User talk:LadyofShalott/Archive 9

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

In case you are not aware, the editing on Barney Frank (which you just protected) and Talk:Barney Frank is the subject of a current AN/I report. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 03:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, I was just reading through the ANI discussion. LadyofShalott ^Weave 04:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• Could you reinsert the POV tag on the article? No one can reach a consensus on whether this article is neutral or not, at least let the readers know. Thanks
  talk
  ) 08:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it necessary with the page fully protected. LadyofShalott ^Weave 02:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

You should probably read

is proud to be a Tar Heel. In your face, Michigan State!

08:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I did, and it was helpful, both for the humor value, and the point it makes with the humor. LadyofShalott ^Weave 02:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey. If your answer is yea, check this out: Homosexuality#Religion. Somebody needs to improve that section (references and stuff). Phoenix of9 (talk) 05:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Was there any reason in particular that you declined the speedy on

Hi, it probably would qualify technically. I don't really like "speedy" deletions of articles that have been around a while and have several editors who have contributed. So while we can speedy delete, I don't always think we should. I think a prod would be entirely reasonable, however. LadyofShalott ^Weave 03:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Totally understandable. :) I prodded it, so we'll see what happens. Thanks for the reply.

talk

) 03:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) Actually, I just realized it previously survived an afd:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kings of Chaos (game). That in itself disqualifies it from speedy deletion (even though it wasn't my reason at the time). LadyofShalott ^Weave 03:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, good catch. I guess we'll see how the prod goes, or go through another AfD. I don't find the keep reasons at all compelling, as none of it meets

WP:V

. 04:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Mrs. Shallot, I came by for the purpose of noting that I've been quite pleased to see your good works around Wikipedia recently and to note that my little corner of the project has been brightened by your presence. I've enjoyed your collaborations and insights, and I do hope our interactions will continue. Your userpage looks quite familiar to me. Is that a common image on Wikipedia? Have I seen you around before? Anyway, I hope you enjoy the most pleasant of editing wherever your watchlist takes you. Let me know if my handiwork is ever of some use to you and by all means feel free to weigh in any time on the projects where I am involved. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're still around, but I see on my watchlist that you deleted Quiet Monkey Fight and it's back. Have a great weekend. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I just prodded it this time. As to your prior post: it's not lady of shallots; it's The Lady of Shalott. :) I recently had a username change; so it is possible you had looked at my page prior to that. I didn't add the picture (which is a famous Waterhouse depiction of the poem) until the name change though. Thanks for your nice post. LadyofShalott ^Weave 00:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I figured I'd get in trouble for the shallots or the Mrs., but I don't know much about no Shalott. Is that near Queens? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello- I am not exactly sure how this works but I am the content submitter for Quiet Monkey Fight (User: Megapixel). Can you please explain the notability flag for that article? What are you exactly looking for? We see many comparable theatrical groups posted with article pages. It's a legitimate group with notability. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megapixel (talk • contribs) 17:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Megapixel. No one is questioning the existence of the group. Existence however, is not sufficient for includion in Wikipedia. You should read

reliable sources about the group. Blogs and Facebook may confirm the existence of the group, but have there been, for example, any reviews of them in major newspapers or magazines? I hope this helps. Let me know if I can clarify or answer any more questions for you! LadyofShalott ^Weave

19:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ladyofshalott, Thanks for your reply. We do not have any reviews from major local newspapers- Our following is a younger crowd and notability comes from being invited to perform around the country at reputable festivals and doing regular shows for three years. Do you have any other examples (other than reviews) that would help with vouching for Wikipedia's definition of notability? Thanks. comment added by Megapixel

Well, has there been anything published about it by independent sources? Online sources are helpful, but not entirely necessary. LadyofShalott ^Weave 19:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. We were covered by The Weekly Dosage in a video interview (http://www.truveo.com/The-Weekly-Dosage-Ep-1-Quiet-Monkey-Fight-and-The/id/4035076790) and in an online article with Seattle Sketchfest (http://sketchfest.blogspot.com/2006/11/getting-to-know-your-sketch-neighbors.html). Other than that, numerous event listings in major Seattle newspapers for the city calendar of recommended comedy shows. Thanks again. Megapixel

Dublin Pride

Dublin Pride (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

"Blatent advertising" Martin-09-DP (talk) 13:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Im working on an entry for the site but it seems that you deleted it. Could give me a detailed explaination for that. The information I put up was pretty basic. Nothing controversial. Im really at a loss as to why it was deleted especially since I based the information on identical information and approach from the London pride page.

I would apprecaiate a speedy response on this.

I will write a longer reply addressing your issues later on. For now, I have restored a copy to your userspace at

User:Martin-09-DP/Dublin pride. LadyofShalott ^Weave

14:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

A major problem, but which is easily correctable is the use of terms such as "we" and "our". Encyclopedia articles should not be written in first person. As it is, it sounds like you are advertising the festival. Are you connected with the festival? It sounds that way, and you should read

WP:LGBT? That project is a rich source of other editors who would probably be glad to help with the article. LadyofShalott ^Weave

14:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Martin.--Martin-09-DP (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't canvassing. Already responded to your comment at

Thanks, APK! Happy Easter to you! LadyofShalott ^Weave 22:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello - just wondering - you declined speedy on this article, stating that notability was asserted with awards. However no mention of awards was provided on the page. Google has zero search results for full name quoted [1] and only 20 results (mostly subjects own pages) for http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=kWB&num=50&q=%22Ascot+J.+Smith%22&btnG=Search. Is the subject notable? JCutter (talk) 01:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

followup - I see that it says it "won" certain things (I had searched on "award")... still seems questionable, especially considering its autobio. Maybe prod/afd? Or leave it alone? Let me know what you think. JCutter (talk) 01:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I think either prod or afd would be appropriate. You could try prod first and see if it is uncontested, or go directly to afd to seek community opinion. I have not searched to see if he actually satisifies our notability criteria or not - there was just enough asserted in the article to make it ineligible for speedy deletion. LadyofShalott ^Weave 02:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - will try prod. JCutter (talk) 02:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I was attempting to make an apology to an editor with whom I think I was a bit strident on my first encounter, and I was redirected here. Anyway, I think I was a bit overly defensive (ie. aggressive) in my initial encounters with an editor who may or may not have been you. I hoped that future encounters demonstrated that I wasn't such a bad person after all, but it's best to take accountability and not leave things in doubt. So I just wanted to note that I'm sorry if I was a bit bitey at first. If I am not remembering accurately, and I can't frankly remember the details or the context (like what article was involved, or was it a userpage?), then just disregard. Where I come from we sometimes yell a lot. But that's just because we don't know any better and it shouldn't be taken personally. :) Sorry about that. I'm going to be double careful not to let it happen again, even if you sometimes make a mistake in failing to agree with me on every occasion. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I have recently had a change of username; so it is quite likely that I'm the person you were seeking. I'm not sure which incident you mean (and you aren't either!), but I thank you for the apology anyway. :) LadyofShalott ^Weave 01:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it was a usertalk page. And ironically I think that user had a name change also, and I'm having trouble remembering what name they used to go by. As I recall you dropped a notice on their page reminding them to be civil or something like that and I thought the warning was unnecessary since I didn't think they were in the wrong. But I really don't remember the details. If you don't either I guess I'm in the clear! :) I have some questions about the poem. Are you willing to help explain it's meaning? I'm not getting it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, no guarantees that I'll know all the answers, but I'll try. Go ahead and ask. LadyofShalott ^Weave

May I respectfully ask Your Ladyship why she decided to decline the request for speedy deletion of the above article? I believe it was seconded by at least one other editor. However, I do not wish to give the impression that the decision was, necessarily, the wrong one, nor that it is my desire to see a salvageable article deleted, though it did, at least at the time it was nominated, appear to be of little content and that content that was there appeared to be nothing but advertising for the business, with no context provided as to why the subject was notable. I have contacted the author, though he doesn't seem to have taken heed of any of the messages left for him regarding the speedy, with suggestions for overhaul of the article, though, I must, respectfully, say that there seems very little notable in the article, as much as I hate to say so about the work of a fellow editor. If m'Lady would reply on my talk page, it would be greatly appreciated. Warm regards, HJ Mitchell (talk) 22:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the second was technically incorrect - you can second a prod, but not really a speedy. That's not why I declined, however. While there is not much content, there is some - enough to be a short stub and know what it is talking about. There is also at least a claim of notability (whether valid or not) with references. To me, all of that added up to not eligible for speedy deletion. Now, if you want to do a prod or an afd, I will not object at all. :) I hope this reply helps. Feel free to ask followup questions if you have any! LadyofShalott ^Weave 03:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification on that one. As for the second, what is the correct use of that? I gathered it wasn't for speedy, but I wanted to make my point on that particular article. What is the correct use of it for an article that's not a speedy? Thanks, HJ Mitchell (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Seconds are only for prods. Note that the template is actually {{subst:prod2}}, basically PROD 2. You can use it if someone prods an article for deletion and you agree with both the idea that it should be deleted and the stated reason for deletion. There is no such thing as a second for speedies (at least that I've ever seen), and in an AfD discussion, there is no need since the whole thing is a discussion of the article's merits or lack thereof. LadyofShalott ^Weave 17:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, thanks for clearing that one up for me. What does one do if they agree with a speedy nomination? Or do they just hope the reviewing admin shares their POV? I shall bear that in mind in future. Do we really need two different ways of nominating an article for deletion, though?

I wonder what will become of the skateimpact article. Regards, HJ Mitchell (talk) 17:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Three actually (speedy, prod, and AfD). :) In the case of speedy, there is no way to do much of anything except hope the reviewing admin agrees with you. (Really, even if there was a way to second it, that would still be the case.) Otherwise, I recommend adding any article you think should be speedily deleted to your watchlist. Then, if the speedy deletion is declined for some reason, you can take it to AfD to seek community opinion on it. That's what I suggest you do with Skateimpact. LadyofShalott ^Weave 18:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'll have a look and see if I can get in touch with the original authour- I did try before, though I didn't get a response, then I might just take it to AfD. Thanks, HJ Mitchell (talk) 02:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've left him a message and I'll let that be the end of the matter. We shall see what happens. Thanks for all your help. Until our paths cross again, kind regards HJ Mitchell (talk) 09:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder to use an

I almost always use an edit summary, whether for prods or otherwise. If I did not, it was an oversight, and I apologize. Could you point me to the case you mean? LadyofShalott ^Weave 16:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Given the edit history I think he may be talking about Quiet Monkey Fight. This edit summary [2] says tagging, but I think you ment to say Prod? Tsk tsk tsk. Is the poem describing the "curse" of falling in love with a knight in shining armor (armour)? Is there a connection to lesbianism? I'm not seeing any. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, OK, that makes sense. I'll make sure to be more specific in the future. (Hiding could be a little more specific when dropping these notes on people's talk pages as well. I wasn't the only one who said "huh?"!) LadyofShalott ^Weave 17:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I apologise for adding to the general confusion felt by all. The article in question was Quiet Monkey Fight as ChildofMidnight points out. Hope that clarifies. {{Prod-summary}} doesn't allow for an input at this minute, so I didn't provide one, but then, life is a great teacher. Hiding T 09:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

<comment copied from above section LadyofShalott ^Weave 18:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)> Is the poem describing the "curse" of falling in love with a knight in shining armor (armour)? Is there a connection to lesbianism? I'm not seeing any. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

She was not supposed to look directly upon the world but only gaze upon it from the mirror. (Why I don't know.) Ummm.... there's absolutely no connection to lesbianism at all that I know of. That's a strange association to make. People do have varied interests you know. :) LadyofShalott ^Weave 17:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Why that poem and image? How does it relate to your interests? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, when was a senior in high school, I took an elective course on

Tennyson's poem. I think Waterhouse's work is beautiful in general, and love his depictions of the poem. I also am a fan of Loreena McKennitt who has set the poem to music in a beautiful song. LadyofShalott ^Weave

18:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Interesting. Do you think the poem serves as a

Cable Guy movie. But I don't know how to do so without seeming snide and undignified. Good day madame. ChildofMidnight (talk

) 20:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's supposed to be a moral. If there is, I don't know what it would be. I find

Cohen the Barbarian more entertaining than Conan. LadyofShalott ^Weave

05:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I hope you don't mind if I avoid further discussions with you. You have some highly aggressive defenders, and if I'm going to be attacked for having a civil discourse with you, I'd rather steer clear all together. Thanks again for your good editing and I hope you enjoy yourself on Wikipedia. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I noticed you're a member of the LGBT-team. Could you possibly yourself or with others help solve the current disputes in

Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. Sorry for dumping that lot on the Atheism project, but I found them listed under an Anti-Christian category so we took them on there as well. With any luck, no one will have to do actually do much with those articles for a while. I hope so anyway. John Carter (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I am, and if you know what I'm talking about, I ask you to do so as well. LadyofShalott ^Weave 06:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

This is confirmation that I have requested to rename Aleta by userpation of the name LadyofShalott on frwiki. LadyofShalott 01:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I apologize and I shouldn't accuse him of that. The biggest problem is not coming for this sooner. We just kept saying the same things, and it should have been apparent that nothing was going to be accomplished. Instead we repeated our arguments so much that it just became "stonewalling." I also messaged all the editors from the previous discussions in an attempt to settle this once and for all, but then just opted for this. (I didn't even know about this and wanted another discussion before resorting for arbitration).

"...Not coming for this sooner." Just a clarification in case you have a mistaken impression about mediation here. I saw that you opened a mediation case, which I think was a wise decision. However, while I am attempting to mediate a little between you, it is entirely unofficial. I am not part of the mediation cabal. LadyofShalott 04:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that would explain why it's not officially opened. Allstarecho and I were wondering about that. So who are these ppl and should I expect some kind of Spanish Inquisition?

Soxwon (talk

) 07:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

In the one experience I've had with mediation, there definitely was no "Spanish Inquisition". To the contrary, it ws a very civil affair which cause all parties to focus on the content issues and reach a workable solution. LadyofShalott 13:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually the Spanish Inquisition bit was a

Soxwon (talk

) 13:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

"No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!" OK, now I feel dumb. I love Monty Python, but totally missed that reference. Duh. Oh well, I hope your parrot rests well. LadyofShalott 02:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've noticed you to be neutral and fair in your edits. Could I get you to comment on this: [3] I'll warn you, it's not pretty.

Well, what I was looking at was the content overall. It seemed to be more of a personal attack then an actual RfC. If you read the front page and see the sections claiming Collect has no credibility (and there are other gems in there) you'll see why I think it can't serve a purpose other than further bitterness and continuing antagonism from prolonged edit wars. I can get you some of the specifics, but just reading through it (especially the talk page) you get a sense of, I don't know how you'd describe it, loathing perhaps? I also think there's quite a bit of vindictive/punitive driven editing going on which illustrated on talk. I don't know, perhaps I'm still gettting too into this, it just seems like the guy's getting a bum rap to me.

Soxwon (talk

) 04:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

why do you keep deleating my contributions. I cited my sources and Frank voice is not normal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.135.124.151 (talk) 02:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I am deleting it because it violates

reliable source that criticizes his voice, then we can evaluate whether it belongs in the article or not. LadyofShalott

02:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

lol, no need to apologize for my miscommunication :). I've filed at AN/I.

Soxwon (talk

) 06:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Protecting was the word I was looking for, not blocking. Cheers. Beach drifter (talk) 04:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem. That was ridiculous. LadyofShalott 15:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I see you've changed your name. How very interesting. Where'd you come up with such a name :O ...Ω...^..¿TooT?.._..¡StatS!.. 16:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

"The Lady of Shalott" by Tennyson. :) LadyofShalott 17:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Would you ping my e-mail? I won't be able to respond until tonight, but wanted to ask you about something. -->David Shankbone 18:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done LadyofShalott 18:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks for your quick action! Drmies (talk) 04:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Glad to do it... there's no place here for that kind of attack. LadyofShalott 04:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

You might want to see this:

Although having said that, his recent edit of

talk

) 15:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, I'd say that if he creates an article from this sandbox, then AfD is our friend. Where it might be more difficult to deal with is repeated insertions into existing articles. Yes, try to engage him in discussion, and I'll try to help there. If that doesn't work, we can move on one step at a time. LadyofShalott 15:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'm not terribly optimistic, anyone who calls Ron Wyatt as a scholar may be pretty sure they know The Truth (even a lot of Creationists think his stuff is nonsense). I removed a couple of urls from the talk page as they were youtube videos starting with an attempt to sell the videos and recruit others to sell them. He's still working on his sandbox. What does bother me about his sandbox article is that it shows up in Google when you search for Joseph and Imhotep. I've always felt that allowing fringe articles in sandboxes is a mistake, and a lot of people finding them via Google I'm sure assume they are Wikipedia articles.

talk

) 08:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I realized sandboxes were crawled by Google. Interesting, and it does complicate the picture. You could nominate the sandbox for deletion through MfD. LadyofShalott 02:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

No point now, see

talk

) 11:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It's been moved to Joseph and Imhotep, which is at AfD now. LadyofShalott 15:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I apologize. I mistook the edits in question. Oldlaptop321 (talk) 02:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I restored my comments - hopefully you weren't reverting because you thought they were too short to be useful - if they were, I'll expand them. Awickert (talk) 05:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

WTHell? I didn't do that! I had not even looked at that. LadyofShalott 05:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

[4] Better check friends, family, pets walking across your keyboard... or maybe change your password? Awickert (talk) 05:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Huh - you say contributions say you didn't - that's really strange. I have no clue. Awickert (talk) 05:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Yeah, I see the diff. Compare though, my contributions. This is strange. I've seen something similar happen to someone else recently, but in the opposite manner. His contribution showed up attributed to someone else. LadyofShalott 05:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I promise I did not revert your edits. I have no idea who did either. LadyofShalott 05:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe you. Good luck figuring out what happened. Awickert (talk) 05:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I just posted a query at WP:Village pump (technical). LadyofShalott 05:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I followed that, and I guess random insanity is all anyone can figure out. Oh, well. Awickert (talk) 04:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries, I do not mind you asking at all [5]. My first ancestor in the New World was my great great great great grandfather who emigrated from County Down, Ireland to His Majesty's Colony of Pennsylvania in the mid-1700s. That ancestor was Presbyterian, as had been his ancestors since before the Plantations of Ireland when they lived in Scotland. As such, I never saw the need for a little thing like my divergent personal beliefs to stand in the way of four centuries of family tradition. — Kralizec! (talk) 17:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, thank you for the response! I would find that difficult to do myself, but I can see how it could work for someone else. :) LadyofShalott 17:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Sidi Ould Cheikh Abdallahi

I keep getting a message that I am biased in my writing on the above subject. What I have written on the Abdallahi page is only fact and I have taken out the defamatory words and sentence structure that were previously in the article. Since the Wikipedia person doesn't tell me what it is that I am writing that is problematic, it is difficult if not impossible to correct my verbiage. Since I am speaking with the Abdallahi family directly, it is difficult to imagine how a magazine or news article are more correct than direct information. However, is there a way to find out what it is that the reviewer is unhappy with?Thunder2009 (talk) 03:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Did you mean to post this question somewhere else? It doesn't appear to relate to signatures of posts. I'll go look at your userpage, and see if I can tell anything that would be helpful. LadyofShalott 04:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess I need to figure out how to create a user page - I'm generally not this dense but I am having so much trouble navigating around Wikipedia...perhaps you could share with me where I might post the question of the reviewer? Thunder2009 (talk) 01:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The article includes specific names that are mentioned in the documentary. What's your opinion on that? I don't think it violates BLP, does it?

P.S. This edit summary made me laugh.

straight up now tell me

03:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I hoped someone would enjoy that. I laughed to read the sentence as originally written. As for the BLP issue... I don't know - it is problematic. Maybe if we it said that the film alleges them to be closted gay folks? If they are not out, we really can't say they are gay (closeted or otherwise). (Heck, consider the case of Jodie Foster!) Maybe we can say the film alleges the to be closeted gay people? LadyofShalott 04:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that might work. I'm a recent convert to the Church of BLP, so I'm trying to be extra careful with wording. (translation - APK did some thinkin' about the policy and realized how serious of an issue it is on many articles. He's now kind of a hard-liner.) I'll work on the article in the next day or so. BTW, if I had a nickel for every closeted person I've met in this city, I could bail out Wall Street.

straight up now tell me

05:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Cripes, I just reread my post and saw how bad it was. I need to go to bed. On the subject of being careful with BLP articles, there's an interesting RfC on the talk page of Gene Robinson. LadyofShalott 05:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

What is ur opinion on this page, I think it is against some blp rules and soapbox. Whats your opinion? Thanks DRxAWESOME (talk) 20:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll look at it. I may not be able to comment until later. LadyofShalott 20:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I have not yet read through it or the main article, but my inclination is that it should be merged into the main article about him, as should the other nine articles in the same category be merged into to main articles on those subjects. They look like POVForks as a class. LadyofShalott 20:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you say that here? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Criticism_of_Bill_O.27Reilly, thanks. DRxAWESOME (talk) 21:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

They are all socks of Qwertgb (see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Qwertgb for more details). As serial sock-puppeteers go, he is very straightforward and consistent in his goals ... which actually makes him rather beneign. Plus it is kinda cool that he thinks I am a cannibalistic Special Agent of the FBI who has the power to ban people from the internet. — Kralizec! (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh my. I enjoyed that. Thanks for the laugh - I needed it! LadyofShalott 01:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to make certain before I tag these pages, we are talking about the person who ran around today accusing other editors (including yours truly) of being blocked sockpuppets of you, right? That wasn't mentioned in his MO. LadyofShalott 01:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

This is certainly Qwertgb (in fact, it is identical to a previous sock). — Kralizec! (talk) 05:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for breaching Wikipedia polcy. I am new to WP and I did not understand them properly.

I need to clarify some issues and I would like to resubmit my article on Joseph and Imhotep once I have sorted out issues with references.

I would like to resubmit this article once I have sorted out the issues with the references.--Drnhawkins (talk) 02:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I was disturbed about the comments of other editors that the bible is not

Some of the Books of the Bible represent the historical records of Israel for that period (eg first and Second Kings, Chronicals). In fact most books of the Bible contain historical information that can often be varified in non biblical literature. There are not many other books of that vintage that have been preserved so well. The bible is primarily a record of God's dealings with man, in particular, Israel in the Old Testament and the Gospels and the Gentiles in Acts and the Epistles. It contains reliable historical information and discusses places, people and events that are mentioned in non biblical manuscripts and heiroglypics.

Obviously, it is necessary to quote the Bible when discussing biblical characters, sites and events. (should it be a note or a reference?)

I understand that a reliable source is required to support any correlation of Biblical Characters with other Historical material.

When editing, can I make changes to the comments of others in articles. Otherwise, how can an article be improved or tidied up?

I suppose it is not fair to do this in a discussion page. But people did it to me first! I won't do this again.

Articles are not meant to be discussions and it is not considered good form to put your name in article anyway.

When is a change considered vandalism and when is it not.

For example, my edits of the article on premillennialism were removed and called vandalism.--Drnhawkins (talk) 02:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

My article on Joseph and Imhotep was not

--Drnhawkins (talk) 02:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia currently does not offer any candidate for the Personage of Joseph in Egyptian history and does not offer any explanation for why he did not make it into Egyptian history. It is therefore unfair to call this article a fringe theory.

For this. It appears everyone gets to share in the fun. Take care. Tiderolls 19:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You're certainly welcome, and thank you for shortly thereafter reverting the edit when it happened to me. Some pests don't go away. Have you seen the list of sockpuppets of which those were two of many? LadyofShalott 20:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope. I have seen this same behavior while watching recent changes, though. Expecting a different outcome after repeating the same action....hmm....that reminds me of a punchline. Can't quite place it.... Tiderolls 02:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess it's how he gets his jollies - doesn't seem a fun way to spend time to me though. Check out Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Qwertgb. There's a handy summary of his other repetitive behaviors. Apparently the "blockedsockpuppet" template is a new one. LadyofShalott 03:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow...they update their own sock page. Macabre. (And here's me thinking I'd never get to use that word) Tiderolls 14:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Good evening my Lady. You seem to be about the fairest an most impartial editor I've come across in my relatively brief time on here so I wonder if you could lend me some advice? I've become involved in a rather heated argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argentina–Pakistan relations and it's rapidly descending from a heated educated discussion into something rather more unpleasant. I'm eager to defend myself and the work I've put into the articles, which another editor is repeatedly disregarding, but fear that it may be getting a little too heated! It seems like catch 22! Any advice would be greatly appreciated, as it owuld if you could leave a talkback on my own talk page! Much obliged. HJMitchell You rang? 21:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It sounds as if you are each becoming frustrated with the other. I guess my main advice would be to continue to try to improve the article. See if you can find news and academic articles that discuss relations between the two countries. If you haven't already, in addition to the general Google search, use Google Scholar and Google News. With high-quality sources, the other editor's argument disappears. I suspect you think this has already been provided - as far as that goes, I have no idea. I have neither examined the sources used so far, nor have I really followed the discussions closely on these X-Y relations articles. I have listed the article on the deletion sorting pages of both countries, something I am surprised no one else had done, as that's a good way to get other editors knowledgeable of the subject to become aware of the discussion and offer their input. Is any of this helpful? Let me know if you need further assistance, and I'll try. LadyofShalott 02:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, as ever, your advice is much appreciated. I'm sure I'll be in touch. Kind regards, HJMitchell You rang? 13:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

need to watch the external links edits. Earlypsychosis (talk) 09:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I've known you to be fair when commenting on something, so could you give us your opinion here: [2]. Thank you for your time. If you don't feel like getting involved I don't blame you :).

There's no link. I have no idea what you'd like me to see. Try again? LadyofShalott 02:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, my mistake lol: [6]

Soxwon (talk

) 03:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't mean to rush you but if you're not interested could you let me know so I can find another editor?

Soxwon (talk

) 18:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and do that. I have looked through it, but sorting it out will take more time/attention than I've had to devote to it so far. (My editing has been in brief spurts the last few days.) I may comment, but it's not a bad idea to get multiple opinions anyway. LadyofShalott 19:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

K, thnx.

Soxwon (talk

) 19:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright, the argument appears to have gotten a lot simpler: [7]. We just need to know whether you think the quotes should be in full or partial.

Soxwon (talk

) 23:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It looks like y'all are working it out...? LadyofShalott 01:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

How is the User talk:LadyofShalott/miniature pig article coming? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Ai yi yi, ummm... I hadn't really thought of writing one. Hmmm.. let me see if I can find any decent sources and I'll get back to you. LadyofShalott 03:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I'm going to have time to do this. I did note some book titles that say things like "pot-bellied pigs and other miniatures pigs", there there may well be an article in this, but I can't put it together right now. I will try to do some gnome-type work to help out a little. LadyofShalott 15:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. I will see what I can throw together on this life or death subject. Thanks for your interest. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Good morning. I stumbled across this and thought it might be worth bugging an admin about it. I'm not sure exactly how far one is permitted to express oneself on one's own userpage, but I think User:Rumbo mumbo's little message is probably pushing it to the limit. For context, it refers to the AfD for Quadminton which is... interesting (and, yes, I do go looking for the more controversial AfDs for idle amusement)! Kind regards, HJMitchell You rang? 07:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

My first thought is that it is probably allowable: nasty, rude, and distasteful, but probably allowed. My second thought is that it is rude to a very specific subset of editors, and maybe could be considered a personal attack on them, in which case

WP:NPA could be invoked. I'm going to ask for another opinion. LadyofShalott

12:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

See discussion started at

WP:ANI#Personal attack?. Feel free to comment there. LadyofShalott

13:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Good work. I see he's been indef blocked which, I dare say, was going to happen at some point. Thanks for your time! Regards, HJMitchell You rang? 19:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Why on earth would I mind? Hey, the more people who can use this service the better, until and unless Z-man gets overwhelmed by the requests, which doesn't seem likely anytime soon. The more the merrier. John Carter (talk) 19:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I wonder why you consistently spell the word, "through", as "trough". Is it confusion about that word, or some sort of stylization? LadyofShalott 15:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

As a non native English speaker and writer i am to a certain extend dependent on spell checkers and re-reads to spell some words correctly. The issue with "Through" and "trough" is that they are both valid words. The spell checker does not catch them as errors, and i am not always able to intellectually link each meaning to the correct spelling of it. Hence, its a rather silly situation; Im bound to write complex words correctly, while messing up on common words due to those having variations only one letter off. Examples of this are the words "to" and "too", and also "thats" and "that's" :). Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 15:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your reply. I wondered if perhaps you might be a non-native speaker of English. I actually first looked at your user page to see if there was information about that, but if it's there, I missed it. (That's not to imply it should or should not be there - just that it could be and I looked.) LadyofShalott 16:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you think

Absolutely not laughing at you, and yes, I agree with your assessment above. (Although, to be fair, there are some UU churches that still identify as Christian. Any categorization based thereon though would have to be of that particular church, i.e. So&So UUChurch could be in a UU cat and a Christian cat, but the UU cat should not be a subcat of the Christian one.) Was this what you were looking for, or did I go beyond what you wanted? LadyofShalott 05:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I'm pretty sure All Souls doesn't identify as Christian, but I'll have to verify. BTW, I was looking at DC's Inventory of Historic Sites (it includes

NRHP listings, but also locally designated historic landmarks/districts not recognized by the National Park Service...All Souls is one of them) and noticed Ralph Waldo Emerson

was a former All Souls preacher.

Pretty cool, huh?

straight up now tell me

06:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed! LadyofShalott 12:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Is that a candidate for speedy? I'm confused.

I don't think so. I don't think any of the speedy categories really fit. As it's not even an article though, it needs to go somehow! LadyofShalott 18:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Has anyone discussed creating a speedy category for something like that?

straight up now tell me

18:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You would think so, wouldn't you? I'm not sure though. LadyofShalott 18:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Simplify policy RfC LadyofShalott 00:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It should be a speedy, although I don't see a category that quite fits. Nice poem BTW. I'm going to chime in on the proposal RfC. — Becksguy (talk) 23:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, "not an article at all" seems like it would be an appropriate csd category, doesn't it? LadyofShalott 23:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it does. And a better reason than mine. :-) Although it should be a speedy, it won't hurt Wikipedia to wait until the prod times out, so I'm OK with the PROD also. I'm uncomfortable with making CSD overly up to interpretation, especially since the deletion occurs (almost) immediately if the deleting admin agrees. To me, it's a predetermined set of community consensus decisions that can be applied without further discussion, since we effectively already had the discussions for the speedy cats. APK has, as usual, found something interesting. Gracias. — Becksguy (talk)

Yeah, I have mixed feelings about the CSD criteria, which is why I am, so far, mostly reserving comment in the RfC. I think reforms could be made, but I think we probably should have some spelled out criteria. LadyofShalott 00:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I have just raised this particular example as a case study in the RfC. LadyofShalott 02:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi! This may be a moot point, as I see you had the same idea I did. I changed the block settings for this user after a report at AIV. Just wanted to give you a heads up that we crossed paths. Best, TNXMan 01:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, yeah, I blocked 24hours to start with, but then when I had a look at the contributions, I went back to make it indefinite. You must have beaten me to it. No worries about crossing paths! LadyofShalott 01:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

A "(blank) on wheels" username usually gets an indef from me. I don't know if the same person or just imitators, but all they seem interested in is disrupting the place. Oh well. Something to keep us busy, I guess. :) TNXMan 01:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip on those names. I'll keep my eyes open for them. LadyofShalott 02:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I picked up on this page too, and added a few sections that could be expanded, and provided temporary links for BDSM until I can find some more notable sources. I think 'Sexualities' will have something on this, but I'll have to go through via my online subscription to check. Also, GLQ may have something, but that involves going through my two-years of hard copy to check. It may take me a week or so to check this stuff out. I'm not surprised there's not more on this topic, but I thought there would be more given the predominance of heterosexuals with 'odd habits' in society. It is certainly something that should be better represented - but it may take some digging around to find it, and I don't want to get into original research. I think with a bit of attention it could become an important article, unless you know of something similar that exists already that this could be incorporated into or act as a redirect to? I'm not that concerned whether it stays or goes, and feel it is really the creator who needs to do the work to justify its existence, beyond creating it and saying there's loads of hits on Google. However, it could be an interesting article. Mish (talk) 01:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

More definitely needs to be done on it. Right now, the lead section (sentence) reads like an oxymoron. It's got to have more to say who uses the term and how. The article creator has an interesting history on WP. LadyofShalott 02:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright, there was a recent

I'm thinking no. If this is the only place where he might be thought to have followed Collect, it is not hounding, especially as the point of an RfC is to get others' opinions. I looked over the discussion, and it does not look to me like he is flamebaiting either, even though they (obviously) disagree. However, since you say ArbComm is involved, if it is to go anywhere, I would say that is where it should probably go. Is the arbitration case currently open? This is not something I in which I am expert. Any other admins watching my page want to chime in? LadyofShalott 02:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I am deeply suspicious after seeing this edit: [8] and then Phoenix immediately going to the RS board and raising a stink. Both parties are involved in the arbcom case here.

Soxwon (talk

) 02:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Note that this [9] was on 18:29, 27 May 2009 while my first Talk:Fascism RFC edit was on 21:44, 25 May 2009 [10]. Also note that it was Collect who made Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Fascism with lots of false accusations against me. Phoenix of9 (talk) 03:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not the timing it's the intent, provoking Collect at the same time the Arbcom case stalled seems pretty petty. You joined that discussion knowing full well that Collect was a part of it after having previously filed an RfC against him.

Soxwon (talk

) 03:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you are the one flamebaiting me now. Phoenix of9 (talk) 03:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I do not want my talk page to become a battleground. LadyofShalott 03:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Since there is an ongoing (if currently stalled) ArbComm case regarding Collect and P'of9, I think that's where any further discussion of their behavior regarding one another belongs. LadyofShalott 03:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice and my apologies for the mess on your page.

Soxwon (talk

) 03:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

LadyofShalott, Soxwon has made these kinda bad faith accusations against me before, whats the proper way to handle his accusations? ArbComm as well? Phoenix of9 (talk) 03:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

If he's also part of the ArbComm case, and the accusations are, like these, related thereto, then yes, that's probably the proper venue. If that is not the situation, I think the next step would definitely not be ArbComm, but instead either Wikiquette Alerts or RfC; however I'm not sure which. Again, I ask any one else more familiar with these aspects of DR, please chime in. LadyofShalott 03:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Homosexuality#Religion

All right, thx. Btw, now that I have your attention, reconsider this: [11]! Phoenix of9 (talk) 03:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah... that does need work, badly. I'll have to do some digging to see what I can come up with. I wonder who else might be interested in working on it... LadyofShalott 03:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, you are one of the few people whos both in Wikiproject Religion and Wikiproject LGBT studies. Maybe someone else like that whos in both projects? Phoenix of9 (talk) 03:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm always hoping someone will standardize the project tags. Who can keep track of which ones are WPnospaceBiography, which ones are plural (Books), and there's the art one I can never remember, and some are WP while other are spelled out as WikiProject etc. etc.

I think after you're done creating bacon articles and then adding photos and content over the next few days, so they look good for DYK, this would be something very helpful for you to resolve. Thanks! Oh, and thanks also for all your good edits and help with the Bacon Challenge 2009. It's just getting going and already it's the best thing that's ever happened to the encyclopedia. What an awesome effort on Wikipedia's most important subject area. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice for the project templates at least to be standardized. I think there was some work towards that. I don't know what ever became of it. It's not something I feel any need to take on myself though. I'm not sure I can call the bacon project the "best thing that's ever happened to the encyclopedia", but it was cute idea, kind of fun, and did result in some interesting articles. Have you thought of setting up something like a bacon workgroup (I can't believe I'm suggesting this) in the Food&drink wikiproject? LadyofShalott 03:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't tell anyone, but there is already a bacon cabal. I think it's probably enough with the bacon already, anyway. Oy. ;) ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

You beat me to it. I saw an update and thought it was time, but got sidetracked (and should be asleep anyway).

We'll see what he says... (I should be asleep too!) LadyofShalott 04:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, what are your intentions regarding what you have been developing at User:Drnhawkins/Sandbox/Joseph and Imhotep are the same person? LadyofShalott 03:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I plan to submit it for consideration as an article again. I am proofing the references and making a few improvements but it is close to it's final form. --Drnhawkins (talk) 08:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed a double "not" from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph and Imhotep are the same person, I hope you don't mind. (I just made the opposite mistake, telling people to bait someone when I meant not to...) Verbal chat 16:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Oops.. Thanks for fixing it for me! LadyofShalott 16:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to thank you for coming out and participating in my Request for Adminship, which closed unsuccessfully at (48/8/6) based on my withdrawal. I withdrew because in my opinion I need to focus on problems with my content contributions before I can proceed with expanding my responsibilities. Overall I feel that the RfA has improved me as an editor and in turn some articles which in my eyes is successful. On a more personal note, based on your participation in the Bacon Challenge 2009 and your history of bacon-participation, I consider you an honourary member of the Bacon Cabal (full membership available upon creation of a bacon-related article). Thank you again for your support. Yours in bacon, --kelapstick (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you had more luck than I did with finding sources. I'd asked the user to do so, but he simply recreated it with no sources. I'll do it right away. Thanks for letting me know. --

• LOL! I'm glad I cought you online! I can keep an eye on the site while I'm at work, so I guess I'm on more than I should be (blush). Good luck with the article! Best, --
  talk
  ) 01:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi LadyofShalott, I really need you help regarding this article. Is there a way to contact you by email? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slabbi (talk • contribs) 11:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC) Regarding your tagging: advert - I removed all superlatives and also removed text that might me interpreted as advert. It only describes facts and does not say "the best" or anything else. So it should not be considered as advertising (uddeIM is open source and GPL'ed). primarysources - there are several references at the end that point to other projects using or supporting uddeIM, e.g. a turkish localization project notability - Joomla is used worldwide on millions of websites. uddeIM is the most used PM System with approx 250.000 installations worldwide. It is well known by each Joomla user. COI - The first article was written by one of the uddeIM users who asked me to post it on Wikipedia since it already contains Joomla and several other well-known components (like the Community Builder), SOBI2, kunena, S4J and many other (with may have less users). So I do not see any COI here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slabbi (talk • contribs) 12:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Slabbi, I'd prefer to keep our discussion about the article on Wikipedia. However if you want to email me, you can do so by looking in the box on the left side of the screen that is labeled "toolbox", and clicking on the link that says "email this user".

Are the other sites you are using as references truly third party sources? They mostly sound like they are members of the Joomla community, which would make them primary sources. The XING source mentioned looks like it has potential.

1. Are there more sources like that? Can you find other magazine/journal/newspaper/etc. sources - unrelated to Joomla - that discuss uddeIM? Read through Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Notability to understand better the kinds of sources needed for articles. (By all means, ask more questions if you need to do so after reading them! :) )
2. The article would be vastly improved if the sources were used to cite specific facts in the article, rather than just given as a list at the end. As it is now, I can't tell what information in the article comes from what reference(s).

We are on the internet, who still reads printed magazines? ;) Well, there are some (also see my answer below).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.139.72.126 (talk)

I didn't mean to imply the sources have to be printed, just third-party. There are, of course, online versions (sometimes solely) of many magazines, journals, newspapers, etc. LadyofShalott 03:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for asking questions. Improving the article can be an interative process, and I'll try to help you with it! LadyofShalott 16:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I have an additional comment. If you can find English-language references, that would be good (but not required). I just went to the XING site, hoping to help you cite something(s) specific in the article from it, only to realize it is in German, which I am unfortunately unable to read. You do not have to have sources in English, but if they are available, we like to try to use them. LadyofShalott 16:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, indead. Unfortunately the XING article is in German only. I know that there are articles also in magazines. I was told from my users that there are but uddeIM is used in the internet, so who reads printed magazines? ;) Most sources are from the Joomla Community of course and some minor websites that habe reports about uddeIM. Don't know if these should really be quoted. I added some references to other projects like SOBI2 and sh404SEF which rely on uddeIM.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.139.72.126 (talk)

Establishing

notability by Wikipedia standards could be problematic in that case. LadyofShalott

03:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

There are thousands of websites who announce uddeIM and offer the component for download. uddeIM is used by over 100,000 websites for communication and there are articles about uddeIM on nearly all Joomla sites (not only on the primary Joomla.org but also on all other sites that deal with Joomla and its extensions). When you do not accept these sites as third-party sources, so what are you doing with Microsoft Windows? Do you also say that everyone who uses Windows cannot be a primary source because of that? Quite problematic for components that are part of a system like Joomla. It is reported a lot about uddeIM but this is done by sites who deal with Joomla of course. slabbi (talk) 09:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

There are many, many books and articles about Windows that have no relationship to Microsoft at all, of course! LadyofShalott 12:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Correct! And there are many, many, many websites about uddeIM that are not(!) related to my dev page. The only thing they have in common is that they are running Joomla (because uddeIM is a plugin for Joomla). E.g. I have no relation to the Thai page, the site admin has decided to provide a copy of uddeIM and it is his text. I have never talked to him. slabbi (talk) 12:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I already removed the "advert" tag since it is not longer written as an advertising. If you don't agree please point out which sentenses are problematic. I also suggest to remove "notability" (reasion see above) and COI (would it be better if I delete it and ask a collegue to repost it so I am not listed as author)? Nevertheless I have posted a sticky in my support forum to find users who may add some more references to fullfil your needs. slabbi (talk) 12:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The long list of features appears to be advertising. It would be better to say that some notable feature include (whatever they are) with a reference. No, you definitely can not simply delete it and get someone else to add it! You also have not yet added any inline references. Can you use any of these references to cite the information in the article? (I see now why you say these are third party references, but I still have concerns about whether they are

reliable sources. There are magazines (online and off) that review software - are there any that have reviewed this one, for instance?) LadyofShalott

12:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, will add some inline cites if possible. The problem is that uddeIM is a component that runs in Joomla, so cites are usually Joomla sources. Need some time to verify all possible souces. 80.139.104.194 (talk) 20:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hope, I it is ok now, e.g. I have added some more references and a reference to Joomla Professional! which mentions uddeIM (ISBN etc. also added). Also added Wikiproject Computing/Software template, set importance to Low (hope that is ok). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slabbi (talk • contribs) 09:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Another thing, sorry! "The first article was written by one of the uddeIM users who asked me to post it on Wikipedia..." This is potentially problematic. Was the article published somewhere else? If so, this may be a violation of copyright. Since the original author apparently wanted the material on WP, would s/he be willing to provide a release to the GFDL? I think that might take care of it, but I am not certain. If not, this could be a deal-breaker on the article as it stands currently. I am going to seek additional input on this issue. LadyofShalott 16:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The article was written by an user for use on Wikipedia. Since I am a little bit lazy in these things and had no idea how a wikipedia article looks like he wrote it for me, so I could publish it. So there is no copyright problem here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.139.72.126 (talk)

In the future, he should sign up for a Wikipedia account and enter article under his own username. This is needed for our licensing requirments. LadyofShalott 03:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Just popping by to confirm that we do need verification of permission to use previously published materials, although in light of our upcoming licensing transition, a release under GFDL alone would not be sufficient. (We are transitioning to multi-licensing under GFDL and CC-BY-SA in June, and most material licensed to us from external sources solely under GFDL after November 2008 will need to be removed at that time.) There is detailed information for how to verify permission, if this is previously published, at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Please let me know if any of this is unclear. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

(which you deleted a few minutes ago) Has been re-created, again as an attack page. I left a warning there, but of course it will be deleted too if the page is re-deleted, which it probably should be so that the attack content is not viewable. Thanks

Thank you for alerting me. I have redeleted the page, then issued a final warning. LadyofShalott 03:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• cool
  talk
  ) 03:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I see you deleted the Major Lazer page, but I would argue it is actually a notable group -- just not the way the article was written. It's a duo consisting of DJs Diplo and Switch, and they're releasing an album on June 16 on Downtown Records, which would make it notable. The Jamaican zombie fighter thing is a fictional backstory, like Gorillaz. The New Yorker has an article about it today, in fact here. There's also mentions in the Philadelphia Inquirer [12] and elsewhere, plus a video featuring Andy Milonakis. I'm an admin, should I start a new article? Not sure the procedure here. --AW (talk) 15:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

We have options. :) If you want to use what I previously deleted, I'll be glad to undelete it for you, or you can do it yourself (since you're also an admin) with no objection from me. Alternatively, if making the previous version inline with article standards is more trouble than it's worth, you could just start a new article about them altogether. Your call - just let me know if you'd like me to do an undeletion. LadyofShalott 15:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll just undelete it and fix it up. --AW (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good! LadyofShalott 15:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Happy to have the disputed link left out. It had been discussed and, like many of the references in the article, is less than ideal but was better than nothing. The article has improved somewhat from there so it's relevance has lessened somewhat. I still have concern that there are one or more (puppets?) editors who's only edits are to revert edits they find unfavourable to the topic. 123.27.222.11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC).

Single-purpose accounts is the term you are seeking, and yes, there are definitely some of those around that article. SPAs are not necessarily a bad thing, but they do tend to raise some flags. Of course, looking at your contributions, your IP counts as an SPA so far.LadyofShalott

04:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm travelling at the moment so I have no edit history for this IP address (hotel). I used to have an acct on WP but abandoned it a couple of years ago (long story). 123.27.222.11 (talk) 04:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Howdy,

Sorry for the delay, it seems your request went unnoticed by my colleagues and I just saw it today while archiving old requests. Your account Aleta on fr: has been renamed LadyofShalott. You may need to do re-click on the unification button in your preferences, but other than that I believe everything should be ok.

Drop me a line on my fr: talk page if you notice anything funny.

Cheers, Popo le Chien ^{throw a bone} 10:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, bon, merci beaucoup! LadyofShalott 21:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)