User talk:Stillwaterising/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Barnstar

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		Wow. I looked at what you did in rescuing Heather Harmon - great job! Airplaneman talk 05:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

NOR

I'm not keen on racing to change a core content policy so that an article about a porn star survives AfD. :) I've not looked at the AfD issue, but if s/he's been interviewed by independent parties, and if the publications are notable in some way, and not just someone's website, then it really doesn't matter whether the interviews are labelled as primary or secondary sources. But I'm saying this without having looked at the details. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, good point. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Heather Harmon

There was no consensus on the AfD dispute. The article passed. Thanks for your comments on my talk page. Best Regards, Artemis84 (talk) 18:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

one source templates

Please do not add one souhttp://www.itmonline.org/arts/lead.htmrce templates to fish stubs. There is absolutely no problem with them citing one source, as frequently only one English source exists. This is also entirely inline with Wikipedia policy, and guidelines at WP:FISH. At Cepola macrophthalma, the page you added the tag to, all the information that the article contained was at FishBase (which all fish articles must cite) and much of it can only easily be found there. innotata (Talk | Contribs) 17:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Request

I'm afriad that the nominator failed to acknowledge existing guidelines regarding undeleted pages. The contruction tag affords the article a 7 day window in which it should not be nominated for previous reasons. - can you please point me to the guideline or policy page regarding AFDs and {{construction}} tag? I tried looking for it and though I know this is a courtesy and a common practice that is done using the {{construction}} tag, I was unable to find it in a quick search... Cirt (talk) 19:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• I know this exists because I read it when I revamped Heather Harmon in Nov 09. I didn't find it while searching breifly today, it may have been removed since then. I won't have time to look more until later today. -Stillwaterising (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, well please do. :) Cirt (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems that the old page and version here was changed on 25 October 2009 from the construction tag to newpage. It is however only an essay. I believe there was a policy page that listed the construction tag as a way to hold a newly recreated page for 7 days but that must have been changed as well. -Stillwaterising (talk) 00:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment

I am not sure why you felt it necessary to make the nasty comments about me at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Nominating_a_page_for_AFD_while_tagged_with_construction. I have offered to Ash (talk · contribs), I have told Ash that I would love to help him out in his userspace and improve the article User:Ash/Paul Carrigan. I have some experience with improving articles. Quite frankly I would have loved to help get the article to even a WP:GA quality standard but the tone of your comments in the ANI thread going after individuals instead of focusing on the issue at hand are quite disheartening. Cirt (talk) 14:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how anything I wrote on the message board (or anywhere else) could be construed as "nasty". My statements were out of concern, not malice, and with all efforts made to be factual. I can see how this may be damaging to your reputation, but have you considered your part in this? I made every effort to avoid having this issue go to any kind of review or arbitration and I have nothing personal against you. If there's some kind of policy where a closer is not allowed to discuss his/her reasons for making an Afd ruling please do share them because I am an Afd newbie. -Stillwaterising (talk) 14:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

To keep harping on me in particular as opposed to discussing the actual article and in addition to your tone is what I am put off by. It is what is discouraging me from working on this article in this topic. The AFD I had closed on the issue was due to an overriding consensus for deletion. To continue to nag and pester me about this is not something that is encouraging towards positive article collaboration or improvement of the page. Hopefully, your tone will improve in the future and at some point we can work together to improve the quality of article's within this topic area. Cirt (talk) 14:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I think given that state of things (an active DRV where your decisions are being challenged) I would see your editing the article to be a conflict of interest. I do appreciate the offer though. -Stillwaterising (talk) 14:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

What? In that case neither you nor Ash (talk · contribs) should also be editing the page. That is a silly statement. Cirt (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Both the ANI and the DRV are questioning the motives and actions of the two administrators involved, yourself and User:Epbr123, not the other participants. Attempting to misdirect or persuade me from pursuing the further investigation of this incident by using emotional appeals is not going to be effective. Again, I am requesting that you please refrain from editing User:Ash/Paul Carrigan until further notice. - Stillwaterising (talk) 15:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Yea, noted, I have a page in my userspace instead. The ANI and DRV are dealing with the page Paul Carrigan, and should not be about individual editors. Your making it focus as such and continued posts in this manner are inappropriate and do not do much to foster positive collaboration among editors to improve the subject matter, if that is what you truly wish to do. Cirt (talk) 15:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a good compromise would be to move the last version of the main page to WP:Incubator in which there should be no problems with the issues of ownership or conflict of interest? (hint) - Stillwaterising (talk) 15:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I see no issues of ownership or conflict of interest. I do see a lack of willingness to foster positive collaboration and reach out to previously experienced Featured Article writers such as myself that happen to be new to writing within this topic area. Instead, what it feels like is an attempt to drive those with demonstrated ability at writing and improving quality content on Wikipedia away from this topic area. Cirt (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, a certain administrator has abused the trust of myself and others so many times I'm very suspicious of any administrator that seems to be taking sides with him/her. Please don't take this personally. It would go far to help heal the original rift between us if you replied to my original request to clarify your resolution statement from the first Afd. - Stillwaterising (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The overwhelming consensus was for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Carrigan, and as the "Keep" comments were in a very small minority I checked to see if any of the "Keep" comments went to the heart of WP:NOTE, which is has the topic received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. None of the "Keep" comments addressed that. Therefore I did not feel that the "Keep" comments in the minority were enough to override the significant majority consensus for deletion at that point in time. Cirt (talk) 15:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs to be revised and may not be ready for "prime time" but we seem to disagree and the best way to help get the WikiCommunity at large involved. Very few people will ever stumble upon a userfied page in my opinion or feel comfortable editing it. I just learned of the Incubator and I think it's a great idea. I quick look at the pages on there showed that Carrigan to be well developed as far as sources go. - Stillwaterising (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure where is the "there" you are looking at. Cirt (talk) 16:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Here. - Stillwaterising (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Every single sentence is now sourced, at User:Cirt/Paul Carrigan. I am currently attempting to do more research to find additional source coverage. Cirt (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The article looks great! I really appreciate the time you spent on it. I started an WP:RSN on "Gay Erotic Video Index". If that doesn't pan out the video count will need to be taken down to whatever can be reliably sourced. As to whether or not it passes Notability guidelines I have no opinion, but it seems to pass BLP and is ready for reconsideration. - Stillwaterising (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words on my work. It is most appreciated. Cirt (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Update

Due to a sudden change in life circumstances (the loss of job and a motor vehicle accident on the same day [mid Nov]) I've had a change in my life priorities. Please email me if you wish to reach me. - Stillwaterising (talk) 08:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't seriously injured in case anybody was wondering. - Stillwaterising (talk) 04:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Gay Erotic Video Index

Hi, As you have raised an RSN for this website (pity that the ever-vigilant Epbr123 was the first to reply), I thought you may be interested in seeing the earlier email I sent to the site owner. Unfortunately no reply so far, I will drop you an update if I hear anything back. Ash (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The last update note was 2007-02-17 (in New). There's also some notes about granting access to certain trusted users. This doesn't mean that it is a user controlled site. Overall, it is not clear what their editing policy is. -Stillwaterising (talk) 21:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey Ash, sent you an email on this, please check ur mail once and a while. - Stillwaterising (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Got back to you, I'm one of those people without an iPhone to check my mail... I noticed that wtule.net (GEVI) is off-line today, I hope that by including Wikipedia links to his site we haven't broken Woody's web-traffic budget! Ash (talk) 00:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the apology [1], most appreciated. However, I am not sure what there is to be "neutral" about, are you saying if you had a choice you would rather prefer the unsourced version about a WP:BLP? Cirt (talk) 16:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not taking sides because 1) I don't really care if Carrigan is in Wikipedia or not. 2) I think this will help with my ultimate goal of peace between warring factions and 3) I don't think my vote really matters because I seconded Ash's DRV request it should seem to be obvious where I stand. - Stillwaterising (talk) 08:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Plane Crash in Austin Texas

If you haven't heard of this turn on the news. Crash occurred 9:56 AM central time today . - Stillwaterising (talk) 17:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Long day on Wikinews then 2010 Austin plane crash. Signing off. - Stillwaterising (talk) 08:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Mashup, that's not how it works. WP:BRD. You were bold in adding it, I removed it, and now it is up to you to prove usefulness (remember, it is always up to the person adding content to show that what they are adding will benefit the article). — Huntster (t @ c) 20:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The Discuss part is on you, as in, you should initiate the discussion before readding it to the article. That's the part that is inappropriate. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You aren't followIng BRD at all. I started a Talk entry while reading it and asked you to join in and you still fail to contribute to it. Stop wikilawyering and attempt to follow the guidelines you are putting out. - Stillwaterising (talk) 20:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Stack Overflow

That's quite alright, it needed a good cleaning anyway. My mouth runneth over. --Hourick (talk) 09:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Lol, I needed to blow off some steam, stressed out by the incident, too close to home. - Stillwaterising (talk) 10:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries, although, I might have irritated SteveBaker with my response to his chiding. Humor in everything, I say. --Hourick (talk) 10:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

RFC?

Did the RfC actually get off the ground? Wouldn't worry too much if it didn't. Mjroots (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

What about this edit?

In this edit you write in the edit summary "removing dubious, wikipedia referenced claim". Could you explain to me how that claim is Wikipedia referenced? Surely, it is referenced to an article in Psychology Today? __meco (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:2010 Austin plane crash

This was really funny. Thank you for making me smile. --John (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

thanks, i've been working really hard on that article, need to laugh a little. got the quotes done if you want to take a look - Stillwaterising (talk) 07:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Thanks for the message. I didn't want to trip on your toes, but I felt pretty strongly that the horsepower was pretty unnecessary for the article ;) — Huntster (t @ c) 21:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johan Volny

You may want to correct your note, Epbr123 was not the nominator; this time. Ash (talk) 15:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done - I've seen that phrase so often I just assumed without reading into it. - Stillwaterising (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

TUSC token b52b1d265de7b8611ea2af729198131e

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Talk:Steve Titus#Requested move

Hi, Stillwaterising. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Titus (2nd nomination), you may be interested in Talk:Steve Titus#Requested move. Cunard (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

User page

Of course you can. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 06:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Anal Sex

I am not sure I follow your logic. I edited the article to remove unrelated information, I did not add any new information, as far as I know. Your message to me suggested that I had put into the article that the bible forbids sodomy. Which I didn't say.

The primary thing I changed, which I will change again is that the article said (and says again since you reverted) -- without a citation) "+ Orthodox Judaism teaches that homosexual anal sex is a sin and an abomination. This teaching is from the Biblical passages of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. The injunction "Do not lie with a man the lyings of a woman; it is abhorrent" has led rabbinical scholars to conclude "these verses prohibit anal sex between men without any exception"."

First, Judaism teaches that Sodomy is a sin and an abomination, and there are a number of cites in the bible to Sodom and Sodomites. Regardless of when the term "sodomy" began being used, They do not teach that "homosexual anal sex" is a sin and abomination. If you can provide sources for that statement in some way, then it could stay. The citation given is an unrelated Leviticus quote that is interpreted by some as discussing homosexuality, and by others as something different. In any case not agreed by all, and does not directly discuss the topic, which is still "anal sex". If Orthodox Judaism interprets that quoted part of leviticus as "homosexual anal sex" then it needs to be said more clearly, and with citations. The quoted passages, summarized "Do not lie with a man the lyings of a woman; it is abhorrent" I think is one editors interpretation, and not necessarily precisely what Orthodox Judaism may say. If so, then lets cite it. Or, better yet, quote the citation accurately and don't summarize. I see a problem with a direct quote though, as it does not clearly say anything about anal sex, the topic of the article. SO, a citation of an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi or Scholar who says that it means anal sex would be valuable, but the speculation I removed is not.

I will excise this again from the article. When you have citations, please add them. Please remember that the topic is "Anal sex" and not homosexuality. Atom (talk) 12:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Villiers High School

Want to know something funny? I nominated the article for DYK and gave the original creator/current vandal full credit. Thanks for keeping an eye out, Drmies (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Rollback

I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback correctly, and for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Krissy Sleight and warning of Stephen sponsler

As per recent discussions on WT:CSD, when an editor creates a page, the page is tagged for speedy deletion, and the editor then blanks the page, this can be taken as a request to delete the page, in a possibly good faith response to the CSD tag. In such cases, the consensus was, warning for removal of CSD tags is not needed and can be WP:BITEy. Might I suggest retracting or following up to the warnings in this case, and reconsidering such warnings in future? DES ^(talk) 06:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I was soft on the warnings because I sensed good faith. I wasn't aware of that policy but I know better now. I'll leave a retraction. - Stillwaterising (talk) 06:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It was recent and not as well publicized as it might have been. Thank you. DES ^(talk) 06:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

DMS format

Thank you for reformatting that geoloc to DMS format. Might i ask which tool you use for it? The javascript bookmark i use for fetching coordinates only returns the aformentioned format. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 14:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I wish I had a good tool for it. I do it by going to the specified decimal coords in Google maps, then copy and pasting them into a converter website like this one, rounding off and plugging back in to accuracy checking. If I find a tool or if you find one that helps with this please let's help each other out. - Stillwaterising (talk) 15:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I use a Greasemonkey script to easily nab the digital coords from GoogleMaps (see http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/34426). However this does not convert from decimal. As the templates take decimal, I'm not quite sure what the advantage of converting it would be, in fact this may complicate matters for any later editing. When a user follows the coords link they get all the various ways of seeing the coordinates on the following GeoHack page anyway. Ash (talk) 15:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I understood that DDDMMSS (without decimal unless required (like for a grave marker)) is the preferred format. It does seem more human friendly, easier on the eyes and easier to jot down on paper. - Stillwaterising (talk) 15:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

FWIW I'm using Chrome lately, like it a lot. I also use iphone Safari and just started using Huggle. Also, in Gmaps you can right click and select "What is Here?" to have the decimal coords of your cursor show up. I select the center of the building, round off and it's usual still close after double checking, can be tweaked a second up or down if needed. - Stillwaterising (talk) 15:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of text from Anal sex article

Thanks for your note. But so far as I recall, the edit (which wasn't very recent) was explained in a note in the edit summary. Just to repeat: the Dalai Lama doesn't speak for Buddhism, just for one school of Buddhism within the Tibetan complex (the second largest school at that, not the largest). The structure of Buddhism is often misunderstood in the West, and that's clearly what's happened in that article. Buddhism isn't like the Abrahamic religions, it has no law codes - there are five moral precepts, none of which relate to methods of sexual intercourse. No individual, not even the Dalai Lama, tells Buddhists what is and is not correct behaviour - when the Dalai speaks, he speaks as a learned man, not as a spiritual leader. And, as I said, he speaks only for his own school of Buddhism - in fact he's completely unknown in Southeast Asia, and known in East Asia as a political figure, not a religious one. PiCo (talk) 04:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

what i do wrong?

which edit cos i dunno what one —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.110.235 (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

my edits are not disruptive, i was simply having trouble finding the correct references. Kindly stay out of my business and do not accuse me of vandalism when I am clearly not. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.227.13 (talk) 23:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC) Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.227.13 (talk) 23:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Being a school teacher of 30 years experience, I have no interest in personal attacks. You must appreciate that this is news that is in local newspapers, due to recent events concerning the catholic church in northern ireland, it has not been deemed to be newsworthy by the bigger papers. As a result, it is difficult to find an internet article to link this to. I am trying to find out and demand that the lines remain as it is. I was led to believe that this was a website which anyone could edit, as long as they were telling the truth. As a teacher at the school in question, I find it simply baffling that I am not allowed to speak about the school and that I am being told what I can and cannot say by people who have no experience of the school, the teacher and do not even attempt to help me rectify the situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.227.13 (talk) 23:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Your edits are subject to Wikipedia policy. You may not say anything you please - you must have references and back up what you say. Wikipedia policy does not permit you to write such things about a living individual without concrete, verifiable proof from multiple sources, in a manner that is germane to the subject and which does not reflect an inappropriate emphasis on a -peripheral subject. This is non-negotiable - you must understand this or you will not be permitted to edit. Acroterion _(talk) 23:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Non-negotiable? I think you are suffering from delusions of grandeur —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.227.13 (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Teacher of 30 years' experience [2] ? Could be time to retire. JNW (talk) 00:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh noes

OH NOES You're gonna block me? I'll just restart my computer so my ip address is different. OH NOES! --71.82.111.28 (talk) 03:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the laugh

At User talk:86.131.227.13, I had warned him for this edit. A bit later, after you removed two warnings, the next statement after my warning now reads "I'll let it stand for now. Work on getting a better source, not a summary." I was drinking coffee when I read that - almost lost it. LOL. Thanks for the laugh.  :) 152.16.59.102 (talk) 05:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't really make sense of the history on that user, perhaps it's a shared IP. Wasn't trying to be funny but glad you found it so. - Stillwaterising (talk) 06:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality on Lehi

I thought I was increasing neutrality to the article. Describing them as merely 'armed' downplays the Stern Gang's level of violence in an artificial and political way. Terrorist is certainly a charged word, and sometime gets thrown around for effect rather than accuracy—but I can't think of a definition of the word that Lehi doesn't fit. They assassinated people, bombed hotels, tried (unsuccessfully) to send letter bombs to every member of the UK Parliment, etc. Even Yitzhak Shamir who led them, later used the word 'terrorism' in discussing their activities (in the context of saying their actions were justified because they were in the right, which I suppose is what all terrorists believe). I can imagine the desperation they must have felt in the dust of WW2, and with conflicts within Palestine, that drove them to see violence as a solution, but it's whitewashing to pretend that a major aspect of their activities constituted terrorism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.2.138.139 (talk) 06:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

It's already noted that "It was described as a terrorist organization by the British authorities and was banned by the newly-formed Israeli government under an anti-terrorism law passed three days after the group's September 1948 assassination of the UN mediator Folke Bernadotte." Even if you add it back with a source it will likely be reverted. - Stillwaterising (talk) 06:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

List of Bulgarian Painters: pls do NOT remove

NOTABILITY of this article is self evident: this is a living List of names, most of which are linked to their own Articles and it is of value to users.

Pls do NOT remove. Thx, best rgds, Ecce Ego (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Karl Plagge Birthdate

You changed his birthdate back from the correct one of July 10, 1897 to "orange [sic] 21, 1918" and now I can't change it back to the CORRECT date of July 10, 1897.

What gives? (Please excuse me, I'm totally new at all this!) Satchmo Sings (talk) 03:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC) PS, How do I just email you about this?

You can email me by clicking on the Email this user on the left. You can revert somebody else's revision by clicking undo. I'm using an automated vandalism tool and incorrectly reverted your change, it has been corrected. - Stillwaterising (talk) 03:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Satchmo Sings (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Things change

Considering this edit, yes, things change. Problem is, that also means that your edit is, strictly speaking, false: one can easily say that you have no ground whatsoever to say that there is a "large majority" of non-native English speakers. Besides, the language you use begs the question of that a "large" majority is. Drmies (talk) 03:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

A large majority to me would be >70% so it's closer to the first hand account but also within range of the citation. To be meticuluos with this 92% should go listed as 2004 with current % unk. - signing off=Stillwaterising (talk) 04:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Junkhouse

Hello Stillwaterising, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Junkhouse has been removed. It was removed by Chubbles with the following edit summary '(meets WP:MUSIC; contest)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Chubbles before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 08:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 08:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Userbox: Chinese

I can see you do not speak Chinese, but if you wanted to learn, I'd be happy to recommend some helpful resources. The Chinese language is not as difficult as you may think...its grammar is easier in many ways than languages such as Spanish or French. It's also a quite useful and enjoyable pursuit (Chinese food, culture, music, etc.).--达伟 (talk) 15:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The Dalai Lama

I know you sincerely believe that that quote from the Dalai Lama is authoritative, but as I've explained, it's not - you're approaching thius from within a Christian/Western worldview, when the Buddhist/Asian mindset is totally alien. To explain: the DL is the head of the Golugpya school of Tibetan Buddhism, which for the sake of convenience I'll call Vajrayana, although it has other names. For this reason he's as unknown to the other two broad divisions of Buddhism - Mahayana in China/Korea/Japan and Theravada in Southeast Asia/South Asia. This in itself suggests that he cannot speak for Buddhism as a religion, and in fact Vajrayana is the smallest of the three divisions anyway. Now, his position within Vajrayana needs to be understood: He's the 14th incarnation of a great teacher who, having attained Enlightenment, chose to be reincarnated repeatedly on Earth in order to share his wisdom with others. What is that wisdom? It's the wisdom of meditation technique, which is the means by which Enlightenment is attained. Do you see the difference from Christianity? In Christianity, salvation is the aim, and it comes from faith; in Buddhism, wisdom/understanding is the aim, and it comes from correct meditation. This is what the Dalai Lama teaches, meditation, not faith. Sex, in itself, is irrelevant. Not quite irrelevant, of course - I'm oversimplifying - but almost totally so. The Dalai Lama, like any teacher within the Buddhist tradition, gives instruction on the teaching of the Buddha, and that teaching never once mentions any type of sex. When the Dalai Lama says he finds anal sex disgusting, he's speaking as a man, not as a reincarnated Arhat. For this reason, quoting him in this article is wrong - so wrong that, frankly, I feel deeply insulted by it. This just isn't Buddhism. PiCo (talk) 10:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with your view, PiCo. The Dalai Lama never speaks as just a man. He is a teacher, and in public always gives his viewpoint to others from that perspective. If you wanted to add more information from the citation, such as the interpretation that people do many things, such as lying that are equally not helpful towards enlightenment, you could do that.

I think you are right that many people perceive the Dalai Lama to be more important or more authoritative than he really is. I think even user StillWaterRising described him as "The Pope of Buddhism" -- which is of course, not correct, or even close to correct. Nevertheless DL viewpoint is very respected by all Buddhists. He has a great many teachings of value to those who choose to listen. The fact that you and I as Buddhists do not put undue weight on his teaching about sexuality is of little importance. The article, in accordance with NPOV, gets to have balance, including conflicting viewpoints. We should not exclude the conflicting viewpoint held by a number of people in Buddhism just because they were expressed well by the Dalai Lama.

Saying that "Sex is irrelevant" would indeed oversimplifying. More accurate might be that "everything is relevant" and sex is no more relevant than anything else, such as lying, or killing an insect. Or you could say that all attachments can slow the process to enlightenment, and sexual attachments have no higher or lesser priority than other attachments.

His opinion regarding anal sex was not a personal opinion, but his viewpoint as a teacher that he cannot change ancient writings that prohibit sexual misconduct. His opinion as a teacher is that anal and oral sex, and masturbation are sexual misconduct. Now, you and I know that his bias in that direction is because he is a monk/priest, and he and all of the other priests are forbidden any type of sexual contact whatsoever. He understands that those rules do not apply to all Buddhists, but still has that bias.

If you want to add a section more relevant to other schools of Buddhism, including Tantric practices, you can do that. The reference that you gave, however, is a guide to all Buddhism, not specific to Tantric Buddhism, and nowhere could I find where it says, as you quoted that "anal sex is essential to enlightenment".

Atom (talk) 13:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments Atom. I'm not sure that we should be carrying on this discussion on StillWaterRising's personal page, but I hope he will find it interesting.

Did I say that änal sex is essential to enlightenment"? That would be totally wrong, of course. I believe that I drew attention to the use of all forms of sexual intercourse as a means to enlightenment in the tantric tradition - but I only did this because the tantric tradition is the only place of which I know in Buddhism where sexuality of any kind is explicitly addressed. Even then, modern tantra, so far as I know, no longer uses explicit sexual intercourse - it's a thing of the past, not the present. So far as I know, at least.

The DL's role as a teacher is surely to expound the Teaching. The Teaching as it relates to sexuality is extremely vague - merely that one should refrain from improper sexual relations. For those in the Sangha, all sexual relations are prohibited, but for the layperson, this is not so - Buddhism is not opposed to sex. What constitutes ïmproper"sex, I think, is defined by the doctrine of loving-kindness - in sexual acts and relationships, one should not cause harm to others.

Well, if you feel the DL's views are note-worthy, then let us leave them in, but I'm uneasy with it - Buddhism has no Pope. PiCo (talk) 03:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

note - I'm enjoying this conversation but I think we should move it to an appropriate Talk page so other's can comment. - Stillwaterising (talk) 23:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination

There seems to be some misunderstanding all around at Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination, so I have removed the section entirely. The IP started a discussion there, was told that it wasn't the appropriate place for it, and is now just trying to remove it. No harm done, as far as I can tell. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, phasers set to ignore. - Stillwaterising (talk) 17:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Petrolsoft Corporation

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

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Were the main issue that the tone of the article were promotional and needed to be rewritten, concern about biting a newcomer might be more appropriate. The same might be true if I found any adequate sources out there; I looked and found only routine coverage of press releases. This was a business making back office software for a relatively small market, and as such probably had a poor chance of ever becoming notable. The problem wasn't that it was being edited badly, but that the subject just isn't appropriate. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Looks like Petrolsoft notability is coming down to the wire...I don't understand why this company is being targeted when there are so many easier and obvious candidates for deletion. All of this, even after all the proper references were added. I guess I'm new to this, but I don't understand why a wikipedia article needs to be an internet available popularity contest; shouldn't significance and importance count for something? This has been a frustrating experience. Mathteacher69 (talk) 02:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Mathteacher69

• I did leave a comment on Jimbo's page regarding my frustration with my initial experience here.

Mathteacher69 (talk) 23:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Mathteacher69

Petrolsoft Corporation

I still don't see much evidence that this back-office business is notable. My consistent opinion is that mergers and acquisitions of non-public businesses are fairly routine; and that routine notices of acquisitions or mergers don't confer notability on their subjects even if they're picked up by the New York Times. Since the issue is not about the state of the article at any given time, but rather whether the underlying subject is the sort of thing that ought to be covered in an encyclopedia, I don't really see any issue with the It's just not the sort of business that's going to receive notice outside the industry, of brief notices and no amount of time or labor will change that. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 04:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not the point. The notability is being discussed in an open forum as it should be. My point is that you ignored the newpage tag and went ahead and nominated it even though it was actively being worked on. Please see the discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales. - Stillwaterising (talk) 16:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Even if the newpage tag had standing as policy, the essay it connects with still contains specific exceptions for "advertising and spam". A promotional page about a business with an obvious conflict of interest, making grand and unsubstantiated claims to significance that aren't borne out in its sources, which instead record only routine announcements, probably should not be immunized from deletion with that template. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

There's no way the article could be motivated by promotional objectives. The company was aquired by Aspen Technologies in 1990. It has no stock to sell, no product, and no employees. Unless the creator has a warehouse full of Petrolsoft keychains and coffee mugs I can't see how he could gain from this financially. I don't have any connection to the petroleum industry and got involved in this as a way to help a newcomer and promote the aims of Wikipedia and  expand the coverage on energy related topics. I wouldn't have worked on this article unlesss I believed it was both created in good faith and had educational value. 

You seem to have a personal vendetta against contributors who use Wikipedia to promote thier companies. I also find it repugnant. Regardless of your personal opinions you need to comply with policy and guidelines and consider alternatives to deletion. 

I think a prefferable way to have dealt with this would have been to mark it with an advert and then Afd it later after construction was complete. Your rush to deletion was unfair. - Stillwaterising (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

You added an inline citations warning to the article saying that inline citations were lacking. There are 19 inline citations in the article. Please explain.Mathteacher69 (talk) 04:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tag removal

Hey, I recently got copyright waived to copy some articles from Nativewiki to wikipedia, but I was unaware that the articles I was copying were themselves copied from Hanksville.org/storytellers. Upon learning this I have deleted all the text from the articles except a short sentence I wrote at the top briefly describing who they are, and kept the list of awards/publications as they are common knowledge. There shouldn't be any more need for a speedy deletion, should I still leave the tags up which were put up by an automated devicebot? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ink Falls (talk • contribs) 18:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, although I must say, I am saddened by the fact that these people may not be notable enough for wikipedia. :( if that's the case then I probably will just let it be deleted, after all, I can't make people more notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ink Falls (talk • contribs) 18:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• Update*

I recently learned that the user who I got permission from to copy, who had, unbeknowest to me, copied from storytellers, is in fact the webmaster of storytellers; that he was switching the site over to Native wiki, but now since Native wiki is dieing, is bringing back his site, and has allowed me to post anything he posted on Native wiki onto wikipedia. With this being said, can I know re-post the stuff back onto Wikipedia? Thanks -Ink Falls (talk) 22:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

vandalism reports

Hello Stillwaterising. Thank you for your help with vandalism reversion etc. I am a bit concerned about your vandalism reports to WP:AIV, however. Several reports that I have just checked have been inappropriate for several reasons: first you have jumped to final warnings to users, without moving through the various stepped warnings first. Second, several have not vandalized after your warning and yet you have reported them to AIV. I have declined these. Please take the time to read the various pages related to vandalism patrolling and reporting, including WP:VAND WP:WARNING Thank you --Slp1 (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I haven't found any clear guideline against using 4im warning, however the guides recommend level 2 or 3 be used for more obvious cases. I don't see why serious vandals should get to edit 5 or more times before being blocked. As for reporting, I have been trusting Huggle not to warn or report if there's been no vandalism since last warning. I guess I've run into a bug where this can happen. - Stillwaterising (talk) 22:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

re: reporting, I don't use Huggle but it certainly does seem like a bug worth looking into if that's the case. I agree that very serious vandalism edits don't need the full range, but leaping immediately to level 4 and 5 warnings should be the exception, and for example I don't think this double warning the same minute (also then reported immediately to AIV) was necessary, or what you meant to do actually. Just be careful, that's all I am saying!--Slp1 (talk) 22:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Stillwaterising

I thought I'd add some advice as I was one of the editors that raised concern about a report at WP:AIV before.

You reported user: 65.31.17.57 before, you gave them a final warning when they'd only edited once on Wikipedia before. The trouble is that could be seen as biting newcomers, I've thought about this for a bit, what I'm about to do for this user as a one-off is scrap the warning from the page. I know they didn't contribute constructively, but if they come back tomorrow, carry out the same sort of edit, then they may find themselves being reported at WP:AIV again when they should only really be getting a second warning.

You use Huggle and say that this may be a glitch with Huggle, I have to say that I also use Huggle for a great deal of my edits and have never found this to be an issue. The only time I have found that Huggle goes straight to a level 4 warning is if it is manually asked to do so (though I'm not saying that's what you're doing). When you use Huggle, at the top of the page, you should see what looks like a big bright red dot with an exclamation mark beside it, if you warn the user this way Huggle should definitely warn the user automatically ie work out itself whether level 1, 2 etc warnings are required. If you think you have discovered a bug with Huggle I would ask you to report it at Wikipedia:Huggle/Feedback.

As for the level 4 final warning, if the editor has only made a few edits then I would just go through the normal warning process ie level 1, 2 etc. I would only ever consider a final warning as the first option if the editor had made a number of recent vandalism attempts (I would allow them 9 or 10 attempts) and it was obvious vandalism that they were carrying out.

Hope this makes things clearer, any questions please feel free to ask :) --5 albert square (talk) 22:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Huggle only gives higher warnings if manually requested to do so, which I was using in certain cases of blatent vandalism (like racist remarks). It seems that level 3 is the highest that should probably be used on the initial warning so I'll limit my warnings to that. The bug seemed to be when using a warning only (without reverting) on older revisions, not the automated "q" button, it may have warned or reported without a vandalism since last edit. I'll try to stick to just using one level at a time for most things, but it seems that jumping to 3 should still be acceptable unless I'm told otherwise. We need to be fair, but sometimes it's really the vandal that's being unfair in my opinion. - Stillwaterising (talk) 02:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, wp:warn says "if a user is in the midst of an obviously bad-faith vandalism spree, there's no need to warn them before temporarily blocking them." - Stillwaterising (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I would say that if they're making it obvious that their only intent is to cause vandalism then yes, you can report them without warning. Though I would recommend that in your report to WP:AIV that you mention roughly how many edits the editor has made, include examples and mention that you think this is a vandalism only account. It would still be up to the admins though if any punishment is applied --5 albert square (talk) 15:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

B Gata H Kei

I've reverted your edit on B Gata H Kei as the description of the character appears to be in line with what I've seen of the first episode. All it really needs is some copy editing and more details about the character's role in the story. —Farix (t | c) 03:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I thought it might be vandalism, but I wasn't sure. It would be best if you cited a source but considering it's a fictional work there's no issue with slander it doesn't require a source to stay. - Stillwaterising (talk) 03:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Considering that it is a plot summary, those aren't sourced unless there is some analyst or interpretation of the character involved. I personally found the first episode utterly distasteful, so my involvement with the article isn't going to be anything beyond normal maintenance that I would do for any anime articles. —Farix (t | c) 03:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Example user, archiving

A somewhat belated response!  Chzz  ►  12:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Help desk trolling

I removed the trolling vandal's messages from the Help Desk, and your reply. Hope you don't mind - no need to give them the satisfaction of a reply!  – ukexpat (talk) 21:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

i got a kick out of it, but i understand that they don't need re-enforcing. -Stillwaterising (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of warnings from User talk:Yuliya1887

Hello. I noticed your recent blanking of the CSD tag removal warnings from Yuliya1887's talk page. While I understand the motivation (my use of the speedy deletion tag on The Pegasus School turned out to be inappropriate), my warnings to Yuliya1887 regarding the removal of tag are still valid. I added the CSD tag in good faith, thus it was not appropriate for the article's creator to remove the tag (several times). The creator should have waited for another editor to weigh in, as you ultimately (and appropriately) did. Undoing these warnings creates the impression that it is acceptable for an article's creator to remove a CSD tag, if that user believes the tag use was incorrect. I have restored the warnings, but Yuliya1887 is of course welcome to remove the warnings from his/her own talk page, thereby acknowledging that the warnings were received. Thanks! Davnor (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Good point. My purpose wasn't to condone bad behavior, rather to smooth over any resentment or discouragement caused by the incident. - Stillwaterising (talk) 20:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey there, thanks for fixing the vandalism on my talk page. It was witty and sophisticated vandalism, but vandalism nevertheless. ScottyBerg (talk) 03:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest you ask an administrator to semi-protect your userpage. - Stillwaterising (talk) 03:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. That may be worth doing. --ScottyBerg (talk) 03:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

My bad.

We must've been reverting Jenette McCurdy at the same time. - Zhang He (talk) 01:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

rings

he said it on tna —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.109.179 (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Huggle 0.9.4

Hi, Stillwaterising. I gather you're not having a problem with the newest version? I can't seem to log in, and can't figure out what the problem is. --Rrburke^ekrubrR 23:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I just tried it and it still works. I copied the new executable into the same folder as the old one which also had a config folder, not sure if that made a difference. - Stillwaterising (talk) 23:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... no luck. It's acting just as if I were using the wrong version. I tried manually updating the version on my huggle.css user subpage (which shouldn't have been necessary anyway). Thanks for the suggestion! --Rrburke^ekrubrR 00:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Unitarian Bahais

I'm not reverting in bad faith or engaging in an edit war, but I'm trying to work within Wikipedia polices. Of all the editors who have looked for any third party sources, including yourself, Smkolins, and myself (yes I've searched all the online sources, but also the paper sources including Iranica, Britannica, Encyclopedia of Islam, Encyclopedia of Religion), there is not a single mention to this group. This a group that seems to have popped up in the past couple months, and giving them validity by allowing self-published sources to define notability goes against all of Wikipedia's policies including the three core policies: verifiability (no verifiable sources), no original research (all the content is a synthesis of their own sources), neutral point of view (undue weight says that extreme minority views get no space "views of tiny minorities should not be included at all"). Leaving the page as is not an option if you want to abide by Wikipedia's policies. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk)

Sorry, i meant 2030. This is one of the most researched reviewed fast growing religions articles on the internet. http://fastestgrowingreligion.com/numbers.html

• i posted this message on deconstructhis talk pageJigglyfidders (talk) 19:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The user Deconstruthis is saying that adding Baha'i Faith as one of the major Abrahamic religions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions <there means undue weight and he swiftly removed my edit. However, Baha'i is currently the 7th largest organized religion after judaism and sikhism, and peer-reviewed articles such as this one http://fastestgrowingreligion.com/numbers.html claim Baha'i will overtake Judaism as the 6th largest religion in the 2030s. The only reasonable explanation i can think of for his refusal to allow this edit is that he could be a muslim who condemns the thought of another abrahamic religion after Islam. Thoughts?Jigglyfidders (talk) 19:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Advice

Hey, I have been really straining my brain to come up with ways to improve this article. I have added images, and sought extra sources. Is there anything obvious I'm missing? It's my favorite poem and I really want to get this article to top quality(I plan to go into more detail on the Style and Structure and Context sections over the summer with some books I plan to check out). Short of that would you recommend better wording perhaps, or what? Ink Falls 20:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The only way I see that it could use help would be by using proper citation templates listed in WP:CIT. I can help with this later today. The article is currently a C quality rating, however after re-evaluation I don't see why it can't be GA or higher. - Stillwaterising (talk) 20:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much :) that makes me very happy to hear. Ink Falls 23:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Proposal

Thanks for stretching out your hand and trying to work on this constructively. I agree with your proposal. More at my usertalk page. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Hello. You have a new message at User talk:Jeff3000's talk page.

Thanks, I saw that. When the AFD closes, with whatever decisions comes to pass, I'll start trying to improve whatever page the content ends up staying in. There are some more sources that have come up, that while don't establish the subject of the article in question, can definitely be used in the Baha'i divisions page. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)