User talk:Saxifrage/Archive 4

This is an archive from 23:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC). Leave new messages at my talk page.

The history of this archive begins at this diff and ends at this diff.

I'm not sure why, but the link to emoholic.net was removed from the emo music page... its a site about emo music in general that i just noticed went under construction but used to have alot of music. i know that the layout is being redone and i want to know my my link keeps getting removed.

thanks. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.236.35.205 (talk • contribs)

The link was removed because of our spam policies. Specifically, links to external sites that appear to merely be trying to promote the site rather than add useful information to the article are removed on sight because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not an online directory or a venue for advertising. — Saxifrage ✎ 06:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to say it but some of the sites that ARE listed such as emolinks.net have no useful information of them, where as emoholic.net does.

(143.236.35.205 07:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Possibly true, but that just means that they should be removed, not that emoholic.net should be added. Certainly, the link does not belong in the Bananaphone article. Persistently adding one link to a number of different pages is a pattern that strongly suggests an attempt to advertise a site. — Saxifrage ✎ 07:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should not have been in the bananaphone page but it SHOULD have been in the emo music and emo slang page... the title of the site even clearly suggests that the site is about the afore mentioned topic. The only reason that the link to the site is now being deleted is a person bias that you, the editor, have against the site. That is not fair. If you are truly an unbiased editor then deleting this link (which has more to do with the topic than that of some of the other links) is something you should not be doing. I love wikipedia, and i made a mistake with the bananaphone article, please do not make me loose faith in this site (Emoholic 07:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I gather that this is your own site that you're promoting. I understand it's natural to want to promote it, but Wikipedia is not the place to do it. You have a personal stake in this link appearing on emo-related pages, and so you have a very definite bias for it being included. Wikipedia's policy is that no article can include bias (see the

neutral point of view

policy page). To avoid the conflict of interest a contributor might have about a link, they are highly discouraged from adding links to their own sites and it is considered spam.

However, there is one good way to get a link into an article: go to the article's talk page and show the link to the other editors who are active at that article. If enough of them like it, they will thank you for bringing it to their attention and one of them will add it to the article. If they don't think it's appropriate for inclusion, that must be because it is not a useful addition to the article. In any case, adding it yourself is seen as giving in to your own bias, not as a useful addition to the encyclopedia. — Saxifrage ✎ 07:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats funny since you removed a link that was posted weeks ago today. How did that link become spam? Are you just seeking ways to discredit the site? Could you please tell me how I could report you to wikipedia? You are a terrible editor.(Emoholic 07:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I removed that other link at your suggestion, actually. Go back in the history and copy-paste that link into your browser, and I'm sure you'll agree that it was a useless link. I might yet remove the emolinks link, but right now the site has been hacked and I can't evaluate it for quality until they fix it. As for my behaviour, you can use the Wikipedia:dispute resolution process, or you can find an administrator or two and ask them to look into my conduct. — Saxifrage ✎ 07:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upon futher research you can see the site was hacked back at the end of January. Good job.

Then I'll remove it now. Good job. This is what teamwork is about. — Saxifrage ✎ 08:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you will remove links that I suggest but not add ones that I suggest? Brilliant. If you want me to calm down and change my attitude it would be a good idea to not use a sarcastic or cocky tone in your writing. Why not compromise with me and remove the link if the actual viewers of the emo page - the people who actually care about the definition - feel it needs to be removed. Quit power tripping and do something helpful. Just because I have the website doesn't necessarily mean that my opinion is bad - it means that I cared enough about the topic to clear up confusion about it. Thanks for understanding (Emoholic 08:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

To be exact, I looked at all the links at your suggestion and removed that one on my judgement, not your suggestion. As for attitude, yes, I should avoid provoking you. You would do well to avoid provoking me as well. However, you're the one who has a stake in this, so if you want to have your link considered fairly you need to play by the rules. One way is to use the process I outlined above, which is my attempt to help you. I won't "compromise" by leaving the link in—if everyone did that, Wikipedia would be overrun with spam and so far you've given me no reason to believe your link deserves a special exception to the rule.

And no, just because you own the website doesn't mean your opinion is bad. However, it does mean that you have a conflict of interest as to whether it's worth linking to from Wikipedia and so you don't get a say in that. Trying to force me or any other editor here to give you a say in it just isn't going to work.

I understand where you're coming from: I run into people in your position every day. I hope you now understand why Wikipedia can't accept your link so long as you are the one choosing to add it. — Saxifrage ✎ 08:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I will go on the talk page first. (Emoholic 08:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you. I'm sorry your first editing experience was this turbulent. I hope you enjoy the rest of your time here more! — Saxifrage ✎ 08:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who were you talking to?

If your talking to me: Well if you use that arguement, there has been LOTS of things that devlopers have spent time on to change. How could you decide which things should be changed & which should not? Don't go all selfrightous with me and discriminate & prentend, as some people say, your God.

Please leave one if you'd like more clarification on this issue. You could also contact me [email protected] [since they haven't instituted the option to delete your account, made their own licence, or the GNUL hasn't changed yet, I haven't signed up].

thanks

24.70.95.203 19:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you're just not making a very good case. Either you misunderstand the basics of programming, or you don't understand the implications of what you are proposing. Changing MediaWiki so that it doesn't not store spaces in the database requires far, far more work and unnecessary code complication (leading to unnecessary bugs) than the disk-space savings that would be gained. It's just a bad idea. — Saxifrage ✎ 07:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your comment regarding Mormonism naming conventions on the Wikipedia:MoS Talk page. -- backburner001 20:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. -- backburner001 21:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no, I follow

• Added a note regarding the whereabouts of the history to Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view.
• The guideline advises "generally" not to switch from one system to another; The NPOV talk page switched from a relatively calm talk page to a very busy one over the last few months; this justifies the switch of the archiving system IMHO; anyway it's clear now where the edit history is. --Francis Schonken 08:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Im just letting you know that in the next couple of days I will be trying the bold-revert-discuss method of getting the link to emoholic.net added to the emo music and slang pages. Sam Blanning suggested this to me, and since it has been about a week with no response on either of the talk pages I feel like this would be the appropriate action. These will be the only pages the site is ever linked on if the links stay there. Please give me your opinion on this, and if you would like to see Sam Blanning and my conversation about this look at his talk page. Thanks (Emoholic 06:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Noted! Thanks for the heads-up. — Saxifrage ✎ 07:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, I just want everything between wikipedia and myself to be alright. (Emoholic 15:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for pointing out the broken links, I'll get it right one day. --Iantresman 08:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the importance of having EVERY changed documented. Besides, accounts that are deleted does not affect the change history, & accounts that have been inactive for to long also makes no impact to the change history of wikimedia.

Please reply.

Thanks.

24.70.95.203 21:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You show a fundamental lack of understanding of how the database and code works. Of course every change matters: how do you think articles are stored? The article you read is not stored as it appears, only changes to the original are stored. Take away changes in the past and you break Wikipedia. Similarly, take away accounts and you lose vital pieces of the database.

There's also no advantage to your suggestion: it won't save on usernames, because it would be chaos to allow new users to take a name that used to belong to someone else.

Also, stop saying "please reply". I realise English is not your first language, but it's rude. "Please" is not always polite in English, especially when it is part of an command given to someone who is not your subordinate. — Saxifrage ✎ 02:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That didn't make sense the last sentence you had. Are you insulting me? Isn't there a way to have a an article so that the changes would be saved as the sole article? Like in Word, when you make changes to a file, the changes are stored ON THE ORIGINAL FILE, so there arn't 17 files if you make 17 Saves, & not like 1 big original file, & 16 small changes? Are the developers working on that?

68.148.165.213 07:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you must be the same person as the other IP addess. Your suggestion that all changes be saved in one "file" shows even greater fundamental misunderstandings of the way the software works than you did before. There is no "original file": it's all saved in a database, and each change is saved individually. If it weren't, there would be no history for you to look at and want to see three different versions of (as below). Since every change needs to be saved, saving everything in "one file" would take up enormous amoungs of storage. Do you remember how you suggested that all the extra spaces be taken out so that articles take up less storage?

Now, you haven't the slightest understanding of the things you talk about, you seem to have little to no experience with the way Wikipedia works either technically or as a piece of software, and you refuse to get a user account to make it easier to communicate. In sum, you annoy and bore more. Go away. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You see, I actually appreciated that last reply. You actually taught me somthing, though you have definiatly some social personality problem. Well then I proprose that Wikipedia not be stored on a database, but as documents. Refering to 'Extra Space', I take that those ideas back. Actually, its not hard to communicate; you seem to lack an understanding of the internet. Recently, gadfium sent me a personal message, you could send me a message!?

68.148.165.213 02:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because you're an idiot and an asshole. Go away. — Saxifrage ✎ 04:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Looks like I didn't take it back far enough. Meanwhile, someone else removed it. -- Mwanner | Talk 15:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/-Lumière FeloniousMonk 23:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/-Lumière SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated it for peer review. Ardenn 07:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The project officially changed names. Hardly an advertisement or spam. Go back to the EAS deletion votes, it was already decided that Sudosh and EAS will be merged until EAS has its own article.

We will revert any of your changes indefinately.

Thanks. —The preceding

Hi, although I agree with you, please check the following

Thanks for your signature comment. Actually I am desperately trying to find someone to help me reduce its code size, without altering the actual appearance. Could you please give it a try? I'll owe you one!  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 19:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're amazing, 38 chars is 38 chars! I was also wondering if I could avoid the <b>#</b> repetition without breaking the nesting rule. Tried omitting the quotes from -2 and it replied "invalid raw signature" (no big deal). As I said, I owe you one! Just whistle and I'll be there...  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 00:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well its very simple, why dont you check the article yourself rather than accusing me of vandalism, I dont think it is vandalism, as I didn't do anything wrong. Rules doesn't state that only an admin could revert copyio. if you look at with good conscience, it is okay to revert that article, as it is not a verbatim copy of the article on the quoted website, Wikipedia is not a place for people to fight, and show who is the "Macho" and who can call the shots, rather I believe its a place for peaceful sharing of knowledge and information. Please tell me do you honestly believe the guy from the other website is gonna come and sue wikipedia for violating copyright laws? Infact that article was copied from another website www.azzahira.com. Sorry if I sounded rude.. I am not going to revert that article again,

Hey I have found pictures and other stuff for Queen's University Kingston. Could you help me clean up the article a bit and help improve it? thanks. Zipperfly 23:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 13:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you aren't going to make sense, why do you keep editing my talk page?pat8722 21:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to fail to comprehend apparently exceeds my ability to communicate. — Saxifrage ✎ 05:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are so evil, it is beyond words. You don't know why I would want to do this? Different versions have stuff added, then other versions have stuff deleted. Yea, your right, I could open a 100000 windows, but I don't even think that I could possibly fit that many; that was just an example from the top of my head, but I'm sure there may be other reasons.

68.148.165.213 09:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperbole and calling me evil get you nowhere. Go away and stop being a waste of bandwidth. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperbole my ass. Go fuck your girl and get syphilis.

68.148.165.213 02:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right then: fuck you and the TCP/IP stream you rode in on, you antisocial psychopath. You can consider yourself permanently banned from this page. Cheers! — Saxifrage ✎ 04:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh god, that's classic. It's the "Cheers!" that really makes it.Teke 04:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per your licensing, mind if I use that as my next quote of the week? Teke 19:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to! I feel it was not terribly

civil

of me, but... some extremely exceptional individuals deserve exceptions to that rule, I can see.

I'm curious: how did you come to my page? I haven't seen your signature in any of my usual haunts, that I can remember. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning on leaving a note about it not being civil, but funny. It popped up on Filter Recent Changes because of "fuck." Happy editing, and please be civil :) Teke 05:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and I will. :) — Saxifrage ✎ 06:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion i guess i should have added what I had written and edited in to the short original article: Here is the piece I wrote several years ago:

VANDUSEN DISPLAY GARDEN 5251 Oak Street Vancouver B.C. V6M 4H1 phone 604-266-7194

VanDusen Botanical Display Garden is located in the Shaughnessy district of Vancouver at the North West corner of 37th and Oak Street. The garden is open to the public every day of the year except Christmas. There are admission fees. In 1970 the Vancouver Foundation, the Government of British Columbia and the city of Vancouver signed an agreement to develop a public garden on part of the old Shaughnessy Golf Course. On August 30th, 1975, the garden was officially opened. The garden covers an area of some 55 acres. An early decision not to partake in scientific research enabled the channelling of funds and energy into garden construction and released the staff from the responsibility of building research collections or a herbarium. However, there is a specialized reference library in the Administration Floral Hall Building. The garden has several special attractions, including carved totem poles, large stone sculptures and a Korean Pavilion whose architecture is the focus for the Asian plant collection. Horticulturally, there is a large collection of Rhododendron hybrids, cultivars of Fagus sylvatica as well as collections of Sorbus, Fraxinus and Magnolia. There is a Heather garden and a major collection of Ilex acquifolium cultivars. The garden is designed to be used by people of all ages and backgrounds. Many of the plant collections are labelled and arranged to demonstrate botanical relationships or geographical origins. There are guided tours, lectures and workshops available.

If you feel it is not right or too long feel free to revert back to the original shorter article. Roy Forster was my horticultural prof at college in 1972. WayneRay 15:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)WayneRay[reply]

You wrote: Ah, okay. I was confused by the bit about copyrights in the edit summary. Just to be sure, you do realise that you don't hold copyright anymore to anything that you add to Wikipedia, right? At least, you don't hold it anymore in the traditional sense: by submitting a change to an article, editors are agreeing to license that contribution under the GFDL. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes I know that part, I was just getting around an issue I had with Ernest Harmon Air Force Base article I wrote, originally they thought I pulled it out of a book some where and it was MY BOOK i wrote back in 1988 !! So was playing it safe with all the Botanical Gardens articles I am inputting, from my 1990's booklet "Arboreta and Botanical Gardens of North America: a travellers guide" WayneRay 21:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)WayneRay[reply]

Hi! Thanks for putting forth some efforts in the very new Arsenal of Democracy article a week ago. See the talk for a lengthier explaination, but this should have been a sandbox creation, and I was requesting input from many others around the time you made your edits. (i.e. Ad-hoc 'Peer Review' and suggestions type RFC). Any additional thoughts you might add therein, would also be appreciated. Best regards, FrankB 15:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I only realised that bans include one's own user page when I saw

I'm a bit puzzled what's going on with this template, and the two articles that include it. This should really just be one merged article, with redirects as appropriate, no? Alai 02:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• There's one of these templates per overlay? I see what you mean about the listing, but given they're also listed on that basis at
  List of North American area codes, an actual category of distinct articles seems to me preferable. Even if the separate category listings are key, use of the template space to hold a whole article (albeit a small one) seems to me odd and unnecessary. Alai 18:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • No articles should be in Template space. Note that it is easy to use an article as a "template" by simply putting the article name in the same kind of brackets, but with an added colon on the front of the article's name. So I would suggest that
    Area codes 215 & 267, and then it can be transcluded as if it were a template with {{:Area codes 215 & 267}}. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • This is a great solution. I will use it, then after I have converted all the improper templates to user space, I'll include {{db-author}} to mark them for deletion. Paul Robinson 21:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. Loom91 05:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will fix the things you about wiktifying and catagorizing as soon as I can find out how to do it. I have only been on this site about a week but I will cooperate. Thank you for the info. John R G 18:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have the site categorized now. I just have to wiktify it. John R G 19:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. If it is alright I want to but the table back to the way it was because I think it was better that way. Let me know if it is ok. I got the idea from the Louisiana IceGators site. John R G 22:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See

Talk:Potomac Senior High School to continue the conversation. Since this is about the article, we should be talking about it on the article's page for the benefit of other editors. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I really appreciate you moving that message from the previous talk page to the current one. Thanks mate «₪Mÿš†íc₪» 05:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am going to attempt to make changes on these articles per our discussion on the pump. I would appreciate your input when I am no doubt reverted. Thanks Arniep 16:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. They're on my Watchlist now. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I have now been threatened with a block by User:Marine 69-71 on Elvera Sanchez for "continuous vandalism" and my edits have been reverted. Arniep 23:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted at the noticeboard Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Marine_69-71. Arniep 23:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability and sources

Thanks for your help with this. I think we can make a good case that what people say about their ancestry cannot really be considered reliable unless it is documented in some way, i.e. it is verifiable. It seems to me that the book does indeed come from a reliable author and it contains verifiable research so this should take precedent over the statements made by Davis. I would welcome your thoughts on the Elvera Sanchez page. Regards Arniep 19:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wasn't really trying to justify the book's research I was just saying the book is a reliable verifiable source whereas what a person may say about their ancestry is not. Arniep 21:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing an important difference when it comes to what people say. The article cannot say, "he is Puerto Rican" and then point to his words, you are correct on this. What is documentable is that he always said he is of Puerto Rican descent, and this is exactly what the article should say—"Davis' said he was Puerto Rican" or something to that effect. This is verifiable (that he said something) just like it's verifiable that some politician said something if it's documented somewhere. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not sure what you mean- I said that he said his mother was Puerto Rican in every edit I made of the articles. Arniep 22:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'm not sure what you're arguing for here, on Talk:Elvera Sanchez, and below when you say his words are unverifiable and unreliable. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I realise this is complicated. I am arguing that we should not accept a person' statements made on their ancestry as a reliable source unless it is documented it in some way with names, dates and places and we should recognise a source that is documented with names, dates and places and that has been praised in numerous other reliable publications as a reliable source. I think this is an interesting case and could be a good guide and possible example for WP:V and WP:RS. Arniep 22:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You go wrong as soon as you say "unless it is documented in some way with names, dates and places". That's not how Wikipedia works, and we are expressedly forbidden from doing that by Wikipedia:No original research. Further, it is not even necessary to have those things to accept what someone says about their ancestry—only, we have to accurately report that they said this, not that they are what they said. Of course, if we have no source for them saying it, we can't even say that much. This is actually a really straight-forward case as far as the policy is concerned. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think you must have misunderstood me, I am not suggesting that anyone do any original research. I am merely arguing that what someone claims cannot be considered a reliable source unless that person has cited facts i.e. names places, dates, documents etc. which I don't think Davis ever did. Arniep 23:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In order to connect what someone says and the "cited facts" you are suggesting, a Wikipedia editor would have to do research to connect them. This is original research as defined by the no original research policy. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am saying those facts should be documented by that person. I am not suggesting one goes to verify those facts which would of course be original research. Arniep 23:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see. Well, my response is that those are not necessary for Wikipedia's verifiability or reliable sources criteria to be satisfied. In fact, if Wikipedia did require that, then we would have to verify them and that would be original research. So, perhaps you can understand where my confusion lay. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am a bit baffled as what you are now saying as to what you said to me on the pump "According to the readings of V and RS that I've heard a number of editors give, Davis' statements are not considered any more reliable than some random blog and should not be given precedence over actually-verifiable sources. In this case, I would add something to the article like, "Though Davis' claimed his mother was Puerto Rican, her own statements and research by X showed that she was a New Yorker of Cuban descent," and remove the Puerto Rican categories.". Arniep 23:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is subtle. There are two things that the article could say relative to this point:

• Davis is Puerto Rican
• Davis claims he is Puerto Rican

Neither can be supported by his own words. The first requires a reliable source that says "Davis is Puerto Rican". We don't have that. The second requires a reliable source that says "Davis claims he is Puerto Rican". Since we do have that, we can include it in the article. My comments on the Village Pump were regarding the former statement. For that, nobody's words by themselves are acceptable as a source, even Davis' own.

The trouble I am having with what you've said so far is that you keep bringing up his words as being unreliable sources. That fact is irrelevant, because we're not trying to find a source for the article that would support "Davis is Puerto Rican", we only need a source that says he claimed that. His autobiography, Yes I Can!, is a reliable source for the statment "Davis claims he is Puerto Rican", and that's all we need. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am not sure what the difference is. What has changed since I lasted asked you? Davis never claimed he was Puerto Rican himself. Arniep 23:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did he not? What about the quote "I'm colored, Jewish and Puerto Rican. When I move into a neighborhood, I wipe it out!"? Is that incorrectly attributed to him? — Saxifrage ✎ 23:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he was actually saying he was Puerto Rican, just that it was part of his ethnic/religious makeup, besides that was a joke. He never claimed to be born in Puerto Rico or that his father was Puerto Rican, just that his mother was. Arniep 00:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity isn't patrilineal, so his father doesn't change anything. From what I understand of the Talk pages involved, though, it sounds like his authorised autobiography also says that he claimed to be of Puerto Rican descent and/or that his mother was Puerto Rican. Besides, that it was part of a joke doesn't mean he was kidding about that part of it.

I wasn't claiming ethncity is patrilinial I was just saying that he was not saying he was an actual Puerto Rican, and if that is the case why is your answer now different from your answer on the pump CONFUSED :S Arniep 00:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But here, let me ask you clearly: Are you suggesting that the article should not say "Davis' claimed to be of Puerto Rican descent" or something semantically equivalent? — Saxifrage ✎ 00:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that it what I put in my versions of the article which were reverted. I still do not think this issue is at all resolved as I do not believe Sammy Davis can be considered a reliable source on his mother's ancestry. Both WP:RS and WP:V discuss what is a reliable source and I think Davis's comments on his mother are contradicted by a reliable, third-party published source. Arniep 00:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basically Davis claimed his mother was born in Puerto Rico. He wasn't there so he is a secondary source, so is the book. I think the book meets most if not all requirements for secondary sources in

WP:RS whereas it is doubtful whether Davis would meet any of them. Arniep 00:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Okay, yes, but I'm not talking about what her ancestry is, just what various sources have said it is. Those are two very different things from the perspective of

WP:V. We have plenty of good sources (from what I understand) on what has been said her ancestry is. We have no sources on what it actually is so we can't comment on that in the article at all. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi we do have sources on what it actually is. They are documented in the book with exact names, dates, places etc. here. Arniep 00:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a source for what it actually is, that's a source for what people have said it is. A source for what it actually is would be a birth certificate (which would be a primary source and is discourage at Wikipedia), or a document that says what her birth certificate says (which would be a fine example of a secondary source). — Saxifrage ✎ 00:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Birth certificates aren't always a definitive proof of ancestry if they do in fact survive. In fact no ancestry can be guaranteed 100% accurate. However, I believe the book is a reliable third party source that is backed up by documentation and interviews with blood relatives of Sanchez and is the best record of what her ancestry actually is, not claimed to be. Arniep 01:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's as may be about birth certificates. But you're still missing the point—it does not matter who or what backs up the book: as soon as you go anywhere near that kind of thought you are proposing original research into the validity of the book. It is enough that the book exists and it says something. As soon as you try to decide whether it is a "better" source than the authorised autobiography, that is engaging in original research by definition. — Saxifrage ✎ 01:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand original research. Original research doesn't bar you from evaulating sources. If a person claims in their life that they are half French without giving any details or showing any proof and they have been sitting in the French American category, but then a reliable respected source backed up by verifiable documentation states they were in fact half Syrian should we keep them in the French American category, or move them to the Syrian American category? Arniep 01:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categories do present a difficult problem. However, ignoring categories for a moment, the answer to that example would be to say "X claims they are French, while Y claims they are Syrian." It is then up to the reader to evaluate the claims based on their own reading of the sources cited. We would be doing a disservice if we pre-evaluated them for the reader. Certainly, evaluation is necessary to determine whether a source is valid to include at all. However, such evaluation is limited in extent, and the evaluation you have been giving in your arguments to include the book and disclude the Davis authorised autobiography go beyond simple evaluation under

WP:NOR. — Saxifrage ✎ 07:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi, I think this is something that needs to be considered further as we must have the ability to judge one source more reliable than the other (please see my comment on Talk:Elvera Sanchez. Thanks Arniep 13:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sax I still disagree with you for the points I layed out. If your interpretation of policy (and others) is that books (and the claims within them) are automatically as equally reliable sources as each other then there is definitely something wrong with policy. Arniep 19:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

86.10.231.219 and right next door, anotehr misleading name Ombudsman who is not the Ombudsman, if WP had one, which it does not. I wonder if you might care to express an opinion. Midgley 20:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that I must address you since you addressed me on User:Arniep's talk page. Yes, I have the authority to block a person for continous reverts (3 revert rule) and what is deemed as vandalism. Let me make this clear to you, I am hesitant in blocking, it's a rare thing for me to do. I have no personal interest in either of the Elvera Sanchez or Sammy Davis Jr. articles. The problem here is that you cannot "delete" commonly accepted facts from an article based on the information of an unauthorized book. That's the debate between User:XLR8TION and User:Arniep. As a solution to both parties I offered the following versions which should have satisfied both parties involved [1] and [2] which includes what is unversally believed and what author Haygood states. These are the most logical versions and continuos reverts of these versions and deletion of what is commonly believed may be deemed as vandalism. If you wish to address me in the future, you may do so in my talk page. Tony the Marine 03:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: I have nothing against you and I agree with your commonts on the Elvera Sanchez talk page which seem to be in accordance with what I'm stating, that the author's allegation should also be included without deleting what is commonly believed.)

• Thank you for writing to me, I can honestly say that you are very sensible and the type of person I can work with. I agree with you, let's work on this together. There are more then enough verifiable sources which state that the subject is of Puerto Rican ancestry. If you would like to reword any of my versions feel free to do so. Before you do, let know and I will warn (ask) User:XLR8TION to not interfere and you can do the same with User:Arniep. We can let them know in the dicussion page and in their talk pages. Do you agree? Maybe we settle this for both parties. It is a pleasure to work with you and I'm sure that in the future we can work together fixing other peoples problems here in Wiki. So, tell me what you think of my proposition. Tony the Marine 14:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I thoroughly disagree with the above. The only credible source that states Davis was Puerto Rican was Davis who hardly knew his own mother which is contradicted by her and her own living relatives. Also let me be clear that I am not Cuban and have no national interest in this I am just interested in us not placing more precedence on an unreliable source over well researched verifiable sources. There have been similar cases where celebrities have made claims on their ancestry which turn out to be wrong, John Kerry, Marlon Brando, Frida Kahlo are all examples so it is not an unusual thing at all. Arniep 16:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply in the secton on this above. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My friend what a mess the Sammy Davis Jr. thing is. I have a very good intellectual relationship with Olimpia Colon, the niece of Jesus Colon (Who's bio I wrote). I e-mailed her in regard to the issue and she sent me the following: "Hola Tony:

On Oct. of 1999 I attended the Schomberg Center, for a commemoration of the 100 New York Black. The Schomberg Center paid all the expenses for me and my son Nelson López Colón, transportation and hotel. I have picture of the event, also the pamphlet handed out with all on the honorees, with photos and a brief biography. On the last page they state the Honorable Mention, when you see those names and know that Jesús Colón was chosen, I felt so proud.

Sammy Davis Jr. was one of the chosen and his mother was there. Since I am handicap and use an electric wheelchair, a van was provided for use and the elderly. Once in the van she was sited in front of me, very proudly I asked from what part of Puerto Rico she from was. Very indignant she replied that she was not puertorrican, that a neighbor had spread that rumor and she did not want me to repeat it.

I have a friend that is a croupier, and he had told me that when Sammy came to PR and stayed at the hotel, when this was mentioned to him he was rude in his reply and had treated them as inferiors. Like mother, like son.

You can write to the Schumberg Center in NY, write to Dr. Dodson he was the coordinator of that activity and has been with the center for many years, I think her name was Josephine, some say her last name is Sánchez. What ever you find out let me know please. My son is my witness I felt very bad for inquiring but I am glad she is not puertorrican.

Maybe at CUNY they might have some more information, it is necessary to clear this up because we are proud of what we are, he who is not should not be acknowledge as so.

Hasta pronto,

Olimpia Colón Aponte"

Knowing Olimpia, I accept what she states as fact. Tony the Marine 01:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I think the -logy one is ok too, although I read it kinda fast. Will check that too later... -- NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 19:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry for rushing it. Your corrections were necessary. You may want to remove the word "English" before "ending", since it is obvious, and since the same ending is in Greek and virually all languages. I checked the -logy article as well, and I found one big mistake: this, how could it have been left out? ;-)  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 22:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Saxifrage. I noticed that you've posted several comments in the AfD2 for Asian fetish. Thanks for your help! I was wondering if I could entice you into helping to settle a lengthy and heated dispute in the article's talk page. We could really use some fresh opinions. If you could offer further help, I would really appreciate it. Thanks in advance! --Wzhao553 02:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have it on my watchlist right now and I'm pondering jumping in in a little while... — Saxifrage ✎ 02:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, great to hear! --Wzhao553 03:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Could you kindly change this article's copyvio link to point to http://www.geocities.com/Zahira_College_Colombo/ thats the article I created and copied to wikipedia. I dont think I can do this as it could amount to vandalism. Please could you do this for me it is only correct to point to the above mentioned website. thanks in advance. «₪Mÿš†íc₪» 12:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your further wikification of the articles in List of botanical gardens in Canada I had forgotten to get back and do it myself, I think I finished the remaining three articles and will keep an eye on them all. Again the praise, you must need another rest from all the gushing LOL WayneRay 14:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)WayneRay[reply]

The reasons I took those edits out are the following. a. Potomac is not a secondary school. b. Unicorporated in price william county does not sound right. c. In Virginia there are no school districts everything is run by the city or county. I hope that helps out and answers your questions. Im trying to keep it profesional and still trying to do things the way you want them done. —The preceding

Hello I created a new user group take a look and if you want to join feel free to do so. Wikipedia:WikiProject Stock Exchange World Wide John R G 22:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]