User talk:RichardWeiss/new archve

< User talk:RichardWeiss

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RichardWeiss (talk | contribs) at 21:06, 25 March 2010 (→Paid editing?: more). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:06, 25 March 2010 by RichardWeiss (talk | contribs) (→Paid editing?: more)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This user is not an administrator on the English Misplaced Pages. (verify)

File:Boxito.jpg

Box

File:Esqueak.jpg

Squeak

Image:Squeak.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Squeak.JPG, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 22:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dante Gabriel Ramírez Erazo

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Dante Gabriel Ramírez Erazo, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

No notability

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Scott Mac (Doc) 20:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Good call re: Honduras

Thanks for changing the title of 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis back to something more NPOV. Whether or not what transpired is a coup is a legal question, and the legal scholarship necessary to resolve it hasn't been done. The last time I checked, neither the NYT nor the Washington Post were reliable sources of legal scholarship. Bkalafut (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the genuine welcome, and the helpful hints.

I am presuming, perhaps incorrectly, the existence of two pet companions named Squeak and Box. I have two Shi-Tzus named Zoe and Cade but prefer a long-standing moniker in VaChiliman for which I am frequently known on-line, though mostly I engage in Sports conversation (equally volatile as politics, but less important (with a few notable exceptions, few wars are tied to sports). But, I digress.

As I have asserted elsewhere (in discussion/talk), I am not a new user of Misplaced Pages, but I am new in the sense of registering an ID (rather than logging random IP addresses), and comparatively new at even joining in discussion about pages. I would not presume "editorship", but as a frequent user, I am deeply concerned about the usefulness of Misplaced Pages when it becomes a propoganda tool. The lastest crisis in Honduras, and my recent engagement on one topic's discussion, have been an interesting learning process. It remains to be seen whether I can sustain interest long enough to grow as a contributor, or just go back to being a picky end-user.

Anyway, I appreciate your reaching out to be of help.

Yes, I do make Chili, and I reside in Virginia full-time, travel to Honduras once or twice each year. My Chili recipe isn't hot, has been attacked on-line by some Teaxan who claims Chili with beans is not chili at all, but I think it is somewhat cool that it has spread among family and friends in five states, and is served on ocassion at a resort in Saint Marten.VaChiliman (talk) 14:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

2009 Honduran constitutional crisi

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Manuel Zelaya. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Mfield (Oi!) 19:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I dont know why you asre sending me a template as if I did not know the rule, if you had bothered to look you would see the 3rd time I was changing the text. Removing large amounts of ref'd material without initially even bothering to explain why is not acceptable and should be treated as vandalism. Please don't template experienced in future and do bother to look at these case by case. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 19:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

This article has been the subject of a lot of edit warring over the past few days amid very little dialog and it really doesn't need experienced editors continuing it. Edit summary comments like "your silly deletion" don't point towards constructive dialog. The fact that you changed the text slightly on the third revision doesn't magically make the rest of the reverts go away. The point of 3RR is to stop continued editing and disruption by a string of reverts and ensure discussion takes place FIRST. The fact that the information was cited doesn't make it any less of a content dispute given that reasons were given for both removing and re-adding it. Sorry if the template was faster than composing an individual message but it didn't appear that either of you would have stopped without your attention being grabbed and at the time the small talkpage discussion was heading in the direction of sarcasm faster than it was heading towards productive discussion. It was nothing more than a heads up, I templated the other user too and as an admin they should certainly know better than to end up at the brink of 3RR with another experienced editor. Mfield (Oi!) 20:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Be assured i would not have reverted again; having been blocked in the past but not for 18 months is something I dont intend to change; if I hadn't been rushed I would have attempted to change the text further and was planning on doing so in a tranquil way when the other editor reverted me again. He has some meritorious points and hence the genuine attempt to change the text and answer his points; it was not an attempt to avoid 3rr. I am both neutral and very stressed about the real life events occurring right now in Honduras. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 20:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Your bot

It was a script that runs regularly to make sure {{moveheader}} is removed after a move discussion ends. It was only supposed to remove a single template and nothing else. Nothing about my regex or what was on the talk page could account for that. Regardless, I added some things to the code which may or may not fix things. I also manually removed the template so that that particular script has no reason to visit the page again (unless you add the moveheader template back on). —harej (talk) (cool!) 05:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Child Pornography

Forgive me, but, like, why did you remove the freaking deletion tag, and before at least notifying me? It is hard for one to sympthathize with those who support the existence of such articles so fiercely, for their reasons are their own. Sparaca12 (talk) 19:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Err, you haven't read the tag. I disagree with your deletion as it is valid as a subject; to claim that those who support having an informative article are supporting child pornography is a dangerous path to go down; I strongly suggest you don't. And of course people need to read the article and not your rant. You can always afd the article, see where that gets you. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 20:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked this obvious single purpose account for the extremely out of line accusations made. Chillum 20:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)

The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/2009 Honduran coup.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 18:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Its been resolved, to my satisfaction at least. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 19:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Infinitely mirroring computer.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Infinitely mirroring computer.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Misplaced Pages takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Polly (Parrot) 20:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Whoops that was my computer giving me troubles, I have now fixed the licence and removed your tag but thanks a lot for telling me as I had not noticed. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 21:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Mediation Request

Hi there. Someone has mentioned your name as in a dispute at this page and I have volunteered to mediate the case as part of the Mediation Cabal. Please read the "mediator notes" section of the case page for further instructions. Thank you, GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 02:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Marc Emery

Hello, I am a random guy with no account who lives in BC and I was interested in one of your arguments. On the Marc Emery article you spoke about how if prohibition ended the argument everyone would grow their own doesn't hold weight with you. I do not grow coffee or brew my own beer but the reasons for this are different from the reasons why I would or would not cultivate marijhuana if it was legal. I personaly would grow marijhuana for several reasons which are different for why I do not grow coffee or brew beer. First marijhuana is extremely expensive and the quality is not always steller (unlike commerical coffee which is way better than anything I could hope to grow myself). So we have quality and price issues, quality of mine would be comparible to the market and the price would be much less unlike coffee and beer. Coffee and beer are regulated industries unlike marijhuana. Therefore, I would question "well does me brewing this beer save that much cash? and how does my beer compare to commercial beer?". The other issue is moral. I do not like giving money to organized crime whereas I do not mind giving money to coffee corporations (although I'm sure I should). Anyways these were just my rantings but I hope you try to chew this idea over and I strongly suggest checking out the documentary called The Union (there is an article on wiki about it) if your interested in the 7 Billions dollar a year marijhuana industry in BC Canada.

Paying $100 for an ounce of a herb that should only cost $1 is crazy. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 02:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

True, but what about paying $100 for a couple eighths? That's how bad it is now. —Whig (talk) 05:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldnt know about that, or indeed where you are, or what kind of quality you get for that price, what I do know is that its much cheaper in many third world countries, even in the cities, more like a couple of dollars for an eighth of average green where I am, but this is still overpriced compared to say the price of parsley. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 15:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, RichardWeiss. You have new messages at Griffinofwales's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Griffinofwales (talk) 22:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Honduras

Manuel Zelaya is obviously not the president of Honduras, he is not in charge of the country and does not have any power. it's been 1 month now since the presidential succession in Honduras and obviously this situation is not going to change, so Roberto Micheletti is the Interim President of Honduras. 190.53.244.15 (talk) 02:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

He is the de facto President; we need to not take sides but remain neutral when dealing with this dispute on wikipedia; you are better focussing on addding content to support your argument in the relevant articles rather than edit warring over the Honduras info box. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 02:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

i live in tegucigalpa, honduras and i saw everything that happened before june 28 directly, the honduran people know way better than everyone else how a liar and criminal manuel zelaya is. 190.53.244.15 (talk) 05:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I dont live in Teguc but I have lived half a dozen years in Honduras and I know that many Hondurans are outraged by what has happened to Mel; whatever wrongs he did do not justify his removal from power in his pyjamas. IMO the Honduran people need to understand the country is not in a bubble and what the international community thinks matters; Mel and Micheletti need to sit down and talk. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 15:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

User 190.53.244.15

Just FYI, I have reported this user on the 3RR notice board after warning them. Rsheptak (talk) 07:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

That ip's temp blocked now. --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)

The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Question

My first statement would be to not immediately react to my words without reading them carefully. Thank you.

Hello, Squeakbox. I am just somewhat curious, as to why you, um, deleted the tag for child pornography. You do know that even Misplaced Pages has a template for controversial topics, do you, indicating it acknowledges that some topics, though perhaps doubtless of use to certain people, are indeed debated heavily. I am a bit curious, at to why you and the sysop acted so quickly to block the user in question and remove the tag. Please, do not take any offense, but I am indeed shaken by Misplaced Pages's willingness to accept such articles, censored or not. It might as well straight out invite pedophiles here. It's...I really don't know; I'm sorry, and I know you're pissed at me, but why? Do you seriously think I'm doing something "wrong" by saying this to you? Please, Squeakbox, I don't mean anything at all and I mean you no offense, but such pages are indeed questionable. I'm sorry, but...Please reply on my talk, if you wish. ArnoldHash (talk) 16:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI, this has been brought up on User talk:Jimbo Wales as well. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The user was specifically blocked for implying those who disagreed with his prod might have an unhealthy interest in the subject. A prod should be used when there are genuine reasons for deleting an article (such as the subject matter being unnotable) and the prod should concisely state the reasons for doing so. Remembering that[REDACTED] is not censored I hope you are not seriously suggesting we should delete the article; on that basis we should also delete the article on the holocaust. And this user was using the prod in order to rant about the subject. Our readers when they go to that article, want to read encyclopedic information, they do not want to read someone ranting about the subject, such material is rightly treated as vandalism and using the prod does not make it any less so. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 19:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Fair enough LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see this discussion which is related to a proposed change to {{Recent death}}. An example of how this change would appear is on this userpage. --Brian McNeil / 00:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)

The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators, Roger Davies 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Pico Bonito.JPG

File:Pico Bonito.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Pico Bonito, La Ceiba.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Misplaced Pages, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Misplaced Pages, in this case: ]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

2009 Honduran constitutional crisis

Thanks for the warning, but I was just being consistent with the reference "UViolencia contra LA PRENSA". La Prensa. 2009-06-30. Retrieved 2009-06-30. with is from the same source, and also tagged with {{Verify credibility}}. Would you considere a {{weasel}}, {{weasel-inline}} or {{peacock}} warning to be more consistent? My worry is specifically the charged expression "terrorizing the population"...

ZackTheJack (talk) 20:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Bob Marley GAR notification

Bob Marley has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Cheers

Hello SqueakBox, 74.98.43.217 (talk) 22:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

José Ángel Saavedra

Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: José Ángel Saavedra. Our verifiability policy requires that all content be cited to a reliable source. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 14:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Pinochet

Wondered if you would voice an an opinion on the intro and use of dictator?--Die4Dixie (talk) 00:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Felicito Ávila

Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Felicito Ávila. Our verifiability policy requires that all content be cited to a reliable source. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 14:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)

The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Hope you are

staying safe during the unfortuante unrest. --Die4Dixie (talk) 00:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed I am. Defied the day curfew once but it was early in the morning and way outside Tegucigalpa and others were doing so as well; to get my laptop to work from home that day; I had forgotten it in the panic of having to close the office and get home within half an hour the previous afternoon, and cycling home that afternoon was an eery experience. But otherwise everything is fine, still living and working as normal, internet always working etc. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 01:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Dnkrumah

Yes I have apologized to him. That was completely inadvertant the product of too much multitasking. Da'oud Nkrumah 03:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnkrumah (talk • contribs)

El Frente

Please see Talk:El_Frente_Nacional_de_la_Resistencia. It's very likely that you know a lot more about the topic than i do, but you do need to provide references. Thanks. Boud (talk) 20:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Pete Townshend

Comments? Sumbuddi (talk) 12:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Unofficial request for comment about co-founder/sole founder dispute

Co-founder/sole founder dispute rumbles Misplaced Pages

04:51, 26 May 2009 (hist | diff) List of Auburn University people ‎ (→Alumni: nothing to do with co founder dispute which it was removed last year)
04:50, 26 May 2009 (hist | diff) Huntsville, Alabama ‎ (→Notable residents and famous natives: nothing to do with the dispute)
04:48, 26 May 2009 (hist | diff) 1966 ‎ (Undid revision 292265427 by QuackGuru (talk))
04:48, 26 May 2009 (hist | diff) Dopplr ‎ (Undid revision 292265970 by QuackGuru (talk))
04:48, 26 May 2009 (hist | diff) Birla Institute of Technology and Science ‎ (Undid revision 292266526 by QuackGuru (talk))
04:48, 26 May 2009 (hist | diff) Kelley School of Business ‎ (Undid revision 292272282 by QuackGuru (talk))
04:48, 26 May 2009 (hist | diff) List of Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me! episodes (2006) ‎ (Undid revision 292320956 by QuackGuru (talk))
04:47, 26 May 2009 (hist | diff) American School in Japan ‎ (→Misc. Info: article has no relation to co-founder dispute)
04:46, 26 May 2009 (hist | diff) Society for Technical Communication ‎ (Undid revision 292369674 by QuackGuru (talk))
04:46, 26 May 2009 (hist | diff) Criticism of Microsoft ‎ (Undid revision 292369754 by QuackGuru (talk))
04:46, 26 May 2009 (hist | diff) PR-e-Sense ‎ (Undid revision 292369952 by QuackGuru (talk))
04:46, 26 May 2009 (hist | diff) Diplopedia ‎ (Undid revision 292370091 by QuackGuru (talk))
04:45, 26 May 2009 (hist | diff) June 1, 2005 ‎ (Undid revision 292370239 by QuackGuru (talk))
04:45, 26 May 2009 (hist | diff) Poduniversal ‎ (Undid revision 292370021 by QuackGuru (talk))
04:44, 26 May 2009 (hist | diff) Hot Press ‎ (nothing to do with the co-founder dispute come on QG you know better Undid revision 292369868 by QuackGuru (talk))

05:13, 4 June 2009 (hist | diff) Hot Press ‎ (making false statements isnt helpful)
05:13, 4 June 2009 (hist | diff) Poduniversal ‎ (making false statements isnt helpful)
05:13, 4 June 2009 (hist | diff) June 1, 2005 ‎ (making false statements isnt helpful) (top)
05:12, 4 June 2009 (hist | diff) Society for Technical Communication ‎ (making false statements isnt helpful)
05:12, 4 June 2009 (hist | diff) Criticism of Microsoft ‎ (making false statements isnt helpful)
05:09, 4 June 2009 (hist | diff) American School in Japan ‎ (making false statements isnt helpful)
05:08, 4 June 2009 (hist | diff) List of Auburn University people ‎ (making false statements isnt helpful)
05:08, 4 June 2009 (hist | diff) Dopplr ‎ (making false statements isnt helpful)
05:08, 4 June 2009 (hist | diff) 1966 ‎ (making false statements isnt helpful)
05:07, 4 June 2009 (hist | diff) List of Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me! episodes (2006) ‎ (making false statements isnt helpful)
05:07, 4 June 2009 (hist | diff) Birla Institute of Technology and Science ‎ (making false statements isnt helpful)
05:06, 4 June 2009 (hist | diff) Kelley School of Business ‎ (making false statements isnt helpful)

After the content dispute was over an editor went back to several articles and rewrote history (revisionism). The editor previously acknowledged Jimmy Wales is historically cosidered the co-founder of Misplaced Pages.

We propose you change back founder to co-founder per consensus and that Wales is historically cited as co-founder. We can't rewrite history. QuackGuru (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The only revisionism being done is being done so by the supporters of Sanger. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 20:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

SqueakBox, you admitted Jimmy Wales is historically considered the co-founder of Misplaced Pages. Anything else is revisionism or rewriting history. QuackGuru (talk) 21:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

There was a time when hewas considered a co-founder but that is no longer the case. Developing events change history of living people; you want to condemn Jimbo as co-founder for ever merely because he was for a time. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 23:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, sources that specifically discuss the co-founder/sole founder issue say Jimmy Wales is the co-founder.

Bergstein, Brian (March 25, 2007). "Sanger says he co-started Misplaced Pages". MSNBC. Associated Press. Retrieved 2007-03-25. The nascent Web encyclopedia Citizendium springs from Larry Sanger, a philosophy Ph.D. who counts himself as a co-founder of Misplaced Pages, the site he now hopes to usurp. The claim doesn't seem particularly controversial — Sanger has long been cited as a co-founder. Yet the other founder, Jimmy Wales, isn't happy about it. Sanger has assembled many links at his Web site that appear to put the matter to rest. Among the citations are early news stories and press releases that say Misplaced Pages was founded by Wales and Sanger. {{cite news}}: External link in |quote= (help)

QuackGuru (talk) 08:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

This is all old history; nowadays Wales is known as the founder and Sanger isnt known at all; and Sanger clearly has an investment in being remembered as co-founder as his claim to fame. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 13:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

What did Wales do in the early years at Misplaced Pages to allege he is the sole founder? QuackGuru (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I guess he financed it, making him Sanger's bossand presumably directed Sanger, though I have no idea how closely he supervised Sanger as opposed to giving him creative freedom. I have never said we should do what Wales wanted which is to call him the sole founder; my argument has always been that founder could imply either co or sole or neither sole or co; its a more generic term and therefore highly suitable for[REDACTED] where our duty as editors is neutrality (and I feel I have plenty of experience at dealing with the challeneges of writing articles in a neutral way). Thanks, SqueakBox talk 18:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, there were two other partners at Bomis who also invested time and money. Using a generic term such as "founder" which means singular founder is misleading. "Co-" is a designation that means more than one founder. QuackGuru (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is a quote from an article in The Guardian "From Misplaced Pages – the half-baked, crazy idea of Jimmy Wales (and others) launched in January 2001" I think the point is to try and move away from this focus on the F word. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 20:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You were not trying to move away from the F word. You added "founder" to numerous articles and you claim co-founder is a false statement according to your edit summary. QuackGuru (talk) 20:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I am suggesting that this is a way to move forward right now. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 20:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to remove "co-founder" from numeruos articles but I do see a reason to change founder to co-founder. Founder is original reasearch because it is rewritng old history. When no serious disagreement exists among reliable sources we assert co-founder, not remove it. QuackGuru (talk) 20:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Well its hard to see a solution when you and certain others such as Lara won't make any compromise but insist on putting Sanger's view as the truth and Wales' doesn't get a look-in. Clearly a violation of POV and simply wouldnt happen in any other bio (we know, I think, why it happens here. As for your claim that reliable sources assert Sanger's viewpoint, the simple answer is, no they don't. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 22:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, sources that specifically discuss the co-founder/sole founder issue say Larry Sanger and Jimmy Wales as co-founder.

This is supported by primary sources, secondary sources, and historical references. No specific reason has been given to compromise. Anyhow, removing "co-founder" from numerous articles is not a compromise. QuackGuru (talk) 01:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean no reason has been given for not having co-founder? How can you say this? Many reasons have been given over many years! We compromise for 2 reasons; one is that not all[REDACTED] editors are happy with co-founder; two is that co-founder is Sanger's POV and this needs to be balanced with Wales's POV; as ever what I see is you (and others such as Lara) refusing to make any compromise and making ridiculous and offensive accusations of revisionism in order to prmote a particular POV that simply would not stand in any other article and seems to have only one end; the promotion of Larry Sanger. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 13:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Wales did not dispute the fact that he is the co-founder when Sanger was part of the project. Wales would have had to seen the Misplaced Pages press releases, early versions of Misplaced Pages articles, and several media coverage articles, all describing Wales and Sanger as the co-founders. He never publicly objected to being called the co-founder until at least late 2004 or early 2005. For example, the WF page clearly states that Wales is the co-founder of Misplaced Pages. It was not disputed until an IP changed it in 2005 after Sanger left the project. The same IP made an edit to the Jimmy Wales page. Then a minute later Jimmy Wales edited the Jimmy Wales page but did not revert the change the IP made to his birthdate. Another editor reverted the change. But then Jimmy Wales reverted back to the edit made by the IP. Wales had previously used the IP. Sanger became critical of Misplaced Pages after he left the project. That's when Wales began to claim that he is the "sole founder" of Misplaced Pages. According to Jimmy Wales the owner/entrepreneur was the founder. That means according to Jimmy Wales he was not the founder because Wales had two partners who were owners/entrepreneurs. When Wales claims the owner/entrepreneur should be a founder then the other two partners are the co-founders of Misplaced Pages. Wales did not dispute the co-foundership of Misplaced Pages until Sanger left the project. What did Wales actually do at Misplaced Pages in the early years. He was busy with Bomis. He hired Sanger because he needed someone to run Nupedia. When Misplaced Pages got started, Wales (along with two other patners) mainly paid the bills while Sanger was doing a lot of the work building and promoting Misplaced Pages. Wales provided the "financial backing" while Sanger "led the project". Jimmy Wales had a minor role in the early development of Misplaced Pages in terms of building the project. Sanger named the project, thought of using wiki software, conceived of Misplaced Pages, was an early community leader, and established Misplaced Pages's most basic policies including Ignore all rules and NPOV.

You have never given a reason to compromise. When some editors are not happy about the wording it is not a reason to compromise. It is not Sanger's POV. It is the reliable sources including primary, secondary, and historical references that say co-founder. When no reason has been given to compromise there is no point to compromising. We write text according to the reliable sources, not how editors feel. After we assert both as co-founders (when no serious disagreement exists among reliable sources we assert it per ASF) then we can explain both sides of the story in the body of the article such as Wales disputes it. If a person disputes it, it does not make any different. A person is not a reliable source. We don't change the facts because Wales is not happy about it. It has to be disputed among reliable sources that specifically discuss the co-founder issue. See WP:ASF. It is not an accusation of revisionism, it is clearly revisionism. Of course Larry Sanger is a co-founder of Misplaced Pages, this fact was trumpeted during the early years of Misplaced Pages. No amount of whitewashing or revisionism is going to change that. It is startling to me to see the rewriting of history when it is a well known fact that Larry Sanger has long been cited as Misplaced Pages's co-founder. QuackGuru (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I have given a reason to compromise; Wales' POV. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 17:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Substituting Wales' POV as fact is a violation of WP:ASF especially when no serious disagreement exists among reliable sources that cover the co-founder topic. QuackGuru (talk) 17:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I never said we should make Wales' the only POV, nor do I think so; NPOV demands all main viewpoints are incorporated in a neutral manner; how is promoting Sangers' viewpoint this? We all know Sanger wants to be seen as co-founder of the "great"[REDACTED] because it'll raise his profile; if the sources that discuss the issue of co-founder can, as you claim, be generally considered to support Sanger's viewpoint we can incorporate that into the text of the relevant section of the Wales article; but to say in the opening of his article let alone in articles that have nothing to do with the co-founder dispute is not within policy, is not a good use of reliable sources and seems to have but one end in purpose; the promotion of the profile of Larry Sanger; calling Wales founder neither negates Sanger's profile but nor does it promote his profile. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 19:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Writing text according to the source is NPOV. The sources say co-founder. Wales' POV is quoting him about disputing the co- designation. Wales' POV should not change the "co-founder" in numerous articles because there is no serious disagreement among reliable sources per ASF. QuackGuru (talk) 19:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

No serious disagreement exists among reliable sources. So why are you disputing "co-founder" in violation of WP:ASF. QuackGuru (talk) 19:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not suggesting we dont use reliable sources in the correct place which is in a paragraph half way down Wales' article; this whole issue is so unnotable to not be worthy of mention in the opening of the Wales article (founder will do or some other expression that doesn't use the word founder) and most certainly not worthy of inclusion in other articles. There may be reliable sources for your assertion but what has this to do with Huntsville, Alabama or Hot Press. Unless you can find a reliable source that relates the co-founder issue to say Criticism of Microsoft it simply should have no place in the Criticism of Microsoft article. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 21:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Founder will not do. Co-founder is okay. You added founder too many articles without a reliable source. According to you there should be assertion on various articles if a reliable source is produced specific to those articles but for most of those articles there was no reliable source and you added founder when you know Wales is historically cited as co-founder and you have never given an explanation why old history should be written. It is not a reason to rewrite history because Wales disputes it. In accordance with ASF when no serious disagreement exists among reliable sources we assert it without weasel wording or unneceassry attribution. QuackGuru (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Co-founder is completely unacceptable except when dealing with the dispute; the proof of the pointiness of this has been sticking refs about the co-founder dispute into other articles; this is spamming the co-founder argument anywhere it can be spammed and is completely unacceptable and I am amazed you should defend it; I am not in favour of reffing co-founder anywhere except where we deal specifically with the issue which is relevant to articles on Sanger, Wales and wikipedia, maybe Citizendium and Bomis etc but absolutely not in articles about Alabama, Microsoft etc. If as a reader I go to find out about criticisms of Microsoft I am going to wonder why I have been given a ref that Sanger co-founded wikiipedia; as I say this is spamming a viewpoint and is worse than merely violating POV on the relevant articles. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 20:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

If a ref is not available to a specific article it is unacceptable to claim Jimmy Wales is the founder. The refs for an article must be specific to that article. We agree on that point. I don't think we should have one article saying co-founder and then another article saying something that contradicts another article. QuackGuru (talk) 21:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

We must think of our readers; and when they are reading articles not directly related to Sanger, Wales or Misplaced Pages we can assume they are not interested in the founder dispute; refs are simply inappropriate and if this means we cannot call wales founder in these articles then so be it. We cannot use co-founder in these articles either so we need a neutral alternative that does not require reffing. i view any attempts to spam-promote Sanger in Misplaced Pages very dimly. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 14:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I assume editors previously wanted to remove co-founder from the lead of the Jimmy Wales because they could not get founder in the article and the references were against asserted Wales as founder. You added "founder" to numerous articles but not a neutral alternative. I suggested a compromise but it was rejected by you and other editors. Do you have another suggestion. QuackGuru (talk) 21:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Not right now but I will work on creating one, it is an important issue. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 23:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

There is not really a need to compromise when no serious dispute exists. QuackGuru (talk) 00:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Not so; not only is there clearly a dispute, the one we are discussing, but there are also clearly BLP issues due to Wales own stated views on the subject on the Wales talk page; you cannot just sweep these views under the carpet. Hey I just tried a compromise on a new article, David Shankbone, this is a good example of where the co-founder dispute has no place; someone notable for his work on the wikimedia and where there are no refs relating Shankbone to the co-founder dispute. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 01:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes so; there is no evidence a serious disagreement exists among reliable sources. QuackGuru (talk) 02:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Stating that this is your belief does not give you the right to say I am right and nobody can disagree with me, that is not the[REDACTED] way; I don't agree. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 14:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

We don't change the facts or rewrite history because you disagree with reliable sources, including primary, secondary, and historical references. You have been given many chances to provide evidence of a serious disagreement among reliable sources. You have not. I am given every right to say it especially when the only thing you have done is state your opinion while I have provided evidence when the co-founder issue is discussed in detail by reliable sources they say Jimmy Wales as co-founder. QuackGuru (talk) 17:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes and that is absolutely fine; in the relevant sections of the Misplaced Pages, Sanger and Wales articles; but extend it any further and you are spamming[REDACTED] with Sanger's viewpoint, and that is way unacceptable; also do remember that reliable sources do not trump NPOV, nothing does, its the basis of our approach, and one you would do well to remember in this context. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 17:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

We edit according to reliable sources which is NPOV. Rewriting history is not NPOV. You have never given a reason why we should compromise or say Wales is the "founder" against Misplaced Pages's WP:ASF. QuackGuru (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

But nobody is rewriting history, indeed I advise you to stop making rash accusations that anybody is rewriting history, its plain uncivil as well as being complete rubbish. I have not only given reasons for compromise but made plain that spamming this conflict into any part5 of the encyclopedia where it isn't relevant is trying to promote Sanger at the expense of the encyclopedia. Your argument that all the refs agree with you is unproven, and that thus our duty is to only put Sanger's and ignore Wales viewpoint is pure wishful thinking from someone who has tried to spam this viewpoint into Jimbo Wales userpage. If you wish to pursue this argument on Misplaced Pages just stop telling people they are guilty of revisionism and rewriting history; it just makes you seem like a crank. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 18:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

According to this reference you are indeed rewriting history (revisionism.) It is very civil and polite to cite references and explain the facts. Bergstein, Brian (March 25, 2007). "Sanger says he co-started Misplaced Pages". MSNBC. Associated Press. Retrieved 2007-03-25. The nascent Web encyclopedia Citizendium springs from Larry Sanger, a philosophy Ph.D. who counts himself as a co-founder of Misplaced Pages, the site he now hopes to usurp. The claim doesn't seem particularly controversial — Sanger has long been cited as a co-founder. Yet the other founder, Jimmy Wales, isn't happy about it. Sanger has assembled many links at his Web site that appear to put the matter to rest. Among the citations are early news stories and press releases that say Misplaced Pages was founded by Wales and Sanger. {{cite news}}: External link in |quote= (help)

A content dispute does not equal a serious dispute among reliable sources. Wales' position does not equal a serious dispute among reliable sources. Wales' view does not override Misplaced Pages's core policies including WP:ASF and WP:NPOV. I provided references that confirm co-founder while you continue to ignore the references presented.

You have no argument when you are unable to given even a single reason why we should change co-founder to founder or remove co-founder based on Misplaced Pages policy. Revisionism is original research and against Misplaced Pages's core policies. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not an argument. QuackGuru (talk) 19:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

This is what happens when we dont get an orthodox line. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 03:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

That is a different issue because it is not in mainspace. For articles in mainspace have you reverted the changes or would you like me to fix the entries. QuackGuru (talk) 18:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

But I have put across the very clear arguments as to why this must hold in the mainspace too; I guess I'll have to clean up the articles where the Sanger issue has been spammed one more time and if you revert me perhaps we should go to arbcom; though unfortunately for you they wont look favourably on your attempt to bring the dispute to Wales user page. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 20:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Given the very clear consensus and that the historical record is unequivocal as to "co-founder" being correct, I would be hesistant in conjecturing about Arbcom favorability. - Seth Finkelstein (talk) 01:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

To the contrary the alleged consensus let alone the accusations of historical revisionism would all go into an arbcom case along with admins threatening to throw their weight around "oh I'll block you if you don't shut up", some consensus that, would likely be given full consideration by an arbcom committee that is unlikely to support the Quack-Seth line; Quack having made deliberately false edit summaries while spamming the conflict into various irrelevant articles again does not help the case that this is a genuine attempt to stop the rewriting of history or whatever arguments you guys have; indeed the only thing stopping me right now is lack of time to prepare a case. I reckon its an 8 hour job and hard to see when I'll have the time to do that as I would rather spend my[REDACTED] time on internet tv and Honduras related issues. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 14:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

If you don't think there is consensus for co-founder then what do you think there is consensus for. See Talk:Jimmy Wales/Archive 12#JW co-founder. QuackGuru (talk) 19:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I think there is no consensus and hasn't been since ages ago, this is why its such a knotty issue...and clearly one people feel passionate about19:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course there is no consensus for the founder. Co-founder without any attribution is in the lead of Jimmy Wales. What do you think is the current consensus? QuackGuru (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesnt say co-founder because of any consensus, it says co-founder due to intransigent edit warring20:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

So what is the consensus without edit warring. From the link it looks like co-founder is the consensus. See Talk:Jimmy Wales/Archive 12#JW co-founder. QuackGuru (talk) 20:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus full stop and the current version has only been achieved by edit warring. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 20:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus for what and what do you think there is consensus for. QuackGuru (talk) 20:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

There is consensus that nits okay to discuss the issue in the main bulk of the Sanger/Wales and wikiepdia articles. I think as he is little known I am less concerned about co-founder in the opening of Sanger's article but I see no consensus to have Sanger classed as co in the opening of the[REDACTED] article let alone in the opening of the Wales article where it is very unwelcome20:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The lead says "Jimmy Donal "Jimbo" Wales (pronounced /ˈdoʊnəl weɪlz/; born August 7, 1966) is an American Internet entrepreneur and a co-founder and promoter of Misplaced Pages.". Co-founder is in the first sentence in accordance with NPOV. See Talk:Jimmy Wales/Archive 12#JW co-founder. QuackGuru (talk) 21:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You are not saying anything new here. When there are 2 points of view on this issue how exactly is our NPOV policy in accordance solely with your POV (we have the same problem on the Honduras crisis issues, there people want a POV that I agree with to be the only one; and in spite of my own bleiefs I stand up for the real POV policy, which is including all notable POVs; here we have a similar situation, 2 POVs and people, based on their own beliefs, want to plant one of the two as the only reality, hence all this talk of revisionism; but POV actually demands we incorporate both POVs as both are significant; and if Walles has revised the truth that is not something we should make a moral judgement on or do anything other than retain a cool indifference and allow all significant POVs their place. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 21:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Alleged "founder" cannot handle the WP:WEIGHT of WP:FRINGE. QuackGuru (talk) 01:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Alleged? You cant claim he isn't founder of wikipedia; and while I appreciate that you deal with real fringe on chiropractic articles there are no fringe views here; the view that Wales has about himself cannot be considered fringe any more than anyone's views on themselves (other than deluded criminals) can be considered fringe. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 13:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I have provided references to support co-founder including references that cover the co-founder issue. Wales opinion does not trump Misplaced Pages policy. Chiropractors on Misplaced Pages can't help being a chiropractor. For example, the sentence is properly sourced but a chiropactor is misusing the talk page to delete the first sentence. The AFD was to keep the article so that did not work. The next step is to destroy the article and eventually try to redirect it. QuackGuru (talk) 23:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages does not have a {{founder}}. QuackGuru (talk) 21:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, it depends on what is your defintion of founder. QuackGuru (talk) 22:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It appears to have five founders, I wonder if any are pretenders to the throne. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 22:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

When there is more than one founder it is co-founder by definition. QuackGuru (talk) 22:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

"After a moment Cugel asked: "Many times I have known a father with four sons, but never before a son with four fathers. ..." (Jack Vance, "Tales of the dying Earth") -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 02:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

National Resistance Front renaming proposal

hi SqueakBox, please see Talk:El_Frente_Nacional_de_la_Resistencia, and the article itself. i've cleaned up the referencing regarding the name, internally to the article, but the[REDACTED] naming conventions seem to suggest a different name to either of those that you and i had chosen. i've proposed two names. Please say if you prefer one or the other, or have no objections to either, or if something is wrong with my analysis on the talk page. Boud (talk) 20:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Word of notice

Hi, SqueakBox. A comment of yours here has been changed and copied to an ongoing discussion here. Your comment of support has been changed to a vote of deletion by another editor. You probably won't mind, but I thought it appropriate that you should be notified anyway. Best regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, cant see any problems here myself. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 23:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

List of television articles by nation

Consider "List of television articles by country"... "nation" is a loaded word in some places. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 18:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jeff V. Merkey

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Jeff V. Merkey. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Misplaced Pages:Notability and "What Misplaced Pages is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jeff V. Merkey. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)

The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Not a dup

You blanked out 2009 Honduran coup d'état with a redirect to 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis and an edit comment that it was a dup and subject to AfD. I believe this is wrong for several reasons:

Although it started out as a duplicate, it is clearly evolving as a sub-article. The coup article has expanded and the parent article has contracted, through the action of several editors, since the split. Thus both articles, in their post-split state, are in better coherence with[REDACTED] standards on article length than in the pre-split state. There is also a navbox which clearly shows the sub/parent relationship between the articles.
You did not make any comment or warning on the talk page.
Perhaps part of your reasoning is the naming dispute. However, this is a separate issue, and should not be a motive for deleting a sub-article when the parent article had clearly grown too big.

Cheers, Homunq (talk) 21:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I have afd'd it so the community can decide. Its clearly been copied and pasted and then forked out, and why? because people dont want to accept the consensus that the title should be constitutional crisis. i certainly believe it was a coup but as an editor my opinions don't count. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 21:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and read the talk page. The idea of splitting the article was first raised by Xavexgoem and it is, IMO, clearly necessary as a sub-article split, independent of the names of the resulting articles. You can criticize my copy-paste modality, but I intended it as an invitation to participate in the rewriting; I didn't want to airdrop a whole article of my own summarizing text onto the parent article, which is the result of a lot of back-and-forth. Homunq (talk) 21:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a fork to me; and they are essentially 2 versions of the same article running in a parallel manner; this is clearly inappropriate and using coup is clearly problematic from a pov viewpoint as it reflects one pov and negates another, the pov that this wasn't a coup but a legitimate succession according to the constitution of Honduras. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 22:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Independent, but not parallel. The parent article is being trimmed / reduced, the child one is being developed. Of course, both are also being cleaned up, and that is somewhat parallel.

As to the POV issue of the name - of course, the issue has been debated to death, and we all know the arguments on both sides. My reading is that the "coup" name is supported by RS, those who oppose that name (while they've made useful contributions to the article) have based more of their naming arguments on OR rather than RS. But I think that the split is healthy for the article(s) and MORE important than the names so I'm ready to compromise. What name would you propose as non-POV for the June 28 (that is, 26-30) sub-article? Homunq (talk) 00:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the word coup in the title is that while there are RSs for coup there are equally RSs that it wasn't a coup; neutrality means not taking sides and by making one side in the dispute as if it were the truth is taking sides and that is what we cannot do. I have consistently argued this and never used OR arguemnts. As the new article was mostly a copy and paste job forked out I was not and am not sure exactly what the new article is about, why it is a sub-article of the constitution article, etc; if I had a clearer idea of what exactly the coup article is about I could help in trying to rename it; and certainly if it survives its afd it will need the name changing. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 13:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Humor me: what are the RS's that it's not a coup? (Statements by involved actors, editorials, and legal analyses that avoid the nonlegal term "coup" don't count. And articles specifically about the debate on what to call it which present both sides count for half. I doubt that you can get more than 2 sources under these rules, while I'm sure, without even doing it, that at least three of the top 5 hits in Google News for "Honduras" will include the word "coup".)

I understand that, living in Honduras, you are barraged with propaganda that it wasn't a coup. I remember when I lived in the US, and (for instance) considered modern Israeli aggressions of "self defense" more justifiable because of a similar skewed media environment (this was over 10 years ago BTW - I suspect the skew has lightened somewhat since then). It's not easy to realize how insane the conventional wisdom which surrounds you is, even when you disagree with it. But if you do, as you claim, think it's a coup, why are you fighting so hard against using the term? Homunq (talk) 14:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually almost all my media comes through the Internet so I see much less "propaganda" than I might were local sources all I had access to. I get my best info about the coup from El Pais (apart from twitter). The atmosphere in my work is very much that Micheletti is an upstart golpista which certainly influences me; most people interested in politics in Honduras passionately either love or hate Micheletti and I am in the latter camp. But none of that hits the point which is that even if you discount credible reliable sources such as la prensa (may not agree with them but they are as credible here as the Times in London and the article is about Honduras) there are many sources that say that many people think it wasn't a coup, indeed almost all media sources have expressed that this is a viewpoint held by a significant section of Honduran society including a significant section of those within ruling circles (the establishment of Honduras) and[REDACTED] simply cannot negate this point of view or pretend it doesnt exist or sidestep the issue by talking about reliable sources (which basically reflect the dispute and often dont take sides); the crisis has 2 POVs and one is that the sun shines out of Micheletti and as[REDACTED] editors we must put our beliefs to one side and approach the issue neutrally; and I say this as a very experienced[REDACTED] editor. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 20:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

RfC regarding Honduras - international reaction article

As someone interested in the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis and related articles, I would appreciate your comment the above RfC: Talk:International_reaction_to_the_2009_Honduran_military_coup#RfC:_Is_the_content_in_the_following_edit_worthy_of_inclusion_in_the_International_reaction_to_the_2009_Honduran_military_coup_article

and/or at its sister RfC on the same talk page: Talk:International_reaction_to_the_2009_Honduran_military_coup#RfC:_Which_is_the_better_condensed_version

Thanks! Moogwrench (talk) 15:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up; interesting to read your user page. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 14:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I am actually planning on moving down to Comayagua in probably about five years to start up a business (and perhaps teach English) so I understand your comments on your user page about capital and moving Honduras along towards prosperity. When you do have a chance, do comment on the RfC; I'd appreciate your input, however you feel about the edit. I know things get prickly sometimes over at 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis but I am trying to be a better editor and follow consensus, and I know that things like the RfC are part of that process. Thanks again! Moogwrench (talk) 00:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Apology

I'm sorry I wrote that you were a rogue, in so many words. Rico 20:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC) has extended an olive branch of peace.

Supernatural

Can you please revert your actions on Supernatural? The others are mini-series, not "series", and are insignificant compared to the main series. If you would still like to move it, please make a proposal and discuss it. Thank you. Ω phois 22:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that, because of the length of the respective shows, the US series is the most-likely-target for Supernatural (TV series), so I've reverted the move. If you feel a move is appropriate, please go through the instructions for requesting a move. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 00:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I i the move because I was confused; and I came as a Brit looking for what tv show has that name, I cant say the US series interested me less because I don't believe it is not shown in the UK, just made in the USA I do appreciate that disputed moves, as this one is, should go via RM but I am somewhat baffled by the opposition all the same. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 01:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Troubles Arbitration Case: Amendment for discretionary sanctions

As a party in The Troubles arbitration case I am notifying you that an amendment request has been posted here.

For the Arbitration Committee

Seddon | 16:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes I became aware my old sparring partner Vintagekits was banned very recently; always a shame when we cannot avoid indef blocking our good quality good faith editors for handling disputes badly, sigh! Thanks for the heads up here too. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 17:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Help?!?!?

I have no idea what I'm doing, and don't really need to learn. I was just looking at the article on Romero and noticed a couple of typos(??) and corrected them (and it took me a long time to figure out how to do this-- if the note would be better addressed to someone else, would you, please?). It looks like you are a major contributor to the article and I have a suggestion for an addition. I believe that it would be appropriate to mention, in relation to the assassination, his monumental homily given the day before, which ends in something like "I implore you, I beg you, I order you: Stop the repression." I see a direct link between this homily and his murder. Lisapaloma (talk) 13:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Well, it seems to have worked (the note). But I don't know how I got the dogs!?! (No matter, I love dogs.)Lisapaloma (talk) 13:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Lisa, that sounds great, and of course I remain interested in the article. If you can find a reference it would be even better because yes we should be adding that kind of material to the article, the speech given the day before his death is bound to be notable per se. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 13:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Another Honduras-related move/name request

at Talk:Chronology_of_events_of_the_2009_Honduran_coup_d'état#Requested_move, which was recently relisted in lieu of closing. I would appreciate your comment, in trying to reach consensus on this, as I know that you have opinions on these issues. Thanks! Moogwrench (talk) 07:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Sugababes

Hi SqueakBox, ever since you moved the image in the Sugababes' article, IPs have been removing it for no reason at all. I started a discussion here about the unexplained removals. Best. Acalamari 18:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

RfC at 2009 Honduran coup d'état regarding mention of the constitutional crisis in the lede

Hey Squeakbox, I'd like your opinion, and that of other editors that have been interested in the Honduran articles, at Talk:2009_Honduran_coup_d'état#RfC:_Do_the_sources_support_the_mention_of_coup_as_part_of_the_constitutional_crisis_in_the_lede_of_this_article.3F. Thanks! Moogwrench (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Honduran crisis

Hi SqueakBox, you might be interested in contributing to problems such as

Whether "Public opinion on the 2009 Honduran coup d'état" should be changed to more descriptive form "Public opinion on the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis"? Or perhaps "Public opinion on the 2009 Honduran crisis"?
Whether 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis should include sources that do mention the crisis at all? Am I correct that things such as "nutritional requirements" and "independence of judiciary" should be linked to the crisis by sources, not by editors? (otherwise a lot of things can linked to the crisis)
Whether Manuel Zelaya article should have a sentence about Los Horcones massacre.

Alb28 (talk) 02:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)

The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Defamation vs. Pedophilia

SqueakBox, please notice that the info on defamation you removed twice from the article pedophilia was not the same. Take a look at the Talk Page and realize it was expanded and splitted into 4 parts. The part you removed first (because in your view it was “opinionated”) was not added the second time. And nobody there is presenting a good reason to remove the other parts (Parts 1, 2 and 3 listed in the Talk Page). All the sources of these three parts are reliable and meet Misplaced Pages's requirements, like those of WP:SOURCES and WP:NONENG.FranMo23 (talk) 23:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

If nobody presents a good reason until next week, I'm gonna put this information again (only parts 1, 2 and 3), without that part you removed first (listed as “Part 4” in the Talk Page). Please tell me if you're gonna remove it, because if this is the case I won't add it again now, and I'll look for another solution instead of entering an edit war.FranMo23 (talk) 23:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The Fireman (disambiguation)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of The Fireman (disambiguation), and it appears to be very similar to another Misplaced Pages page: The Fireman. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Misplaced Pages:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Stop being a complete asshole and let me finish, which i know have. Either abandon your lousy bot or put a time limit on it. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 19:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)

The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I never thanked for your condolence note last year, but I appreciate it more than I can possibly express. All the best, in friendship. Guettarda (talk) 16:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Our paths have not crossed in a while, but I hope all is well with you. Guettarda (talk) 16:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Sade

It's at Sade ( English band). NawlinWiki (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Look to Sade ( English band)

PING! HalfShadow 17:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello SqueakBox! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 4 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 28 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

Jaime Rosenthal - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Arturo Armando Molina - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Roberto Suazo Córdova - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Sergio Balanzino - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 15:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

WebCite

Hi, seeing you add a reference I thought I'd point out WebCite, since weblinks to Spanish language newspapers have a particular tendency to disappear. Just put in the reference details at http://www.webcitation.org/archive and you'll get an archive link to add in case the original disappears. Rd232 14:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay I'll have a go; I certainly am aware that links to Spanish news stories in Honduras do go 404 but also how useful in Google is searching using say site:tiempo.hn as a normal Google search fails to produce the refs needed in our drive to ref all blps. So thanks. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 15:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Elton John

Hi. I'm contacting you as a significant contributor to Elton John. I am concerned that such a high profile article on a living person is so poorly sourced. It is a matter of priority that statements are sourced. See Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons. Quotations from Elton John or any other person must be closely cited, as per Misplaced Pages:Quotations. If reliable sources cannot be found then all contentious material should be removed - . It is better for us to have no material at all than to have incorrect, misleading or potentially libelous material. Will you help to source the article? SilkTork * 11:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Your note

With regard to your note, I'm sorry to say that it makes no sense whatsoever. You claimed that my edit summary was not appropriate, but in fact it clearly stated:

"rm. Britain; by convention, we don't put this in the lead (only the host network/first broadcast)"

The text I removed was:

" and Channel 4 in the United Kingdom"

I fail to see the error here. If you'd care to restate yourself, perhaps we can work out what your problem is - but what you wrote doesn't seem to connect at all to the actual event. Thanks in advance. --Ckatz_spy 17:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Well if you cant see your error after it was clearly pointed out to you I was obviously wasting my time writing to you. Sigh. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 01:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

No, you just need to say what the supposed problem was, as what you described does not match with the actual edit. I'm only asking because you seem perturbed, but I can't help you if you don't explain yourself. --Ckatz_spy 03:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of films portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of films portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Misplaced Pages:Notability and "What Misplaced Pages is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of films portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Barnstar

I should give you one for humorous typos , but there isn't one. Pcap ping 18:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of songs portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of songs portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Misplaced Pages:Notability and "What Misplaced Pages is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of songs portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please check this edit

. In particular, I seriously doubt your change of 'Mitford' to 'Midford' - see Mitford family. I nearly reverted you for vandalism .. 12:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Typo? Yes. Vandalism? No way. I was fixing the issue as you wrote. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 12:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The word was correct before your edit, and wrong afterwards. The only reason an issue existed was that you created it. It's not as though you'd added a whole phrase with one typo in it, is it? Difficult to assume good faith in this case, especially when coupled with the T.E. -> T.H mess-up (which you have also now corrected). The only thing that negatives assumption of bad faith is your previous history of good edits. Please couild you read WP:COMPETENCE? Thanks. Philip Trueman (talk) 12:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh shut up, I made a mistake. If you go around assuming bad faith and being aggressive to users like me with pots of experience you will end up being blocked by somebody. Just chill out, stay away from me and assume good faith in future. As for the TH if you had bothered to check the diffs you would see that that was done by somebody else. Basically your bad faith assumptions came about entirely through your own laziness or sloppineess. I would suggest it is you who are not competent to go around telling other people they are incompetent. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 13:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Krumme 13

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Krumme 13. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Misplaced Pages:Notability and "What Misplaced Pages is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Krumme 13. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

AfD nomination of Greg Lloyd Smith

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Greg Lloyd Smith. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Misplaced Pages:Notability and "What Misplaced Pages is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Greg Lloyd Smith (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Speedy deletion nomination of La Trinidad, Comayagua

A tag has been placed on La Trinidad, Comayagua, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section A2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a foreign language article that was copied and pasted from another Wikimedia project, or was transwikied out to another project. Please see Misplaced Pages:Translation to learn about requests for, and coordination of, translations from foreign-language Wikipedias into English.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Beloved Freak 22:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, sorry for the above notice; you can disregard it. Apparently an anonymous editor had translated the article into Spanish a few weeks back for some reason. --Beloved Freak 22:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)

The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Rastafari

Colombia Collaboration Invitation

Template:COL Invitation mijotoba (talk) 23:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:TvgeniusLogo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:TvgeniusLogo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

If you recieved this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 08:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Tvglogo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Tvglogo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

If you received this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Elizabeth Kucinich

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Elizabeth Kucinich. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Misplaced Pages:Notability and "What Misplaced Pages is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Kucinich (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Paid editing?

Hi SqueakBox. I don't recall ever having any interactions with you on here but it appears that you are a veteran editor so I'd like to talk this over with you personally before going to any deletion discussions, noticeboards, etc. I see that an account on freelancer dot com has identified with your account on Misplaced Pages and it has been bidding on Misplaced Pages-related paid editing jobs. For example I see this job about an Italian painter was awarded to an account that stated "I would use my[REDACTED] account SqueakBox with 50,000+ edits. You would need to agree to a non-disclosure agreement. This job sounds straightforward. I know how to create a good[REDACTED] article that won't be deleted. I am willing to negotiate on price if I have more information; on[REDACTED] the most important thing is third party sources, without these if the artist is living it won't have any chance of surviving". Shortly after the bid was won you created Mario Zampedroni, an Italian painter. There are several other cases where the freelancer account has bid on Misplaced Pages-related projects.

To me this all seems very disingenuous. Because you are receiving funds to edit, you need to abide by our conflict of interest guidelines and surely you know better than to encourage the use of Misplaced Pages as a means of promotion. There are also very strong feelings about the ethical implications of paid editing and many editors feel that it should be banned altogether or done with open transparency. Would you be kind enough to list all of the articles you have been paid to write so that they can be scrutinized for NPOV, notability, verifiability, and other COI-related problems? Also, could I have your word that you won't use this account or any sockpuppet accounts to write paid articles without stating that they were paid-for? This would be much appreciated, in the spirit of open transparency and neutral editing. Them From Space 06:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I only took the job because I firmly believed and believe that the artists is notable enough for WP:N, I rejected any other bids. if I weren't transparent I would have done this from another account. IMO this does not affect the notability of the article. As you point out, this is not bannable behavior now, the fact that some people want it to be is fair enough but until it is... I am happy to say I wont use this or other accounts to do work for payment now or in the future without being transparent about what I am doing. I will also say that any money received on this one paid task (the only one) has not gone into my own pocket; I have a reasonably well paid job and personal gain was never the motivation. I would finally say you can check all my contributions inc this article for NPOV etc, I won't lower my standards on[REDACTED] for anyone. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 12:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)