User talk:Rklawton/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

misfiled ANI comment

One of your CoM comments (02:54) has strayed into the Mattisse thread. I can't move it because I don't know where it belongs. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up,and sorry about that. You can delete it as misplaced. When I couldn't find it, I assumed an edit conflict, and I re-created it in the correct location. Rklawton (talk) 15:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Re http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Spirituality

Hmm... thanks for looking. Nothing visible to you? Re my one of my style pages, this is a very secure machine, in a secure location, updated daily with norton. I've check my css's etc and there's nothing there. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Spirituality is the only page (wikipedia or elsewhere)that shows the self-serving Zack text, and yes, my caches etc have been flushed and rechecked. I'll explore mediawiki a bit and see if I can see how it's done. Csalmon (talk) 03:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Let's start with apples/oranges (are we looking at the same file). I've got 688 lines of source code for Portal:Spirituality. What's your count? Rklawton (talk) 03:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Jericho (refactored to more dulcet wording)

Hey man, why the heck did you revert my edits on the "Battle of Jericho" page? Just because you don't believe it really happened doesn't mean other people shouldn't hear others' opinions. It's amazing how you atheists try to "censur" wikipedia from any opinions that aren't athiest opinions. You guys are some of the most biased people I've ever seen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Durean (talk • contribs) 16:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of biased, we don't include junk science in Wikipedia, either - except in articles exposing it for what it is. Rklawton (talk) 17:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough, but I'd like you to give me your definition of "junk science". And I'd like to know why you don't think radiocarbon dating is junk science, as it is known to have incredible problems and inaccuracies. Before answering me, I'd like you to please take a look at this article: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible . If anything, I think you should scroll down to the part where it talks about the RATE Group findings. Thanks for your time. And hey, sorry if I'm breaking the talk page guidelines by talking about my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Durean (talk • contribs) 01:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I looked at it before bothering you. It's a load of crap. I also posted a link on your talk page explaining Wikipedia and junk science. If you have an interest in science, I would encourage you to read up on radio carbon dating in depth. It's a fascinating topic. It's also not the only dating method available. Rklawton (talk) 01:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Heck, you totally dodged my question! What is NOT crappy about radiocarbon dating? And by the way, I have read up on it, but of course almost every source you can find on the internet is totally biased into making us believe that it can accurately find the age of things. You didn't even give me a reason why you think radiocarbon dating is so reliable. You just gave me the suggestion to look it up somewhere because you hope that someone else has the answers! I'd like you to give me a reason why rocks at Mt. Saint Helens were dated anywhere from 340,000 to 2.8 million years old with radiocarbon and other dating methods! And we know for a fact that it blew it's top only about 30 years ago! How's that for accurate? And please tell me why diamonds that are "billions of years old" are still found with carbon in them! Honestly, I looked this stuff up, and you can tell that these scientists have so many assumptions, like that the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere has always been exactly the same. How the heck would you know that this is the case for the last few BILLIONS of years!?!?!? And sorry again if I'm taking you're time, but I am honestly ticked off that you don't even let anybody see the criticisms for certain "scientific" procedures. Think about it, if you're right, and if it's so obvious that creationists are wrong, then it would be BETTER for people to see what Answers in Genesis believes for themselves, so then they can determine for themselves that it's "a load of crap". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Durean (talk • contribs) 17:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, yes, I understand. The rest of the web (scientific community) is totally biased, but you aren't. That pretty well defines "fringe nut job." And I don't give a rats ass if you are ticked off. You're going to either change your mind some day - or spend the rest of your life angry at the rest of the world. The choice is yours, and it's your choices that define you. Just keep in mind that Wikipedia is not the place for you to impose your personal views on others. I think there's another Wiki out there for that sort of thing - not that very many people use it. Good luck with that. Rklawton (talk) 17:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Given the thread title of this discussion (which I've refactored), this discussion seems to have started off on the wrong note and gone down hill from there. I suggest easing up a bit. As I'm already marginalized as a fringe nut job, I would like to point out that scientific consensus sometimes changes radically and that it isn't constructive to refer to minority viewpoints as representing those of fringe nut jobs. Reliable sources and other guidelines are our bible here, so I suggest we cling to those and remain as collegial as possible. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't have time for fringe nut jobs. Go refractor someone else. Or better yet, *you* deal with the nutters. Rklawton (talk) 23:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Sorry. Feel free to revert my change. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your help. CardinalDan (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Patrick M. Novack Article

As a person that was largely involved in the "Silver Star Debate", I would like your opinion on the deletion of the article for Patrick M. Novack. I believe that there is enough there (Law Enforcement commendations, Communtiy Service accolades) that when combined with the Silver Stars he earned in Vietnam (and the fact that he was the Team Leader of a Special Forces LRRP Team), he should be considered notable. Fair disclosure, I am the man's son. Please comment if you would. Rapier1 (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. After reading the debate under "Silver Star" I wanted to get the opinions of the major players there. It appears the general concensus is going against me, and I'll accept that decision should that be so. Either way, I appreciate the kind words. Rapier1 (talk) 20:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Rklawton. You have new messages at COMPFUNK2's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Prescott Bush

Thanks for cleaning up that vandalism. This page has seen some slow, insidious mess in the past few days. Been watching it since I picked it up on Huggle. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 16:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Muhammad

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Muhammad. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Reported 3RR violation. Thank you. Xevorim (talk) 00:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

If you would pay attention, you would see that I am making very good use of the talk page. Rklawton (talk) 15:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Victorian architecture

Hi Rklawton/Archive 3! An article you have been concerned with has many issues and urgently needs improving. If you can help with these issues please see Talk:Victorian architecture, address the different points if you can, and leave any comments there.--Kudpung (talk) 01:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Vore

I've made my closing statement on the article's talk page. I'm still concerned about your openly acknowledged bias, and I'd like to suggest that you refrain from making anything other than uncontroversial edits to the article; I'll be staying away from it myself. Lastly, I'd ask that in future you not accuse me of "trying to re-add the forum link again into the Vore article" when I was quite clearly not doing so. I did not re-add the link, and I made it explicitly clear that I was not going to do so. So I can't see how you could possibly have misinterpreted me to the point of accusing me of doing the opposite of what I was doing. I'm going to assume good faith and assume it was a genuine mistake on your part, unlikely as that seems, but in future please be careful when flinging accusations around. Thank you. 83.199.173.109 (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request of Snowdude1492

Hello Rklawton. Snowdude1492 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards,  Sandstein  19:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Maybe I am overlooking something, but how is that a vandal-only account? All I can see he did was making some incompetent but probably well-meaning edits to Oxyhydrogen, for which he should have required a friendly warning about our sourcing policies and so forth. Could you look into this again?  Sandstein  19:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The Oxyhydrogen article is a crank magnet - so I may have pulled the trigger too fast. Feel free to unblock if you think it's appropriate. Rklawton (talk) 22:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Our Lady of Zeitoun

Greetings administrator,there is a user Danmav who is using POV and non neutral samples for a one sided criticism section within it.I have removed the unsuitable sections,but he reverts them,I do not wish this to escalate into an edit war,can you or another admin please help resolve the situation?Thank you.Sheodred (talk) 16:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I took a brief look at the article and the talk page. In general, it's good to see discussion rather than an outright edit war. Focus on that and keep it organized. This will help neutral editors quickly grasp the issues at hand. Second, it was highly inappropriate for you to ask about the religious beliefs of a fellow editor. Please keep those sorts of questions and comments out of the talk page - just focus on the specific problems/issues with the article and its sources. Rklawton (talk) 14:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I have asked for a third opinion on the dispute between Sheodred and myself in hopes of resolution. Danmav (talk) 03:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep an open mind. You're very inexperienced, and seasoned editors have a better feel for appropriate tone, sources, and so on. If you do keep an open mind, you'll learn a lot about one of the most notable and successful knowledge sharing endeavors in world history. Cheers, Rklawton (talk) 04:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Greetings RkLawton,I apologised earlier for bringing one's beliefs into the equation,I am being very reasonable.But now Danmav is going around telling people I am a vandal,which is absurd and insulting.He even said it on the article for Editorial Assistance.Check the talk page for Our Lady of Zeitoun,if you wish sir.I apologise,for I did not think it would stoop to this,I wanted it to be a reasonable and open minded discussion.Sheodred (talk) 14:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

By choosing to communicate reasonable and logically, you will, without words, highlight the unreasonableness of a tendentious editor. Which, of course, will work to your favor. Rklawton (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok,thank you sir for your time and effort,it is appreciated.Sheodred (talk) 23:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The issue of the article has been resolved.However Danmav is still attempting to start a fire. "Sheodred, we got our third opinion. What say you? An apology would be nice. Danmav (talk" A blatant attempt at trolling im my honest opinion.I just want it over with.Sheodred (talk) 13:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that's easy. Just don't feed the trolls. Rklawton (talk) 17:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of 2009 Maryville First Baptist Church shooting

I have nominated 2009 Maryville First Baptist Church shooting, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Maryville First Baptist Church shooting. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Scott Mac (Doc) 17:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ping

I replied to you on Talk:Vorarephilia (revision) inquiring about your comments on the subject that seemed inconsistent with reality, such as calling it a “tragic mental illness” that causes physical harm. Your view of it simply baffles me, unless you’ve been mistaking it for a cannibalism fetish. I meant no offense by that post (nor this one); I’m genuinely confused and striving to understand. Have you had personal experiences with vorarephiles, or people claiming to be such, that led you to believe as you do? —Frungi (talk) 02:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Just letting you know I replied to you again, asking (again) for more information on the “mental illness” you keep referring to; vorarephilia, as it’s generally understood, is not one. —Frungi (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Your note

Rklawton, I don't see how clarifying in the first use of the word "animal" that it specifically excludes humans (which are included in animal), is being "disruptive", as I explained on the talk page. I also think that threatening a good-faith edit with a block is not constructive. Crum375 (talk) 17:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The version I reverted to had been the stable one for years. An editor changed it and I restored the original. I explained the reasons for it on the talk page. There are other editors on that page who agree with me, restoring a long-standing version is not considered "disruptive", and I was well clear of "edit warring". How would you handle it, besides explaining yourself on talk and restoring the original version? What is the "non-disruptive" method? Crum375 (talk) 22:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Compromise works where there is logic for a change. And block threats are unhelpful. Crum375 (talk) 22:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The point was that the first use of that word needed to be properly defined, as it had been for years. I fully agree that subsequent qualifications were redundant, and had to be removed. The problem was that an editor on that page had a fit of POINTiness and added "non-human" to every single mention of the word "animal" in the entire article. My goal was to start from the first one, which is most important, and then worry about the others, which were quickly fixed by other editors. Taking care of this obvious POINTiness is not being "unhelpful", but issuing a block threat to a regular editor trying to improve an article in good faith is. Crum375 (talk) 12:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Accusation: Christian Mythology

Good day,I was editing the article on Christian Mythology to give it a more neutral tone,however I received unsubstantiated threats IMHO on my edits.If you could kindly see what edits I made,I would value your opinion to the third parties.Sheodred (talk) 00:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I looked at your edits in the article and in its talk page per your request. Leaving aside my opinion of your article edits, I saw no problem with your talk page edits or the brief conversation that followed. Did the threats take place elsewhere? Rklawton (talk) 03:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Paratrooper

I have responded to your comment on the Paratrooper article.

I would recommend that we ask for other editors input prior to considering the issue closed. There are a number of dictionary definitions that support my position that the term 'paratrooper' refers to a member of an airborne unit, not a military parachutist. You and I clearly have a difference of opinion on this, and my first response to your comment, I was unable to research the dictionary definitions at that time (I should have stated I would research it later, as I did, and post the results).

I would also request that, until this is resolved by other editors, you revert the removal of the {{dubious}} tag. I really do want to work this out, but I am also firmly convinced that the definitions I cite in talk:paratrooper support my position.

Thanks, (GregJackP (talk) 02:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC))

Sir,

I still disagree with your interpretation - there are other cites available: [1]"a member of a paratroop regiment or airborne unit." Oxford Pocket Dictionary which I believe supports my position.

I have looked at the available ARs that are on-line and none address the issue. Most refer to the personnel as "parachutists," not as "paratroops" or "paratroopers" - equipment is also described in the same terms.

I have suggested rewording the sentence to remove our disagreement but I am hesitant to do so unilaterally - I am not trying to offend or disrespect you, but I am merely trying to resolve this difference of opinion over what the cited sources state.

If you disagree, may I again respectfully suggest we get another editor to look at it? Perhaps User:TomStar81 would be willing to do so. He is an Admin and a Coordinator for Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history - this is an article that falls under that project and I feel that it could be helpful, if you don't want to just change the wording of the sentence.

Thanks, (GregJackP (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC))

Jean Harlow in China Seas

Greetings administrator, in no way can one justify the removal of my politically correct , npov edit re her character description in "China Seas" the movie. --63.116.149.163 (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Deleted comment in the 9/11 attacks discussion page

I see you have reinserted my deleted comment in the discussion page. I found it was not constructive and too off-topic. Furthermore, I think OpenFuture has posted a reply more to the point, not following Praxidikai's constant changes of topic. So I ask myself: why would you undo my deletion of my own comment? Best regards, 78.55.23.2 (talk) 22:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sarah-Jane Hilliard

I know Wikipedia policies, and sure she's not notable. But, why for example is Casey Anthony on Wikipedia and not Sarah-Jane Hilliard? Nobody give me an answer, they deleted talk page Di Natale Massimo (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I dunno. Forty-nine sources, national coverage, coverage extending well over a year. Murder. Could be any combination of those. However, that's not what your ANI complaint was about. It was about the deletion of your article - which I'm glad to see you accept now. Rklawton (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

ANI? Di Natale Massimo (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Rklawton (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Email

Hi Rklawton. Just to let you know, I sent you an email via the WP email feature. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Harrit, Niels H. "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe".

You say that primary sources are not included in Wikipedia, when they are all over it, and essential for the reader to go back to the source.

Bazant, Zdenek P.; Mathieu Verdure (March 2007). "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions" (PDF). Journal of Engineering Mechanics (American Society of Civil Engineers) 133 (3): 308–319. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2007)133:3(308). http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf. Retrieved May 20, 2008.

This study is directly relevant to the September 11 Attack subject. Harrit, Niels H. "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe". http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM. Retrieved 2009-04-03.

If you permit Bazant's study (a conjecture) you should allow Harrit's study (based on direct chemical identification). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cicorp (talk • contribs) 21:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Take it to the article's talk page. This page is about ME. Rklawton (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Condoleezza Rice

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Condoleezza Rice/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Praxidikai

I am in the process of getting Cs32en's behavior evaluated, I would have added Praxidikai to that but I feel I can get him removed for being a blocked user. If not, I intend to request ArbCom enforcement on him as well. Feel free to comment here and here. –Turian (talk) 03:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I support both of your initiatives. However, I have no evidence to give regarding possible socks. Both editors should just avoid this subject entirely for obvious reasons. Rklawton (talk) 03:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I had the misfortune of running into "MisprisionofTreason" and handling him, so I noticed a few similarities. I just don't know how it is ever going to stop. Perhaps we need to semi-protect that or have a zero-tolerance policy instated. –Turian (talk) 03:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought the arbcom ruling lowered the crank threshold enough that we could deal with these people more expediently. Rklawton (talk) 03:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it needs to be lowered a little bit more. Nothing seems to work. Perhaps we could draft a proposition? –Turian (talk) 04:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

New accounts... 9/11 conspiracy theory promoting... one warning... Works for me. Rklawton (talk) 12:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

hi

hi ummm i was wondering could you help me with somethin . see my page has benn blocked and i dnt know what for i havent been using any bad langauge on her and they block me for no reson . and i was wondering how can i get un blocked from that?????? could you please help me with that please if you dnt mind i really need your help because i cnt access my acuont and all i can do is check my mail and thats about it and search the wikipeda web thats about all i can do for now . and i really wana acess my accoumt to see whats goining on but i cnt do that cuz i have blocked and i really want to get unblocked but i dnt know how to do it so would you please help me

--207.157.117.2 (talk) 16:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC) mrshistory2010

It's an autoblock and probably not your fault. I'll need your user name to unblock it (not your password, just your user name. Or just follow these steps: Template:Autoblock. Sorry about the inconvenience. Rklawton (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rklawton. You have new messages at Atmoz's talk page.
Message added 20:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NW (Talk) 20:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Bad block. –xeno^talk 20:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Atmoz?

I see you've blocked Atmoz for vandalism. That seems improbable. Could you clarify? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC) (belatedly)

If you see the block log (20:17, 10 March 2010 Rklawton (talk | contribs | block) blocked Atmoz (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours ‎ (Personal attacks or harassment) (unblock | change block)), you'll see he was actually blocked for personal attacks or harassment and on his talk page there's evidence that supports this. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 08:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I was relying on the message on the talked page, which said vandalism. I think the block message ought to be clear: you shouldn't have to read the block log too William M. Connolley (talk) 09:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Enjoyed your argument

I just wanted to say that I enjoyed the artful way you argued civilly and patiently with User_talk:Omansour. I couldn't bring myself to butt in. Toward the end it reminded me of the famous line "What we've got here is (a) failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach." And, evidently, some of them will be blocked on Wikipedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and pity, too. I've got a lot of Muslim friends, and I've read a lot of Muslim authors. His views don't represent all Muslims, though they do represent an ignorant few. I greatly admire the period of time known as "The Golden Age of Islam" - a renaissance period that predated and probably inspired Europe's great renaissance. Ironically, this golden age was destroyed by an ignorant tyrant from Iraq and likely cost them the Iberian peninsula (due to the loss of popular support enjoyed by a largely free populations of Muslims, Christians, and Jews). Rklawton (talk) 23:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Reverted your revision [2] to Talk:Abraham_Lincoln

Please be careful when using rollback. Rollback should only be used when removing blatant vandalism or spam. Thank you. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ msg • changes) 02:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I hit the link when aiming for something else entirely. Rklawton (talk) 02:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Big hair

An article that you have been involved in editing, Big hair, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big hair. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 08:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Wiki Thinking

You know, you would be way more impressive as an editor if you didn't confuse site with cite. And it seems that your criteria for notability are not rigorously self-applied. "Phelps County Jail" vs "Society of Ancients?" hmm 203.110.136.172 (talk) 05:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Tyops notwithstanding, Phelps County Jail is on the NRHP - which automatically qualifies it as notable per the NRHP project. Rklawton (talk) 12:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Good Friday

I see you're currently fixing the vandalism, 4chan seem to be sending their filth this way ZellDenver (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

What's 4chan? Rklawton (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Quotes

No worries. I did the exact same thing. =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 19:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Relevant Links on Mami Wata Page

Good day Mr. Lawton.

We noticed that on March 14, 2010, you removed our external link (mamiwata.com) and Dr. Drewal’s link to the Fowler Museum on Mami Wata. We have replaced those links only for you to remove them again without any sufficient explanation.

We have noticed your biographical background, where your expertise is photography. Meaning, that you are not a priest in the Mami Wata tradition. You indicate no expertise or experience in African Traditional or Diaspora religions, and you have not provided any evidence of an academic background on this ancestral religion. We have also noticed that you have not responded to our query on the Mami Wata discussion page on your justification for the insistence of the removal of ours or Dr. Drewal’s links.

We are fully initiated priests of Mami Wata from Togo, East Africa and the Diaspora. We are a 501(c) legal organization (in good standing) based in the U.S. and the first Society of its kind established in 1999. We are fulltime practitioners of Mami Wata, and have established the first comprehensive academic, cultural and resource bank on this tradition in the U.S. Academicians, students and the general population have cited our organization and our work in their research and academic publications. More importantly we are the major contributor to its current article including its photos. Our website and work have been cited in Dr. Drewal’s book as the definitive website for both academic and cultural information on Mami Wata; as well as a comprehensive resource.

As such, we would like to know why the mamiwata.com and Dr. Drewal links are being removed from this article’s “external links”? We welcome and encourage all relevant links on the subject of Mami Wata, but not at the exclusion of our contributions. Please tell us why they are being removed. If you cannot provide an explanation to our satisfaction, we will request arbitration to decide if our complaint is warranted.

Pease note that we will continue intensive monitoring of this article, and if our links are removed we will replace them until it is determined through arbitration that they are of no relevant value to the subject or to the very article on Mami Wata that we are a major contributor.

We look forward to hearing from you on this matter.--MWHS (talk) 11:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Replied in article's talk page. Rklawton (talk) 11:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Your Biofuel Edit

I disagree with your removal of the paragaph on 'helioculture'. Just because the actual project isn't completed until next year, doens't mean it is not note worthy. I suggest, by that logic, that you would also want the 2012 Summer Olympics page deleted?

The paragraph contained useful information with relevant references, one from the NYtimes and another from a scientific journal.

For the above reasons, i have reverted your edit. If you disagree with these please discuss it with me before reverting again, thanks

• Edit: I didn't realise you were sysop, I therefore find it more than likely that I was wrong to revert your edit. If so, apologies

Jebus989^★ 17:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree in principle but not in form

Yes, you're right in the substance of your edits to remove the links on Eugene Sledge. You will see that I have added a comment to the effect that I agree with the substance of your edits. But I fail to see what purpose it serves to bite a newby so thoroughly. If you are moved to follow through with your threat to blacklist Sidney Phillips' personal website site I'd appreciate it if you let me know, since I have linked his site to his article. Regards.Trilobitealive (talk) 01:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

In real time...I read your comment on the article talk page and I bow to your superior ability to access secret wikipedia information. But you did sound bitey and I'd still appreciate a heads up if you nominate the site for blacklisting. Regards. Trilobitealive (talk) 01:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I love noobs - especially those who show a willingness to learn. I made my first edits to Wikipedia as an example to teach my classes that Wikipedia was not a reliable source. The repeated reversions and vandal warnings (to my IPs) quickly taught me otherwise, and I took a keen interest in editing constructively. Just a few months ago I went to bat on AN/I for a noob/conspiracy theorist who demonstrated his willingness to learn (in my opinion). I lost, and I pissed off a few people in the process, but I think it demonstrates that I really respect willingness to learn (for the record, I really hate conspiracy theorists). In the present case, MRB has demonstrated no willingness to learn. His edits to these articles pre-date the establishment of his account, and they bear the hallmarks of an SPA/COI/SPAM. My initial edits and comments were brief and to the point. MRB's repeated insistence on adding these links demanded an escalation (or an outright block), and it's this escalation that I presume you perceive as bitey. MRB's lie that he is "just a history buff" came as a complete surprise. Send me an e-mail and I'll send you the smoking gun link (my reading of WP:OUT appears to not prohibit this, but I'm open to alternative views). Blacklisting would only happen if we see multiple accounts trying to make the same edit. The normal process is: warnings (where we are now), account blocking, AN/I (if blocking fails), and with AN/I support - blacklisting. If it comes to blacklisting, I wouldn't be making the final decision, but I'd keep you apprised. Rklawton (talk) 01:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't honestly say I'm sorry for my criticism based on style not substance; if you look through my early edit history you'll see which administrator came close to making me quit. I still dislike anything which reminds me of her style, though you do show yourself to have both a heart and sense of humor once you fill in the blanks. My interest is making better articles and my early realization was Phillips is an important resource to explain some of Sledge's idiosyncracities, for instance the origin of his heart murmer and the reason he was held back a year in both school and joining the marines. So if you shut down Phillips website then we lose that information. I do think its sad that these old WW-II vets spent their entire lives afraid to talk and then the ones who finally did talk are being exploited by commercial interests. And yes I include the good folks of HBO and PBS in the list of exploiters. Trilobitealive (talk) 01:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't thought much about the exploitation angle. Initially the publications looked like vanity books - and still may well be. I haven't dug around for more information on that topic. All the men in my family served in the military (myself included), and two of my great uncles received Silver Stars. They didn't talk about their experiences until I put on my uniform. What they had to say was quite remarkable: anger, guilt, remorse, justification - it was all there. I'd read The Longest Day, Turkel's books, and many others - as well as all the various movies, and I quite agree, our combat veteran's silence was tragic. Our views on war were terribly warped as a result. At this point we're still pretty far from a blacklist, so I wouldn't worry. But I'll keep you posted, though you'll be able to see it unfold on the article's talk page. You would also automatically get an AN/I notice, too - if it should come to that (which I doubt). Oh, and as far as principle v. form goes, I have no doubts I can and should improve my form. Rklawton (talk) 02:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

How can I upload a picture to Wikipedia?

I was wondering how could I upload a picture on Wikipedia? Zaz986 (talk) 03:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Click on your article (or any article), look on the left side of your screen for "Toolbox" - it's the third item down (more or less) "Upload file". Remember, the file (image) you upload must be your own work - it can not be copyrighted by someone else (ie, you can't just copy it from someone's website). Rklawton (talk) 03:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok thank you very much. What if I were to ask for the persons permission for use of that image? Would I be able to use it then?Zaz986 (talk) 03:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but there's a process for that. We provide several different free-distribution license options, and the person would have to agree to the specific one chosen as well as contact Wikipedia directly. It's not an option I've explored because I do all my own work. Rklawton (talk) 03:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks. How much time will I have to improve the Tinkernut.com Article and how will you be reviewing it? I read the criteria for making an article like that on (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WEB) and found that this aricle just about meets 2 out of the 3 criteria. I am also not writing this article to advertise the Website and do not want it to link back to the site for advertising reasons. Zaz986 (talk) 03:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

One of the things I look for is an editor who is making an effort to learn, and I really appreciate the effort I'm seeing in your case. I see no reason to be hasty. How many days do you think you will need? Rklawton (talk) 03:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd really like to save this page. But I don't know where to start. So the article needs to have evidence that it should belong in an encyclopedia like Wikipedai? I guess maybe 3 to 5. Less if I can gather some more resources. Zaz986 (talk) 03:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Three to five days sounds OK with me. This won't prevent another administrator from deleting the article (there are about a thousand of us). However, if that happens, let me know, and I'll move your work over to a separate workspace for you to use without any time pressures - and you won't lose any of your work, either (so don't panic if it happens). Rklawton (talk) 03:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll try and post on here again in a few days and talk to you about the article. Zaz986 (talk) 03:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you check the Tinkernut.com Article?

I've added a few things to the article and I thought you could check it out. I'm having some problems putting a screenshot of the home page and I was wondering if you could help me with that? I've also added more resources as I thought that would help. I would just like you to know that I will keep editing this page in the future as well as many other Wikipedia Articles.Zaz986 (talk) 05:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think screen shots are permitted - copyrights and all that. I'll check on the article Monday. It's Mother's Day. Rklawton (talk) 05:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok.Zaz986 (talk) 05:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering if you have checked the article?Zaz986 (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Some other people and I have added more to the Tinkernut.com article

Alot of people have added things to the article. Could you check it out and tell me what you think.Zaz986 (talk) 00:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

So will the Article stay?

Will the article stay? And what do you mean it lacks style? How can I improve that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaz986 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why it wouldn't stay. Style? Read WP:MOS - but don't worry, that's something lots of folks (we call the gnomes) are willing to help with. Rklawton (talk) 02:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Will you submit it for any type of approval?Zaz986 (talk) 05:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

That's not how it works. Articles stay up and they get improved. If someone thinks it doesn't belong, they post a note and go from there. Rklawton (talk) 12:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Quick Close

How's about we close this one too (and archive it)? It's over, methinks. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 02:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

General tsos chicken

I found an interesting website about general tsos chicken and I was wondering if it could be used as a reference on the page. The link is www.generaltsoschicken.net/RecipeSteps.html it has step by step instructions on how to make general tsos chicken as well as a funny how to video which goes over the steps as well.

Gabster611 (talk) 01:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Gabster611Gabster611 (talk) 01:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You might want to check with Wikipedia's food project. Wikipedia isn't a "how to" - so I'm not sure links to recipes are appropriate - but the folks working on the food project would know better than I. Rklawton (talk) 04:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The Tinkernut Article was deleted

I recently visited the Tinkernut Article and it says that it has been deleted. Would you be able to check it and possibly restore it? What was the reason for deletion?Zaz986 (talk) 23:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the article and moved one of the more notable bits to the top paragraph (per our style). In this way, the casual reader can see and evaluate the article's merits more quickly. I left a note with the deleting admin stating I disagreed with his reasoning and suggested if he thinks the article isn't notable, then he (she?) should submit it to a more formal deletion review. This doesn't obligate the admin to take any action at all (which would be good for you), but if he does submit it for AfD, then you will be notified and given a link. The process would then be open for discussion for five days. You may participate in the discussion. Generally it's best to simply oppose the deletion and point out that the article makes several claims of notability. After that, read what others write and see if you can fix up the article accordingly. Some editors make the mistake of responding to (and repeating themselves) every little comment thereby making the whole process tedious for everyone. Simply fixing problems as they come to light should suffice. The main problem I see is style/formatting - but neither of those are grounds for deleting an article. The problem I initially saw (and others apparently still see) is with the subject's notability. Personally, I think 2.8 million views counts as notable, and additional awards, interviews, etc. bolster the case. Sure, he's not the most famous web personality out there, but he's firmly enough in the gray area where I wouldn't want to nominate the article for deletion myself. Rklawton (talk) 01:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you for restoring the article. I saw on the user that submitted the Article for deletion also submitted it for AfD, what will happen after the discussion is over? Will the article stay or go? Does it depend on the Wikipedia users commenting about it?Zaz986 (talk) 18:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Users will comment on it, and another admin (not me or the guy who submitted it) will evaluate the comments and make a decision to keep or delete it. If it's kept, it's usually kept permanently. If it's not kept, you can appeal. Rklawton (talk) 05:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The Article was deleted again

The article Tinkernut was deleted again. I left a message on the user who deleted the page but I still havent gotten a response. What should I do? Just wait for a response or can you restore it again? Or should I just give up?Zaz986 (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

You read the deletion discussion page. Is there something on this page you do not understand? It's possible to appeal, but given what I read, I'd say you'd be wasting your time. The subject simply lacks sufficient notability. Rklawton (talk) 19:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Oke thanks for all your help.Zaz986 (talk) 04:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

link spam? from 2008?

I was just updating the format - if you don't like the link why didn't you do something about it in the past two years? j-beda (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Just letting you know. Rklawton (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

If you would familiarize yourself with our policy on external links - you would save us pointless discussion. These links are a clear violation. And your smart-ass tone is also not welcome. Rklawton (talk) 21:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, don't get your shorts in a knot. If you think that I contributed to link spam because I changed a link from http://blah-blah.com/Front_Page to http://blah-blah.com/ and added an interwiki link to WikiSpot then you are incorrect, as I didn't add the original links in the first place (as I mentioned, the Wairarapa entry link seems to have been made in late 2008). The ONLY page I actually added anything to today rather than just changing a format of was to the Alameda, California page - I just happened across their Alameda Wikispot page when looking for some Alameda info, and thought it was a good source to add to the wikipedia entry. Perhaps it is inappropriate for this entry - I did not do a huge background check on their "history of stability" and "number of editors". My quick look had me feel that it was appropriate in that case.

What got MY shorts in a knot was, frankly, my hurt feelings when I felt you had accused me of "link spamming" over a variety of articles when I felt that my actions were in fact more equivalent to typo corrections. Perhaps I should get a thicker skin.

I do feel that we have moved wikipedia a bit too far in the "notability" direction and are starting to suffer from loosing useful information and user participation, so I probably would tend to be more inclusive than you perhaps would be, but I do recognize the defensibility of what I perceive to be your position. If I ever have an urge to contribute more to this work, I will certainly keep your expressed position in mind. j-beda (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I was dead wrong about the link-spam bit. I jumped to conclusions on that one, so you have my apology. The links however, aren't helpful. The inclusive/exclusive debate is an old one and not likely to be resolved within the community as it's rather intangible. In the present case, a handful of editors does not a stable wiki make. Rklawton (talk) 22:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia: the FREE encyclopedia

In case you haven't noticed, this is a FREE encyclopedia. Any body, Any where, at Any time can say what ever they want on Any thing. It is open to the public to be edited. On the other hand, if that were true, then Wikipedia would turn into an illogical, incoherent, nonsensical mess. Therefore, it is policed, managed and enforced, in order to breed out the truth. Wikipedia is deigned to bare the truth, and not run as one continuous bibliography. If it was, (that is, let us assume, for a moment, that you're right) when the article states:

The name refers to Eostur-monath, a month of the Germanic calendar named after the goddess Ēostre of Anglo-Saxon paganism.

What it should really say is:

Robert K. Barnhart, in his Dictionary on Concise etymology, says that the name refers to Eostur-monath, a month of the Germanic calendar, which named after the goddess Ēostre of Anglo-Saxon paganism.

If you don't agree with this change, consider this: I can insert my new idea without violating Wikipedia's policy. Look here:

The festival of Easter is undeniably related to Jesus. In fact, the Latin word for Jesus is Iesus (Pronounced: Ee-isus) 2.

And later:

Easter in England is first mentioned by the Venerable Bede in his book, The Reckoning of Time, in 725 A.D. Therefore, it must have started in England some time before that. At which time, the Churches in England spoke Latin in their Liturgy.

Now let us look at the policy itself. I heard user:Ruckabumpkus mention over and over again about peer-reviewed articles. "You would have to cite a peer-reviewed article", or "You would have to write a peer-reviewed article in a magazine or newspaper". (Which I still think is pretty silly and backwards.) I read the entire policy of Wikipedia, and those words are never mentioned. All I read were, "reliable, verifiable sources". I used such sources to:

• Prove that Jesus is translated into Latin as Iesus.
• Prove that Iesus is pronounced "Ee-isus".
• Prove that the Churches of England spoke Latin when Easter was first there.

If you look at any article on Wikipedia, they use anything but peer-reviewed article in an article or newspaper. They quote fan-sites, they quote movies, They quote crack-pot websites, they quote original ancient text. Now, let's unpack those words, peer-reviewed article. I am writing on an article, which is being reviewed by my peers (being a fellow Wikipedean and a fellow Christian). Nate5713 (talk) 11:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the lecture. You're wrong, of course. Wikipedia is *not* about the "bare truth". Wikipedia is about reliable, verifiable sources. Note also that extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. Also, academic topics require academic sources. On the "logical" side, I think an editor with as little editing experience as you have really should listen and learn from significantly more experienced editors. It's only logical that we might have a better grasp over what is and is not appropriate. We've been trying to communicate this to you, but for reasons I couldn't hope to explain, you seem bent on not learning. If you persist, I will initiate proceedings aimed at having you banned from editing. Rklawton (talk) 15:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Before I rebuttal, I'd like to know, just in case, how you would go about banning me. Nate5713 (talk) 22:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I would submit a report with a list of your edits to the administrator's notice board and request they comment. Basically, a guy who insists on using his own logic and conclusions has a snowballs chance in hell. They wouldn't ban you outright, they'd try their luck, much as I have at advising you that we don't publish original research, and then they'd ban you. Just my guess, though. That's how it's usually worked in the past. Sometimes editors wise up, read, and follow our guidelines, and sometimes they don't. The short of it, though, is that we have a limited time to spend volunteering, and people who just don't get it and take up too much of our time get the boot. Rklawton (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Before we get too hasty, I have read the policy and I think I am just as wise as when I started. Here is the definition of original research:

If no source exists for something you want to add to Wikipedia, it is what we call original research.

I don't think this applies to me. After all, I use reliable, verifiable sources, they just happen to bring a conclusion to the reader's head, there is something else I found in the policy too, called WP:SYNTH. SYNTH states that I cannot string together known facts to draw a conclusion. However, look at my proposed edit:

Easter in England is first mentioned by the Venerable Bede in his book, The Reckoning of Time, in 725 A.D. Therefore, it must have started in England some time before that. At which time, the Churches in England spoke Latin in their Liturgy.

True, I string together facts, but I don't in any way promote my new idea. Just a thought, I hope you don't take this the wrong way. Nate5713 (talk) 10:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

"String together facts" is what we call WP:SYNTH and we do not allow it. Period. Rklawton (talk) 13:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I know you're wrong, but I won't argue with you, because you claim to have some political power that some Wikipedeans have and others don't. Curiouser and curiouser. Nate5713 (talk) 12:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The little funny colored letters indicate there's a "link" - if you put your pointer on it and click with the left mouse button, it will take you to a page where other Wikipotemouses make the same point. My power - I call it "reading". Rklawton (talk) 13:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Being an administrator on WP needs no "claim to have some political power", really. It's a fact at this point, Nate5713.

Play by the rules: or you're out of the game... Doc9871 (talk) 15:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand Nate's point regarding political power. I haven't any. I just have knowledge based on experience. I guess "knowledge is power", so maybe that's something. Rklawton (talk) 21:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Another reason

I'm currently involved in an ArbCom case and I'm learning the hard way that anything you say can come back to haunt you. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Food for thought, and thanks. Anything I can do to help? Rklawton (talk) 01:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

No, thanks for the offer though. I am wondering, however, if there's a better way to explain to newbies why the 9/11 article isn't biased. If you noticed in my first response to the IP, I used the term "mainstream news sources" and not "reliable sources" because to a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, PrisonPlanet and Loose Change are the reliable sources. It didn't seem to help though! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Per the whole images of Muhammad brouhaha, the best approach is either link to or copy the FAQ. To us, it's repetitive, but to a novice it's informative. At least the talk pages auto-archive. As for the FAQ wording... perhaps something along the lines of "...theories that contradict the overwhelming majority of the evidence and thousands of eyewitness accounts..." and omit introducing V and RS in order to keep the noobs out of the deep end until they learn to swim. Rklawton (talk) 02:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding what you said on the discussion page for the Satanic Verses

There is no reason to believe that Muslim scholars decide which Quranic verses are authentic or not. The Quran has been preserved in its authenticity since the inception of Islam. There is nothing fictional in the slightest about that. Your argument, presumably, is that early Muslim scholars had to cut this verse out of the Quran. Most early historical accounts dating near the death of the Prophet(PBUH) don't mention a single thing about the satanic verses. The idea of such a thing seems to be not at all in the mindset of early Muslims or later Muslims but simply a lousy rumor spread within a few circles. Al Tabari is not a certified historian of Islam. He was born 200 years after the Prophets death. To say that he has any say over such a thing is foolishness at best and pure slander at worst.14:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.113.234 (talk)

You should probably take some time and read up on the history of the Quran as you see to have bought into popular, modern myths. The current version doesn't match the earliest versions, and parts of it even today are incoherent even to Arabic language scholars. You might also find this article informative Historicity of Muhammad. Rklawton (talk) 22:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for barging into somebody else's discussion Rk; but I have assumed from your informed contributions to the article on the Gospel of John that you are concerned that Wikipedia articles on religious texts should reflect a robust standard of critical scholarship. I was therefore intrigued by the confidence of your assertions as to the history of the Qur'an and the and the antiquity of the canonical texts and variants, as your views appear incompatible with those of Estelle Whelan;

The different types of evidence cited here all thus lead to the conclusion that the Muslim tradition is reliable, at least in broad outline, in attributing the first codification of the Qur'anic text to ‘Uthman and his appointed commission. The Qur'an was available to his successors as an instrument to help weld the diverse peoples of the rapidly expanding empire into a relatively unified polity.

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Dome_Of_The_Rock/Estwitness.html

more evidence supporting Whelan's conclusions can be found in the attached article - whose critical scholarship I find very convincing, especially in confirming Whelan's rejection of the speculative and ahistorical theories of such scholars as Wansborough and Crone.

http://www.teachislam.com/dmdocuments/64/The%20Quranic%20Manuscripts.pdf

But what is your view, and do you have any more recent evidence which might cast doubt on Whelan's conclusions? TomHennell (talk) 11:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Estelle Whelan is grossly dated and not an Islamic scholar or linguist. In short, she's unqualified to have an opinion on the matter. This conversation should take place in the relevant article's talk page - not here. In this way, more editors are invited to the conversation and it becomes part of the article's history. Rklawton (talk) 12:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I have copied this exchange onto the discussion page for article History of the Qur'an TomHennell (talk) 14:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Disruption on Islamic pages

Hi, as I see you now and then on Talk:Muhammad and elsewhere, I thought I'd alert you that User:Rizvirizvi has been busily inserting numerous violations of WP:MOSISLAM (Arabic honorifics, preaching Qur'an passages) to numerous Islam-related articles, in spite of some pleas on his talk page to stop. I don't see any warning templates that would cover this; the editor isn't engaging in vandalism, but rather using articles to proselytize his faith. I've done some massive reversions on a few articles already. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

Please do not archive discussion threads that are only a few days old as you did here. It is HIGHLY inappropriate. If you have further questions about this, please ask. Rklawton 21:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I only archived this thread quickly because its creator realized that the Talk:Conspiracy theory page was not the appropriate forum to discuss his concerns about Template:Conspiracy theories so he agreed to move the discussion to the Template talk:Conspiracy theories page. --Loremaster (talk) 01:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

In those cases, just add a note that the thread has been moved (copied). Rklawton (talk) 03:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Schlessinger

I have removed the post again. Please do not replace it, and refrain from making block threats in edit summaries. The post was made by a new user, who obviously doesn't understand the expected ethos here. I hope you do. I have gently pointed the new user in the right direction on his talk page. Replacing his inflamed rhetoric is not at all conducive to harmonious editing. Thanks.--Scott Mac 18:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Further discussion should take place on AN/I. I didn't warn I'd block you. I warned I'd take it to AN/I with a recommendation for a block, and that's what I've done. Rklawton (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm having difficulty distinguishing your actions from trolling, but perhaps that's my lack of imagination.--Scott Mac 19:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Rklawton. You have new messages at DocOfSoc's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

It's me all right

Hi Rklawton,

I am one and the same as l4m4re. Just to confirm. 82.75.56.191 (talk) 17:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Oops, this didn't really work. You'll have to check your Dutch account for proper confirmation .... 82.75.56.191 (talk) 17:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Correct. Thank you. Rklawton (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Return of RomanHistorian

As soon as his block ended, he stalked half a dozen of my recent changes--including those on topics he knows and cares nothing about--and reverted my work. His edit comments were a parody of the ones I've left when he edit-warred against consensus. These cannot possibly be good-faith edits, so I'm reverting them.

Quite frankly, I find this behavior extraordinarily childish and I would appreciate your assistance in getting in stopped. Where do I report him? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 07:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I just discovered that, of all things, he reported me. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 07:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Where? Rklawton (talk) 13:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Rklawton (talk) 15:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

3RR complaint still needs to be formally closed

Hello Rklawton. I see that you've commented at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Dylan Flaherty reported by User:John J. Bulten (Result: ). I make out a plain 3RR violation by Dylan Flaherty, and if it were up to me, I'd be inclined to issue a block or ask him to stay off the article for a while. I see the following as four reverts within 24 hours:

1. 08:56, 10 October 2010 (edit summary: "undue weight on a fringe belief")
2. 19:35, 10 October 2010 (edit summary: "no, these skew far away from the mainstream and give undue weight to non-mainstream views; please talk this over and gain consensus first")
3. 02:04, 11 October 2010 (edit summary: "there is still no consensus in support of these changes, so please make your case before editing")
4. 07:26, 11 October 2010 (edit summary: "restore consensus version")

Can you clarify whether you are officially closing the report? On the broader issue, where people are disputing several biblical articles, my own previous closure of a 3RR case up above seems to have produced little benefit. Asking at WP:ANI for a 1RR/day restriction on these articles might be worthwhile. Would you have an opinion on that? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

3RR is not obvious in this case. That is not to say 3RR didn't happen, but my contributions to the article's discussion would preclude me from making a subjective decision. However, there clearly is edit warring in my view, but that's subjective. I've warned Dylan on his talk page accordingly. With regard to this article, I would only take admin action in cases of blatant vandalism or blatant 3RR. Rklawton (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. A discussion continues at the 3RR report. I am trying to find out why there is scepticism that Dylan performed a plain 3RR violation. My initial tack on this dispute was to nudge people toward discussion, but that does not seem to have worked. It is possible that only blocks or protections will have any effect. EdJohnston (talk) 16:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The diffs you posted here didn't look like reversions, and if he's stopped reverting, then 3RR isn't necessary. However, if he continues to edit-war, then that's not a matter for 3RR but it is one you should bring before uninvolved administrators because it's blockable. Rklawton (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess we differ on that, and perhaps it explains why Dylan doesn't think he violated WP:3RR. The wording of the policy says "A "revert" in the context of this rule means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. It can involve as little as one word." A revert does not have to restore a previous version of the article. EdJohnston (talk) 18:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It's my understanding that the reversion or edit should be the same in all three instances. I did warn him about edit warring, though. Rklawton (talk) 18:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Looks like a lot has happened while I was away. For what it's worth, I still don't believe I violated 3RR, and I certainly never intended to. On the other hand, it's become painfully obvious that RomanHistorian is holding a grudge against me for reverting his bad changes. I still want to report him for pointedly reverting perfectly good changes. I think it's a violation of the spirit of his block; he was silenced to remind him not to edit war, so edit-warring the moment he returns is unacceptable. Unlike him, though, I'm not going to make wild accusations or demand a permanent block. That's just malice on his part, and I refuse to sink to his level.

So, where do I report him? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I blocked him because he blatantly violated 3RR. If you want to hit him up with edit warring, I'd start with requesting dispute resolution. Those folks can check in, try to help out, and make the edit warring call. By the you'll have a dozen or so supporters. Rklawton (talk) 02:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

We're actually already in dispute resolution, if you can believe that. It's not going anywhere, either.

Isn't there some place I can report him for maliciously reverting reasonable changes purely to make a point? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Ask the folks in dispute resolution - if he's that bad (I haven't looked in the last day or so), they they aught to be getting tired of him. Rklawton (talk) 12:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

There don't seem to bee be any folks in dispute resolution. There's this page, but there's nothing there but bickering. Maybe I'm just missing the point here. Shouldn't someone be mediating or something? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 12:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Mediation doesn't mean you get your way on everything.RomanHistorian (talk) 15:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

There was no mediation. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

An admirer

Somebody's in your fanclub - I just deleted R.K. Lawton as, sadly, an A7, although it could have been a G11. Acroterion _(talk) 16:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Egads. G1, G2, and G3 also applies (more or less). And he got one of my URLs wrong. My web-enabled fan club has exactly two people in it, and my wife is at work, so I'm guessing my father just discovered how to edit Wikipedia. Rklawton (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

That's possible, assuming your father is an Argentinian named Pablo. Acroterion _(talk) 19:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Pablo could be a pen name, and yes, he once lived in Argentina. Rklawton (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, you might be right. It looked a little trollish on its face, but it's pretty much the sort of thing that my father would come up with if he started editing WP too. Acroterion _(talk) 20:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

complain

What you have to use a public board to complain? They don't have special boards for the elite Wikipedia editors/admins? I could have complained on that board and I have 'only' been editing sporadically since 2007. Did you tell them I hurt your feelings too?RomanHistorian (talk) 20:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I quite understand what happened here: the entire discussion just went away without being resolved. Is this normal or some sort of mistake? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 16:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Normal. All I asked for was a review. Other editors reviewed his actions and affirmed what I'd been telling him. If he continues to revert rather than work toward consensus, the issue will come up again, and there will be a record of his behavior. Some editors change, others don't. Those who don't end up banned. This is especially true of editors trying to bully others in contentious articles. Rklawton (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks like I have a lot to learn about how Wikipedia is organized. Or should I say "organized"?

My self-imposed vacation from Bible articles is up in a few days. We'll see how that plays out. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 17:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I recommend you encourage consensus building for each point of contention and encourage editors to participate in this process and refrain from editing until they've achieved consensus. If an editor changes or reverts without consensus, just leave it (the world won't end) and point out the problem to the group working on consensus building instead. Eventually the editor will change his or her editing habits or the group will get tired of the "my way or the highway" approach that contentious editors take, and they'll push for a topic (or global) editing ban. Rklawton (talk) 17:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

This is good advice. I'll also be limiting myself to two reverts, to discourage edit warring and to avoid coming anywhere near the third rail. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 17:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I recommend not reverting anything in one of the religion articles unless it's from a drive-by editor. And even then, you could simply bring up the edit in a new talk-page thread rather than revert. Rklawton (talk) 19:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

If I'm going to work on those pages, I'm going to wind up making changes, some of which will be considered "reverting". But, yes, directly reverting changes is pretty much RomanHistorian's style and it's a big part of what got him into hot water. I don't see any reason to follow in his footsteps. I certainly don't want to be making wholesale reversions without prior discussion.

My deeper concern is that the rest of his style is to make many changes at once, a few that are just fine but mixed in with others that are questionable or worse. With such an aggressive editor -- I think the wiki-slang is "bold" -- it's hard to deal with all of the changes at once. If he would make one change at a time, I'd expect that many of them would be acceptable. Instead, he just makes a mess of the whole page, which makes it hard to improve the article except by reverting the whole thing. It's frustrating. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 19:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Create new sections for each objection and go from there. By creating individual sections for each problem, you won't lose track of them. And remember, you're not alone. He received a lot of criticism on the AN/I page for his methods. Rklawton (talk) 21:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for all the helpful advice. I will do my best. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm still on Bible vacation, but he went after me on a random article. I searched around until I found a place to complain, but I wanted to keep you in the loop. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Precision Camera

I have speedily deleted Precision Camera, which you created, as a recreation of a redirect previously deleted at RfD. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 December 19. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 15:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The primary justification for deleting the redirect was that it was created by a spammer. Obviously I'm not a spammer, so that justification fails in this case. Since you were aware of the discussion and the rationale, why did you not take this into consideration? Rklawton (talk) 01:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for Campus Ambassadors in Houston

Hi! I'm leaving you this message because you are listed as a Wikipedian connected with Rice University. The Wikipedia Ambassador Program is currently looking for Campus Ambassadors to help with Wikipedia assignments at another Houston school, which will be participating in the Public Policy Initiative for the Spring 2011 semester. The role of Campus Ambassadors will be to provide face-to-face training and support for students on Wikipedia-related skills (how to edit articles, how to add references, etc.). This includes doing in-class presentations, running workshops and labs, possibly holding office hours, and in general providing in-person mentorship for students.

Prior Wikipedia skills are not required for the role, as training will be provided for all Campus Ambassadors (although, of course, being an experienced editor is a plus).

If you live in Houston and you are interested in being a Wikipedia Campus Ambassador, or know someone else from the area who might be, please email me or leave a message on my talk page.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi! We aren't working with any instructors in St. Louis yet, but as the ambassador program expands, hopefully we can in a future term. If you'd like to be a Campus Ambassador around there, you can add yourself to the list of interested ambassadors at Wikipedia:Campus Ambassadors. There's also the role of Online Ambassador, which you may be interested in. It involves being an on-wiki mentor for students who've been assigned to contribute to Wikipedia. If that catches your fancy, there are more details about the role and instructions for applying at the online ambassador page. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks!--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 15:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I added Wash U. to the list and my self as "interested". Now, how do I get trained? Also note: some universities have "teaching with technology" seminars. They are oriented toward training faculty on how to use some aspect of technology (in this case, Wikipedia) in their classrooms. Personally, I think this approach would make better use of our time - rather than return to campus semester after semester to directly teach students. Rklawton (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The next round of trainings (after the imminent one in early January) is likely to be during this summer, and possibly again before the start of the fall term. We're in the process of figuring out how that will work. We've been training a lot of people who aren't Wikipedians--including faculty and staff at these universities, sometimes in connection with whatever training programs are at a given university. But the main point with this project was the lower the barrier to entry, to make it so that faculty didn't need to come in already having spent a lot of time figuring out how to work Wikipedia into their classes effectively.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Meetup in St. Louis for Wikipedia's tenth anniversary

Hello Rklawton. I would like to invite you to a meetup this Saturday at 5 PM at the City Museum to celebrate Wikipedia's tenth anniversary. Even if you cannot make it, please drop your name at Wikipedia:Meetup/St. Louis in the regrets section or watchlist that page to be informed about future meetups in St. Louis. Hope to see you this weekend or at a future meetup. Cheers.--Chaser (talk) 06:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to see you can't make it. If there is anything I can do to accomodate for next time, please let me know. Elonka is interested in doing a meetup some weekend she's in town and I think Tim Vicker's might be interested, too. Pity about the photo policy. Thank you for modifying the page accordingly. Maybe next time we'll go someplace we can have a real photo op, like Forest Park. Best, Chaser (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

It would have been nice to meet up. I rarely require special accommodation, but there was nothing that could be done for tonight. I've been wanting to publish my City Museum photos for years, and I've communicated with their PR folks to that effect. Here's one of my favorite images.[3] They're friendly enough, but the problem resolves down to one of copyrights. Just about everything visible in the museum is copyrighted artwork. Such is life. We have the same problem with the Missouri Botanical Gardens. For starters, I'd need to post a $1 million insurance policy (plus fees for staff minders) for a professional shoot of their exhibits. Even weddings, where their displays feature only as background, cost a few hundred for starters (tripods extra). TMBG also print their policy on their tickets. If you'd like to combine a photo shoot with a meet-up, I can recommend a few graveyards with graves and monuments of historic interest with maybe a trip to an Irish pub afterwards for belated "wake" to celebrate their lives. It would be like a creepy scavenger hunt. Rklawton (talk) 03:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, RK!

Oh, RK Lawton, haha! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.49.128 (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey!

Forgetting the city/City dispute, I would like your help in becoming a better editor (Wikipedian). How can I become a better editor? I'd like to be able to do so much more than I (now) know how - I think I have more to contribute. Would you be willing to help me learn?

Sure. Here's two ideas that immediately jump to mind. You're already on top of another recommendation I always make: be open to learning and asking for help - so good work on that one. Rklawton (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

1. - always sign your posts with four tilde's ~~~~.
2. - if you want to change a format that affects thousands of articles, discuss your changes first.

JEREMIESTROTHER

Hi RKLawton, Thanx for all the constructive criticism and comments! The overwhelming majority of my edits are simple mechanical/grammatical corrections; because that type of edit is virtually always right/wrong, I do not always think it's necessary to login—no sock puppetry intended; but when you're just fixing commas, capitalization, s/v agreement, etc., then there's hardly a need to login every time. Thankfully, you've motivated me to become more serious about becoming a higher-level editor, if indeed that's the term. I should seek a mentor. I'm in the market for a mentor – any suggestions? I know that there are many more improvements that I could make if I only knew how.

It's true: I hope to spark true discussion and thought about deleting the field called "official name", because I genuinely feel that it's a discussion that needs to occur in order to work out the problem. (As English does not have an Academie Francaise, or the like, it doesn't seem that Wikipedia should try to set a new standard as much as follow standards which have already been set, I don't see why we would go against the already-established standards of major style guides in the U.S.) Wow! That's the crux of my argument: Wikipedia needs to discuss more thoroughly the necessity of including a field in the city infobox called "official name". But I digress.

I'm posting this on your talk page because I don't know how to properly post on the "warning" page which announces an investigation. At least here I am assured that I haven't violated a rule.

In my defense, I contribute a solid body of corrections and improvements, and have done so for a very long time. I revert vandalism when I find it. I correct incorrect grammar. I correct mechanics. There's no reason to block an individual simply because you disagree with his point of view on a single topic. Overwhelmingly, I proofread, not copyedit. I don't consider myself an expert on the vast majority of articles I read or edit—so I don't think it's appropriate for me to significantly change an author's words. However, recognizing that authors are also not necessary grammarians, I do find it utterly necessary that bad English and incorrect usage be corrected—"nipped in the bud" as it were, so as not to perpetuate bad/incorrect English. My personal point of view, in terms of correct American English usage, tends to follow this hierarchy of standards and resources: (1) AP, (2) Chicago Manual of Style, (3) Webster's New World College Dictionary, Wiley (4) any other reputable, published resource which can defend the position taken.

All that having been said, please feel free to post this in the necessary forums. I'd post it there myself, but I'm too afraid of ignorantly and innocently violating some rule. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.43.187 (talk) 06:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC) I got logged out - so, for the record, the preceding was posted by jeremiestrother.

For mentorship - see Wikipedia:Mentorship.

Editing scores of articles in a manner that goes against logic and consensus violates Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Please don't do it.

There is no "style" issue when it comes to reporting a city's "official name". Official names are a matter of fact and not a matter of style, and in this instance it is our intention to report on the fact.

I'll post a link to your response in WP:ANI for you. Rklawton (talk) 13:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm woefully short of enough time to do justice to the request, but if no one else volunteers, (or even if they do), I'll be happy to help, with the understanding that I can't promise timely responses. One other warning, if Jeremiestrother agrees that I can try to be a mentor, I will try to encourage him to spend some time at Requests for feedback, which needs all kinds of help, including copy edit help. (I'll xpost at JS talk.)

Sounds like a good start, thanks. Rklawton (talk) 02:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Please do not comment on my user page when I direct the question to someone else. You're welcome to remove your last post from my page.Jeremiestrother (talk) 20:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Campus Ambassador

Thanks for the welcome! I'll certainly let you know if I have questions. Go Owls! User:lspiro —Preceding undated comment added 18:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC).

Any relation?

Any relationship to the photographer S. K. Lawton by any chance?AerobicFox (talk) 05:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC) If there is, it would have been many centuries ago. All the "modern" Lawtons are accounted for. Rklawton (talk) 15:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Lol, kk. :)AerobicFox (talk) 16:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

How to report vandal?

This user Mad_Doggin_7 aka 65.254.165.214 has now jumped IPs and continues to edit the BRS Character page after being given proof of information and also impersonating another user to gain advantage in an argument. His new IP is 81.30.72.58, so not only did he break his ban he continues to vandalize the page he was told not to edit. Unicogirl (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocked. Rklawton (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

2edge2sword

I agree and posting the spam warning was not the correct template :). Gabesta449 ^{edits ♦ chat} 18:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

This editor isn't the typical vandal type. Let's see if we can encourage him/her to become a constructive contributor. False starts such as these are common and often correctable. Rklawton (talk) 19:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Pardon. Thanks for your patience. Learning in progress. Please direct me to the discussion page. 2edgeSword (talk) 20:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

No worries. The discussion page is here. Rklawton (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Zachary Cuddeback

I didn't actually know A1C Zachary Cuddeback, but I am no more than 10th cousin to him because all Cuddebacks in the USA are descended from a single family that settled in Orange County NY in 1688. KevinCuddeback (talk) 01:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

City names

You wrote: Please do not change official city names to common names. These official names are listed in the "official name" field exactly where they belong.

However, check the MoS and AP. "City of/Town of" is ONLY in reference to the corporate government of a city/town when it acts in its official capacity. The official names of "Bullhead City" or "Kansas City" inherently include the word "City"; otherwise, the name of a city or town does not include the word "city" or "town". Cities and towns seem to like to include those words as a form of self-aggrandisement.

Correct: Because its mayor was convicted of corruption, the City of Anytown decided to review all the mayor's prior activities on behalf of the city of Anytown.

Correct: I live in Anytown, USA.

Incorrect: I live in City of Anytown, USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremiestrother (talk • contribs)

This policy applies to city name usage. It does not apply to the field "Offical_name" which we set aside specifically to record the city's official name. This issue is now being discussed on the MoS talk page Rklawton (talk) 14:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

There was virtually no discussion - these things take time. Other points of view have been posted. I suspect you're jumping the gun in feeling that the matter is resolved.

Three editors volunteered their opinions, myself and two others all agree that "official name" means official name. The only one opposed is you. Perhaps more people will participate, but at this point, the discussion direction is clear, and the logic is obvious. Rklawton (talk) 21:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Oknavezad didn't agree 100% with either one of us - thus: "other points of view".

Oknavezad agreed "official name" means what it says and that you were wrong to change it, and in this case, that's all that matters. Rklawton (talk) 13:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I also think this issue was considered closed/resolved way too soon. There is absolutely no reason for Wikipedia to dictate to the world what "Official city names" are. This "Official name" lingo is ridiculous at best. "City of" is but an identifier used to indicate the government of the city, not to discuss the city itself. If people in this debate insist on being able to see "City of" in front of their official city names, then we need to change the infobox nomenclature. What some people are wrongly insistent on calling "Official name" should be changed to "Nomenclature of governing body". Otherwise, identifiers are NOT a part of a city name. In addition, this debate should not be limited to cities, it should also apply to the governing bodies of provinces and states and countries, etc. Whoever started this little lingo trend for cities only was in error and it's high time that this situation be corrected. I'm only writing you here because I have no idea how to reopen this debate to a large audience, 3-4 people is not sufficient for this matter. yours truly--Tallard (talk) 04:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not dictate "official city names" - it reports official city names from official sources. If you don't like the way a city's official name reads, take it up with the city. Rklawton (talk) 02:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Ken Starr

nice work. Decora (talk) 01:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

AN/I notification

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Ohiostandard at WQA

I finally got fed up with him chasing my edits and accusing me of heinous crimes - and am notifying you since your name necessarily occured in my complaint. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

24.87.12.222 vandalizing articles

I am not sure why they continue to remove information and insert false information. Unicogirl (talk) 06:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Operation Eagle Claw

You wrote:

This is your last warning; the next time you insert a spam link, as you did at Operation Eagle Claw, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. - Rklawton (talk) 21:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Why were the links marked as SPAM? They offer important information, including a full account of the operation, from historians who are experts in Special Operations. With the coming anniversary, it is an opportunity to remind readers of the events as they occurred, with lesson on how these operations may work/not work in the future. In hindsight, I can see how one of the articles, which lists additional reading sources might not be applicable here, but the one titled "Beyond Hell and Back" provides valuable historical information.--Ciro612 (talk) 10:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Response to OBL death date

Your point is correct, but the section I removed was pre-announcement speculation that the death was "several days ago" (implying April 28th-29th or so) which was incorrect and out-of-date. Sorry to be unclear.Seleucus (talk) 06:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I invite you to weigh in here. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you.Rklawton (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

African slavery

You sent me a threat rather than debate a poorly sourced image. I consider your threat an abuse of administrator tools. And intend to report your threat.

Good day.

---

Akinsope —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akinsope (talk • contribs) 00:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Akinsope, let us use the talk page to resolve it. Already I agree with your observations. But we should find an alternative free image and then I will 100% support your edits. I do not think your actions are vandalism esp since you are on this occasion making a correct observation (that i only now pick up). I can only speak about edits on African slavery. Threats seem to be part of how some editors work. intimidate people to not go against them. It happens to me also. hoping that you are ignorant of wiki policy so that you will run away. But observe the rules and do not run. But do not revert the edits until we resolve it per my suggestion--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 09:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

All I'm asking for editors to follow the rules. All I'm threatening is blocking when editors refuse to follow the rules. And I won't hesitate. Rklawton (talk) 13:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Your threats do not deter me

Lawton, I only wrote on talk. How can I be blocked by writing valid points on talk? Go ahead in your threats, this will go on the Admin noticeboard if you continue your threats of block. 194.254.137.114 (talk) 19:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Trolling and soapboxing are blockable offences even when done on talk pages. You have been warned. Rklawton (talk) 19:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Blanking out Osama Bin Laden Death template

I did NOT blank out or attempt to vandalize the Odama Bin Laden Death template. Please present your evidence or I will request you face disciplinary action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Classic forever (talk • contribs) 23:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah you did. I posted the evidence on your talk page. Rklawton (talk) 23:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I did NOT do that edit, or at least did not intend to. I was trying to update the info box page to reflect the fact that there were zero U.S. personnel casualties, as reflected in the second edit I made to that article, which did get approved and which has yet to be flagged. Please remove your "final warning" or I will find recourse with higher Wikipedia authorities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Classic forever (talk • contribs) 23:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

You did the edit. I'll accept that it was a mistake. However, your prior edit history of vandalism puts you on thin ice, and I will immediately block your account from editing if you continue. Rklawton (talk) 23:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Your blocks do not deter me

I may be blocked but you are still an asshole. And coward. 93.138.126.185 (talk) 03:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

TY for deleting the cite needed note on the trident thing! jengod (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

No worries - the issue had been brought up and resolved previously, so it was an easy fix. Rklawton (talk) 22:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Osama bin Laden opening sentence

Hello, I noticed you had an interest in the wording of the first sentence of the article concerning Osama bin Laden's death. I thought you might be interested in joining in the discussion on this subject on the talk page of the article. Owen (talk) 18:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. Rklawton (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Detailed India section re-added in "reactions to osama's death page."

Hello sir. I had added a detailed section (all data well sourced) about india's reaction to the death of osama. Actually i had added it a few days back, but a "user:ichigo" removed it stating "no importance". Seeing the overwhelming requests in the discussion page, i had re-added the india section. Plz check it.Hari7478 (talk) 06:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't have time to review your contribution in detail. However, I support the idea on the whole. Do be careful to focus on national reactions (or national summaries of local reactions) rather than long lists of local reactions you've compiled yourself as this would verge on crossing the SYNTH line. I believe India's reactions to this event are important for the reasons listed below:

• India represents a significant portion of the planet's population.
• India is one of the world's few economic powerhouses.
• India is a nuclear power.
• India, China, and Pakistan form a regional power triangle that coexist in a delicate balance.
• India is in a significant adversarial relationship with Pakistan with ongoing skirmishes.
• India and Pakistan share a large border. Rklawton (talk) 01:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Sir, this is with the respect with your reply on the India section in Talk page of Reaction to death of Osama bin Laden, what is troll(I have no idea) and please tell me if I did Any mistake in the talk page.Sir I tried to assume good faith while taking part in editing and discussions.--Tall.kanna (talk) 03:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Kanna. Please accept my apology. I posted the comment in question in the wrong section. The mistake is entirely my own. Since no one has commented directly upon it, I simply removed it from the talk page (I'll relocate it to the correct section shortly). Again, I apologize for any concern my mistake may have caused you - the comment was not direct at you or any participant in the India thread at all. Rklawton (talk) 03:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, no problem sir. Thank you for the help. --Tall.kanna (talk) 03:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Meyers

Your revision and talk notice overlapped with mine and my follow-up on the article's talk page.--Otheus (talk) 00:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

So I've noticed. I've responded on the article's talk page, thanks. Rklawton (talk) 00:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Osama mugs all round

No, not spam. And nothing whatsoever that deserves a warning for vandalism. A valid topic that is worthy of discussion in that article, and/ or possibly in "Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden". Or maybe you don't do irony? Whatever, please reinstate this topic for discussion that you have decided, without any discission, to delete wholesale. Thank you. 86.172.225.184 (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't do irony - or spam. And no, I will not repost it. And yes, I will block you from editing if you choose to persist. Rklawton (talk) 19:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

In my experiece, most editors actually do irony. But that was just my comment, not my purpose. You have misconstrued my placement of examples of utterly distasteful mechadnising as "spam". This aspect of American culture certainly deserves proper discussion, not a rapid sweeping under the editoral carpet. 86.172.225.184 (talk) 19:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Or would you rather I raised your behaviour and comments at WP:ANI? 86.172.225.184 (talk) 19:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

We're busy writing articles while you're busy amusing yourself. That's going to go over real big at ANI. Good luck with that. Rklawton (talk) 21:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm suggesting a valid topic for discussion and you're too busy writing the article to even consider what I have suggested. You simply delete what I have added and accuse me of hyping spam. So let's put it to the test at ANI. I am not amused in the least. 86.172.225.184 (talk) 22:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

"I'm suggesting a valid topic for discussion" - you may have meant to do so, but it didn't come off that way. Try proposing some actual text to be added to the article. Rd232 ^talk 01:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I have now asked for advice here and here 86.172.225.184 (talk) 22:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Since you have theatened to ban that ip personally, I am guessing that you are an Administrator. If so, then I think you are setting a pretty bad example - jumping to a wrong conclusion very rapidy, then being very rude and accusing that editor of all sorts of things without any kind of evidence. The topic was added to the "reactions to" article, in perfectly good faith, on the advice of another editor. Why do you persist in describing the links added for that topic as "his merchandising material"? Surely they are simply links selected ro demonstrate how offensive that material is. If the editor has added example links to on-line prescription medicines, would you accuse him or her of promoting those too? the occult? assisted suicide? Your conclusion that this editor is "an established troll" seems to just prove your very strong bias. You are being vey unfair. 86.167.240.178 (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

"Don't like material => editor is a troll". 86.168.255.179 (talk) 20:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You removed my comment too =/

Hi, I'm afraid that in this edit you also removed my comment, and that was without my permission. Except for the guy's thing about Bush and oil money, etc, it is a legitimate question about who gets his assets, but only if it's going to be reported by RSs of course (otherwise it is just musings of an editor and WP:SPECULATION). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 14:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm rather at a loss to understand your deletion of my comment Rklawton. It was sourced from the BBC. None of my assertions were factually incorrect - the Bin Ladens were family friends of the Bushes. It is reasonable to speculate about his chilren and his will and it would be very interesting to have material about it in the article if anything comes up. Is your beef my mention of the Bush family? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Your comment was blatant trolling, soap-boxing, and speculation - none of it oriented around improving the article. So knock it off and participate like a grown-up - or don't participate at all. It's your call. However, if you persist, I will bring the matter up with fellow admins with an eye toward convincing you to stop. Rklawton (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

And mine? Also, speculation is not bad if the person is keeping an eye out for future developments and putting them in the article at a later date when they do come in RSs. It's only a problem when they put poorly-sourced or unsourced speculation in the article proper, at least that's how I understand it. I don't think the guy was trolling though. I think he was expressing a political view on the talk page along with suggesting something for the article, and let's face it, we've all done that. I think you're not assuming good faith here. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 17:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

With the original problem gone, your response wasn't necessary. Rklawton (talk) 17:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's good to just delete it without asking.... I thought usual practice was to archive topics considered trolling. Though, like I said, I don't think it was trolling or much in the way of Soapboxing. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls applies here. Rklawton (talk) 18:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I still think you might be mischaracterising it, and not assuming good faith, but I don't think this convo is going to go anywhere. Good day. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The comment was sufficient to clearly demonstrate it was made in bad faith. If you would like to humiliate yourself further by seeking additional opinions regarding the alleged "good faith" of the comment, you are welcome to do so. Rklawton (talk) 18:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It really wasn't trolling or in bad faith and I'm pretty sorry you've taken it that way - it also makes me speculate as to your POV, which you haven't responded to, simply labelling it troll repeatedly. I was and am genuinely interested to know if there is a will. I raise the issue of the children and wives from the highest quality source (the BBC) as being something we could include in the article. I mentioned the Bin Laden family wealth - this is relevant. I also mentioned the connection between the Bin Laden family, the Bush family and Texas Big Oil which is superabundantly referencable globally. I look forward to defending this in any action you raise against me. Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

If you think my opinion is wrong, then why are you asking me my opinion? Ask someone else - bring it up on WP:AN and ask them if the comment as originally phrased was appropriate - or are you afraid I'm dead right? Rklawton (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm protesting being repeatedly described as a "troll" (your words) and having a (clearly to you controversial) reasonable contribution deleted. I wasn't planning to take it to ANI but pointing out my reasoning as plainly above you are threatening me with retribution if I persist. If you have no further interest, fine, I will continue to discuss it on the relevant talk page as should be happening prior to your deletion. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted your surprise visit, Lawton

[4] and [5]. Uncalled for and sufficiently spineless for you to earn the label coward in my book. Sswonk (talk) 03:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

This is what we do for indef blocked users. Do you believe Sarah777 should be treated somehow differently? Rklawton (talk) 03:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Replying in both places. The answer to the question is no. The previous statement, by you, "this is what we do", is vague. Who is "we", and if it is what "we" do meaning administrators, why was it not done by the many admins before you who have been participating in the discussions? Sswonk (talk) 03:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, an attempt to so tag the userpage of Rodhullandemu was reverted as in poor taste. Surely the same should apply here. I'm not sure calling Lawton a coward is called for, however. Lovetinkle (talk) 06:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I searched the recent edit history of that user's page and talk page and found nothing. Could you show me the diff? Rklawton (talk) 06:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, I found it. It's not something I did. That's interesting. So what's the template to be used for then? Rklawton (talk) 07:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting you tagged Rodhullandemu's page in that wise. I was merely suggesting that if he shouldn't be so tagged (nor his recent sock) then surely the same might apply to Sarah. Possibly that template should be only be used on egregious types, rather than solid content contributors who have strayed from paths of rectitude. Lovetinkle (talk) 08:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I looked up the template to see how it's to be used. I posted my findings on the related AN/I thread. It basically says that it's generally up to the blocking admin's discretion, but it doesn't prohibit the use by others. Rklawton (talk) 13:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

poser

Rather than file at ANI, I'm picking the last admin that I see posting there (you :). We have an admin poser with us. He has added such things before and been messing about and others have defrocked him but he persists in adding such claims back onto his user page. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that's new to me, so I posted it on AN/I for advice. Rklawton (talk) 03:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

That link goes to secure.wikimedia.org, that's probably how you ended up logged out. Users can make up anything they want on their userpage, so long as they don't claim authority they don't have. Which that template does, so remove it and warn. Prodego ^talk 04:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - will do. Rklawton (talk) 04:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I picked a single admin to minimize drama...I didn't realize that my link on the secure server would do that (Sorry . I've noticed recently that the non-secure links will redirect me to the secure server but only part of the time...I assume this is something the devs have been working on. Thank you both for handling this matter. You can request oversight if you don't want you're IP revealed.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection to fielding direct requests - I volunteered for this, and I'm happy to serve. Unfortunately, I had no experience in this matter, so I posted your question to AN/I in hopes to learn more. The solution was simple enough that I'm a little embarrassed I didn't think of it myself. Thank you for your suggestion regarding oversight. However, I'm not concerned. Cheers, Rklawton (talk) 04:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

AN/I Issue:Reply

Sorry for the misleading information posted. I will promise to try not to post these misleading infos.Alam567 (talk) 04:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC) Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

AN/I on Jihad article

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Censorship_of_Islam_related_articles_by_Adamrce

regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Army Compartmented Elements

Congratulations, by deletion of this page you have caused interwiki links from three dozen languages point to nothing. Sometimes it won't hurt to first check the situation before acting. -- 78.129.220.45 (talk) 14:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

And speaking of checking first... Rklawton (talk) 14:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

delta in operation in neptune spear

i dont understand why you deleted my entry.according to the government devgru and delta dont exist. the gov didnt say devgru participated in raid but is only speculated by the media. cia sad operatives dont "exist" either, however, it is speculated that they do exist and participated in the raid. whos to say that delta ( a unit that government doesnt acknowledge) didnt participate in the raid?

Read the two links I posted on your talk page. If you still have questions, come back here and ask them. Rklawton (talk) 02:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

delta in neptune spear is not a personal speculation. devgru in neptune spear is also a speculation because its a still a classied mission. the government only says its a navy seal team and the media speculates that its devgru. however, both delta and devgru cross train. if you want to be technical about it. one of the commentators on the discovery channel's "killing bin laden" suggested that delta was involved. is that enough for me to post? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marbito11 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Baily Bridge Article Deletion...

Dear sir, this article Baily Bridge is a perfect article for deletion as its misleading and does not represent any true fact. I request you to Delete it as you are an Admin. I unfortunately lack both experience and authority to do so.. Thanking you.-Tall.kanna (talk) 10:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

So - what is the highest bridge in the world? Rklawton (talk) 13:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Its Si Du River Bridge and It also appears in the List of highest bridges in the world.--Tall.kanna (talk) 14:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The two bridges are different - one is the highest above the ground, the other is highest altitude. Rklawton (talk) 14:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the assistance Sir.- Tall.kanna (talk) 03:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Move

Then how to do a move? Requested move? *it seems history merge is an admin only feature* Please leave me a {{talkback}} if you reply here. Thanks, --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 16:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Rklawton (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

How about complex moves? I have moved simple articles in the past (ie single page moves) but how about double page moves/page swap? --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 16:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Mentorship

Can you be my general wikipedia mentor? --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 16:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

No. Rklawton (talk) 17:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

ANDROBETA (talk · contribs)

Not to be critical, but I'm frustrated with the guy. He just got off a 24-hour block for edit warring (8RR), and he immediately goes to edit warring. I know blocks aren't supposed to be punitive, more preventative, but 31 hours isn't going to do much. How about 31 years? Centuries? OK, infinity?  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Osama bin Laden

Please stop edit warring as you did on the article Osama bin Laden. IQinn (talk) 05:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

This matter is now being discussed on WP:ANI. I have recommended an extended block or a community ban. Rklawton (talk) 05:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert about User:Varlaam

Hi -- I noticed that you recently warned User:Varlaam about disruptive editing. I thought you might like to know that I posted a Wikiquette alert regarding this user's editing to a different page. Thanks for your time. SparsityProblem (talk) 04:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

HHO

Sorry, I didin't notice there is discussion in its talk page. Last Lost (talk) 23:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way, please comment in Talk:Oxyhydrogen. Last Lost (talk) 23:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Finish Ticket Deletion

• Finish Ticket · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

Hi, You recently deleted the Finish Ticket page for failing to demonstrate the band's notability. However, in 2010 the band won the Not So Silent Night Local Band Competition which is a major music competition, and makes Finish Ticket the most prominent local band of the San Francisco area. Therefore the band meets two of the criteria for notability required of ensambles so their page should not have been deleted, let alone immediately deleted. Can you please restore the page or userfy it to my page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwallace722 (talk • contribs)

I've undeleted and AFDd the article and explained my rationale at WP:REFUND. In short, at first glance it was unclear in the deletion log on whether or not you were deleting this as an A7 or as an uncontested PROD. However, after looking at the article's history and seeing that you deleted it 1 day after it was PRODed, the former seems likely. For this I apologize as it was not my intention to question your judgement. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your diligence and your candor. No exception taken. Keep up the good work. Rklawton (talk) 02:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Rklawton, I apologize for persisting, but criterion 8 of WP:BAND says that a band must be the "most prominent of the LOCAL scene of a city" to be notable enough to justify a page, and Finish Ticket is demonstrably the most prominent band of the local San Francisco scene. Why is that not sufficient? Bwallace722 (talk) 06:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Because it isn't. Rklawton (talk) 21:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Your OPPORTUNITY to either oppose or support Qwyrxian in his bid to become an administrator...

Hi, I understand you recently had some dealings with Qwyrxian, and I think, in doing so, you have the unique vantage point of telling us about whether you think he is qualified to become an administrator. So, I would like to hear what you have to say about Qwyrxian, and here's your chance to do that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Qwyrxian. CHEERS! Diligent007 (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Sherlock (pipe)

As shown on the talk page, a prod was previously declined. Consequently it cannot be reprodded; see WP:PROD. Naturally, you may take the page to AfD if you wish. TerriersFan (talk) 15:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Removing prods without justification or discussion on the talk page is pointlessly disruptive. Please change your approach to handling prods - or stop handling prods. Rklawton (talk) 22:22, 24 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) 07:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Children's Museum backstage pass

The Children's Museum Backstage Pass! - You are invited!

The Children's Museum of Indianapolis is hosting its second Backstage Pass and its first Edit-a-Thon on Saturday, August 20. The museum is opening its doors to Wikipedians interested in learning about the museum's collection, taking them on a tour of the vast collection before spending the afternoon working with curators to improve articles relating to the Caplan Collection of folk toys and Creative Playthings objects. Please sign up on the event page if you can attend, and if you'd like to participate virtually you can sign up on the Edit-a-Thon page. ---LoriLee (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

NRHP discussion

Hi, I noticed that you are active in the NRHP WikiProject, and I was hoping that you would like to make a comment on a discussion going on there. You don't have to, but it would be greatly appreciated. The discussion is at WT:NRHP#Numbers in NRHP county lists. Thank you. Theking17825 16:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation. Rklawton (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Eh?

I think you misplaced this comment. I simply removed it, since it appeared to have been from me, so feel free to re-add in whatever context you intended. Cheers! Resolute 21:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

	Modestly Humble
	For showing the humility to not only regret a mistake, but for apologizing as well. Schyler (exquirere bonum ipsum) 21:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Unblock

Leafsong1 (talk · contribs) has posted a request for unblock. As the blocking administrator, you may wish to comment. Thanks. WilliamH (talk) 15:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

You obviously recognised him. Whose sock is he? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

If I had recognized the specific user, I would have added the appropriate sock notice. What I recognized was the standard pattern of abuse: a conspiracy theory oriented "new" editor jumping directly into talk page discussions arguing reliable sources on his/her first edit. This doesn't happen except by banned users. Rklawton (talk) 23:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Brave Destiny

I brought this matter to the attention of another admin., but never heard back from her. But, I am hoping for some advice on how to deal with this matter.

Some time back, while patrolling articles in Category:Surrealism, I came across the Brave Destiny article, and edited it rather heavily, removing what I felt was purely promotional content, and adding tags for notability and references. Immunonuclear, who almost exclusively edits articles related to Brave Destiny's creator, Terrance Lindall, reverted all of my edits, and then posted a comment on the talk page. Today, this same individual reverted my edits again and posted a comment on my talk page. In every single one of these edits, either in an edit summary, or in a talk page comment, he accused me of vandalism.

Later, he blanked the article, and left another attack on my talk page. On the talk page, after Modernist posted a short message calling for references to prove notability, Immunonuclear said "I manage the web-site of the show's creator," which would indicate he has a conflict-of-interest in editing any article related to Terrance Lindall.

Immunonuclear has also reported me for vandalism here. Though, it looks like that admin. is no longer active.

There are a rash of issues involved here, and I am too involved to look at this objectively. As I said above, I am seeking some advice as to how to move forward. Thanks for your time. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 15:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. The article has been prodded for deletion, so let's let that process unfold. If it fails, then consider nominating it for AfD. I've warned Immunonuclear about personal attacks, and I will follow through and block the account if he/she persists. My recommendation to you would be to keep an eye on the article and refrain from engaging Immunonuclear has he/she will sink or swim on his or her own. Rklawton (talk) 16:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

My guess is that the article will not be saved at the last minute, and will be deleted when the prod expires. As for your advice, you are right, because every time I have engaged him/her, the situation has only escalated, including at Modernist's talk page. It was not my intention for him to be dragged into it. So, I will stand back and let things play out. Thanks for your response and for keeping an eye on the situation. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 16:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Immunonuclear has reverted again, and once again called my edits vandalism. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 20:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Ignore the insult. He's removed the prod, and he's allowed to do that, so just ignore that, too, and nominate the article for deletion. See WP:AfD for instructions. Rklawton (talk) 23:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I will, and I will, and I will. I will also ignore his blatant conflict-of-interest. Thanks for helping me keep a cool head. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 01:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

No worries. It'll all be over soon. Rklawton (talk) 01:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm done. I have removed the article and the AfD from my watchlist. I no longer care what happens with the article. Let Immunonuclear create all the self-promoting bullshit articles he chooses. If I have learned one thing in the past week, it is that there is no reward for effort. It is not worth it. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 01:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Nice work on the AfD. It'll resolve in a week, and I don't think the article has a snowball's chance. But you're right, it's best to take the article and the AfD off your watch list and just let it all unfold. Though it takes time, your efforts are all on record and will not be wasted. Rklawton (talk) 01:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Dario Rivarossa

Dear Mr. Lawton: I do not mind your clarifying the article on Dario, but I am in the midst of providing the verification needed. If you do a web search on him, he is indeed a renowned figure I would hate to think it is personal vendetta against me. You seem, by your profile, to be a reasonable person.Immunonuclear (talk) 15:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

As I posted on the article's talk page, we need sources indicating his notability. If you do a web search on "rklawton" you will see *I* have significantly more hits than he has. So, no. We do not use search results as an indicator of notability. If he is indeed notable, then some of his 7,000+ hits should indicate this. Check out Wikipedia:Notability for more information about what we require. Rklawton (talk) 15:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, sounds right. I am not a frequent Wiki editor, so the guidance is good. In fact, I would like to give off this article to someone else since i have so many projects outside of wiki. Besides, as you all know, notability is made in the "real" world, not on wiki. And beside, after all of the current wiki editors fade away, a new crop will undo their edits and redetermine who is "notable." I wonder why the many "common men" editors here think they are the sole criterion for who is notable. I guess wiki is trying to establish a method. But a lot of editors like RJ just slap things down or put them up in a seemingly arbitrary way. Putting Brave Destiny up for deletion is ok by me. It is the right way to examine the article. But to hack it up and then put it up for deletion was a little bit unfair in my opinion. How do you like it a "common man's encyclopedia" where every human on the planet from janitor to king determines who is in and who it out. On wiki it will always be morphing by the drive of personal prejudice, not by high minded judgment. Humans are an animal driven by emotions, love, hate, desire. That's fascinating. You can see how angry RJ was in calling me a "bastard." Interesting case study. I hope that you look at yoour own motives and try to be high minded. It is the only way to fly and have a satisfying life, Best Regards. Immunonuclear (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is extraordinarily democratic in that no one person has too much power. For example, RJ put the article up for deletion, but every editor who reviewed it (other than you) believed it wasn't sufficiently notable. This group consensus helps ensure some degree of stability regarding standards. In cases where the process may have lacked fairness, canvassing for votes for example, we also have an appeals process. It's still not perfect, but it does guarantee a higher level of review by more experienced editors - again helping remove arbitrariness from our decisions. Some people choose to edit with their own views about what Wikipedia is or should be. Others edit with an open mind and learn as they go. The former tend to become disgruntled and leave. The latter have a front row seats to the most amazing and successful social project undertaken this century. Rklawton (talk) 16:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Very nice in that I concur. It is a very interesting social project. Immunonuclear (talk) 16:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

You beat me

... to it :-) - DVdm (talk) 12:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Dario Rivarossa

Is a blog a source? It's on Sawyer's blogImmunonuclear (talk) 19:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

A blog is generally not a reliable source. A personal endorsement is generally not considered noteworthy. Rklawton (talk) 19:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what is a reliable source in this matter and do not have time to become a wiki fanatic. But Thanks!Immunonuclear (talk) 19:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the help on Dario. Unexpected!Immunonuclear (talk) 20:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Reply

I replied at my user talk page. Hope you are well, — Cirt (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Warning

Please consider yourself formally warned against making racist or hate-mongering comments such as this one. Regards --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

So... which group was I making comments about? Or was I making a comment about the warring editors themselves? Ambiguous, isn't it? And yet you went ahead and characterized my edits as racist anyway. As far as I know, both sides and I are all of the same race, so your warning is looking most especially ill considered. Rklawton (talk) 17:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Reported [6]. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

EOH

Why have you re-added the Era of Halachas? This was brought up at Wikiproject Judaism, and they are deemed clutter with no use. Chesdovi (talk) 17:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

[7] Rklawton (talk) 17:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks ;-) Chesdovi (talk) 17:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

You should also explain why you shouldn't be blocked for a period of one month - but do it there. Rklawton (talk) 17:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Taiwan, etc.

Per WP:NC-CHINA, which is the governing guideline on how to name PRC, ROC, etc., the correct method is to use "Republic of China (Taiwan)" in the first reference, and then ROC in all subsequent mentions. As such, it is correct to strip (Taiwan) out of all but the very first reference. Note that this is just when referring to the political entity; if for some reason you're referring specifically to the geographical region of "Taiwan", then Taiwan is correct. But the Senkaku Islands dispute, for example, is very clearly referring to the political entity of ROC. As far as I know, this was a very extensively discussed issue, that is supposed to be followed site-wide. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the brief. What I saw was an SPA making a large number of changes across a dozen articles, so I undid them. If my reversions require correcting, I won't oppose it now that I know better. Rklawton (talk) 02:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

You were perfectly correct in using the format "Republic of China (Taiwan)" The page cited by Qwyrxian clearly says When identifying the state and attempting to differentiate it from the PRC (e.g. "Taipei is the capital of the Republic of China (Taiwan).") In general, this only needs to be done once, subsequent references to the ROC need not include "(Taiwan)". "Taiwan" is clearly the popular name for the entity, and the sentence in question seeks to distinguish the two Chinese entities. Wiki-lawyering aside, the reference page is a guideline to be applied with flexibility and common sense. Eclecticology (talk) 07:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Osama bin Laden

I was reading the article recently and it struck me that there is no concrete evidence for bin Laden's direct involvement with the 9/11 terrorist attack. If the CIA has information it is not available to the public. That's why I added 'allegedly.' How is that a bold change? It makes total sense to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabbersolo (talk • contribs) 09:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Reply

@"Some big bang theories include a singularity (poof) and some do not. Those who do not subscribe to the singularity model claim they just don't know how it started - except that they're sure it wasn't God, though their only explanation for why it isn't God is that they "don't like it." At any rate, it doesn't matter what side anyone takes, it's all very silly."

Asking someone to answer a question like "why isn't it god?" is a textbook example of a classical logical fallacy known as argumentum ad ignorantiam, which indicates a presupposition or bias. The logical question of course is "why should it be god?", preferably answered with support from empirical evidence rather than subjective speculation. The answer to "why it isn't God?", is therefore hardly "we don't like it", but rather "there is no empirical evidence", or more accurately: "you are asking the wrong, fallacious question to begin with".

No. Some Big Bang theories "include a singularity", as you say, but none of those attempt to explain the coming into being of that singularity, nor do they deal in any way with its appearance ("poof"). They merely describe it (and of course later explain its expansion). So no, no theory calling itself a "Big Bang theory" or any variant thereof, deals with the coming into being of the universe. Theories on that subject exist, but none are widely accepted. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

It's all still "poof" as far as anyone knows. That is to say, "God" is just another theory like all the others, none of which are widely accepted. Rklawton (talk) 02:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what to say to that. You cannot draw any conclusions whatsoever from a lack of information, that is to say, you cannot conclude that there was a "poof" simply because we know nothing about the creation of the universe. For all we know, since matter/energy and time/space are indestructible, the universe may well have always existed. And if the proposition of "always having existed" seems strange and foreign to you, bear in mind that is already held of god in most religions.

The idea of a divine creation of the universe may perhaps be called a religious "theory", but it is not a scientific theory. The two, while they happen to share a name, entail very different things. A scientific theory is supported by facts, research, and empirical evidence (in other words, actual hard work), whereas a religious "theory" or a philosophical "theory" is not. Equating a scientific theory with a philosophical theory, since they're both "theories in name", is a grave error in reasoning. Someone really ought to explain that to school boards across the pond. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

There are no "scientific" facts, research, and empirical evidence explaining the origin of the universe - there isn't even a generally accepted theory, so in that regard, science is on equal terms religion, and that's being generous to science. Rklawton (talk) 23:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, its the "god of the gaps"? :) So if there is no evidence about something we're free to just imagine whatever we like best? With no evidence whatsoever, claiming that "god" created the universe has equal weight as claiming the universe was created by a superior race of dolphins out of tortoise shells (and I dare say the diversity of such tales across the globe warrants my metaphor entirely). I prefer to follow the laws of logic and accept the fact that we simply do not know, just like we did not know a great many facts and now do.

The social implications of a widespread loss of religious belief are debatable and are a different subject, but as for the facts alone - there just is no reason to believe in any supernatural being by definition. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Some people see life as a miracle, others see biochemical soup. Rklawton (talk) 20:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

"Miracle" can refer to divine intervention (1) or "an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment" (2). I see an extremely outstanding or unusual "biochemical soup", one might even say a miraculous "biochemical soup" :) (in the second sense). However "miracle" is a very pretty and flattering word, and while it is very pleasing for us to imagine that we are far more super special than we are - that on its own does not mean that is the case. This is where objective research comes in: to separate wishful thinking from the crude, unlovely, "biochemical soup" reality of the universe so many prefer to shield themselves from. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 04:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

So it's "poof" either way, and no one can prove otherwise. The significant difference, however, is that believers will never know if they are wrong, and non-believers will never know if they are right. Rklawton (talk) 20:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

No. As I said, science does not claim a "poof" occurred. Science does not claim anything - because to draw conclusions out of a lack of information is quite impossible. A basic logical fallacy, once again indicating preconceptions, is to draw "something out of nothing", or "information out of ignorance". Or, if you like, to "poof" the "poof" out of nothing :).

Science, at present, can show no widely-accepted theory on that question. In short: we do not know, and this is still one of the last "gaps" various gods can live in. This is likely to change in time, in tens, hundreds, or thousands of years, based on trends of knowledge increase, but then again it might not change - even so, no matter what the conditions, it would be wrong and fallacious to imagine whatever we like, or claim this or that, simply because we do not know. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you've missed the point. Rklawton (talk) 14:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I have. The only point I've been trying to make is that science does not claim anything "poofed" into existence. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Science makes no claims as fact anyway - just generally accepted theory if even that much. It's still "poof" though, as far as the scientists know, whether they choose to admit it or not. Something massive - on a cosmic scale - happened. The fact that they can't agree on what doesn't make it any less a scientific "poof". Rklawton (talk) 00:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

You're not getting what it means to not know something... Again: NO the scientists do NOT say "something massive happened", the scientists do not even know whether the universe came into being or whether it always existed - the scientists do not say anything definitively. Is this unclear somehow? Therefore, science does not state there was any sort of "poof" either. We can make-up stories if we like, sure, and there are hundreds of them, one wackier than the other. We can say the universe was poofed into existence in this way or that way, by this paternal figure or that one - or we can say it existed forever, it makes no difference.

In order to feel secure, humans generally feel the need to "explain" things to themselves. Ten thousand years ago when it rained we did not know why, so we invented a rain god responsible for it, etc. Now, in order to feel secure we need to say to ourselves that we have some idea on how the universe came to be. Its a primordial fear of nothingness, of ignorance. Its a good thing when harnessed properly - it drives our scientific curiosity, but when the real answer to an important question is thoroughly out of our reach it gives rise to superstitious concepts, which can and do actually hinder the attainment of the real answer.

The zero is the last number to be instituted. Nothingness is unpleasant and difficult to grasp. A "poof" would be something, but we really do not know anything. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 03:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Foster Natural Gas Report

Hello. Earlier you offered to help me because I am a new user on wikipedia and I would like to take you up on your offer. I am the creator of what was known as the Foster Natural Gas/Oil Report page. Since then renamed the Foster Natural Gas Report Page. This page has had everything changed on it. However, what worries me the most is that wikipedia users are not letting me do ANY edits. Several people have accused me of being related to Foster because I chose it as a user name. I regret choosing it as a user name.I didnt think people would think that this is my real name. I am sure most people on wikipedia are not using their real names, and neither am I. In any case, what worries me the most is that I cannot do anything. I mean I once forgot to sign a post, came back to it later just to sign it (made no other changes), and people where undoing that. My question is why am I the only person who is not allowed to do anything at all including signing my posts. This makes no sence to me??? Is it my user name? What is the problem? Now one user is even threatening to block me? For what???Thank you so much for being so kind to me, suppportive, and offering advice/help. You have no idea how much I appreciate your kindness. Thank you. --Katya Foster (talk) 06:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake, give it up. You created the article to be promotional, denied that you were connected with the company, despite your account name, and then, during an AfD, when it was re-edited by a bunch of editors into a more neutral form, you decided you wanted it deleted instead. Well, that's not going to happen. It's been shaped-up and it's not going to be made-over into your desired promotional format, nor is it going to be deleted. Your response has been to try to blank the page -- a major no-no. You have been the recipient of some serious soft-heartedness on the part of admins, because by rights you should be indef blocked, but they have allowed you to keep editing. So be it, but you're plain not going to get what you want, so you may as well pack your bags and split for the coast -- unless you're willing to edit collegially, collectively, and civily and stop trying to force your own opinions on to others. The article isn't going anywhere, and you're not going to be allowed to blank it or warp it, so the ball's in your court. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you posted this on my talk page. Had you actually posted this on Katya's page, I would have given serious consideration to blocking you for biting a newbie. Rklawton (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Sandusky

FYI: I commented on your move of Jerry Sandusky sexual abuse scandal at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Jerry Sandusky sexual abuse scandal page move discussion.--GrapedApe (talk) 20:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	I wasn't familiar with your work until today, but after you closed the move debate on the Penn State child sex abuse scandal I started digging, and I am impressed by your level head, thick skin, and fair-minded approach. ~TPW 21:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

That's me, but only if you change the word order to something like: "thick mind, flat head, and fair skin...", but thanks. Rklawton (talk) 00:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

That's only the second time that's happened to me - oddity with section edits and delaying the save - I was reporting to meta between the time I opened the section and the time I closed it... - so it looked "OK" to me when it was saved - obviously t'wern't the case. Happens every once in a while at RFPP, been a couple of years since I've made that goof :( Skier Dude (talk) 04:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Hans Adler and ANI

I must say that this topic at ANI left me with a largely unsatisfied feeling. Everything made sense to me, including Chris Cunningham's request for closure, until Dave souza jumped into the fray. After that, it unraveled. Putting aside my clear disagreement with Dave's views, I don't understand (1) how anyone can not believe a consensus was reached, (2) why Dave took you to task, and (3) Errant's summary closing the discussion.

Going forward, one issue for me is whether I could be sanctioned for removing BLP violations from non-article space. True, my reading is the majority of admins supported my actions with respect to my BLPN removals, but it only takes one admin to block me.

The more active I become on Wikipedia the more confident I become, but at the same time, I wonder if I'll ever be able to tolerate the level of contentiousness that often (sometimes?) exists here or the concomitant stress.

I apologize for venting on your Talk page, and I know this is public, so if you feel uncomfortable responding, that's fine.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

This is the right place for the questions you've posed. I'll enumerate my responses below should you wish to explore them individually. Rklawton (talk) 01:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

1. There was a majority opinion, regardless what a single editor believes, so don't mind him. Rklawton (talk) 01:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

2. I haven't read David's posts yet, but given the majority opinion and Hans' change in behavior for the better, Dave is out there on his own, and I don't have a problem with that. Rklawton (talk) 01:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

3. Ditto Errant's summary which I also haven't yet read. Rklawton (talk) 01:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm curious what you think of Errant's summary.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

My plan was (and is) to hold off on reading the summary. Sometimes it's more helpful to see if other editors have comments or challenges. By responding immediately, I'd make it difficult for others to contribute. I did read his comments on Hans' talk page, and they seemed reasonable. Rklawton (talk) 01:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Given that Errant closed the discussion, I wouldn't expect there to be any more comments, but, of course, a closure doesn't always stop people. In any event, if you ever have a view on the closure and would care to share it, let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

As a body, the thread is plain, Res ipsa loquitur, so his closing comments, one way or the other, aren't of particular interest. If the comments are truly problematic, I have no doubt someone will take the appropriate steps. Even without looking at them, I doubt it will be necessary. Rklawton (talk) 02:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

4. In the face of the majority, it's doubtful you could be sanctioned. Any blocking admin would have a very difficult time justifying the block in the face of so many seasoned admins, and it would likely be undone in short order. Rklawton (talk) 01:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

5. Contentiousness and the concomitant stresses suck, but that sort of thing crops up from time to time. Sorting out how to deal with it appropriately actually makes for good life lessons. Failing that, the occasional break works for many. I've seen a lot of bluff and bluster over the years, but I've been pleased to see that overall, things tend to work themselves out sooner or later. As Shakespeare once wrote in Macbeth: "the truth will out." Rklawton (talk) 01:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I've thought of taking breaks, actually, but the irony is I'm addicted to this damned thing. And it's not like there aren't many moments of collegiality and good feelings - just that the negative stuff, when it happens, can be tough. I have walked away from some battles in an effort to reduce my stress, and that has helped, but it's hard to walk away from a battle that actually involved my behavior as an editor.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your time and your patience. Best.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in Wikipedia research

Hello,

I am doing research on Wikipedia in multiple languages to see how different Wikipedia websites enable people differently to act and contribute in their ways. A brief description of the study can be found on our project page on Meta-Wiki. The results would give guidelines for further development of Wikipedia in less developed languages.

As an active member of Wikipedia community, you are invited to take part in the study and share your experience about and understanding of Wikipedia with us. It would take 30 to 60 minutes of your time to have an online conversation about Wikipedia. I would be delighted to hear any of your ideas or feedback about the study. Please feel free to contact me with your questions and concerns related to this study and your participation. You can also find the email address on the project page.--WikiTafa (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, sign me up. Rklawton (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Great, appreciated. Would you please let me know if you have got my email. Thanks :)--WikiTafa (talk) 23:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I sent you a contact request via Skype. Rklawton (talk) 01:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I sent you messages on Skype, but seems you are not getting them. Please let me know if I am bothering you.--WikiTafa (talk) 02:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Building 7 article

I would like to have your input in talk page sections here and here.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

First I would like to commend the generally civil discourse on all sides, though I recommend against using the word "silly" (I say this from repeated personal experience). Next, I see this disagreement as one stemming primarily over editorial philosophy, so maybe directly addressing that issue would help. The issue as I'm reading it is this: should the 7 World Trade Center article present the straight up facts as provided by reliable source regarding this subject, or should the article do this and simultaneously serve to refute claims made by a plethora (word of the day) of [intellectually challenged people]. While I am generally in favor of enlightening the ill-informed, I agree that going to such lengths within this particular article makes it unwieldy and opens us to the possibility of giving non-notable theories undo credit. As a result, I favor individual articles for each notable "alternative" theory that present both the theory and evidence against it. This allows all editors to focus on the most significant points for each subject while leaving he main article relatively uncluttered and easier to read. Rklawton (talk) 01:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I submitted an RfC on the article talk page but it is not getting any input. Would you mind offering your position?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Email?

hello mr. Lawton. Can i find your email address here on your talk page? I am not too experienced in wikipedia, except looking up words. I would like to communicate with you on team composition.

Kind regards Peter malling

I prefer to work on articles here in the open. Rklawton (talk) 04:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:12, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

Should this go ignored?

A comment on a fellow editor's talk page has greatly disturbed and upset me, there is an interaction ban between us, which has been violated a few times [8]. I know this can be regarded as an interaction ban, but given the real life threatening nature of the two comments and no admin has acted upon it (there wasn't even a warning on such a horrible and malevolent, unneccessary threatening comment) I felt it was neccessary to ask an uninvolved admin.

These [9] are the relevant comments from the editor to User: Snowded, an editor I have worked with in the past. TheFortunateSon (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Wehrenberg Theatres, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Jazz Singer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Rklawton (talk) 13:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

'Good Friday' in the U.S.

I added citations for the Good Friday article in the U.S. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.90.5.246 (talk) 20:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Your thoughts

Perhaps your thoughts would be helpful here? --Gmaxwell (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

High IQ societies link removed by you

Could you please let me know why you have removed my external link to a complete list of high IQ societies? I'm a member of 30+ recognized high IQ societies (including OATH, Epimetheus, The Ultranet, sinApsa,...) and ex Mensa member. I just want to inform you that, inside "external links", there is a link to Ivan Ivec's societies (only two groups) which were founded recently, etc...

Please, take back your decision.

Marco Ripà — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcokrt (talk • contribs) 13:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Please read up on what constitutes a reliable source here on Wikipedia. Homemade websites for recently made up organizations do not qualify. Rklawton (talk) 14:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok... so I think that Ivan Ivec's webpage have to be removed as well... isn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcokrt (talk • contribs) 15:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, good call. Rklawton (talk) 15:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit war brewing

It appears you are getting involved in an edit war at Josephus on Jesus. I needn't remind you, given your experience at Wikipedia, that this isn't a good idea. Please stop reverting and discuss instead. Thanks. --Jayron32 17:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Point taken. But remember, removal of sourced material because "I don't like it" isn't an edit, it's disruptive editing. Rklawton (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

From the look of the talk page, "I don't like it" is not the reason it is being removed. Please leave the article in the state you personally dislike while discussing, so the other person can be blocked. Whoever reverts to the version they like better gets blocked. You know that is how it works. Instead, use dispute resolution methods if you don't feel the discussion is productive. Also, being "sourced" is not magic fairy dust that prevents a statement from being removed from Wikipedia. Having sources is a necessary but not sufficient condition for something to be in an article. The material also has to have consensus behind it. I have no dog in this fight, but if your only defense of your actions is "it has sources", then that is absolutely no excuse at all for edit warring. Instead, establish why the sources are valid in such a way that others agree as well. Also, give it time. If the removed text has the support of a lot of editors, then give that support time to build before returning it to the article, so that it is clear that your version has consensus support. And, for the record, I would give the exact same advice to anyone trying to remove information either: it matters not whether your revert is to add or remove information in a case like this, what matters is that discussion happens and consensus is built for whatever your personal position is before returning the article to that state. --Jayron32 18:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Your CORRUPT adminship and abuse of power

• On the next day after the entire wikipedia website was shutdown due to planned internet censorship by the US FED, you erased an article about censored infromation.
• you did this without any warning, debate or concent from anyone. a merge tag would have been more suitable to your own reasoning.
• the link you provided for contesting the after-the-fact- destruction of work is invalid.

I dub you one of the 3 MOST corrupt admin I have ever witnessed in the 7 years of my activity on wikipedia. I urge to to undo this--Namaste@^? 20:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Diza, if you wish to contest this deletion, you should try WP:DRV so that the entire Wikipedia community can discuss it. Accusing Rklawton of bad-faith acting in this regard is way beyond the pale. If you've been here for 7 years, you should be well aware of WP:DRV and WP:AGF. Calling someone corrupt is a personal attack, unless you can provide evidence that Rklawton is receiving money or other personal benefits for deleting this article, rather than following Wikipedia policy, it would be best if you retracted that statement. Being here 7 years, you should have also been made aware of the WP:NPA policy long ago. Please take a more collegial tone when discussing matters with others, and use existing processes to review decisions. Go to WP:DRV and start a discussion. --Jayron32 20:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I haven't deleted an article in weeks (or longer). Rklawton (talk) 21:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

This user just recreated their deleted page.Andrew Kurish (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Truthfully. Would it not be easier had the delete-without-warning-or-discussion act had an accompanying ability to protest(where's the direct link?) or even view the material to be protested? (only by a separate request, and only then can you protest). I love to assume good faith, but try to see my side.

this very "procedure"..that has evolved to be ever more obscure and impossible, changed during those 7 years. and this approach by admins to destroy and carelessly argue about "procedures" and make threats.. rather than facilitate and help out technically and otherwise be invisible has changed. if this is the new standard. talk is cheap, and I dont care for it. this article needs help, and I wont fight for it under these conditions. maybe you will. --Namaste@^? 00:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Or maybe you won't, and instead you'll start to undo any edit I've made since we "met" and delete other articles you think I am interested in. That will surely prove your righteousness, to your self that is--Namaste@^? 04:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

CSD G8

Please note that your deletion of User talk:Drippythingy clearly does not fall under the terms of WP:CSD#G8 as it specifically excludes user talk pages. It's been longstanding practice to let users who don't want to have a userpage do so, among the many, User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 04:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

My bad then. Vandal account with racially offensive edits and talk page. What category should I have used? Rklawton (talk) 04:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion Bernard Dumaine

Hello, You have proposed the page Bernard Dumaine to be deleted, just wondering to know if there will be a voting process ? Winford T. (talk) 04:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Winford T.

No, there is no voting process for a proposal to delete. If you believe the article should be deleted, you do not need to do anything. If you believe the article should not be deleted, fix the problems with the article. You can also discuss your views on the article's talk page. Rklawton (talk) 13:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Sources have been added, some parts of the article removed; I hope it will suit to have the article kept ;Winford T. (talk) 09:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)Winford T.

Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress

From my talk page: Please avoid WP:OWN with regard to this article. When a new guy comes in and tweaks the language in an article a bit, the edits don't require sources, and reverting on those grounds is just biting the new guy. This is an encyclopedia anyone can edit - not just you. Rklawton (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, I have no abiding interest in this article, as it is one of 6,000 articles on my watchlist. In the past, anons adding small, inconsequential edits, have been the trademark of vandals, who later operated with the benefit of an established record. I looked at the edits and they really made no significant changes, although I left the first series as is, a number of edits were already being changed and challenged by others as inaccurate. Changing subtly in wordsmithing does change context and the last edits were not supportable by the references in the passages, or had no references. As I assumed the anon wanted to contribute in this field, I contacted the anon first, but again, this may just be someone interested more in semantics and grammar than the subject area. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC).

Semantic/grammar changes are fine. Far more editors get their start making little changes than vandals who try to gain the appearance of legitimacy the same way. As a result, we really don't want to discourage these editors. Of course, if there's a small textual change that significantly changes the meaning of sourced material, then we're bound to revert. Otherwise, let's take not to bite the noobs and trust that if an account turns rouge, we have enough admins to blast them out of the sky. Rklawton (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Not to say that the anon was a vandal, but the sequence of edits struck me as odd, more in the way of an editing exercise, moving commas, breaking up text and all of what a traditional editor would consider stylistic changes, or "author's choice." The edits made that concerned content, however, were summarily removed or changed by others. I considered the edits carefully before making the reversal as I did want to see what the response from the anon would be. I did not wish to trigger an admin's directive, of course. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC).

I find it extremely disturbing that an admin is forcing editors to accept unconstructive, unsourced edits, which have just as corrosive an effect on the quality of articles as vandalism, just to avoid offending newbies. It is not clear how your edits do anything to improve the article.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	its just NOT possible to mess with wikipedia's articles due to user like you... Thank you. Pritishp333 (talk) 19:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Pteromerhanophobia (The Fear of Flying)

Could you help me with this article? [10] It is a subject that I am very familar with, and as you can see the article is in terrible condition. I am in the process of pulling reliable sources and information to overhall the article. I realize that your time is your own, and may be busy with other projects, and if that is the case perhaps you can refer me to someone. It is very much appreciated.--Mt6617 (talk) 17:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Please take a look at my talk, and at the page. I am frustrated. Thanks --Mt6617 (talk) 00:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Added some research articles, could you take a look at them when you have time. Thanks--Mt6617 (talk) 21:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Your comment at WT:NRHP

Your comment about getting confronted on sidewalks resounds with me — I got this photo from a spot on the road several hundred feet away, and then as I continued along the road, the homeowner came out (I hadn't seen him) and told me that because he hadn't given me permission to get the picture, I couldn't use it commercially. One photo was all I'd planned to get, so I didn't attempt to argue, but it's definitely one of the weirder situations I've encountered while photographing — even weirder than the property owner who thought I was an employee of Google Street View :-) Nyttend (talk) 01:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Bert P. Krages Esq., a photographer and lawyer, wrote an excellent handbook on the subject. It's well worth the read. Rklawton (talk) 01:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; I've already seen it. I'm just not a fan of having people in most of my architectural images, so I can simultaneously attempt to avoid confrontation and avoid messed-up images by obscuring myself from people at properties, often by the angle where I'm standing; for example, the big tree in File:University Street East, 423, East Second Street HD.jpg is hiding a woman who's sitting on her porch. I'll not lie to people who wonder what I'm doing, but I'm careful to avoid trespassing and am careful not to identify myself, so the worst that can normally happen is that someone becomes annoyed at my comments and I walk away. I was once tempted to take a photo from a road simply because it was prohibited (this fence has several small signs (illegible in Street View) prohibiting photography), but I didn't feel like potentially wasting my slight time with needless images, especially since I've learned from acquaintances that people in the area can be suspicious of strangers from elsewhere in the state, not to mention people like me with out-of-state plates. Nyttend (talk) 06:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Good Faith

I came here in Good Faith hoping to improve an article. You and others assumed that I had clarity in how Wikipedia operates. That is fine, however Wikipedia is publishing an article that is incorrect, I have given reasons why. Additionally, "someone" I assume with Wikipedia has additionally cited inaccuracies (see top of the article). Now please see my latest comments [11] I have asked for help, and have been led down to pay sites. Wikipedia may be "your world" but this subject is "my world". Once again, I am begging for accurate help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mt6617 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

7 WTC RfC

Would you mind commenting here?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Fear of Flying, External Links, Forums

I have spent the last several days educating myself on the Wikipedia rules etc. You advised me that Forums are not allowed as acceptable External Links, however I found that is not the case. For example, please see[12]. Look the External Links on this page. Please understand my intent here is not to challenge you, but to understand what the "rules" are. Please advise. Thank you. --Mt6617 (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Great, now go read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Rklawton (talk) 00:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand why you are being rude. I am being civil. That link led to nothing useful. I consider your comment and link an attack, and not acting in Good Faith. --Mt6617 (talk) 01:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Chill out and click the redirect link on the page, and stop sounding like a whiney little kid crying "but Jimmy does it..." You've read WP:EL, and that's what you need to go by. The fact that someone slipped something into an article is absolutely no reason for you to try and copy it when you've been explicitly told that you can not. Rklawton (talk) 01:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

"Whiney" "crying" how rude! I have not tried to add anything since warned. Nor will I until I get permission. I find your behavior offensive. You obviously have an "ownership" issue over this. That is sad, as it is my understanding that this a "community" project. One last question... is there someone of a higher authority I can take this to, or are you IT?--Mt6617 (talk) 01:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I did click the redirect.... it goes, again, nowhere relevant to this. --Mt6617 (talk) 01:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Read the section titled "What about article x?" - the link you clicked automatically puts it at the top of your screen. You'll see that it addresses the situation precisely. Rklawton (talk) 01:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

My apologies. Argument to avoid deletion discussion but would linking this been so hard?--Mt6617 (talk) 01:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I used the customary link - it's been working for five years. I wasn't aware that someone had put it up for discussion. Had you read the page, you would have seen what was going on and found the link yourself. Instead, you make me have to spell it out for you. Rklawton (talk) 01:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Good grief you people are worse than the Federal Government. Can't any of you just carry on a simple dialog? I am a simple person, with simple goals. I am not a computer expert, nor have I been in this community long enough to "learn" your ways. I joined to simply improve an article that I felt needed improving. All I have been met with is hostility. I asked for your help, and all I got was links. I suggested improvements, and all I got was yelled at. Now I am whiney and crying. SHAME on you. I came here with good intentions, in good faith, and this is how I am treated. And... by the way... the article relating to The Fear of Flying, or whatever you want to title it, is STILL in bad shape. (Not just my words, but words of your fellow members, editors, administers).

I ask you again, is there a higher authority, or am I to take it that you and barek are IT? Can you answer that? If so, I will no longer bother you. Thank you. --Mt6617 (talk) 01:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Please see [13] --Mt6617 (talk) 02:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You don't want to dialogue, you want to argue. You don't want to propose specific fixes to the article as I'd requested, you want to complain about the bad shape it's in. You don't want to follow the rules when you don't like them, you go instead and search out "exceptions" to the rules (other stuff exists). And when you aren't able to get this to work for you, you want to complain about the people who have done the most to try and point you in the right direction. In all your fuss, you've only come up with ONE worthwhile source, and I gave you plenty of positive feedback and encouragement to use it and to find more. But somehow that's not good enough for you. Well, tough. Go find someone else to bother. Helping you has been a complete waste of time. Rklawton (talk) 02:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note to Jonathan

I'm posting this note to verify that the e-mail you received moments ago came from me. Rklawton (talk) 15:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Hi, Rklawton. I have responded to some of the things you said about Sandy Georgia on ANI in a new section (since the original one had been closed). It's just below. I would rather not have had to write it, but I hope you don't miss it, as I really can't have my health used as a stick to beat Sandy with. Regards, Bishonen | talk 18:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC).

So.... my point was entirely correct? Sandy mischaracterized your departure in order to flog Brad rather than defend herself; and I was correct in that other issues beyond Brad's editing are in play, and that you haven't actually left, you're just taking a break. I appreciate your forthrightness. At any rate, the issue has been resolved, so that's something anyway. Enjoy your break. When you choose to return, and if you want them, I'm pretty sure the community would support the reinstatement of the mop without formalities. Best wishes. Rklawton (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Not entirely. You suggested that health issues were involved in Bish's departure (untrue, based on her statement at ANI), and that this diff somehow supports sanctions against SG (it shouldn't; she's responding to a specific allegation and providing necessary context to understand that allegation). If you read Bish's statement in full, she seems to be supporting SG. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure that was her intention. Rklawton (talk) 22:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

What's yours? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This is not the way to treat people, Rklawton.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

SG was using hyperbole to attack another editor rather than defend herself (not appropriate), and Bishonen's reply illustrated that the matter wasn't as SG had portrayed it. There is nothing wrong with pointing this out. Rklawton (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It would sure be good to clear this up, so the same doesn't happen again to me or to someone else (that being, an admin can threaten a block when someone defends themself against false claims at ANI). Here is the original, undiffed accusation:

This isn't just an isolated incident. A couple weeks back SG came storming into WP:FAR making all sort of unfounded accusations against myself and another editor and also spread those accusations on multiple talk pages. SG uses editors' diffs to produce synthesis to make the case. There's also a large amount of snarky edit summaries. Sure ok; everyone has a bad day now and then but this appears to be trend. Brad (talk) 22:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The storyline-- intended to incriminate me-- includes numerous demonstrably inaccurate statements:

1. ... came storming into FAR ...
2. ... making unfounded accusations ...
3. ... across multiple talk pages ...
4. using diffs to produce synthesis ...

and narry a diff to back them. My response was to link to all the diffs of the entire incident:

You mean about the time you called Bishonen a Bitch during a FAR, causing her to turn in her tools and leave? [283] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Diffs are provided, and the account is now known to be true. We can pick nits that it was The ed17's coverup of Brad101 calling her a bitch that caused her to turn in the tools and leave, but had Brad101 not called her a bitch, the second would never have happened.

So,

1. Which part is hyperbole?
2. Which part of a diffed true statement is me attacking another editor?
3. How is it not defending myself to link with diffs to the facts?
4. Which part is not exactly as I had portrayed it?

Thanks in advance, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I see you bolded what you consider to be an answer: I have unbolded (please don't edit another editor's comments). I posed four questions above; could you please answer them? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, Rklawton, I think I understood your answer to me. You choose to strain at gnats and swallow camels so as to skirt any need to apologise to me for inappropriate and cocksure speculation about the health of a stranger, virtually forcing me to describe my health situation in some detail on ANI of all places, which was disagreeable. Or perhaps the option of expressing regret never even occurred to you. I admit I rather expected such regret (not at the time realising you were teflonman), based on how embarrassed and regretful I would have felt after such a faux pas. And you choose to backpedal and slide nimbly through little wormholes of strictly literal reading rather than have to express regret for telling Sandy she deliberately deceived people about my situation (which you had, and for all I know still have, the extraordinary notion that you knew more about than she did) and she ought to be ashamed of herself. Ashamed of getting my motivations a mere 95% correct, rather than 0% as you did, and being a lot less intrusive of my privacy with it? Incidentally, obfuscating my qualification that I minded the admin who enabled Brad101 even more that Brad himself into "I was correct in that other issues beyond Brad's editing are in play" is some of the purest wikilawyering I've seen. Bishonen | talk 01:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC).

I was commenting in ANI about a specific point and not about the case in general - a fact that you seemed to have overlooked - much to your own embarrassment. Rklawton (talk) 01:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec)To: SG. I've bolded/italicized the attack/hyperbole above. The AN/I was not about Brad, it was about you, so attacking Brad was not useful. Rather, you should have either defended or more appropriately apologized for your own bad behavior. No doubt Brad has his faults, but those should have been addressed separately. Ironically, your inappropriate post did a fine job proving his point at least as far as "storming" and "across multiple pages" goes. You are quite clearly an unpleasant person to deal with. Rklawton (talk) 01:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

What you bolded has already been shown to be nitpicking. I asked four questions; will you please answer them? Regardless if the ANI was about me-- no, in fact, particularly if it's about me-- I have a right to defend myself from false statements. In the case of Brad, there was zero to apologize for. In the case that came to ANI (Khazer), an apology was already on his talk and I was forbidden to post there again-- that issue was solved. So, I request, again, a response to my four questions. I'm sure you know that when you threaten to use your tools, that is an admin action, and you are accountable to answer queries about those actions.

if you persist, I will recommend you be stopped. As for Bishonen, there were significant health issues involved with her winter hibernation, but you would deliberately deceive people here into believing she left over a single world. Shame on you! Rklawton (talk) 00:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Extending your attack on me is not the way an admin should behave ("unpleasant person to deal with"). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

What I bolded speaks for itself. You may belittle it if you wish, but you made an indefensible statement and your response to being called on it is to label it as "nitpicking." Thank you for quoting me. As you must surely know any editor may recommend that you be stopped. Thus, I threatened you with a recommendation and not with use of my own tools (other than editing tools everyone has). But once again you have managed to create drama where no drama existed. So we have yet another example of your unpleasant editing habits. Now please go edit somewhere else, and try to reduce rather than increase unnecessary drama. Rklawton (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I asked four questions, which you've not answered. I need to understand the answers to those questions to be sure I don't become a repeat offender, and risk being blocked. Since you threatened to see that I was blocked, please answer the questions. I'll stop back in a few days to see if you've done so; your careful thought and clarification on this matter would be much appreciated. Perhaps at that time we can also discuss some of the incorrect and confusing information you gave to the poster in the section just above this (about editing medical articles), and the inappropriate ways in which you addressed him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I have answered your questions in my own way, though you have chosen to not accept my answers. That is your choice. I have also politely asked you to stop posting on my talk page. If you persist, I will report you to AN/I for harassment. I hope I have made this clear, as I do not wish there to be any misunderstandings: if you continue to post here, I will report you. Rklawton (talk) 01:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Rklawton,

As an administrator you are especially expected to respond to requests for explanation, which you haven't done yet.

You also have written a personal attack, "unpleasant person" against Sandy, which you still haven't struck.

You also haven't even tried to apologize to these two editors.

Is this the way that you were raised to behave (or, rather, are being raised to behave)? Do we need to send a note home to your mother?

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 05:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

No apology is necessary. I saw one editor attacking another editor using hyperbole, and I called her on it. When she "demanded" an explanation, I gave her one. When she decided she wasn't satisfied with my answer, she "demanded" more. Well that's her problem. She was wrong, I called her on it, and that's all there is to it. Party over. Move on. If she persists in harassing me (she hasn't), then I'll bring it up to AN/I so they can advise her accordingly. It's really that simple. Rklawton (talk) 14:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

ANI thread: ARS Canvassing at AfD

I have removed the nowiki tags around the closure. ANI is not mediation or dispute resolution. This is a conduct dispute between two different editors and ANI is not the place to resolve the issue, as there is no administrative actions needed to resolve the issue. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 18:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I see no flaw in your logic. On the other hand, the discussion clearly wasn't over, and it seems unfair to disallow an editor to respond to criticism without recourse. Rklawton (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Rklawton,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 04:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey Ocean! Article

Hi, I noticed you deleted the entry for Hey Ocean! today - I've been in contact with another WP admin who had previously twice deleted entries for Hey Ocean (no '!') and shown the article proposed here User:Theducks/Hey_Ocean! - I believe with the references listed, it meets notability, and he concurs, per a comment on my talk page - on that basis I intend to re-create the Hey Ocean! article, with a redirect from Hey Ocean Theducks (talk) 05:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion

I left one here that might work.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 18:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Things are fine the way they are. He's weaving the rope that will hang him, and I'd rather not slow him down. Rklawton (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

More socks?

See Northshoreman's post on my talk page about Manson. Dougweller (talk) 15:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Re-Nominated Micah Armstrong for deletion

I agree with your original thoughts about this article, not to mention it's not really an article at all. It's two sentences and two references. If this article is to remain on wiki, it should at least be written into a proper article. See more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/page%3DMicah_Armstrong_%282nd_nomination%29 --Jsderwin (talk) 01:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the article is crap. So let's work fixing it. More than enough sources are available to really flesh this one out and help readers get a better sense of what this guy is all about. Rklawton (talk) 02:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The hydrogen generated by the system may be supplied together with gasoline to the engine of an automobile while the generated oxygen may be released to the inside of the car.

As a result, the patent filed by Yoshiro Nakamatsu can't be used to prove that his invention reduces a vehicle's emissions. Likewise, the patent says nothing about "hydrogen on demand" as a means to fuel an automobile.

@Rklawton hi, Sorry to start a conversation on the back foot but, the term Hydrogen on Demand is coined to the production of hydrogen on a moving vehicle. this is not under dispute is it? in fact he states the the unused oxygen should be vented into the drivers compartment to keep the driver awake!

This is what Dr Yoshiro Nakamatsu clearly states in his patent , although i added the term 'hydrogen on demand' to define the true meaning of this particular work and its sole use of hydrogen from his invention and its relevance to other articles on this website. As for the efficiency quoted , the patent has to be verified before it can be issued and is proven therein. His use of electrolysis AND heat define this as an exception to the norm, and your It's well known that it would take more energy to create hydrogen than energy produced by the hydrogen for powering a car

is irrelevent as its NOT completely powering the car, its a additional way of improving gasoline, or diesel fuel economy (with HYDROGEN only) which does actually reduce emissions (as shown in the patent) your link to waterfuel unfortunately is a very biased page and out of date. for example daniel dingle the filipino has died in prison. and the use of the words hypothetical, The claims for these devices have been found to be incorrect are immediately dismissive almost by design. Where is the proof for hypothetical?? there are another ten patents missing to be included on that page (in references)

please reconsider your reaction. and explain further how some patent's pictures are used and why this one cant be? ESPECIALLY as it stands apart from the typical electrolysis and hydrogen systems thanks neiall mullery — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeiallsWheel (talk • contribs) 19:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

We can NOT use a patent as a source for claims in an article. You can find more about that here: WP:reliable sources. As a result, the edits you propose have no viable source and so can not be used in the article. Rklawton (talk) 19:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

thanks i need to edit that then. Im also working on a VAPOURISING FUEL page which pertains to patents please have a proper gander at it and tell me if i should bother about the historical significance of these patented systems. cheers Neiall

1937 U.S. Patent number #2,026,798 1937 U.S. Patent number #1,997,497

The famous Pogue vaporizer was tested by Ford Motor Company of Canada and the Winnepeg Motor Company in the 1930’s. They reportedly hung a one-pint bottle of gas outside the hood, and drove 25.7 miles before it ran out. That’s over 205 miles per gallon!

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/2026798.html

1943 U.S. Pat. No. #2,312,151

Crabtree et al teaches a vaporization system which includes a gas and air inlet port located in a vaporizing chamber and which includes a set of baffles for effecting a mixture of the air and vapor within the tank. http://www.google.de/patents/US2312151?printsec=abstract#v=onepage&q&f=false

1965 U.S. Pat. Nos. #3,221,724 1965 U.S. Pat. Nos. #3,001,519 The Wentworth and Hietrich also teach vapor recovery systems which utilize filters of charcoal granules or the like. http://www.freepatentsonline.com/3221724.html

1973 U.S. Patent Number #3915669 Clemente Minoza and a vaporizing carburettor http://books.google.com/patents/US3915669?printsec=abstract#v=onepage&q&f=false

1974 U.S. Pat. No. #4,011,847 The Fortino teaches a fuel supply system wherein the gasoline is vaporized primarily by atmospheric air which is released below the level of the gasoline.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/41825167/Fuel-Supply-System---Patent-4011847

1975 U.S. Pat. No. #3,888,223

The Mondt also discloses an evaporative control canister 48 for improving cold start operation and emissions. http://www.google.com/patents/US3888223?printsec=abstract#v=onepage&q&f=false

1977 U.S. Pat. No. #3,713,429 The Dwyre uses, in addition to the normal fuel tank and carburetor, an auxiliary tank having a chamber at the bottom thereof which is designed to receive coolant from the engine cooling system for producing gasoline vapors. http://www.docstoc.com/docs/43779653/Fuel-Device-For-A-Gasoline-Engine---Patent-4196710

1977 U.S. Pat. No. #3,759,234 The Buckton advances a fuel system which provides supplementary vapors for an internal combustion engine by means of a canister that contains a bed of charcoal granules. http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4109464.html

1977 U.S. Pat. No. #4,015,570

Sommerville teaches a liquid-fuel vaporizer which is intended to replace the conventional fuel pump and carburetor that is designed to mechanically change liquid gasoline to a vapor state. http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US4015570?printsec=abstract#v=onepage&q&f=false

1979 U.S. Pat. No. #1,530,882 The Chapin discloses a gasoline tank surrounded by a water jacket, the latter of which is included in a circulation system with the radiator of the automobile. The heated water in the circulation system causes the fuel in the gasoline tank to readily vaporize. Suction from the inlet manifold causes air to be drawn into the tank to bubble air through the gasoline to help form the desired vapor which is then drawn to the manifold for combustion. http://www.patentgenius.com/patent/4306531.html

1979 U.S. Patent number #4,177,779

Tom Ogle’s system was subjected to several media witnessed tests, and got over 100 miles per gallon on a 1970’s Ford V-8.

http://www.patentgenius.com/patent/4177779.html

1985 U.S. Patent number #4,503,833 1985 U.S. Patent number #4,592,329

Smokey Yunick’s adiabatic fuel vaporizer was written up in Popular Science in April of 1983. He had a car that was to get 90 miles per gallon.

http://www.patentgenius.com/patent/4503833.html

1994 U.S. Pat. No. #3,395,681 discloses a fuel evaporator system which includes a gasoline tank intended to replace the normal gasoline tank, and which includes a fresh air conduit 22 for drawing air into the tank. http://www.docstoc.com/docs/48243839/Apparatus-And-Method-For-Improving-Fuel-Efficiency-Of-Diesel-Engines---Patent-5522368 — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeiallsWheel (talk • contribs) 20:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

If you can find reliable secondary sources that discuss these patents, that would be great. Otherwise, it's no use. Rklawton (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC) ๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏๏ OK Rk,thanks. let me try this one on you it has a new independant and reliably sourced link. the reference to the term Hydrogen on Demand is coined to the production of hydrogen or oxyhydrogen on a moving vehicle. [[water-fuelled car {hydrogen as a supplement}]] the NASA link below could be used to update that page also.

there is a grammatically incorrect reference link 36 on that page and i quote supposedly, extracts hydrogen from water. According to Half Water Half Gas, the hydrogen then is mixed with oxygen to create a fuel called HHO (or oxyhydrogen), which the device then pumps into your engine's intake manifold to reduce (but not eliminate) its dependence on gas. on the contrary with electrolysis h20 is split into its two elements 2 parts hydrogen and one of oxygen, it is not mixed persay it is the design of the cell that influences oxyhydrogen production

---

Dr Yoshiro Nakamatsu The hydrogen generated by the system may be supplied together with gasoline to the engine of an automobile while the generated oxygen may be released to the inside of the drivers compartment to keep the driver awake. (I must state that his design and related patent is neither HHO or Oxyhydrogen, it separates the elements and has the benefit of producing pure Hydrogen and venting the Oxygen. but as well as this unique feature, he also uses heat and titanium, both of which are unusual. Also in his wording he is clear that this is NOT designed to completely power the vehicle , but to be used in addition to Gasoline to prove effective)

also Dr Yoshiro Nakamatsu clearly states in his patent that the hydrogen will increase fuel efficiency and reduce emissions as verified in

May 1977 by NASA TN D-8487: EMISSIONS AND TOTAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION OF A MULTI CYLINDER PISTON ENGINE RUNNING ON GASOLINE AND A HYDROGEN GASOLINE MIXTURE

(PDF)page 17 'it appears that modest additions of hydrogen increase the flame speed sufficently to allow smooth and efficient lean operation' and 'the improvement in indicated thermal efficiency with the addition of Hydrogen to Gasoline' (PDF)page 18 'Extending the efficient operating range into leaner mixtures by mixing hydrogen with Gasoline reduces NOx emissions levels considerably' (PDF) page 19 'Gasoline with (bottled) Hydrogen produced the lowest Carbon Monoxide emissions' https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:9f3Sj0twUA0J:hho4free.com/documents/nasa_hho_proof.pdf+nasa+hydrogen+testing&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESi4KZ6EnMq2sVTORzJlP_ntYmnA2kYCOQKxFBCrOHInVei-pLNxywOKVr5djBgRQfB2EiIoHGVPCDbxhaUg2QWz2m7_kuKgb_RomZ9q8iZ0U-YcCQ8lx4owWhh-zy4YUgKjyWYb&sig=AHIEtbSZrFP523EAZ24dlOyg4nz9UvIj-g

hope this will prove an improvement to the knowledge thanks Neiall — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeiallsWheel (talk • contribs) 01:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The NASA tests, now seriously dated, were for bottled hydrogen and not hydrogen on demand. We get this NASA study in our Oxyhydrogen and water-fueled vehicle articles from time to time. They're provided by well-meaning, novice editors who invariably found the study on various websites dedicated to scamming the general public with "fuel enhancers" or worse. YouTube is also a popular venue with these scam artists. Every once in awhile, we actually get a real-life scam artist here who edits an article to his or her satisfaction, takes a screen shot of the article, and then uses the screen shot as "proof" on their website that their claims are legit. Of course we revert these edits as soon as they appear, and we wait for some law enforcement agency or other to shut down the scam website. Sadly, they pop up like mushrooms. So consider the source for your NASA article. Did you get it from an academic journal, or did you find it on a website hawking fuel enhancement products? You don't owe me an answer or an explanation. I already understand. Rklawton (talk) 01:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

RK. Hydrogen on demand is the production of either pure hydrogen or oxyhydrogen on ANY vehicle by ANY energy means (electricity or heat) namely electrolysis or high temperature electrolysis . Definition of source fuel is any solid, liquid, or gas used namely to this effect. This has not previously been defined accurately and as a result the information is somewhat off. the NASA experiment is not actually pertaining to Oxyhydrogen although the Methanol Steam Reforming system is specifically a Hydrogen on Demand system, and i doubt its relevence to oxyhydrogen page other than their use of (methanol)Hydrogen on demand 188.29.156.168 (talk)Neiallswheel —Preceding undated comment added 18:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC).

RK, Just to take some credit, commonly, Hydrogen Gas (however it is produced) is compressed and bottled for industrial uses. This is identical to Hydrogen produced by a split-electrolysis cell (e.g.Dr Yoshiro Nakamatsu's) except that this hydrogen is produced ON-DEMAND is NOT compressed OR bottled but instead is used with gasoline to aid efficiency and reduce emissions, exactly as described in the NASA experiment. TN D-8487: EMISSIONS AND TOTAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION OF A MULTI CYLINDER PISTON ENGINE RUNNING ON GASOLINE AND A HYDROGEN GASOLINE MIXTURE ok thanks188.28.86.178 (talk) 22:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)NeiallsWheel

The energy taken to split the water ends up exceeding any efficiency gains. We've covered this ground repeatedly here on Wikipedia. The only websites claiming increases in efficiency via on-demand hydrogen production are published by fools or con artists. Rklawton (talk) 01:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

RK please address the point i am making regarding the 'wikipedia classification' of Hydrogen on demand, the term is in need of updating due to the way it is being misrepresented and not specific as to whether the hydrogen cell is producing H2 and O separately or HHO RK please address the point im making regarding the NON inclusion 'on wikipedia' of (any information whatsoever regarding) split cell electrolysis device (producing PURE hydrogen on demand) RK the energy taken to split the water ends up exceeding any efficiency gains. We've covered this ground repeatedly here on Wikipedia. Yes but this is nowhere near the points i am making. And it is hardly a fair point to raise. The only websites claiming increases in efficiency via on-demand hydrogen production are published by fools or con artists. when did the last courtcase end? is this point still relevant in 2012? consider the recent changeover to Titanium(negative plates) in split cell (H + O) electrolysis in combination with 316 stainless steel neutral and positive plates (maybe now you see my particular delight at finding Dr Yoshiro Nakamatsu's patent as he was doing something quite unusual 18 years back--NeiallsWheel (talk) 06:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)NeiallsWheel

In which article? Rklawton (talk) 14:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Accidental editing through protection on Jeffrey Epstein

Hi Rklawton, it looks like we managed to very weirdly skillfully interweave a series of edits over a few seconds on this article, with the result that I full-protected and then you almost immediately edited through it in what looks like an accidental manner. Though I don't think it's a problem in the sense of "zomg admin editing through protection", given the contentiousness going on on that article you may still wish to consider undoing your edit to adhere to the letter of the law and/or to minimize ensuing drama when you guys head to the talk page to discuss. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

1) You made a unilateral and inappropriate decision to protect the article. 2) Turvill is an SPA that has refused to participate in the talk page. The rest of us are simply defending the article against a single editor bent on whitewashing it. This does not call for protecting the article, it calls for blocking Turvill. 3) My edit fixed a glaring BLP problem. Someone awhile back had removed a source for the money laundering charge. As it stood, the article included that claim but I could find no source to support it. That's a serious BLP problem, and my one edit fixed it. Rklawton (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no position on whether your edit was correct or not - my sole concern in leaving you this note was that I wanted to make sure you were aware of an accident that could lead to drama. Also, per your note on my talk page, I'm very sorry that my strikethrough came across to you as a negative insinuation; I was actually trying to inject a bit of levity to the situation, in a "ha, timing and the mediawiki software work strangely sometimes!" way. Clearly I failed on that point, and I apologise for that. My decision to protect the article rather than block two or more of the combatants in the edit war was a judgment call, and different admins have different judgments about how to make the block-vs-protect decision. If you'd like, we could request some outside admin opinions on ANI and see if a consensus shakes out. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

What you didn't do was stop and assess the situation. The Tools shouldn't be used until the obvious solutions have been tried - specifically the talk page. In this case, we've got an SPA deleting material and not using the talk page. I was fixing a BLP issue to address the SPA's concerns expressed in an edit summary (it had been sourced properly a couple of months ago, but...), and then I was going to invite the SPA to use the talk page. Your untimely page protection disrupted that process. On a separate note, as far as the warning about drama queens goes, I appreciate your concern, buy my own practice is to pay them no attention. Any reasonable editor would understand the issue and not have a problem with it, and I won't allow drama queens to waste my time. Rklawton (talk) 23:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Jeffrey Epstein Article

Hi Rklawton, Thank you for your post on my talk page. I know that this is a very controversial person we are dealing with. And obviously his crimes are serious and should not be overlooked. But I have, I think, some legitimate concerns about the neutral point of view of this piece. 1) where does it actually mention money laundering? This is a serious accusation and is libel if it cannot be found in the sources. I looked again through all of the sources that you cited in the lead and in the rest of the article but could not find it. Please let me know exactly where you found money laundering cited. Please let's remove it if we cannot find it cited. Or find a cite that acutally contains it and then put it in. 2) I am very concerned about having a mug shot in the photo with mug shot captions. Wikipedia as you know, is very conservative in its usage of mug shots. Otherwise, they would be used for such people as Al Pacino and countless others who have been imprisoned for drugs, crack, prostition, statutory rape etc. Mugs are not used when there are other salient aspects of the person. An article should not be event driven if there are other salient aspects. I am not in the business of whitewashing criminals. On the contrary. But I do come from the science community (with no connection to Epstein though) and his contributions to the sciences are notable. 3) I wanted to put in a defining line to The Program of Evolutionary Dynamics at Harvard University. What it is and that it was the first institute or entity that mathematically quantified the kinetics of an in vivo human cancer cell. This was a direct result of Epstein's funding and interest and I think I should be allowed to mention it. Nowastatosky (not spelling his editor name correctly) has reverted this several times on the grounds of WP: TOPIC, stating that if people want to know what it is, then the Program of Evolutionary Dynamics should have its own wikipedia article. THis seems ridiculous to me. He was completely dismissive when I tried to explain my point of view in good faith. Please see his talk page. The Program is not a household name like the Bible or The Eiffel Tower. So it is appropriate to have one defining line after it to benenfit the reader as to its significance and what it accomplished. Thank you for addressing the points above and letting me know the best approach to deal with this. I am hoping that we can be encylopdia oriented and impartial in our approach, not political or sociologically driven. my best, Turvill (talk) 19:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The source for money laundering is in the article. here's the link. I'll reply regarding the science stuff on the article's talk page so everyone can participate in the discussion. Rklawton (talk) 22:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

GLAM

I think you miss the point: While GLAM may have a limited range of what covers it, people who participate in GLAM do so in roles the involved paid editing or free editing at the behest of an institution. The condemnation expressed by the group does not appear to offer a distinction to say "This type of paid editing is acceptable. This sort of paid editing is unacceptable." In fact, GLAM and NEXT are not mentioned on User:Herostratus/Wikiproject Paid Advocacy Watch at all. This suggests paid editing and free editing done by people involved with these projects are open to criticism by this project. (Plus, the list has a former arbitrator on it, where there is minimal to zero evidence he has done any problematic edits.) GLAM should stay until it is clear policy clearly prohibits paid editing and people involved with GLAMs and chapter run incentive programs are not going to be attacked by the group. --LauraHale (talk) 07:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The list I created is specifically for editors volunteering to serve as an alternative to paid editing. Thus if you want to promote this list on GLAM, that would be great. But it's not appropriate just to put GLAM down and say "try your luck here." That's just not what the list is about. Rklawton (talk) 13:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Response from Turville Re: Epstein article

Hello, thank you for your posts and for adjusting the mug shot to the more appropriate location. I am not as claimed, a pr crony for Jeffrey Epstein. I do though come from a science journalist background, had heard of the Program for Evolutionary Dynamics at Harvard, and when I came across this article I was quite taken by the lob-sided presentation of this piece. It struck me immediately as slanderous vs. having a neutral point of view. MONEY LAUNDERING: the link that was added to back this, does not connect through. That is extremely problematic given that this is in the lead of the piece and libel if not properly sourced. I googled money laundering and Jeffrey Epstein and found the article url that mentions it but this is what I found, and I quote: "Yet a source tells The Daily Beast that Epstein’s legal troubles may not be over. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT, as an outgrowth of the 2007 Florida investigation, federal investigators are now looking into allegations of money laundering and other financial misdeeds. Villafana notes at the end of her letter to Lefkowitz: “You accuse me of broadening the scope of the investigation without any foundation for doing so by adding charges of money laundering and violations of a money transmitting business to the investigation. Again, I consulted with the Justice Department’s Money Laundering Section about my analysis...the duty officer agreed with my analysis.”

Something being "possible" in the press is not the same as something that actually "is" as claimed in the lead of the article. And just because the duty office agreed with the analysis is not evidence that money laundering is under investigation. So, so far the lead is misleading and false. Also, I think it would show a biased point of view if it were stated in the lead of the article that he "may be" under investigation for money laundering. We should just stick to the facts. Unless you can find an article that confirms that he IS under investigation for money laundering, I think it should be removed. PROGRAM for EVOLUTIONARY DYNAMICS: this was entirely established from Jeffrey Epstein's $30 million, as was the research that was the first to mathematically quantify the in vivo kinetics of human cancer cells. That was a major achievement in the field of cancer and I think it should be allowed back into the article.

Thank you for your thoughts. PS. I didn't use this talk page because I simply overlooked it and so went to your individual talk pages instead. I agree that this is a better forum, so long as it is a venue that editors look at. my best, Turvill50.74.171.70 (talk) 17:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Photo request

After seeing your wonderful photo gallery, I could not help but wonder if you have photos of Southern Illinois University Edwardsville and, particularly, The Gardens at SIUE that you could/would also make available. GWFrog (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Late spring or perhaps summer would work better when everything is in bloom. Cheers Rklawton (talk) 18:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

140.247.141.165

This IP has been at it for quite some time, and if you click back you'll find more dealings with Okeye. Not that I'm asking you to lengthen the block, but I do think we're dealing with a long-term disruptor with a brain and an agenda. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 04:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Okeye should contact me immediately if this resumes. Rklawton (talk) 12:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

File:BBC One logo.png

This file was deleted as non-free. However, I want to ask you this: does this file pass threshold of originality in the United States? Per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 January 30, BBC logos do pass threshold in the United Kingdom. --George Ho (talk) 09:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

You need an IP attorney to answer that question, though ultimately the courts would have to answer the question. As for me, I haven't a clue. Rklawton (talk) 12:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank so much for supporting my unblock, wont let you down--Misconceptions2 (talk) 17:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary

Wishing Rklawton a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 00:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. So it's an adminiversary? Rklawton (talk) 14:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

is this a reliable source? .

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360319910013595 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780444527455003154 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0029549304002651 thanksNeiallsWheel (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)NeiallsWheel

Those are three different sources. Science Direct simply publishes and promotes the abstracts. I don't see a problem with the sources, though, but I'm not an engineer. Rklawton (talk) 12:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Please help out at the Paid Editor Help page

While not a huge backlog yet, we're getting to it on the Paid Editor Help page. The sections that need replies include Colin Digiaro, Guy Bavli, Strayer University, Stevens Institute of Technology, and a general backlog in the Request Edits category. If you could help in any of these sections (primarily the first four), I would be really grateful. This notification is going out to a number of Wikiproject Cooperation members in the hopes that we can clear out all of the noted sections. And feel free to respond to a section and help out even if someone else had already responded there. The more eyes we get on a specific request, the more sure we can be on the neutrality of implementing it. Thanks! Silverseren^C 03:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

File:A03 4663 1024x683.JPG listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:A03 4663 1024x683.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I've closed the discussion and deleted the image per nomination. Rklawton (talk) 20:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Question about amyloidosis

Hi,

You left a post on the talk page of the AL Amyloidosis page describing a person (Patient H) who has been cured of the disease at the BU hospital. I did an extensive search for this info, but was unable to find anything. Would be very grateful if you could steer me in the right direction. (andrey 'dot' grv 'at' gmail 'dot' com).

Thank you very much,

Andrey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.41.204.3 (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Here: https://sites.google.com/site/curedofamy/Home. It's self-published, so it's not something we can use on Wikipedia. The page doesn't look very professional, but he lists contact information, and if you navigate a bit, you can find information about doctors and support groups. Oh, and this year will mark the 18th anniversary of his diagnosis. Best wishes: Rklawton (talk) 20:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Question about David M. Dobson article

I'm a quite new editor -- checking to see whether I improved this article in my recent revision. The citation to "The Guilfordian" (which, I think, you initiated) was not working, so I fixed it -- at least I hope I fixed it. Any advice you can give will be appreciated. Thanks --Free2brag (talk) 20:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Ragans

Nice interview.[14] For my part, I hope you can convince CREWE to focus on education. I noticed you've been editing the article on public relations. Much of the article has been written by me, but every year or so I turn around and the article is a mess again. I was curious if you felt there were specific areas that could need improvement in addition to another cleanup. User:King4057 01:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

David, a lot of what I've seen on CREWE has been very constructive. It's reasonable to start with a complaint, figure out the cause, and discuss solutions both short and long-range, and I see a lot of that. I'd like to see the PR article take a much more international perspective and then branch off into various cultures, biographies, scandals, successes and the like. Rklawton (talk) 20:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

BTW, RE the discussion on CREWE about the report. The report itself is more solution-oriented than was covered in the media. The report is focused on helping companies set objectives and roles and responsibilities, establish strategies and do good, ethical content marketing on Wikipedia based on Wikipedia's content needs. I would implore them to read the report itself. In any case, at a quick glance the discussion appears to be going in a more productive direction. User:King4057 20:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Rklawton. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Send me her contact information, and I'll coordinate with her directly. Rklawton (talk) 16:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

BP

Hi, you might recall that we had a bit of an exchange of views on the Talk page of Caterpillar Inc regarding the inclusion of some "controversies" regarding the company and how these should be presented. Although we didn't in fact agree entirely on the approach which should be followed there - we did broadly - I nonetheless appreciated your approach and your commitment to preventing the article being a soapbox for attack/activist content.

I was wondering if you might be willing to take a look at the Talk page of BP. There have been accusation of POV-pushing made both by and against me which I do not ask you to take sides on. However I do feel that some fresh eyes would be useful to help make things less emotive and also more focused. Thanks in advance for any input which you are able to offer.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Epstein

Are you still watching Jeffrey Epstein? If so, could you please have a look at recent edits? Thanks... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Rklawton (talk) 19:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)