's.

This continued pattern of uncivility, personal and ad hominem attacks and evasive use of alternate accounts to avoid editorial linkage to his primary account seem to clearly (at least to me) indicate that DreamGuy_2 is aware that he is violating the ArbCom restrictions, and simply tinks himself the smartest guy in the room. Normally, that last part could be applied tomany of us, but when coupled with the lack of respect shown his fellow editors, the edit-warring and the barely-concealed hostility he has for anyone 'daring' to question his edits, it presents a picture of a deleterious and corrosive influence in Wikipedia. I think that blocking is absolutely necessary. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Skateremorocker

Hello. Thanks for letting me know about his problems. I was already aware of them. Sometimes new users can act that way. I hope I can help him to become a great wikipedian. Cheers!--SJP:Happy Verterans Day! 21:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think he loves you...

Not sure, but I am thinking the fellow above is looking for a date to the Winter Formal. lol. Anyway, "crux of the biscuit" - as you may have guessed from your appropriate usage of the phrase - is 'the heart of the matter'. I think it came from some old advert for Gaines dog biscuits, itself playing off the lowbrow rhyming scheme (as seen in Snatch) - 'crust' becomes 'crux', but as I am a cat person, I wouldn;t be paying attention to adverts about dogs, unless it was about them being forced to wear underpants. and play Bridge - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pistolpierre and the George W. Bush article

"I think we should block Jimbo Wales for Pistolpierre's disruptive edits. Since Jimbo is the founder of Wikipedia, clearly there is a link between him and Pierre's edits. This cannot be denied."

BAHAHAHAHA!#@$ That's the funniest thing I've read around here in a while. Thanks for the laugh! :-) -- Elhector (talk) 19:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, thanks. I decided I wasn't going to respond any more to Pistolpierre, but I have to say that after his last comment, I am even more confused... he seems to be railing about how the media is so liberally-biased that they are going out of their way to support Bush...?!? I guess it's because "liberal" means different things depending on your country. Or something?!

"That word... I do not think it means what you think it means." ---- Jaysweet (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amateur and Professional

I addressed the edit in the temp page discussion. The first edit was something totally odd - not sure what caused the page to blank, but it was utterly unintentional and I reverted it immediately, altering only the part regarding amateur and professional. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arcayne and Jack the Ripper article

I wish you had email active, but you don't, so I'm posting this here. No doubt Arcayne will try to use it as proof of bad faith or incivil behavior or whatever standard accusations he keeps trying to toss out.

By now you've seen me trying to work together on the Jack the Ripper article over and over, explaining certain points, giving sources, etc. You probably also have seen how Arcayne simply is not interested in doing the same. He still insists upon claiming that only he knows what the true definitions of serial killer, mass murderer and spree killer are and that nobody else knows what they are talking about. He also insists on having the article say the things he wants to say despite the fact that both you and I have changed it. He puts it back and insists that it has to be that way, despite it being new wording that he did not get consensus for, unless I go file another RFC -- and despite it being the very topic the RFC was already filed for.

I am doing everything I am supposed to be doing here. I accepted consensus on how often the term Ripperologist will be used in the article. I made other compromises as well, comment on other people's ideas, etc. The only thing I can possibly have said about me is that I am less than enthusiastically welcoming to someone who is extremely rude, aggressive and insulting toward me. He also belittles my knowledge on the topic, which has been built on years of study, and tries to somehow equate experience with bias. Right now there are a number of things on the temporary Ripper article that are only the way they are because he reverted back to his changes and refuses to budge in discussion. It's an impasse. If we undo what he does, he claims it's edit warring. If we leave it alone and discuss, he just keeps having it his way. It's gaming the system, pure and simple -- and so are all those false reports he's been filing in the hopes that admins will block me so that he can just go do whatever he wants to do.

At some point we just need to move ahead and make him face up to the fact that he's not going to have his way. I don't consider this to be "not working together" or whatever because he's not working with others, he's just making demands. At some point we just have to move forward, and if people are going to be upset it's their issue, not ours.

I had really hoped more people would show up with the RFC filed, but even there we can't file an RFC everytime Arcayne says jump and set the expectation that he gets his way otherwise. Maybe one of the people who used to edit the article but are on a Wikivacation now will come back, as it used to be a lot simpler to get things done without Arcayne holding things up constantly. DreamGuy (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's great that you bending over backwards to assume good faith for the guy, but his recent edits that you have labeled as troublesome are actually milder than the ones he was making back when the conflict started.

The definitions of serial killer, etc., don;t change per field, those are pretty standard everywhere: sociology, true crime, psychology, whatever. I would doubt that he has a background in psychology. I'd be hard pressed to name anything he might have a background in that would be relevant to the Jack the Ripper article. He appears to do good edits over on some articles about TV shows, though.

We also had a little bit of a spat over there with some brand new account coming out of nowhere to start voting to back Arcayne up and some fur flying from the usual suspects when I pointed out that he had no edit history. I have to give ou lots of credit for being one of the few editors there who wants to look into any of the topics, as some of the few other people hanging around the article appear to only want to vote based upon ongoing personal conflicts. DreamGuy (talk) 15:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is solicited

Please see for comment: Wikipedia_talk:List_of_notable_accidents_and_incidents_on_commercial_aircraft/Guideline_for_inclusion_criteria_and_format#Definition_of_Incident_presently_includes_LOS_and_Runway_incursion LeadSongDog (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doreen Bird/Bird College

Hello there, don't know if you remember the Doreen Bird article you helped me with some time back, well it is done and hasn't really changed much since last you saw it. However, on the advice of another moderator, we did split off to write an article specifically about Bird College and that has come along way, so I was wondering if you could have a look at both these articles and give me your advice on what else you think needs doing with them. Thanks Crazy-dancing (talk) 12:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Jaysweet for doing that.

I am really sorry Jaysweet for doing that but I just added that site ti references. any ways. I wont do it again thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahidsidd (talk • contribs) 03:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SSP

Do you think User:EctoplasmOnToast might also be the same user as User:PouponOnToast? The similarity of names is suggestive, and I had some dealings with POT during the gap when EOP was apparently not editing. —Whig (talk) 19:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TimeCube

Thanks for cleaning my sloppy add; but note that "iconoclast and contrarian" are not considered negative, for example, in scientific circles (such as at MIT, where some are quite proud of the label). However, I don't have any better citation for this other than the same person ran for the GNOME committee at MIT with the stated goal of doing away with its free-software aspect: which, at MIT (of which I am an alum) is sort of like running for Pope because you think Catholics ought to give atheism a try. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.206.92.163 (talk) 23:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from 75.173.104.106

Hey man why did you u take off my stuff on the minerals about sulfur, that is true —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.173.104.106 (talk • contribs)

The case for minitoke (one-hitter) info

What you describe as original research is, I think, common knowledge-- among a minority of cannabis users, true. One must take into account the fact that a pro-overdose bias among smokers is maintained chiefly by a gigantic propaganda effort by tobacco companies-- $8 bil./year in US alone, I remember reading-- without which a majority of smokers might agree a narrow crater burns the herb less hot, permits eliminating sidestream smoke (SSS) and protects health. (Also Big Tobackgo controls politicians in the US, which in turn threatens any country which defies its anti-cannabis (anti-"paraphernalia") stance with economic sanctions.)

1. The narrower the crater, the less volume of suction (air movement) is needed to capture all smoke generated, permitting reduced burning temperature.--

I have not found publications verifying this, but I submit to you any researchers who openly challenged the hot-burning-overdose industry (Big Tobackgo) in this way might lose their accreditation etc. In other words, intimidation is the problem. If Wikipedia is going to "change the world" (or is that slogan only for fundgivers, not for editors?) there's no better way than to attack public health problem #1, 5.4 million deaths per year from cigarets (WHO Feb. 2008 estimate).

2. Eliminate side-stream smoke--

Again, millions know this, but it's safe to say a huge majority of the 1.2 billion smokers worldwide never try a narrow crater utensil. Among other things, they're afraid to be caught possessing such a utensil because it has been stigmatized as illdegal "cannabis paraphernalia". (Read up on Big Tobackgo contributions to U. S. politicians, especially Republicans, who pass "head shop laws" protecting the lucrative tobacco overdose "tradition").

3. Lower dosages protect health.--

Again, if researchers weren't intimidated, there would long since be concensus on this. True, a minitoke utensil is not as good as a vaporizer-- but can be hundreds of dollars cheaper. It appears most smokers wrongly believe they can't afford a vaporizer-- but a pack-a-day addict at US$2000/year might just consider a $600 Volcano. (The tobacco might even taste better too.) A one-hitter they can make in their garage for pennies. (I can agree that the minitoke information might best be placed after rather than before the vaporizer information.)

Consider that it has been known for decades that a cigaret (when sucked on) burns at 1500° F/860° C, and now we have a vaporizer that heats herb material to 365°F. The quarter-inch-diameter crater utensil falls somewhere in between; and what if the Wikipedia nudged researchers to dare taking on the job of finding out what the exact figure is?

Finally, no offense meant, but just why would you choose a username like "Jaysweet". A"jay" usually contains 500 mg. of herb (compared to 700 mg. for a tobacco cigaret and 25 mg. for a single serving in a properly designed toker). Would you be willing to comment on whether you have a romantic overdose-bias lurking in your psyche somewhere? A "jay" at several hundred degrees lower temperature might be as sweet? (Besides, can you afford to waste all that cannabinol?)Tokerdesigner (talk) 22:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

March 10-- Thanks for your response and apologies for any offense about the Username Jaysweet based as it is on your given name. My observation holds true to the extent that as presented on Wikipedia that username will suggest to some readers (especially on pages related to cannabis) an interest in 500-mg. hot burning overdose devices. The propaganda effect happens separately from any consideration of personal history, and the Big Tobackgo executives are rubbing their hands gleefully.

My own example: I was given the name Robert and I had an older brother named Dick. The leading comic strip in the newspapers (printed first on the Sunday color page) was Dick Tracy. What (whom) did Dick (detective) Tracy catch, sometimes beat or shoot, and deliver to jail? Robbers. Obviously there was some unconscious psychological thing which typecast me as the villain, the loser, atc. but at least I was luckier than Abel in the Genesis story. Anyway I changed to using my middle name and things have been better. No offense intended.Tokerdesigner (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More about Jay

It's not, apparently, suggestive of the image of a "joint" but refers to the initial letter "J". I have heard the word used over a period of years but, hey, that's original research.

The issue regarding the tobacco industry is that, to protect their profit margin, they must get any alternative to the hot burning overdose nicotine cigaret suppressed, such as slow burning miniature pipes. If cigaret smokers imitate some cannabis users the result will be they can get 28 single tokes out of one cigaret and the industry is stuck with selling a tiny fraction as much tobacco. So Big Tobackgo contributes to campaign funds to elect candidates, mostly Republicans, who will vote to keep low-dosage smoking equipment illegal on the grounds that it is "cannabis paraphernalia", leaving no choice but to smoke a "J" which is easier to hide or get rid of.

With 5.4 million deaths a year (WHO 2008), hot burning overdose cigaret smoking is No. 1 health crisis in the history of the planet and we are told Wikipedia is here to "Change the World", so maybe there will have to be a slight change in the parameters regarding authenticity of research?Tokerdesigner (talk) 20:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a advertising portal

Wikipedia is not a place for self advertisements and for putting the opinion of people. Discuss why a persons view and opinion should be placed on wikipedia. That is the reason why I edited it. I am from the same place he is from and dont tolerate any kind of advertisements.I have never seen a wikipedia page filled with the opinions , views and comments of a person.This page was actually started by Kartik Prabhakar who is a friend of Rahul Easwar.

Thank you Nitinsunny (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou

Thanks for the tips. I will use the edit summary now onwards

Nitinsunny (talk) 18:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]