User talk:Therefore

regent

I hope this is the correct way to leave you a reply messaage. Thank you for letting me post all of the additions and for reviewing the language. I appreciate it. Someone has been undoing everything I added instead of making a correction or reviewing ther language. I think that someone has a personal issue regarding this site. I mention this only because I don't know what should be done about that. Thanks for your help.

re; that darn genrerations template...

HI.. i just got your message(!) and had a quick look... hmmmm, not great... i cant find what you linked me- obviously i missed it all.. so im not too sure what to write here.. but. one thing. i still think generations needs the table/a table. If i had never seen the table, i would say the succession thing is great.! but i have and i know that (for example) the "mtv" generation is now pretty much inexcessable- by way of linking and referencing- unless you were actually looking for it of course , i guess( unless it got deleted)... soo yeah.. im random around here.. (time sucker) Cilstr 13:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: David E. Kelley -- Boston legal

Ah, sorry, I meant to do it to The Wedding Bells, but accidentally changed the wrong show in my haste. I've corrected it, and included a proper source (although that link may become broken eventually.) I'm assuming this is the proper way to message somebody on Wikipedia...if not, I'm sorry.

lifetime field in DZ infobox must be filled in re

Members stands for the total collegiate members in the sorority currently. Lifetime stands for alumnae and possibly collegiate (I'm not the one who designed the infobox so I'm not 100% sure). The catch with the infobox is that if you do not have a number in the members section then lifetime does not show up. As it is you can leave lifetime blank if you can't find it since it doesn't really look like anything is missing out of the infobox. Hope that answers your question. --ImmortalGoddezz 16:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

RE: 71.223.244.79 (Delta Zeta edit)

Hello. I live with three roommates and we have wireless internet. One of my roommates has a girlfriend in Delta Zeta, and she has the attitude where nothing bad ever comes from Delta Zeta, and I assume she removed that DePauw controversy section on purpose. And since we have wireless internet, I would imagine that we have similar IP addresses a lot. I generally don't log in since it takes time to do and I delete my cookies a lot, and so I got the message which was most likely intended for her. But I did not personally edit the DZ page. I will pass the message along to my roommate's girlfriend who is in DZ though, since I assume she is the one who made that change. Aaporter 87 20:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Heather Wilson

Go for it....I got your back :-). Right behind you with a pointy spear. Shoessss 01:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Therefore, youare driving me nuts with the word “Removal”. I understand that I can be anal at times, however the difference between “Removed” and “Moved” does imply in one, a wrongdoing and in the other a mistake, mostly likely in judgment. Figured I state that here rather than beating a dead horse regarding the Wilson article. Either way have a great evening Shoessss 02:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

♦I say keep Therefore. By the way, you have done a great job at mediation Therefore. Shoessss 21:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Finally, I was just a voice here. You really ought to be thanking Pete -- he's the guy who coralled all the hissing cats into a methodical, structured discussion. I learned a lot. Therefore 00:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia!!! You are being to humble,. You did a great job. Shoessss 01:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The Ultimate Gift

I've just noticed in looking at other movies that only a couple of reviews are included if any at all, and they are usually used to summarize points. It seemed the review section under The Ulimate Gift was pretty much fighting back and forth before people quoting reviewers who either praised or total panned the movie. It was taking up a lot of space without really adding much except confusion. Leaving the summaries its easy for people viewing the page to see the trends: the reviewers generally didn't like it and the audience generally liked it a lot.

Just my thoughts. Bbagot 18:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I could see why you would want to balance the reviews if the only reviews present made it sound like a movie loved by all, but I still feel having 10 different reviews, mostly very strong one way or the other, for a movie that took in 3M at the box office is certainly overkill. I won't put up interference if you wish to reinclude the removals, but I'd advise you to edit the section in a way that it's much more concise and seems to add useful information that flows instead of reading like an ideology war. When over half the article is reviews, we've somehow missed the point.

Bbagot 18:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Another note. Moviegoers gave the movie a 7.9 rating. IMDB gave the movie a 7.1 rating based upon their system which they won't share and where some votes count more than others. The 7.9 is the true mean average. Bbagot 18:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are misreading that section. It says not to quote user comments from IMDB, not to exclude how movieviews rated a film. Also, I noticed an error with the Rotten Tomatoes summary. The number given is 35%, but the 18 out of 54 should be 33%. Not sure what side the error is on, but I thought I'd point this out. Bbagot 18:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to take a look at the issue(s) in dispute. I'll try to review and provide feedback within the next 24 hours. —  Jim Dunning  talk  :  03:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 16 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article David E. Kelley, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Carabinieri 11:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

David E. Kelley

Therefore, I was amazed to see how complete the David E. Kelley article is. I know that Charlie Rose once put Aaron Sorkin in a corner, telling him that Kelley writes for 2 or 3 shows at the same time, and why couldn't he as well. It was a little ridiculous. I didn't know Kelley wrote all his scripts longhand. I'm still in the process of digesting the article, but nice job.-BillDeanCarter 22:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Carolyn McCarthy article

I responded to your request on WP:ANI. In the future, it might be better to ask for help right away rather than reverting so much yourself. Even in a BLP article, reverting more than 3 times can be (mis)interpreted as edit warring. If you stop after 3 reverts and report the situation (either to a relevant wikiproject, if there is one, or to ANI), someone else will usually be able to help out. CMummert · talk 03:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder

Hey  ∴ Therefore  talk  , by the way, like the new signature. How would you like to get involved in a “Heated” debate over at Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder. If you are interested, it could be as much fun as the time you spent mediating the Heather Wilson article. Truthfully would like your “Independent” input on this . If you get the time, read the discussion page and let me know your thoughts. Remember, I got your back, LOL. Shoessss ^talk

To late  ∴ Therefore  talk  . I do not know what happened, but all of a sudden, everything came together and we now have a respectable article. Shoessss ^talk

David E. Kelley 2

That's fine. I was rectifying the work of a sock puppet who went through and changed "pedophile" to "child molester" or similar terms in scores of articles. While a few were corrections, many changes were arbitrary. By all means use whichever term is most accurate in the David E. Kelley article. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 18:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Steve Gilliard AfD

Yeah, in retrospect, Biruitorul probably was too zealous in tagging users, and you are very right pointing out the couple that he didn't. In any case, that AfD will surely be closed without deletion, and I'm sure the article will develop greatly in the weeks to come. Cheers! Lipsticked Pig 06:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Terminology

Just a couple of points regarding the Gilliard AFD. First, don't write "request for comment" unless you mean a request for comment -- a very serious step in dispute resolution. Out of context, it's confusing. Second, don't cite a source such as the guide to deletion and call it policy; it is not policy. Things that have the {{policy}} template are policy and represent things to avoid breaking. Guidelines are a step below that, and something like the Guide to deletion is just a set of recommendations on how to implement policy and guidelines. Basically you were calling for a speedy keep which has its own set of rules, but you were also failing to assume good faith by asserting that the AFD was an "error". There is no evidence that Naconkantari was acting in bad faith that I can see; it was a poorly-sourced article about a person of uncertain notability and I might not have nominated it but I don't see anything wrong with an editor doing so. If you ask me, going to the administrator's noticeboard was exceptionally over the top, as if an AFD is the same thing as vandalism. Rest assured that AFD is well-read by many administrators and I saw none of them taking a special interest in this one. --Dhartung | Talk 04:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Dhartung -- thanks for the advice. You are absolutely correct that my use of the term "Request for Comment" in the AfD was inappropriate. I do stand by my decision to post a request for a speedy keep on the noticeboard. In my notice, I did not say that Naconkantari was violating policy. I said, "My concern is this does not follow wp guidelines...." However, I did say he violated policy in the AfD (twice) -- clearly wrong.

AGF is about intentions and not actions. I never questioned his intentions. Naconkantari is clearly a valuable deleter of new pages. But that doesn't preclude me from questioning his actions and they were clearly contrary to the guidelines (which are unambiguous). I attempted twice to open dialog with Naconkantari. With none coming, and with my strongly held position that, in this particular case, an AfD template was an "emblem of insignificance" (a far cry from vandalism), requesting help from another administrator was an appropriate action. Whether the early lifting of the AfD template was a result of my ANI posting or not is indifferent to me. I'm glad it happened and so are the editors of the page of this very notable person. Thanks!  ∴ Therefore  talk   07:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

True, you did make that distinction at ANI. To my mind, though, it's an abuse of process to treat an AFD as an emergency requiring admin intervention. Next time, I suggest you just post a "call for speedy close" in the AFD itself; an admin will act or tell you why it's not happening in due time. Your strong feelings about the subject matter aside, no article is so important that we cannot have a discussion about a problem with it. The "badge of insignificance" is in your mind. Better to focus on improving the article so that there is no ambiguity. Five days (typical AFD duration) is plenty of time to improve an article. --Dhartung | Talk 07:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Next time I will call for a speedy close (an unknown process) before requesting a speedy keep from ANI. I, in fact, did request a speedy keep in the AfD but Naconkantari would not respond to it (even when asked on his page). True, five days is typical. but let me remind you that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and that the snowball clause, though an imperfect fit because dissent existed, is designed for this type of situation. Very true that the "badge of significance" is in my mind and not in yours -- that is the root of our contention. Your personal viewpoint, possibly, is influenced by your role as "administrator" and forget that most readers of Wikipedia do not come here with your complete knowledge of Wikipedia process. If you attempt to see that template in their eyes, you might have more sympathy for the perceptions of the everyday reader, if not for the subject matter (I had not known of Gilliard before reading about him elsewhere [no, not Dailykos] and coming to WP, as is my habit, to read more -- my strong feelings are for the quality of Wikipedia not the subject). Naconkantari deleted this page outright without making any attempt to check for notability (I make that statement on the AGF assumption -- any research would have indicated an outright deletion as improper). His first instincts were not to AfD nor the more proper notability template but to delete outright. Understandable -- he is a tireless deleter. But then, when evidence became apparent that even the AfD process was (arguably) incorrect, he made no attempt at discussion nor correction. ANI was the appropriate avenue -- in fact, lacking response in the AfD, the only avenue for a speedy keep. Naconkantari was without doubt working in good faith. But his actions were properly open to comment. But next time, I will first attempt a speedy close, which was my only interest here. Thanks.  ∴ Therefore  talk   17:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

"The Times displays more vision [by printing his obit] than the meanspirited hacks at Wikipedia who have been trying to get Steve’s entry deleted for alleged lack of “significance.” [1]

I don't agree with this sentiment, but it is exactly what I was trying to protect Wikipedia from.  ∴ Therefore  talk   23:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Gilliard

I went to check on Naconkantari's talk page about Steve Gilliard, which is where I saw that you were very concerned about the AfD. I'd just like you to know that my decision to close the debate had nothing to do with any announcements you posted; rather, it was wholly because of all the information that was added to the article, and because of all the (valid) claims of notability that were mentioned in the debate. DS 17:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That's good to know -- that's all I was asking for.  ∴ Therefore  talk   17:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Lee Baca

I started a little discusion at Talk:Lee Baca and would like to get your input, as you removed the link. Cheers from the great soggy NW. --Geneb1955^Talk/_CVU 11:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

AXO page

HI there. I read the page you suggested and do not think I was trying to disrupt anything to make a point. I did not think current event type things such as the DZ controversy were pertinent to wikipedia. I was corrected. That made me interested in other organizations handling of situations. That is why I included the AXO information. No disruption intended or point to be made on my part. I was simply stating some facts as I found them. Hope that clears things up. I know a bunch of AXOs, great group. Thanks.Eelmonkey 02:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

quote marks

thanks for pointing out the style manual. i utilize the AP stylebook, or any journalism stylebook for that matter. in a cursory review, wikipedia generally follows the chicago manual of style, except in certain cases. Frankly, any manual of style in the U.S. that i am aware of puts commas and periods within the quotation marks. The rules are designed to make the material easier to read. i think wikipedia should re-consider this, but i will respect the consensus and not change others' work. Journalist1983 13:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

How can a stylebook say this is correct: He said, "I went to the store." And say this is correct: He said, "I went to the store", but he later changed his mind. It should be one or the other. If punctation goes inside, then it should be written like this: He said, "I went to the store.". sigh.Journalist1983 13:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

periods are part of quotes, right? let's continue via email, if you want.Journalist1983 13:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Vitter

The Canal St. allegation is repeatedly stated on the Sean Hannity show. Keep in mind that he has confessed to patronizing the Washington establishment. It has multiple references on the web. This passes muster. Dogru144 20:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I quite conscientiously reword words where possible. It is permissible to take direct quote marks. I have worked and edited at a newspaper, and I know what is proper citation protocol. Lastly, I give copious citations. Dogru144 20:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll concede the Cortez detail. It might impugne persons with the name. Dogru144 20:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology. It's nice to dialogue with a courteous editor such as yourself. Cheers and happy editing. Dogru144 20:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

re:Regent University

You are right. I was doing vandal patrol, and had only noticed 76.25.51.174's edit. Keep up the good work. Smokizzy (talk) 22:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Vitter

I used the tag... for something that is fairly obvious... such as the Lousiana Governor having the right to appoint a Senate replacement... the tag should be acceptable at least for the short term. That is why wikipedia has it.--Dr who1975 20:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Found a source. Put it up there. I know different states have different laws but states such as Wyoming are the exception to the usual law where governor's appoint senators. Admittedly, if the media gave it the same attention they gave to previous potential senate vacancies then maybe it wouldn;t be in question at all.--Dr who1975 20:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The amendmant is probably a good idea.--Dr who1975 20:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

James W. Holsinger Article

		The Editor's Barnstar
		As one of the original editors of Holsinger's page, I thank you for your fresh insight when editing and your willingness to teach new editors. I award you the Deletionists' Barnstar because "sometimes expert text removal is the most effective editing." Maryrebecca 03:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

		The Biography Barnstar
		For your tireless efforts to maintain balance and willingness to find consensus on contentious issues. --Aeschyla 18:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I have no need for recognition. And no we have not outlawed black fences, which is unfortunate.--Maryrebecca 22:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advise and the compliment. After I read the autobot's comment, I removed the date links in the references because those were the only ones that I saw it could be catching as incorrect. I read through the pages that he suggested to help me move the page to A-class, and I have asked an English teacher friend to read the page for grammar. Again, I really appreciate your help, I have been way to close to this page to edit it for content and way too new to editing Wikipedia to fully understand the rules. --Maryrebecca 18:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Dates

What I meant by that is this. Let's say you have a sentence like this: In 1776, he crossed the river. The year 1776 should not be linked. Let's say you have a sentence like this: On July 4, 1776, Americans declared their independence. The year should be linked, along with the month and day, to activate the user's date preferences. That way, a user could see the sentence like this: On 4 July 1776, Americans declared their independence. I'm not sure which part of WP:DATES you're talking about, but from my experience on Wikipedia— which isn't very much, but usually reliable—this is how it is supposed to be done. I'm glad that more than one person is getting use out of my peer reviews. If you would like me to look over your article I would be happy to. You might also like to see my userpage again, I've changed it a little. Regards, Psychless 04:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

To back up my interpetation of policy, see these two articles that were recently the Featured Article of the Day: Domenico Selvo and Christopher C. Kraft, Jr.. Articles that are the FAotD usually follow policy exactly. If you still aren't convinced then feel free to keep it, it's not like anyone's going to freak out if some dates are linked :). Someone might bring it up though if you go for FA or GA on the article. Good luck, and great signature :) Psychless 04:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Your talk page...

...is yours do with with as you wish, within reason. And that definitely includes reverting trolling messages. --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 00:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Vitter

Hey There, I was wondering if you could help me find a source that depicts a republican, any republican, callig for Vitter to step down?--Dr who1975 02:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Re your NPOVD talkpage comment, I was specific. My NPOV tag remark was cut and paste from an earlier comment I left. The only thing I added was a second link that anyone with Google could've found. THF 06:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Fosdick

Hi - thanks for your kind words about the Fundamentalist-Modernist article.

My major source for the article was The Presbyterian Controversy: Fundamentalists, Modernists, and Moderates by Bradley J. Longfield (1991), an excellent book on the topic that should be the first book that anyone interested in the topic reads. It also had a bit of material from Defending the Faith: J. Gresham Machen and the Crisis of Conservative Protestantism in Twentieth-Century America by D. G. Hart (1995) and Crossed Fingers: How the Liberals Captured the Presbyterian Church by Gary North (1996). As the title to Longfield's book indicates, he actually has a more nuanced version of the progress of the controversy than the one I present in the article. He sees the Presbyterian Church in the early 20th century as being split into 3 factions: fundamentalists, modernits, and moderates. The moderates were people who didn't really have a strong feeling either way on theological matters but who had a strong institutional loyalty to the church. He sees Machen's major mistake as a church politician was that he failed to build alliances with the moderates and instead alienated them by his conduct - and clearly, a lot of the things that Machen wanted to do were probably in violation of the church's constitution (having General Assembly adopt the 5 Fundamentals as standards for ordination, setting up an independent board for foreign missions, etc.). Longfield feels that any church (and maybe any organization) always has a strong group of moderates who will be more interested in maintaining the organization than in any particular battle - which I think is something interesting to think about. North's book is interesting, although it's clearly from the point of view of a ruthless "liberal takeover" of the church.

Anyhow, I don't actually own any of the books, and since I'm out of school now, I no longer have access to them. So, I don't really know that I have any source material from which to impprove the article on Harry Emerson Fosdick, though I agree it would be nice if someone would do so.

Adam_sk 23:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to undo your edit, but I think you'll see that if you reread my original sentence you'll see that I wasn't saying that "German nationalism and militarism were driven by a might-makes-right philosophy which flew naturally out of Darwinian suppositions" as a matter of fact; rather I was saying that the reports that Bryan was reading said that "German nationalism and militarism were driven by a might-makes-right philosophy which flew naturally out of Darwinian suppositions." Feel free to edit the page to make that more clear, but the sentence is meant to explain where Bryan got the idea from, and I think that your edit makes that less clear. Do you think that we should just include the longer explanation that I provided in the William Jennings Bryan article?

Adam_sk 03:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Bryan, Kellogg, Neitzsche

Thanks to everybody who has been editing the Fundamentalist Modernist Controversy article on the topic of Bryan's influences.

That said, it seems to me that we're still faced with a bit of an NPOV problem:

There are 2 ways to describe the causation of Bryan's coming to an anti-Darwinian position: (1) Bryan initially hated nationalism and militarism, and only came to hate Darwinism after he became convinced that it was a root cause of nationalism and militarism; or (2) Bryan's underlying agenda was anti-Darwinian, and he used anti-German sentiment (i.e. German support of Darwinism), as a means to convince people of his anti-Darwinian agenda.

I'll admit that my personal opinion inclines to (1), and that I wrote the initial article from that perspective. As the article now sits, I think it inclines to (2). I'd appreciate suggestions as to how we can modify the article in an NPOV way so as to be neutral between (1) and (2).

Adam_sk 01:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Article assessment - David E. Kelley

As requested I've assessed David E. Kelley. I've included a summary of my thinking here.--Opark 77 12:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

LFF edits

I would welcome your assistance in editing the section about LFF under David Vitter's article to ensure a neutral point of view but continuing to undo edits is not very productive. I will be off and on this afternoon if you want to work on some productive edits. Anothersliceofhistory 19:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC) (moved here from User:Therefore by Folic Acid 20:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC))

David Vitter, checkusers, and socks

Therefore - I hope I haven't come across as abrupt or anything with this whole business. You certainly have a good reason to be a bit suspicious - that's why I tried to help (belatedly) with the RFCU. Hopefully this will all resolve itself and we can resume the business of editing. Sorry for any confusion or irritation I may have caused. Respectfully  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  01:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

File:Resilient-silver.png		The Resilient Barnstar
		I, Folic_Acid, award this Barnstar of Resilience to Therefore for having the seeking the improvement of controversial articles (specifically David Vitter), for being willing to work with other editors with strong opinions, and for having the humility and good grace to admit an error and seek to correct it. Keep up the good work!  Folic_Acid | talk  01:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice work on the consensus writeup - it looks great. Cheers  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  14:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry…and thanks

Heya, just wanted to apologize, I really did not have the time or energy to jump into the Vitter thing, and dropped the ball. Wish I had recognized that sooner. Anyway, yeah, I actually am enjoying all the wacky weather we're having lately -- quite a day today, huh? -- and I appreciate your remembering me well from the Wilson flap. Hopefully we'll have the chance to collaborate sometime soon. From what I can see, it looks like you led a really good process at the Vitter article, so congrats on that! -Pete 21:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

James Holsinger

Sorry about the lack of comment! I meant to write "Deleted excessive details". I think there was (is) too much detail about developments that are now outdated. --KarlFrei (talk) 17:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring

I read your report at the three-revert rule noticeboard. Unfortunately, it seems to me that you are also edit warring. Please don't do this anymore. I've watched the article and will block either party if they revert again. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)