Jump to content

User talk:DJ Clayworth

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The Wikihunter (talk | contribs) at 08:21, 18 August 2009 (Questioning the decision to terminate a created article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

All New: 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Orphaned: 500 1001 1501


Old talk moved to:


RE: Police Officer

I think your making a mistake with that article, because "bobbies on the beat" is a generic term, well known within the English community. Personally, I think you are making a mistake. But if you insist that they should be just "bobbies", I will leave it that way, I dont want to upset you, and I could not see anything on the talk page either. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 16:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I just added comments to the talk page - sometimes you have to wait a minute or two for these things to appear. I added a number of references to indacate what "bobby on the beat" means. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replied, please see the talk page. Thanks, [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 16:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Secular_Humanism_-Dead_or_Alive.3F_.28Insert_spinning_joke_here.29...

I provided a link at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Secular_Humanism_-Dead_or_Alive.3F_.28Insert_spinning_joke_here.29.... That link used to be on the James Dobson page on Wikiquote, but it's not there any more. Corvus cornixtalk 18:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search of the the Focus on the Family website finds the quote you are probably looking for. [1] Note that it's not a quote by Dobson: he is quoting someone else. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But he endorses it. Corvus cornixtalk 19:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That does seem to be the case. Feel free to add it to the reference desk. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


RE: Police

Thanks for seeing my point of view on that article, =]. I hope the difficulties on Police Officer, will not come between us, and future editing. Thanks, [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 21:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. In the case of the Police article you were absolutely right, and I have no hesitation in supporting you. I'm glad to see that disagreement doesn't mean emnity. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

billingham arms

if i remove the rates and book online link, is it acceptable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freeshack (talk • contribs) 19:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Ruben Naranjo article deletion

Hi there, I just wanted to clarify the entry I was writing on Ruben Naranjo. 1) I know that I mistakenly made the article public before completing it and should have made sure everything was right first and tested it in the sandbox, if needed. 2) Yes, I took a substantial amount of text from the Guadalupe Cultural Arts Center website, which I mentioned at the end of the article. However, I was only using it as a starting point, was in the middle of adding citations when it was deleted, and was also in the midst of completely rewriting it and adding other sections and content from different (cited) sources.

I intend on continuing my work on this entry, and will comply with all Wikipedia guidelines as to article creation and source acknowledgement before making it public. I just wanted you to know that I was sincere in creating the article and not some vandal.

Thanks

Bfcuellar (talk) 20:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)bfcuellar [[::User:Bfcuellar|Bfcuellar]](talk[reply]

If you create an article that complies with Wikipedia rules (especially copyright) then it will not be deleted. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James ben Ali Haggin

Her work is under her copyright but she can not copyright prior art

Reply at User talk:RichardBond. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I was wondering about another problem which is sometimes sections of text for some reason appearing as one long continuous line RichardBond (talk) 17:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That happens when you start the lines with a space, as you did above. If you do that Wikipedia interprets it to mean you are going to control linebreaking yourself. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Bulge FAR opened

Hey, you apparently have 35 edits in the Battle of the Bulge article, which has just been placed through a featured article review. Your input, if any, would be quite welcomed! Thank you. JonCatalán(Talk) 20:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article on Natalia Ivachkevitch deleted?

Hello DJ CLayworth! The article I posted about singer songwriter Natalia Ivachkevitch was deleted by you. How do I make sure I write it properly and not make it : (G11: Blatant advertising)? I thought I included plenty of facts and web links to interviews and featured on her work?

thank YOU! Appreciate your help.

Xomiaciok (talk) 13:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply at User talk:Xomiaciok. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Charles Peattie

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Charles Peattie, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Oo7565 (talk) 20:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why you delete the information about Grigiry Grabovoi?

In the article "Resirrection" you delete the information about his Teaching how to Resurrect people and to stay Immortal. You call it "fringe". Thousands of people all over the World believe it and there are 3 legal Churches of Grabovoy in the USA. Maybe I don't believe in other religions, which speak about Resurrection, so should I delete all the info about Christianity for example? I may think all the Bible is "fringe". Do you know how many times this book has been edited and re-translated? What's the authenticity of Bible? Grigory Grabovoi has numerous witnesses, whose evidences have been notarized. --Born Immortal (talk) 15:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir,

In the World there are just a few religious or esoteric groups, which believe in the possibility of Resurrection in Physical Bodies. I think it's a must to give the information on the "Resurrection" page about all of them. Also note, that among these few, even fewer have a proof or have a Knowledge how everyone can Resurrect any other person. Grabovoi is a scientist, not only a psychic, so he documents all the cases. Also, in his Doctor's Dissertation, basing on mathematics and quantum physics, he has proved the possibility of restoration of any object. His Disertation is called: "Applied structures of the creative field of information". It was a discovery. I've given links to his books, and it's possible to find all the witnesses and notaries. Have you ever heard about something like that? And you think it doesn't deserve a listing? --Born Immortal (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply at User talk:Born Immortal. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Typo redirect Debates, are like, SO useful! You know, they generate ad revenue through being mirrored on Wikimedia sites that fail to comply with GDFL yet still line Jimbo Wales' pockets through advertising and Google!

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Debates, are like, SO useful! You know, they generate ad revenue through being mirrored on Wikimedia sites that fail to comply with GDFL yet still line Jimbo Wales' pockets through advertising and Google!, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Debates, are like, SO useful! You know, they generate ad revenue through being mirrored on Wikimedia sites that fail to comply with GDFL yet still line Jimbo Wales' pockets through advertising and Google! is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Debates, are like, SO useful! You know, they generate ad revenue through being mirrored on Wikimedia sites that fail to comply with GDFL yet still line Jimbo Wales' pockets through advertising and Google!, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 18:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resurrection

I semi-protected Resurrection and blocked two IPs. Will make further warnings. Bearian (talk) 18:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I was hoping to get away without having to protect the page. But that's probably simplest in the long run. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also semi-protected Immortality for the same reason. At least 3 of the vandals have been blocked by other admins. Bearian (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm watching them too. I think instant and permanent blocks are entirely appropriate for anyone who looks like the same vandal. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are very persistent. Crabat seems to be another one. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 21:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are we having a stressful day?

While I certainly agree in some ways , this is too pointy to go without comment. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 18:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Left over from page move vandalism. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resurrection

Am I not innocent until proven guilty? Should not the data in the article remain until a decision is THEN reached in the sand box to remove it? I don't know anything about the sandbox, just the discussion or talk pages attached to the articles. I am not knowledgeable with a lot of stuff that goes in the Wiki or computer world. I do not know the useage of an Ipod Kazuba (talk) 02:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply at User talk:Kazuba DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)

The September 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NYT is About.com

Informative links that I added to 'Tyrannosaurus' and 'Creationism' were reportedly deleted because they were cited as coming from 'The New York Times', and lead to the About.com website. About.com is owned by the New York Times. Content published at About.com is part of New York Times online publications. Please revise this policy that removes About.com from the NYT online content.

Reply at User talk:75.179.137.166 DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

why block me editing my talk page?

you never did say why i could not remove the message of my block. it is my page i was still being blocked and i wanted to remove the warning. so why is that? then you blocked me for editing my own talk page. why? little bit of abuse? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ford1206 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages should be a record of what was said by you and to you. This especially includes warnings about bad behaviour. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this still should not stop me editing my page. this is my page, just like you changed my last edit back after i deleted it this should also not have had me bloacked from my own edit page. i will delete the last edit you did on page again and if it is changed b ack i will report it as vandalism. thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ford1206 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point being that if your talk page is supposed to be a record of what is said to you, deleting things from it is going against that. Amd if you won't stop removing warnings then you will be stopped. Also some of your edits were personal attacks, and they will be removed wherever they are found. Feel free to report me for vandalism if you like, but it won't make any difference. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

so there is nothing stating that the warning cant be removed then you are making you own rules. the talk page is mine, i can have anything on there as long as it is not attacking anyone it is alright. thank you.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ford1206 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

I notice you are online. would you mind doing a page move for me Ben Barker (speedway rider) to Ben Barker. You help would be much appreciated. Waterden (talk) 14:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Waterden (talk) 15:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Branding my edits as an "irrelevent joke"

Hi. Please do not undo my edits labelled with words such as obvious, irrelevent and joke. I am happy to discuss the content with you on the Talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiWebbie (talk • contribs) 18:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply at Talk:Winston Churchill. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Immortality

I do not know enough about this topic, but why did you erase that entire sentence? Bearian (talk) 17:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's patently not true, as well as unreferenced. Christianity, for example, does not espouse 'dualism' and tends to class as heretics those who do. However it does espouse immortality, and refers to "resurrection bodies". DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably see this

A discussion involving your actions here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is wikipedia hacked

Quote taken from the talk Barack Obama, "Ah. I didn't realize you were alleging that this was a conspiracy, in which all the evidence has been changed so as to disagree with your version of things. That explains a lot. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)"

It's naive to believe a website such as wikipedia is not hacked. The latest trend in hacking is to be stealth. Not conspiracy, but caution and common sense for those who have been involved in server security such as myself.--PaulLowrance (talk) 16:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...and removing a single sentence from a Wikipedia article without you noticing would be exactly the sort of thing these people would devote their skills and time to. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obeying Wikipedia Rules

Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLANKING#Removal_of_comments.2C_warnings

Thanks for your comments. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PENN Reels

Hi,

You deleted 2 of my articles today. I realize now (after reading through some of the rules and I was in violation of almost all of them) I am the web developer for that company as well as several other fishing companies, just so you know where I am coming from. I want to put information about these companies on this site because a.) there is none (except for Shakespeare Fishing tackle and that information is out of date) b.) The parent company Jarden has a page (out of date as well) and c.) I have access to a boatload of information about fishing that people would like to be able to see in this forum. So, you can either help me get used to posting on this site, or we can go through this again.

Let me remind you, Jarden is a multi-billion dollar company with more personnel and assets than you can shake a stick at. You will not hinder my project of getting CORRECT information about Jarden and its subsidiaries on Wikipedia for long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbhumphrey (talk • contribs) 19:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply at User talk:Rbhumphrey. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adams Way Page

Hey DJ CLayworth.

Can you tell me what I need to do to add notability to the Adams Way Page you deleted. I need that page up and running for research on area projects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjanssen (talk • contribs) 16:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply at User talk:Bjanssen. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Man Law (book)

I saw you deleted this book under A7. I thought books were never eligible for speedy? GtstrickyTalk or C 19:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. The book is produced by a self-publishing organization. There is no possibility that it will be considered notable. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tumble and tea cafe

Hi - I saw you just deleted this article, which I must have tagged in a previous incarnation as it's on my watchlist. Just a thought - as this is the fourth time it's been speedied, unless it's getting better each time, perhaps you should think about salting it? Cheers, Iain99Balderdash and piffle 19:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xcentre.net

Hi, i am new here, just testing how to add an article and caused deletion. I just wanna listed my site in website directories founded. Not sure about the code used here. Any easier guide? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wkwebsite (talk • contribs) 20:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply at User talk:Wkwebsite. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mikagld

excuse me DJ?!?!?!??!?!?!?!? why do you think you can just go delete my page on mick cochran???? i worked hard on that, FYI! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikagld (talk • contribs)

Reply at User talk:Mikagld. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blah Blah Blah (Band)

They are a band with a record label and have been on the radio. I think they are significant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Headcr0b (talk • contribs) 20:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply at user talk:Headcr0b. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Anti-submarine boom net (Sydney Harbour WWII)

Please do not move pages to nonsensical titles. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to learn more about moving pages, please see the guidelines on this subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. _||_Adam (talk) 07:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what that notice is about. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canada's name again

More drive-by editing in the Etymology section, and a big mess in the history section. My ability to be objective on this is compromised with this particular editor, but I've documented it [2] so others can judge. Can't decide how serious this really is. --soulscanner (talk) 09:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commented at Talk:Canada. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


terraskin

My article on terraskin was removed due to violations in advertising. I am looking to try and rewrite this article so that it fits the guidelines. Could you please refer to me the parts of the article that need reworking. I am only looking to post facts about this product and am in no way interested in promoting any business. I see many products in your database such as gortex, kleenex, tyvek, teflon, etc. Many of these seem more advertising based than what I was trying to post. So obviously I am very confused as to what is acceptable and what is not. Any help in leading me toward the proper direction would be a great help. Thank you ahead of time for your understanding. Bobbyksehgal (talk) 19:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few things:
  1. Try to write about the generic product, not the Terraskin proprietary product.
  2. Remove the FAQ section
  3. Don't use TM all over the place
  4. Make sure you read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Spam.

DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I am trying to inform readers what the possible uses are and what this product could mean to the future of sustainable packaging as well as reducing global pollution and greenhouse gases, I feel I am on a slippery slope btwn advertising and informing. Taking out the FAQ and TM signs will be easy. I also realized I probably put too much comparison to regular paper, which can also be fixed. But could you expand a little more on #1 for me. I realize I am asking a lot of questions, and for that I apologize. Your help is most appreciated. Cheers! Bobbyksehgal (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was, if there are other non-wood paper products out there, try writing an article that is applicable to all of them, not just to the specific product "Terraskin". Assuming there are other such products, they probably have a lot in common. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kleenex, Teflon, Gore-Tex, and Tyvek are all products that have similar entities on the market, yet they do not refer to them at all in their wikipedia entries. I built my entry by studying these products whose entries were added, yet did not advertise. Paper made from stone is not exactly an everyday product. I found only two other types online. I figured speaking of these products would make readers see differences in the products by direct comparison. Which is blatant advertising. So I am more confused now. I think I will just try again and hope for the best. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbyksehgal (talk • contribs) 22:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is that the entry on Kleenex is very short, talks largely about the company and trademark related items and links to facial tissue and bathroom tissue, the generic products. Those linked article contain most of the information about the products. If the Terraskin product is truly unique, then there isn't a generic product to write about. However it's also a matter of tone. The Kleenex article doesn't put Kleenex in a particularly good light, or explain why it is better then competing products. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1 RR and civility violations G2bambino

Please see entry on administrator board. I appreciated your response and commentary here and I put off the report because of it, noting your opinion. However, the reverts continued. G2 has definately violated several civility and 1 RR restrictions. -soulscanner (talk) 01:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting

Hi, i noticed you deleted a page and gave your reasons due to copyright issues. I hope that does not preclude that the issue does not exist ? And if so, how the subject can be explored ? I was hoping to give a slim down version of the deleted page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.59.43 (talk) 18:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no problem with creating an article on that subject that is not copied from elsewhere on the web. Please make sure you have read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thnaks, I will re-edit, the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.59.43 (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He had tried getting permission from User Talk: Master of Puppets to create this article and instead he has received Warning with Heading Hi Again. Please see his own extremist history (which has recently being discussed at) at User Talk: Master of Puppets. This user was blocked several times earlier as well, Please see [his Biography his Biography. He has come up with this account after getting numerous warnings to his other two IPs, i.e. 90.196.3.37 and 90.196.3.246.--Singh6 (talk) 03:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-consider your decision. Sikh Extremism means calling all Sikhs 'extremists'.--Singh6 (talk) 03:01, 9

November 2008 (UTC)

Hi DJ Clayworth, while I might agree the problem is more to do with style rather than content, like all faiths we have examples RSS or Islamophobia, Al Qaeda etc..which are on Wikipedia, Sikh Extremism DOES exist otherwise their wouldn't be so many sources and articles devoted to the matter (or the same number of death threats to match) I hope that is proof in itself that warrants the subject matter.

Obviously the same extremists will oppose this, but that would be cowing into mob rule as was the case of Behzti.

Also many of the references are from mainstream websites, like the BBC or CBC which are not POV sites, but are criticised by Sikh Extremists fro being just that, neither was the journalist Kim Bolan, who received death threats, for exposing Sikh fundamentalism.

A lot of Sikh extremists are free to post on here including Singh6

I would add that no admin has refused to have this article, I asked Jeff G and MOP

Hi, this article is not POV as suggested by User:Singh6, its simply dealing with the issues surrounding religious fundamentalism no one is suggesting all Sikhs are extremist, but some may well be- its s fact of life. I WIll be taking this to the discussion page) I will stress again, that bullying admins into removing subjects surrounding religious fundamentalism is not in the interest of free speech or Wikipedia.

NB I have informed other admins —Preceding unsigned comment added by Satanoid (talk • contribs) 12:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, regarding this dispute, hopefully the issues can be sorted out on the article's talk page. Your input would be much appreciated --Flewis(talk) 13:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See below. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question on Islam portal

On the Islam side panel on left, it has the following links, do you not also consider that as equally wrong ?

Criticism · Islamophobia

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Satanoid (talk • contribs) 07:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My purpose for removing the link to Sikh extremism was not that I disagreed with the existence of such an article in principle, but that the article at that time was such a badly written and biased one that attention should not have been drawn to it. I believe that this is not longer the case and I will restore the link. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sikh extremism

I have cleaned up the article, but I'm afraid that this version won't long last as Canadian gaddars would vandalize it: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Sikh_extremism&oldid=250677918

Please keep a watch. Thank you. 59.164.100.127 (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You, User talk:59.164.100.127, an editor, who is publically calling opposition as "Canadian Gaddars" - means - "Canadian Traitors", is definitely an extremist person and your edits are definitely under watch. --Singh6 (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Everyone. Let's be clear that it is perfectly OK for an article on Sikh extremism to exist on Wikipedia, just as there is for other forms of extremism. I said this above and you will hardly find an admin to disagree with this. However the article must be neutral, factual and referenced. Let's not label individual editors, as 'extremist' or otherwise. An individual edit should be judged on whether it is neutral and factual. We don't discriminate against editors for their views, only for the quality of their edits.
Finally let's take everything we want to say about this article to the talk page. The discussion here is closed. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Threats

Which threats are you talking about? Can you please pinpoint the exact details? "AfD challenge" is not a threat. It's not against any policy. I am not threatening to kill anybody. Others want to delete an article to which I've contributed, and I'm fighting bravely against them. Best, Dave. 59.164.105.254 (talk) 17:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply at User talk:59.164.105.254. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


AfD nomination of Sikh extremism

An article that you have been involved in editing, Sikh extremism, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sikh extremism. Thank you. Singh6 (talk) 08:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I have restructured the article with correct modifications in the section names so that theose could be related with the information below them. Do you still think that we need create ths new article Sikh extremism? Most of the information has been reshuffled only.--Singh6 (talk) 03:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you voted in favour of keeping this article, it is only fair that you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sikh_extremism#Wikipedia_being_used_as_a_propaganda_platform , which is an indepth analysis of the article. Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 08:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

The Reference Desk Barnstar
Thank you for contributing to my "greatest" poll on the Reference Desk! --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 05:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)

The October 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on article you were involved in AFD debate

Hi there! You had participated in the AFD on Sikh Extremism. I've had some time to look into the article and commented on the talk page here. Thanks, --RoadAhead =Discuss= 01:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)

The November 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sikh Extremism

Can you kindly advise on what to do about the vandalism on the above article ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Sikh_extremism&action=edit&undoafter=257050994&undo=257051652

Names of journalists such as Terry Milewski have been altered and the article on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahraz_Darshan_Das_Jee has recently been deleted (incidentally he was assassinated in 1987 by Sikh extremists) I have been informed by other editors such as Enzuru about the eerie goings on by the pro-extremist sikhs and talk pages.

It needs to be reverted to an earlier as the POV tagging is becoming another side issue.

User roadahead claims the article is false despite the numerous research and news refereces including Globalsecurity which has also been erased from the article. Thank you Satanoid (talk) 14:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Satanoid, before you accuse others of vandalism, please note your own history of Vandalism:

I am not the primary author of this article and I luckily came across it while following an extremist editor i.e. author of this article, i.e. User Talk: satanoid. I had a chance to read Sikh extremism and the original article Khalistan movement and 'found it a distorted form of existing wikipedia article Khalistan movement only. This bad faith article has been created by User Talk: satanoid to satisfy his own extremism and spread hate WP:POV against Sikhism only. It is necessary to go through his history to understand his actual motive behind creating such hateful article which does not make any sence.

  • His initial Biography
  • Here is the list of all the IP addresses (registered to Easynet Ltd, BSkyB Broadband) which he has used so far:
90.196.3.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
90.196.3.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
90.196.3.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
90.196.3.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
90.196.3.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
90.192.3.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
90.192.59.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
90.192.59.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
90.192.59.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
90.192.59.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • Here he has mistakenly proved his link with one of above mentioned IP Addresses.
  • He was blocked several times because of his same hatefull acts but wikipedia could not find a permanent solution so far.
  • He is simply using his manipulation skills to spread baseless hate against a religion, which he hates, through this article. Remember, He can delete contents from an editor's talk page and 'can put the blame on the victim immediately afterwards. He, through Sikh extremism, is manipulating information from Khalistan movement in a similar way to spread hate WP:POV against Sikhism on Wikipedia. Khalistan movement was a political movement similar to Indian independence movement. Both of these came into existence because of major independence issues felt by certain citizens of their respective countries. --Irek Biernat (talk) 03:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Also note the current warnings you have recieved from other editors regarding your uncivil remarks.--Sikh-history (talk) 16:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use my talk page to argue with each other. I will have a look at this article again. Please remember however that adding a fact that you happen to believe is false is not vandalism. Nor is deleting a fact that you happen to think is true. If you have complaints about another user that you think an administrator can help with please go to Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Love Systems

Hi DJ Clayworth,

I was working on a "company page" and I wanted to make sure several Wikipedia admins would approve the page. Whenever you have time, could you give me some pointers on how to improve the page? The page has to go through a DRV before it can get back up. Any feedback is much appreciated!

The page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Coaster7/Love_Systems

Thanks in advance. Coaster7 (talk) 01:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)

The December 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)

The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

The Barnstar of Diligence
You deserve this for making me chuckle each time you responded with your precision-guided wit at Talk:Amen.
DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 05:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Tim Cotterill

Tim Cotterill, an article that you have contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Esasus (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)

The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rules for reciting Amen in Judaism

I have transwikied the unique information from this article to Berakhah. This makes the article Rules for reciting Amen in Judaism an orphan with no rationale (that i can think of) for its ongoing existence. As you are its author, please nominate it for Speedy Deletion. Hanina (talk) 20:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may as well be a redirect. As a redirect it's doing no harm. I'll make Amen point to Berakhah. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mis-translation Holy Spirit

Would you please take a look on the Holy Spirit talk page and give me an answer. I seem to remember you were familar with this stuff. Please reply Kazuba (talk) 00:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for answering my question. I'll guess I'll have to trust your answer because I cannot read ancient Greek. ( A lazy boundary) Got another question though that has been gnawing on me for some time. You can put the answer on my talk page if you feel like answering. For as long as I can remember I have heard all these arguments dealing with the resurrection of Jesus, but no one ever says anything about Jesus flying away, the ascension. Why doesn't the ascension count? I have to say watching someone fly away is very unusual and instead of this incident being recorded in all the gospels it only appears in one. Is it because the listener of the story has already accepted flying around as perfectly normal(Jesus flying around with Satan during the temptations to all those different high places.) Or is it because no one cares where Jesus finally ends up because the reality of the resurrection is the only thing that REALLY COUNTS. Please reply.Kazuba (talk) 23:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the immediate reply. I guess I agree with you. But I still find the ascension very odd, especially since it only occurs in Luke which supposedly is a later Gopsel. (and no one debates about it as being a historical event.) The other Gospels just leave you hanging in space as to what did Jesus do for the rest of his life. Perhaps that is why the story of the ascension is there at all. To tie up loose ends. But it certainly takes Luke's version of the Jesus story out of history and places it deeply into a developing theological mythology. Luke seems to have a special thing for angels and the realm of God existing in the sky. It is interesting that my grand child said my deceased wife was looking down from a cloud and she has not had any religious education at all. Perhaps it is due to the feeling of wonder one gets when looking up into the "heavens", especially on a clear night. Thanks again. Kazuba (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deletion review for Madras Bulls

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Madras Bulls. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Corpx (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)

The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference desk crowd control

Thanks for breaking up a potential riot. Phil_burnstein (talk) 14:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. It's easy to get sucked into something like that. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)

The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anchor Bible

DJ -- thanks for your note. After looking it up it appears that I confused the Anchor Bible commentaries with the Anchor Bible. While the commentaries are well done (and do contain full translations), the Anchor Bible is something incomplete. I own some of the commentaries but not the "Anchor Bible" that the original editor had in mind. Good catch. EGMichaels (talk) 13:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I made that mistake myself at first. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say, it's a pleasure working with you. The give and take makes the article (and us) better. Thanks.EGMichaels (talk) 21:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. The pleasure is equally mine. DJ Clayworth (talk) 03:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Spirit

We would be grateful if you would discuss wholesale removals of well-referenced sections from articles before doing so, please. That article is in the middle of a rewrite, and being actively discussed. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you can re-write it, I don't think it would be a bad idea to have an entry on gender of the Holy Spirit or religious views on the Holy Spirit. The first one is about a modern theological debate, while the second one is a useful article on comparative religion. ADM (talk) 14:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Taking this conversation to Talk:Holy Spirit. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kyiv

Thank you for your message and your opinion regarding the name. Please provide me with the information explaining what kind of evidence is required to demonstrate that the usage of the word is wide enough to be changed on Wikipedia. What exactly do you mean by "when this change occurs" and who has the competence to state this? Is the usage of the word by newspapers like Canadian Globe and Mail as well as several governmental institutions (UK and USA governments in particular) enough of a prove that the change is occurring? Check out the CIA world factbook website Andriy155 (talk) 22:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to this at User talk:Andriy155. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redcastle United

Here i go again. My page have been deleted for an A7. Texas android mentioned this with jargon that makes no sense to me. I hope you can tell me in plain english what am i missing that will not result in a deletion. I have this page connected to the league page (i.e Inishowen Football League) which always had a space for my club Redcastle united. Only one club Clonmany Shamrocks have a article filled in and to be honest i cannot see anything in there that would prevent it from being deleted that i did not have in mine. So please take a look at my article before being so quick in deleting something. As i said plain english we dont all have degrees in rocket science.

Reply at User talk:Redcastle01. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redcastle United

In response to your message i find it funny that the club i mentioned earlier Clonmany Shamrocks have achieved no more than Redcastle United. We play in the same division and just this weekend we won the league ahead of that team. And Clonmany have won nothing of notability so for them to have a page allowed on here makes no sense if my ametuer team has won more than them in the last 4 years. There is a link to the league page under the Wiki page Inishowen football league that will provide proof that Redcastle have won something this week but having to win something to get information of a particular amateur club on here is a silly policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redcastle01 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Reply at User talk:Redcastle01. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Lee (singer)

Wow, you're quick. The article wasn't even a couple minutes old when you listed it at afd. Anyway, I voiced my opinion at the deletion discussion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unprofessional

I submit that it was very unprofessional for you to go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of LSAT Instruction Providers and recommend deletion of my article based on your personal bias against me after your attempt to delete my other contribution Patentlyo (blog). Clearly you have contributed a lot to WP, but you can also let others contribute. And following me around WP with a vendetta is childish and unprofessional. But frankly, I'm not surprised.--Patent Lawyer 001 (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sikh Extremism and the terrorist apologists

Hi, I have been trying to improve the article on Sikh Extremism, unfortunately I have come across some very poor editing and even heavy deletions from certain people who wish not to have this article on Wikipedia!! I don't know if you remember, me Satanoid, I lost my password, so log in as Morbid Fairy. I have had a campaign have me banned the sikh-extremist fringe because of exposure i.e from those who wish to have the article removed. The two users watering down the article are mainly Sineed and to some extent Sikh-History (who has already had one warning recently).

The same old excuses are being used, i.e all the media such as the New York Times or the BBC or CNN is biased against terrorists, and after the recent murder attacks reported in the Austrian Times in Vienna, some seem to want to brush this under the carpet (fast). I hope you can help on this article as you kindly did so before, thank you

http://austriantimes.at/index.php?id=13609 http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/india/states/punjab/terrorist_outfits/ISYF.htm Morbid Fairy (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Morbid Fairy aka Satanoid see here , you have been previously reprimanded for this type of behaviour under the Satanoid account and on your WPOuting violation here. People are assuming Good Faith on your new account so I suggest you do the same. Your behaviour towards Sineed is very bad--Sikh-history (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)

The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you protect Alec Williams

This has been recreated four or five3 times enough is enough. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's all one user. I'll give him one more warning and then block him. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Burks Falls

DJ Clayworth, regarding what you said about the Statscan pages, you are wrong. I am not making assumptions about other ethnicities, because Statscan differentiates between white, aboriginal, and other (visible minorities). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.163.202 (talk) 02:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, I found the ethnicity info, so I've reverted my removal. However you might like to think of other ways of portraying that information. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]



RuneScape Fansites

I'd like to request an edit of the Wikipedia page of the game RuneScape (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RuneScape). I've realized that only three fansites are listed at the bottom of the page, however being a fansite staff myself, I am positive that 4 more should be mentioned. Mainly because those 7 are the longest existing fansites for RuneScape - there are even yearly inter-site wars that are being held, called "Multi Site Steel War". These fansites would be the following:


- RuneScape Bits & Bytes - http://www.rsbandb.com/ <- especially famous for it's calculators

- RuneVillage - http://www.runevillage.com/ <- where I'm staff at... used to be in the top 3, famous for its community, but had a crash 2 years ago. Soon to have a large website update.

- Rune Crypt - http://www.runecrypt.com/

- Sal's Realm of RuneScape - http://runescape.salmoneus.net/


Also, you you might want to add that since JaGeX got a new CEO (Source:http://news.runescape.com/newsitem.ws?id=1648), they've started cooperating with users, clans and fansites more. They did contact us too (at RuneVillage.com) to ask for suggestions and did also provide us with interesting unpublished material, which is somehow a proof I guess? Lastely, they've created a RuneScape fansite on facebook, and gave us major fansites permission to announce our events and share our pictures on that page, which you will find here: http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/pages/RuneScape/59261801728?id=59261801728&v=photos&sb=0.

THANK YOU IN ADVANCE! :)

EthemD (talk) 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a discussion to have at Talk:RuneScape. I suggest putting your comments on that page. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voltron game page deleted

Hi DJ Clayworth.. I wanted to know why you deleted the page I created on the Voltron game.. It mentioned "notability" but that seems a subjective term. I tried to conform to the Wikipedia guidelines and format as much as possible. Please help explain to me how to view / continue creating this page again. Pazzmanmusic (talk) 15:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply at User talk:Pazzmanmusic. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Thank you for the information. If I am able to provide notable, verifiable, information will that validate the page, and allow for its existance? I do not have a source handy now, but think I have seen one. Will I be able to retrieve the work I did on the page in the future so I can complete it with the guidelines you wrote about? Pazzmanmusic (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply at User talk:Pazzmanmusic. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Wilkes

I didn't notice that you had turned the other article into a redirect. For a second there, I thought I was in re-direct hell. ;) My apologies. -t'shael mindmeld 14:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Fixed it. It happens to us all. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I Heart Cash: School Edition

Why was my page deleted? It's a role playing game, and there's actually other games on wikipedia, but why aren't they deleted, and mine is?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MB_Games

All those games are online games, like mine. Can you please put my page back? --Mysteryboy123 (talk) 18:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)Mysterboy123[reply]

Reply at User talk:Mysteryboy123. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

D-Day (disambiguation)

So I guess that one item was all that was wrong with it?

I knew I should have handled Roommates (2006 film) better. I figured why redirect, but then in this case I had to.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, now I see. There were two films. The 2006 one looks like it hardly deserves an article. If not for the infobox, it wouldn't even be worth keeping.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DJ Clayworth

Dear DJ, may I ask you why you exchanged the name of the original inventor of the Capri pants with a fictitious name? You seem to be a very serious editor, therefore I don't understand that you called one of the most respected European designers "homosexual designer". Please let me know and thanks (for your information I am an European history professor)--RoboRay (talk) 00:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC) [correction: should read "an European history professor"]--RoboRay (talk) 01:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, a mistake in the editing process there. (And I didn't call anyone 'homosexual', I undid that change). Thanks for fixing. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Girl scout council of the nation's capital

Dude, I was trying to stubbify it. Bearian (talk) 15:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, it was a copyright infringement. Copyright infringements should be deleted if at all possible to remove them from the edit history. I would have no objection if you were to create a stub. Note however that the article name should have "Washington DC" rather than "the nation's capital" in the title, to pacify those pesky people who live in other nations. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

I just made a redirect for BLANKING IN PROGRESS to User:Samuel Blanning/Blanking. I just think that should be a blue link, since a lot of people usually try to link to it (it's kind of a meme on 4chan and Encyclopedia Dramatica). --Sushi654 (talk) 18:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Internet memes don't always make good articles. In any case, if this is a tool for assisting with Wikipedia editing it belongs in Wikipedia space, not the article space. I would suggest discussion before creating it anyway. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You Deleted My Page

You shouldn't have deleted my page. It's valid and not a hoax. Please put the content back. You could have contacted me before destroying my information. unsigned contribution by User:WebFGuy

The subject of your page got precisely two Google hits. Please don't waste our time. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan / Republic of China

Please note that the convention for the usage of the common term "Taiwan" and the formal term "Republic of China" is to use "Republic of China" in the context of state functions such as politics, military, government, etc.. When referring to the cultural region, territory, island and/or location in a non-state, non-government context, the more common name "Taiwan" is used. Marc87 appears to be attempting to push a POV by attempting to eliminate usages of the term "Taiwan" in its common and conventional usage as by most English speakers familiar with the area. Readin (talk) 22:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your reading of the naming convention. Full reply at User talk:Readin. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about we all talk in one place? Please see Talk:Taiwan_Major_League#Taiwan_vs._ROC. Readin (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hardy Boys

Do not delete the end of the lead again. Per WP:LEAD, all content of the article must be summarized in the lead. This is not one editor's opinion; it is information cited to multiple sources. Please read WP:FA and WP:RS. Ricardiana (talk) 17:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I removed what appeared to be vandalism back to a version before the article was made main. Sorry if I took more stuff away than was necessary. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MVDIT TECH BOOK

I would still salt the article. He waits weeks or even months between posting it again. A 55-hour block probably won't stop him. Oops - missed the part about expanding it to one year. That might do the trick, but I'd still salt. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 14:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dislike salting. If for some reason this journal of his ever becomes genuinely noteworthy someone will wonder why we did it. However if it's created again I will absolutely salt it, as well as blocking the creator in perpetuity. It's not like an article titled in all-caps is going to get past the RC patrol. Let me know if you see it again. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

turtles all the way down

Hi,
I generally agree with your removal of "less notable" references from this article. However I am wondering if you'd mind if I restored the reference to

I know it's frivolous, but when this was posted a month ago I thought it was a great addition and it really brightened my day. I think it would be a shame not to include it.
Thanks. Agradman talk/contribs 18:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cute is only funny once, but an encyclopedia article is forever. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hardy Boys

I responded on the article's talk page --AW (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lewishnl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

You blocked him for a month yesterday for spamming, etc. I just re-set the block for a month due to playing whack-a-mole with his socks (see his talk or mine). just a heads up, totally agree with the original block. StarM 15:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Tiana tomfoolery

What do you suggest we do about this persistent editor who keeps insisting on changing the Princess Tiana article? I've tried reporting them for edit warring, vandalism, and trying to get the article protected--all to no avail. I'm at a loss how to get this person to stop. Cactusjump (talk) 21:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a day since he/she edited the article, so I would say leave it for now. He/she has probably gone away. If it starts again let me know, and I'll put a temporary block on the IP. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Had a look at the talk page, and I think the thing here is not to feed the trolls. Arguing is only going to make matters worse. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Will do. Cactusjump (talk) 16:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)

The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion link.

I am so having a brain fart and for the life of my I have forgotten how to create a link for the deletion. Brothejr (talk) 16:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A link for the debate would suffice. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ok. There was not so much a debate as a user decided to create the sub page after the original section was closed and collapsed. The user hoped that they could continue on the debate in the sub page. While the original section had been closed. There was no agreement or discussion to make the sub page, and evidence shows that the Birther discussion was continue on in the sub page. That was why I put up the speedy deletion template. This is backed up by the history of the main talk page. Brothejr (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there wasn't a formal decision to delete then let's leave it. We'll put a stop to fruitless argument and then the page can stand as a record of what was said. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. Brothejr (talk) 16:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, right after I removed the CSD temp off the page and the notification off the user's talk page, the deleted all the content and now it's going to be speedily be closed for having nothing on it! Brothejr (talk) 16:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let someone else deal with it if they want. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very true, though it now looks like the user has now re-inserted their argument back into the main talk page. It seems as if they had deleted everyone's comments, boiled down what they were arguing, and then reposed it back on the main page for a new re-hashing of the argument. Brothejr (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Ive undone this and I will find out if there is an explanation. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to stand back and let the bally-ho play out. It looks like you've got things under control. Brothejr (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brothejr, check the info please. I read WP:AATP about how to archive it, and it said "Using a subpage is the most popular method for archiving a talk page"... that's what I went ahead and did. I didn't know it was "improper"... --Barwick (talk) 16:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Early Life/Birth Place page was archived as a "drop down, click to open" box (not sure what it is called), in its entirety, when the items under discussion were never addressed. It was archived because some folks who didn't like Barack Obama came on with their "you leftist loons" rants, and it turned into just that, a rant. I subpage archived it (thinking that was the proper way to do it, but apparently wasn't), so I deleted the subpage content, and someone else had already moved it to the main "Archive 1" page.
At that point, I then went on to pull out all the facts of the discussion from both sides so they can be debated. --Barwick (talk) 16:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The whole debate, including the part you posted, was clearly going nowhere. Please let sleeping dogs lie. Wikipedia is not an investigative journalist, hoping to uncover hidden facts. We report what is written. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's been written, that's the thing. That's what the facts of the discussion were presented for, none of those facts have been disputed. --Barwick (talk) 16:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion was futile, and irrelevant to improving the article. You attempted to restart it. Please don't. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is it futile? Saying "it's futile" doesn't make it futile. If you (or someone else) can show me where those facts have been disproven, then fine, but nobody has done that. --Barwick (talk) 16:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is futile because it in no way contributes to the improving of Wikipedia. The whole "where was he born" debate is clearly settled in the minds of 99% of people, and debating the merits of the issue is not Wikipedia's business. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It IS? Really? I was unaware that it was settled in the minds of 99% of the people. Please cite your Reliable Source for that information :) Seriously, 400,000 people have signed a petition, out of the unknown number who even know of that petition, that is probably a fairly high ratio of petition signers to petition viewers. --Barwick (talk) 17:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can look up the sources as well as I can. Please stop this now. I have better things to be doing. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Same.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 18:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They seemed to have ignored what you said and re-introduced the thread again. I have manually archived it again. Brothejr (talk) 09:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if this comes across as an angry pissed off person, but it seems like admins are crossing the line and not playing by Wikipedia's own rules: This topic was "archived" because it became a forum. I took MY own time to clean it up so it can be discussed, and now you are trying to sweep it under the rug. That is not going to happen. In the talk section I have *clearly* and *concisely* (as concise as possible with everything involved here) presented the facts of both sides of this case. These facts have NOT been disproven beyond any reasonable doubt. Until someone shows me where these facts are incorrect, and DISCUSSES it, not just pulling the Stasi Secret Police method of hushing it away somewhere by saying "I'm archiving this"... I've said it multiple times, I AM PLAYING BY WIKIPEDIA'S RULES, and yet you seem unwilling to discuss this on the TALK page, per Wikipedia guidelines. You claim it has been discussed and is moot, I have just shown that these facts have NOT been disproven, and that they are legitimate concerns from an average, unbiased person. Calling everyone involved a "conspiracy theorist" or "kook" or whatever else is doing nobody any good. --Barwick (talk) 15:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a new AN/I section/case: [3] over this as it does not seem to be resolved. Brothejr (talk) 16:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me be clear about this. Wikipedia is not here to debate the truth of Barack Obama's birth location. The fact that you don't consider the case proved is irrelevant. For the overwhelming majority of people the cases is closed and that is what Wikipedia reports. Your posting was a clear attempt to reopen the debate about Obama's birth, and that is not the purpose of Wikipedia. That and anything else not related to improving the article will be removed. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How has it been resolved? Honestly? You are allowed to make that claim without backing it up? Again, 400,000 signatures of a petition (with a wild guess of 2 million people who even know the petition exists) shows there's more than a significant number of people out there who aren't convinced. You show me a non-biased survey that shows the vast majority of people believe 100% that Barack Obama II was born in that hospital in Hawaii, and I'll drop it. An example of such a survey would ask non-biased questions, such as "Do you believe President Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961? Yes absolutely, I'm fairly convinced, There's some reasonable doubt, Not at all" --Barwick (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is completely clear that consensus opinion in the world is that Obama was born where he said he was. 100 million people voted for him. Your 'petition' could be one guy with an internet bot (or one guy with no qualms about lying to make his point). Please do not make further posts on this page. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, so, again, you're able to go on there and state your POV, but I'm not able to respond, gotcha. --Barwick (talk) 02:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply at User talk:Barwick. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good attempt at sweeping that one under the rug. Way to follow your own principles of reliable sources (*cough* hypocrite *cough*). Do is make you feel uncomfortable by calling you out when you require one standard from me, but you yourself don't even attempt to live by that same standard? I'll leave you be to reflect on the way you've approached this situation, and probably many more like it, to see if there's any way you can change your actions in the future, it might serve you well in the real world. --Barwick (talk) 13:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Invest in Knowledge

I resubmitted the page removing all mention of company name, or links to Kirtas or any of it's websites. Invest in Knowledge is a patented process, and although it was invented by Kirtas. I made no mention of Kirtas. What do I have to do?? I am looking for some guidance.VeryBigKahunaIII (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC) VeryBigKahunaIII[reply]

Answer at User talk:VeryBigKahunaIII. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)

The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikihunting

From The Wikihunter: I thought it would be clever to start up an interesting game on Wikipedia called Wikihunting. I think that if given the chance, I could place enough codes on pages for the game to become more noticable in society. These are harmless 10 character combinations located at the bottom of particular articles. They do not in any way try to harm or affect the article, this is why they are placed at the bottom. When the person who finds them tells me on e-mail that they found them, I would remove them from the article straight away. Then the players name would be put in a Hall of Fame and so a massive wiki competition begins. I think this would be a good game which will not only entertain the people who compete, but will increase and promote the use of Wikipedia. Please consider not terminating what could be an interesting stage of the life of Wikipedia. Get back to me. The Wikihunter

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DJ_Clayworth&oldid=308645263"