User talk:Jefferson Anderson: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:02, 13 January 2007

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here! --Simonkoldyk 18:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civil Defence Forces

Hello there,

Just to let you know, (as the primary author of the article in question) the article does indeed cite it's source of information, which it links to under "External links". Because of this, I am going to revert the tag. Thanks--Thomas.macmillan 22:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for deletion on Black concert T-shirt

Just wondering why you added the delete tag to this article. You did not provide any reasons and you did not add to the discussion. People nominating articles for deletion normally provide some argument as to why they have done so. --Mattarata 14:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article had 1 source when you tagged it, and it has 3 sources now. I could probably cull 100 references to the Black concert T-shirt in popular literature and news articles if I spent hours searching. Most people, when tagging an article, provide a little bit of detail in their reason for tagging other than just WP:OR or some general statement. --Mattarata 15:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paganism and Polytheism Recategorizations

You seem to be doing extensive cleaning up and reorganizing of the Paganism and Polytheistic categories. I think I understand what you're doing but would you mind explaining the removal of the Irish and Scottish Culture categories from the Samhain article? I suppose you think these are covered under the Religion in Ireland and Scotland Categories but I think they are more cultural celebrations than religion per se. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 16:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to thank you for cleaning up my grammar and spelling mistakes on Lopezian Paganism before you decided it did not belong in Wikipedia. Although it is certainly not something I made up and has been around for about 30 years now, I had not realized that original research was not acceptable when I put up the article. I have moved it over to the religion wikia now, which seems a better home for it. Babylon Horuv 17:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization Questions

Re: Perhaps you could help with a couple categorization questions that I'm not sure what to do with. Take a look at Category:Paganism. I have a question about two subcategories. First, I don't think that Category:Idolatry belongs here at all, being a concept of Abrahamic religions. Second, it seems to be that Category:Pagan festivals should really be called Category:Neopagan festivals and moved down under Category:Neopaganism. What do you think? Jefferson Anderson 17:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think both of those suggestions are good about Idolatry and recat of Pagan festivals to Neopagan Festivals. The standardization you are doing is good and needed overview work. I might quibble with a few of your deletions but I'd prefer to see some overall order imposed and then tweak it than just leave it in the haphazard manner now applied. I'm still curious about your removal of the Irish and Scottish Cultural Cats I mentioned above. Would you mind explaining your rationale? Thanks. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 21:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I missed your response. Sorry. I'm switching the cats on those articles to Culture because I think it's more appropriate than Religion. In those countries, I think the way those days are celebrated is more cultural than specifically religious. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 22:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

Please understand that templates such as {{spa}} are there for convenience only. A user who puts the same message into his own words is not doing anything wrong. Templates are made for common occurrences, however, in more specialized occurrences a specially written message that represents the spirit of the guideline is certainly appropriate. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Faith?

Hi Jefferson Anderson, I see that you posted a comment that accuses me of bad faith. You also removed my comment. In general at Wikipedia you should not accuse someone of acting in bad faith unless it is an obvious case of vandalism. It also is usually not a good idea to remove someone's comments. I am pretty thick skinned, so I haven't taken offense. However, I'm curious to know why you believe my comment was in bad faith? Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 22:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have resonded on my talk page. [1]. --BostonMA ^talk 22:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, about this question[2], you are welcome to cross out your vote with <del>(what you want to cross out)</del>. But please do not alter other people's responses to you. Thanks for your polite response to this issue. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi regarding your question, I too am not sure about the meaning of parts of this comment. In particular, I don't understand how the comment that was sited is a demonstration of an assumption of bad faith on your part, and have asked the editor to explain further. However, if you feel offended by it, you may wish to consider the comment you left about me on the AfD page. You may strike that comment out as well (if you choose :-D). Regarding the mention of departed editors, you are aware that there is an arbcom case. There has been contention in the recent past, and at least one editor has retired. The mention of the departed editors was an expression of concern that the retired editor might return under a different name. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 00:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I see that you have already deleted your comments about me. Thanks. Sorry I brought it up again. Thanks again. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 00:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi once more. I thought I would give you a heads up that you have been mentioned in an arbcom case [3]. If you have any questions about this, I would be happy to help, although my knowledge of arbcom is limited. By the way, although the diff above is to the Requests for Arbitration page, you won't find the case there any more, because it has been moved. Follow the links in this comment to get to the current location. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 01:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be discouraged

I know Wikipedia is full of controversy. This is to be expected. In my time hear I have been insulted, threatened, abused, but I have also been encourages, educated, and apologized too. I have received much good faith advice which I have taken to heart.

Wikipedia is a confusing and passionate place at times, if you ever need advice or help in any way simple click the Ask me button on my signature. And keep up the good work, people's opinions are this site's greatest asset. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some action taken

I have just done a round of deletions of names from the Starwood festival page and a few deletions of Starwood mentions on other pages. I also assembled some 3rd-party sources referencing Starwood appearances on the part of many of the subjects who had mentions in their articles and added them. Some include interviews by the subjects discussing these appearances. I also provided links to a couple articles that had only been referred to in the past. (I would not be suprised if I did some of these wrong, in that I may have put links in the body of the text that belonged in the "Reference" section and such, and I welcome anyone changing such errors.) I hope this demonstrates my desire to improve articles and satisfy requests for 3rd-party sources. I have not added to the Starwood Festival page, only subtracted (though I did ask someone to fix a link to a band's page), and though I have added to the Jeff Rosenbaum article it was only to beef it up to avoid its deletion. If it can pass muster, I plan not to edit it any more, and I hope to ask others to handle any direct additions to the Starwood, WinterStar and ACE articles. I may still make more deletions to them for a while.

I appreciate the fact that you weighed in on this issue. I find myself in a position where those who have been here longer that I have wield a big advantage in their ability to draw on friendships and alliances in any issue. I have certainly made some mistakes, but most have been the result of an honest attempt to create valuable articles. I have been subjected to both attacks and sabotage (which is the only way I can describe some of Matisse's actions), and though I've tried to find compromise positions and satisfy some of the demands put upon me, the pressure keeps up on several fronts. Again, I appreciate ANY support.

And as to the accusations and treatment you have been subjected to, I must say that I'm unimpressed with those who tell you "well, I might be wrong" when they marginalize you but won't take down the statements. Rosencomet 21:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uniterran Church edits

Just wondering what is your justification for removing yahoo links and email links from the Uniterran Church page. Please let me know what the wikipedia rules are concerning this if you were acting in accordance with these rules.

Mirlin 01:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

prod vs afd i see your point but if you don't at least try to put the prod on it you never know if it would be removed for sure. i guess it because i look for smaller articals which haves less information on it or just something that should not be on wikipedia oh well at least you heard my side of things. i more thing also i guess my point of view comes from last week i proded 2 articals for delation and the tag was left for 5 days but because nothing happend i put them on afd which i know i should not have because i should have let the prods expire thats all i am sayingOo7565 18:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am of the "opinion" that user Jefferson Anderson declares warfare on articles he personally does not like. If I had been aware that the UTC article has been marked for deletion before today, I guarantee that it would have gathered more "Keep" votes than "delete" votes. Our church will do everything in our ability to have this article restored. Mirlin 21:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. - WeniWidiWiki 19:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bridgeland

Okay - I know where Bridgeland is... it is in Northwest Harris County. It is a large suburban development that will open soon. I reverted the article to an earlier form and voted to keep. WhisperToMe 22:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Texas there are MANY unincorporated communities that contain a lot of residents.

The Woodlands, Texas is not a town or city - It is a development mostly in unincorporated Montgomery County but partly in Harris County, for instance.

Also, Kingwood, Houston, Texas originally was unincorporated but was later annexed by the city of Houston.

By the way, I would make sure that authors of development articles phrase the developments in NPOV manners :) WhisperToMe 22:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait - I do not understand the idea behind the "Bridgeland Community" trademark name... I don't understand the problem. WhisperToMe 22:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vintage sockpuppet

No problem:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Vintagekits

It's been overlooked for a month. Logoistic 21:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it doesn't say anywhere that it has to be an admin that adds the labels, or blocks the account. See: Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Logoistic 21:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the account DownDaRoad getting banned as it never cross edited with me, Logoistic has about 6 sockpuppets that were considered legit - so why wasnt mine?--Vintagekits 22:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I vandalise Vintage's user page? Logoistic 22:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yogani AfD

Hi Jefferson Anderson,

I was wondering if you could pass by the Yogani AfD discussion page, after first viewing the article's discussion page ([4]), which may help in the AfD discussion. Thanks and have a great day. Mdyogi 23:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jefferson Anderson. No offense taken. I'm definitely still a greenhorn when it comes to writing on Wikipedia so any guidance is appreciated when given. Regarding the article, I understand completely what you are saying about Yogani's anonymity, and I know that I have my work cut out for me. I'm gonna give it my best shot over the weekend and if it still doesn't make the grade according to Wiki standards, I will have nothing against the actions that must be taken. Rules are rules, and I acknowledge that. The funny part about the whole thing is that his anonymity (and no desire for fame or guru status) is really what sets him apart is his field. Here we have a guy who has written hundreds of free lessons on many advanced spiritual practices, most which have been inaccessible to the general public for thousands of years, and asks for absolutely nothing in return. Through this open-source style of teachings, he is leading the way on redefining the way spiritual practices are taught. Now I've just got to figure out a way to prove it. :)

Thank you for taking the time to explain your side of things. Have a great day. Mdyogi 21:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Open Source (Response)

Hi Jefferson Anderson. Thank you for taking the time to share those excellent recommendations, they are appreciated. I will definitely look into them if the article doesn't make the cut. One quick question: Regarding your last statement about interviews. Yogani has recently done three radio interviews and is scheduled for three more this month, the soonest one being Sunday. There is plenty of information in the interviews, which have been archived and are available for streaming or download at http://www.aypsite.com/audio.html, so they can be verified. The interviews have been conducted on a talk radio show in Cincinnati (1360 WSAI [5]) called "Yoga - The Other 98 Percent", and simultaneously broadcast live on the internet. I was originally going to use these as sources in the article as there is plenty of information there, but the closest I could find to a radio interview in the Wikipedia guidelines for sources was for video. Would these interviews qualify as sources, so long as the information referenced is contained within the interviews, or would I run into a problem again due to them being hosted on the AYP site? Thanks again for your help and have a great day. Mdyogi 00:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Sockpuppetry harassment

Hi Jefferson, thanks for doing what you are. It's hopeless for my case but maybe it will help others in the future. I would help you out on your discussion thread but I'm not good at that sort of thing and can't even follow my own Arbitration case. But I'm glad that you are addressing the need to clarify sockpuppet guidlines/policies.

I don't know if this is your area, but I have been trying to find documentation of my sockpuppets and cannot find most of it. Also, I've noticed that many other user accounts are labelled as sockpuppets, or suspected sockpuppets, without any explanation of why or what the evidence is. Do you think that the tag itself should have a link to the evidence? It would be so helpful if it did. Anyway, thanks so much for your efforts. Sincerely, --Mattisse 18:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. Unfortuately, that much I knew as I did spend quite a bit of time trying to get answers and trying to figure things out. But without a formal report, I can never be sure. Plus the sockpuppet labelling is inconsistent on the accounts, and one, Dattat, was labelled because of one edit connected to Shrank and at least one other, Liftwaffen, did not make any edits that violated policy. But, to tell you the truth I don't care anymore. I see the whole sockpuppet business as highly corrupt and misused, a game some people like to play, and I don't see that changing. I've lost interest in my own sockpuppet issues as it is all tied up in mystery. But the more power to users like you who have faith in a better Wikipedia and are willing to work toward it. Thanks for your good efforts. Sincerely, --Mattisse 19:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise if I said something to offend you. I don't think I said I was an amateur. I have spent many months trying to figure this out. But in any event, I don't want to argue about this with you. As I said, I don't care anymore and I applaud you for for you efforts to improve. Again, I apologise for offending you. Sincerely, --Mattisse 19:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise to you once again for having offended you

Then I apologise once again for having offended you. I admit I am paranoid. In my experience at Wikipedia there are only three people who amass material about the subject as you did in one of your last messages. I admit that because the wording was so familiar, it triggered fear reaction in me. I am sorry and apologise for any faulty response that hurt you. Sincerely, --Mattisse 20:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deeply apologise to you for offending you once again - please do not post on my talk page again - thank you

I made assumptions than I should not have. I apologise once again. Sincerely, --Mattisse 22:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The box on your page

Could you please remove the box which states that you are not a sock of Mattisse. This could be seen as a personal attack against Mattisse. Thanks. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 01:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 140: / Line 140: @@
 I made assumptions than I should not have. I apologise once again.  Sincerely, --[[User:Mattisse|Mattisse]] 22:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
+== The box on your page ==
+Could you please remove the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AJefferson_Anderson&diff=100328066&oldid=100320733 box which states that you are not a sock of Mattisse].  This could be seen as a personal attack against Mattisse.  Thanks.  Sincerely, --[[User:BostonMA|BostonMA]] <font color = "blue"><sup>[[User talk:BostonMA|talk]]</sup></font> 01:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)