User talk:Evanh2008/Archive 4

Restoring Content

Hey saw your message and saw that you reverted my edit. I was actually trying to fix a previous edit, the changes I made were to restore a lot of information, not remove any. (Domcarlo (talk) 01:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC))

Messiah

And why isn't Schneersohn a self-declared messiah? Just asking. Debresser (talk) 08:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it, he never claimed to be the Messiah. His followers made that claim beginning in the 1950s, but I don't think he ever addressed that issue publicly. It's possible that I am wrong, of course, and if he did make that claim, I'd love to know about it. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I understand. As far as I know he did allude to it, but never said so clearly. So I would agree with you here. Debresser (talk) 16:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Eyes needed

Could use some eyes on Australian Christian Lobby, where, like with the article on the American Third Position Party, schills have been trying to portray the movement as they describe themselves. The movement is an over-the-top extreme-right "Christian" organization that is rabidly anti-gay to the point where even other conservative Christian groups in Australia have distanced themselves from it. Would appreciate it if you could add it to your watchlist. Thanks! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Will do! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:43, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk:2008 Summer Olympics/GA1

Hello! I have begun a review on this article, which has sadly languished in the queue for far too long. I am about halfway through the review, but have identified some sourcing concerns that will require addressing. I will continue with a review of the prose shortly. Cheers! Resolute 17:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I'm off-line at the moment but should be available later this week or early next, as soon as I have a chance. Cheers! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. I have no problem leaving the nomination on hold for a while, just so long as it isn't abandoned. Thanks, Resolute 22:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I've done a second pass, and it looks like there is one dead link and one section left to look at. There are three outstanding issues in the "medal count" section. Sorry it took me a few days to get back tothe review after you updated! Resolute 03:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the barnstar Evan. I totally forgot to say something and I just remembered when I went to archive my page. Hot Stop (Talk) 03:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing! Keep up the good work. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Harrison (a)

I recommend that the sfn/harvnb citation method be applied at George Harrison so that the article is brought into sourcing consistency with John Lennon, Paul McCartney and the Beatles. I realise this is not a requirement, but it may be nice to have consistency among this group of articles. Any thoughts? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds fine to me! I have not dealt with that particular system much in the past, but I'll definitely read up on it. Thanks for the note; definitely something to keep in mind. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

BTW, don't feel like you have to do a whole lot in the tedious-templification department. Starting next week I'm going to give the article another copyedit and make sure all the formatting and references are in order, so I should be able to take care of it then. Thanks for all your help! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Only warning?

Hi Evan, I am not sure we've met, but anyway I saw your reverting of the edit that changed Mitt's name to Mittens. While I certainly agree that this is vandalism and should be reverted, I think that the "only warning" template you placed on the offenders talk page was a little too harsh. It's supposed to be reserved only for major BLP violations and usually seem to be used when defamatory information is added...not sure that changing Mitt to Mittens, though vandalism, warranted the template. I'm not going to change it, but I just wanted to let you know I thought it is overkill for an edit of that nature. Go Phightins! 02:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note; If that had been the only issue, I probably would have used a welcome-vand template or level 1 warning. It was the fact that all his/her other edits were also vandalism that I thought warranted going straight to a level 4im. Cheers! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

OK; I wasn't aware he'd made other "contributions". Sorry about that. Happy editing, Go Phightins! 02:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Ta! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Evanh2008. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 08:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Gtwfan52 (talk) 08:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I Don't Believe You

You and your ilk are the ones who are accusing Messianic Jews of proselytizing; "Kogons" and "Levitskys" of not being Jews just because they're Catholic or whatever else; calling any criticism of the Talmud "Anti Semitic"; calling David Duke a Christian, etc.. You are so clouded by your Anti-Messianic bias, that you can't see it. Also, to say that Messianic Jews proselytize (force, induce) conversion is an insult to Messianic Jews whose families were really proselytized by the pogromists, Inquisitors, etc..Nickidewbear (talk) 07:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I have an ilk? This is the first I'm hearing of it, but let's just run with that for a moment. Assuming that I and this ilk are out to defame Messianics, surely there's a more effective way of going about it. More effective, that is to say, than all those hours I spent slaving away at the Messianic Judaism article to remove statements that dismissed the Jewishness of its adherents out-of-hand. More effective than the words I have spoken in defense of other Messianic editors, specifically asking that they not be sanctioned for disruptive behavior so that we could have their input and their good-faith efforts to improve related articles, at a time when it sure seemed like their names and the phrase good-faith didn't belong in the same paragraph together, let alone in the same sentence. If I'm persecuting you, I'm obviously doing a terrible job of it.

I want to help you make this site better, but I can't do that if you won't let me. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

If That Were the Case...

Why are you and your ilk, as I cited, accusing Messianic Jews of proselytizing; "Kogons" and "Levitskys" of not being Jews just because they're Catholic or whatever else; calling any criticism of the Talmud "Anti Semitic"; calling David Duke a Christian, etc.? As I also said, to say that Messianic Jews proselytize (force, induce) conversion is an insult to Messianic Jews whose families were really proselytized by the pogromists, Inquisitors, etc. For example, my Foczko and Chernetski relatives went through that pain of being proselytized, and warp sharing of faith into forced conversion is an insult to them and their memories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickidewbear (talk • contribs) 07:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

First off, I'm not at all sure I've ever called David Duke anything. I may have called him a Nazi asshole or something a number of years back, but I've certainly never called him a Christian. I also do not call "any" criticism of the Talmud anti-Semitic. I call anti-Semitic criticism of the Talmud anti-Semitic. I am not some sort of militant anti-Christian, anti-Messianic Satmarnik or something, which is what you seem to be implying.

No one but you said anything about forced conversion, either, and that is almost never what the word "proselytize" means. You might be interested in the Wiktionary entry on it, which defines it as "To encourage or induce people to join a religious movement, political party, or other cause or organization". The word itself is consent-neutral, and nowhere in our article is it used in a context to imply that any attendant conversions were non-consensual. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It absoultely is, and that's the way that Anti Messianics use it all of the time. Besides, think about it: "induce", as in "to induce vomiting". Messianic Jews do not induce conversion.Nickidewbear (talk) 08:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Induce - "To lead by persuasion or influence ... To cause, bring about, lead to." If you're going to be wrong, you should at least be wrong and prepared. I shouldn’t be able to poke this many holes in your argument this easily. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

And we don't do that. Since you won't look at 1 Corinthians 3:5-7 yourself, here it is. "5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers through whom you believed, as the Lord gave to each one? 6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. 7 So then neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase."

Well, Christians hold 1 Corinthians as canonical too, so can I use it as a source that the Inquisition never happened? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

No. Matthew 7:21-23 explains false believers who propogated the Inquisition, etc.. "“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’" Anti Semitism and forced conversions are far from Christian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickidewbear (talk • contribs) 08:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

If you have specific concerns about specific statements in specific articles, I can (and want to) address them. The only thing I want more than a broader range of input on our religion-related articles is adherence to policy and civility. I am ready to deal with your concerns as soon as you are ready to slow down and discuss them. I really do want you here. If you cant believe that, then we obviously have a failure to communicate. If I have said or done anything to make you feel put off or denigrated, then you have my full and sincere apologies. That is not my intention. Rather than carry on with this unproductive repartee, I think it's best for everyone that we discuss specifics. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I have discussed specifics several times, and now gtwfan52 is accusing me of being an Anti-Semitic Nazi who needs a re-education. "Unfortunately, Nickidewbear has refused to engage in any discussion, and has proceeded to create the exact same types of disruption at two other articles. Diffs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Also see conversations and warnings on her talk page and conversation on my talk. Add this, and the edit summaries showing a total lack of clue, to the history of blocks for exactly the same behavior, and you have an editor that needs serious re-education. Sadly, I would like to see a block extended until the editor shows an understanding of the problems associated with her edits, or possibly a topic ban on articles relating to Judaism, broadly interperted to include anti-Semantic organizations such as Nazi Party. Will notify user as soon as this is saved. Gtwfan52 (talk) 08:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)"Nickidewbear (talk) 08:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Nowhere has anyone called you a Nazi. The only thing that lays out is the fact that you are engaged in tendentious editing on articles related to controversial subjects. Nothing more or less. My ears are still open to your concerns, BTW. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

"Unfortunately, <bNickidewbear has refused to engage in any discussion, and has proceeded to create the exact same types of disruption at two other articles. Diffs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Also see conversations and warnings on her talk page and conversation on my talk. Add this, and the edit summaries showing a total lack of clue, to the history of blocks for exactly the same behavior, and you have an editor that needs serious re-education. Sadly, I would like to see a block extended until the editor shows an understanding of the problems associated with her edits, or possibly a topic ban on articles relating to Judaism, broadly interperted to include anti-Semantic organizations such as Nazi Party." All right there, implied and explicit. Nickidewbear (talk) 08:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, the word Nazi is nowhere used as a descriptor of you or your beliefs. I can't speak for my ilk (mostly because I don't have one) but I have never believed that you are a Nazi, neo-Nazi, or any other kind of anti-Semite. What have I done to make you think otherwise? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

You've sided with the awful revisionists and Anti Messianics like gtwfan52 (who did implicity accuse me of being a Nazi, etc., which I highlighted). You're known by your company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickidewbear (talk • contribs) 09:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

rolls eyes Gtwfan52 (talk) 09:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I hope it doesn't take another block to realize that there is an easier way to accomplish what you're trying for. I really do respect you and your faith, and I want to work with you. I'm sorry you can't see that right now. I don't know whether or not Gtwfan52 considers you a Nazi, and neither do you. Rather than make accusations, why not just ask? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

When all gets said and done it will really just boil down to an administration problem. All this other pretzel-making is nonsense. Ignoring it is best. ```Buster Seven Talk 07:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Messianic Judaism

You recently reverted my edit without comment. I was just using the inverted pyramid of encyclopedic article editing, where the first few sentences give a summary of what you’re about to read and, as the reader goes deeper into the article, an elaboration of the information begins. Threading is just structuring the data. I think the lead was too cumbersome. While I might understand your revert, I'm a bit piqued by the lack of a comment. But...I don't care to join the editorial battle that seems to be happening here, so I will move on. ```Buster Seven Talk 08:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Replied. Sorry. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. ```Buster Seven Talk 08:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Evanh2008. You have new messages at Gtwfan52's talk page.
Message added 08:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Gtwfan52 (talk) 08:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Moved from user page

Thanks for help.

Mukhlesur Rahman Chowdhury Dear Evanh2008, Please be advised that from IP address of 46.208.56.35 there was no attack on what Bluesapper12 claimed. There was a gang against democracy, which is doing heinous attack on Mukhlesur Rahman Chowdhury regularly. Kindly help on this. Thanks. Best, 46.208.56.35

Thanks for the tip!

Never feel shy correcting me, I want to know the right way, so thanks! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

TB

Hello, Evanh2008. You have new messages at GabeMc's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

• Take a look at my sandbox for how we can cite to the Scorsese documentary. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, got it. Thanks! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Autoblocks

Because you've demonstrated that you're having problems with autoblocks, and because you're a longstanding member of the community, I've granted you IP block exemption. Hope you find this helpful. Nyttend (talk) 03:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Very helpful indeed. Thank you! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Evan, as I mentioned at WP:AN, if you were not accessing from a shared or public network when you were autoblocked then you will definitely want to check out the security of your machine and/or private network. The close timing of access by a blocked sock and by your account might indicate someone piggybacking on your connection or using a machine on your IP as a proxy. Hopefully it all gets worked out soon! --Tgeairn (talk) 03:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course, if you're using a service that switches around your IP address frequently (e.g. AOL), you might just be the next person to whom they assigned the address. That doesn't mean that you have less reason to follow Tgeairn's advice; I'm simply suggesting a possible solution if you've checked and ensured that your network and computer are secure. Nyttend (talk) 03:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I connect with one of these. I figured something was screwy with the way I was assigned IP addresses when Google Maps pinpointed me to Oregon, Kansas, and Missouri (none of which I live in) during a single 24-hour period. I check security on my system pretty regularly and like to think I'm okay in that department. I appreciate the help and the input! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for how I came across; I wasn't attempting to get you to divulge anything. Since you did, I'm confident that the addresses from the MiFi are responsible here. Nyttend (talk) 04:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

No worries. You only came across as polite and helpful, so no need to apologize. Thanks again! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Reply in speed-of-light thread

FYI I just added to your speed-of-light thread (which is now transcluded from the archive so the edit won't show up on your watchlist). -- BenRG (talk) 05:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I'm not so good with bare-numbers math, so those diagrams are definitely helpful; thanks for those too! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Glad you're back!

Nice to see you editing GH again! I should be able to contribute some edits there later this week. Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Gabe! It’s good to be back! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Removal of My Kristallnacht (Crystal Night) Comments Dec 13, 2012

Hi Evan,

I reviewed wiki's neutrality policy and looked at the RMS Lusitania article which is a similar event.

It appears my minor Kristallnacht edits were in-line with the policy that states:

" Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views."

The book I referenced is a "published, reliable source" (and sold on amazon.com).

Furthermore, the RMS Lusitania article has a similar minority wording in the subsection 5.3 1950s damage from depth charges. The mainstream view of this event is that it was sunk by a German U-Boat torpedo as clearly stated/developed, but there is evidence that it was sabotaged, so this alternative viewpoint is given proportional weight in a subsection.

Please undo. Thanks,Albertoarmstrong (talk) 23:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Alberto. Thanks for messaging me!

I undid your edit primarily because it seemed to introduce a bit of personal commentary into the article, whether on your part or on the part of the author. In particular the word "suspicious" seems to violate WP:NPOV, and constitutes a strange analysis of unspecified events that I'm not sure is appropriate here. The "suggesting the provocateurs" clause is another good example of this.

I am not sure whether or not the book in question meets WP:RS. I will note that I have seen it cited by Holocaust‎ deniers in the past, and say no more on that subject. I will do some reading to determine whether or not it posits fringe views.

As a side note, the edits in question were not minor, according to WP:MINOR, which states that a minor edit is one in which only "superficial differences exist between the current and previous versions". Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Good morning Evan, Thanks for the clarification; however, it appears that you linked this event to Holocaust denial and this is actual the reason why you took it down, but that's not a valid reason.

Also, the mainstream version of events of RMS Lusitania sinking was that it was an innocent passenger ship illegally sank by the Germans, but now the article is claiming an alternative version if events (i.e. a conspiracy followed by another conspiracy to cover it up) as it was carrying munitions so it was a legitimate target. Furthermore, the article states "but others have suggested that in fact the Navy was deliberately trying to destroy evidence" (section 5.3 1950s damage from depth charges).

Thanks, Albertoarmstrong (talk) 10:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, the Holocaust denial issue was one of four I cited, so let's not pretend that that was "the reason why [I] took it down". I would advise you to go to the article talk page and ask for input there. You might also try posting at WP:RSN to try to ascertain whether the book in question is a reliable source (I am not familiar with its author or with its contents, so I have abstained from making a call one way or the other on that). The Lusitania thing isn't really relevant to the present discussion, and the best way to make your case is really to take it to the article talk page. I am all for including minority views where they are relevant and where they do not violate WP:Fringe. Thanks! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!

You are a star – I owe you a drink. Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 11:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC) Don't mention it. And thanks for the drink! :) Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 11:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC) Iechyd da! –  – Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 12:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

taking Les Misérables to GA

Hi Evan, I saw your reply to my message here and then I looked at your list here.

I would definitely be interested in collaborating to take Les Misérables to GA status. Where do you think we can start?

Azylber (talk) 16:49, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Azylber, and thanks for getting back to me!

Looking over the article, I see that the "Novel form" section could probably use some more references, if you're up for it. The "Adaptations" section is absurdly large at the moment, and I imagine it would help the article greatly if we created an article like Adaptations of Les Misérables or Les Misérables in other media with its present content. We could then replace the section with a short summary of the most important adaptations.

The other side of that equation, though, is that the plot section is also quite hefty. When the article is nominated, the reviewer will ask that it be greatly condensed. The problem is that it really shouldn't be condensed. The fact that it's as short as it now is is a miracle, and shortening it any further would almost certainly wreck the quality beyond repair. I'm not quite sure how to handle this, but I will think of something before the nomination.

Beyond that, I don't really see a whole lot of issues. The article is well sourced and well written, and is at least halfway to GA standards already. The GA reviewer will certainly notice things we won't, but they shouldn't be all that hard to deal with. Most of the work will probably come after the nomination. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, cool, let me take a look! Azylber (talk) 07:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've added many references to the "novel form" section, and I've moved the "adaptations" section to its own article, leaving an appropriate summary. Take a look! Azylber (talk) 11:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks pretty good! I may not have the time to give it another thorough look until next week, but the only thing that stands out to me right now is that the "Contemporary reception" section is not currently summarized in the lead. It could probably be summed up in a quick sentence or two. Other than that, great job on the new article and everything else! As soon as I have some free time I will make some edits of my own and we can probably nominate it sometime in early January. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll look into that Azylber (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, done! I added to the lead a short paragraph summarising the "contemporary reception" section Azylber (talk) 19:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC) Come on!! Make your changes and let's nominate it! Azylber (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I was just looking at it, actually, Give me just a bit here and it should be ready shortly. :) Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've given the article a thorough look and I definitely think it is ready to begin the review. I'll be offline for a few hours starting here shortly, so you can nominate if you like, or I can do so once I'm back online. Whichever you would prefer is fine. Thanks for all your work on the article! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Done! Let's see what they say! Azylber (talk) 22:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Les_Mis%C3%A9rables/GA1 Azylber (talk) 07:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know what happened. He called it a quick fail, but it doesn't meet any of the criteria for that. I left him a note at the review page. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

You're right, it doesn't. I have no idea Azylber (talk) 08:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of alternative names for Metatron

The article List of alternative names for Metatron has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

List contains abundant unsourced information, links to deleted articles, "misspellings," and generally unencyclopedic content. It may reflect original research. Its notability is debatable. Efforts at improvement have not turned up reliable sources.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ℜob C. alias ÀLAROB 04:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited George Harrison, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jim Gordon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi

You said in the reference desk that if the galaxy is just too far away then there is a chance that the light is too faint for no matter how good the telescope is. Can you define "too faint"? What makes the light too faint? You can just respond right here. Thanks.174.20.15.246 (talk) 20:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, distance would be the main issue. The angular diameter of any given object (galaxies, stars, etc.) always decreases with distance, and the amount of light reaching a given observer from that object decreases as well. I rather ineloquently put this as the light being "too faint", which I suppose is accurate enough, but not too clear. The problem is actually capturing enough light in order to resolve an image, and it is always harder to do that the farther away you get. Even on smaller scales this holds true, as we haven't even been able to properly image Pluto as of yet.

There was a discussion here several months ago that may interest you. The issue somehow came up of whether or not a sufficiently large telescope could resolve a pimple on someone's face from several light years out, and I think User:Jayron32 gave the best possible explanation of the problems involved when he said:

it is more than a technical limitation, it is a physical limitation as well. In order to view your pimple, the telescope would have to capture some number of photons from that pimple, and at certain distances, you just can't capture enough photons.

It's important to keep in mind, though, that this is only hypothetically possible. I don't believe there is any commonly accepted scientific theory that would allow for galaxies to be that far away from our point of view. The age of the universe is just not enough time for them to get that far out, and the age of the universe has been pretty well established through observations of the cosmic microwave background. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there a limit to the ability of seeing photon at certain distance? I understand that the further it gets = less photon we can receive so when reaching at certain limit distance the photon something emits will be small that it would be pretty much = 0 so at the point we won't able to see anything anymore?174.20.15.246 (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

You might want to ask someone smarter than me about that, to be honest. I know it is possible for manmade instruments to detect individual photons, but at great distances this means practically nothing, as the noise from everything else that emits photons in the universe is going to drown it out. I'm sure someone at the Ref desk should be able to discuss the technical aspects of it better than I can. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Harrison

Hey Evan. Is cite #51 Harrison 2007, p. 118., supposed to be Harrison 2002 or 2011? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

It was 2002, and I just fixed it. Thanks for pointing it out! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• On "For You Blue", I noticed that you removed it per JG66's comment, but the source I used to verify it, Bronson 1992, says the song was the Beatles second double-sided number and Harrison's second chart-topper.(p.275) Any thoughts? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that Bronson called it a double-A-side single, but every other source I can find (Spizer, The Beatles on Apple Records, p 73; AllMusic, etc.) all identify it as the B-side. Spizer goes on to state that, although, TLAWR got the majority of the air-play, "For You Blue" also charted. It was double-sided in the sense that both songs performed on the charts, but not in the "Strawbery Fields Forever"/"Penny Lane" sense where each side was promoted as an A-side. "For You Blue" was most definitely the B-side. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

That's odd. My Billboard Book of Number One Albums (Rosen, 1996) also calls it a double-sided single. Are both of these Billboard sources wrong about a Billboard single? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

After re-reading it, I think Rosen is saying that Let it Be and "TLAWR" were simultaneous number ones, not that "FYB" was. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Now that I've checked it out again, I do find Bronson's wording a bit odd. Two songs can't hold the number-one spot simultaneously, so since he's listing "The Long and Winding Road"/"For You Blue" as one single, then obviously Billboard regarded it as a double A-side, even if Apple didn't. In this case I am willing to take Bronson's word for it, even though other sources seem to disagree. Feel free to add the "For You Blue" factoid back to the article, but I think the bit on "The Inner Light" ought to stay, since it touches on Harrison's incorporation of Indian music and Eastern spirituality into his songs. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

What do you make of this? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems to back up the idea that it was a double-A side, and that looks to be the case. I'm still not sure why so many other sources call it a B-side, though. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The other sources may well be wrong. According to Bill Harry (2000, pp.417–418): "'For You Blue' was issued in America as a double 'A' side with 'TLAWR' ... where it reached No. 1 in the charts." GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's probably right. To clarify what I said above, two singles can't hold the number-one spot at the same time, but both sides of a double-A-side can. Billboard has never listed B-sides unless they chart on their own (through radio play combined with sales); for double-A-sides, the two songs are listed together in a "Song 1"/"Song 2" format, and I think that's the case here. If the Billboard chart is anything to go by, then it was a double-A-side. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• I hope you aren't getting too many (edit conflict)s, I encourage you to use the {{in use|section}} tag if I seem to be following to closely behind you as we simultaneously cover the FAC comments. Nice working with you as always. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Gabe. I got one EC earlier, but it hasn't been a big deal as of yet. I'll definitely keep the tag suggestion in mind. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I hope you didn't lose any content. I copy major additions before I attempt to save them if I havn't already tagged the section. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Nope, nothing lost. Ctrl-C is a life-saver! :) Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

my 10 Jan George Harrison FAC comments

Hi Evanh2008, I'm taking you up on that offer to come over here, regarding whether all those 10 Jan comments have been addressed. (I'm assuming you must mean the 10 Jan ones when you say "your recent batch"? The 11 Jan lot haven't of course.)

The points on Lennon and McCartney under "Relationship with other Beatles" need addressing. They're obvious omissions, to my way of thinking – I'm suggesting you add what are very general and well-known observations.

Guitar work: As mentioned, it would be good to include mention of dobro, GH being a big admirer of Ry Cooder, and veena styling in Harrison's slide. Ideally, especially in a subsection dedicated to his guitar playing, a discussion of his slide approach would list veena, sarangi, esraj and sarod styling – veena is especially important, imo – but I appreciate that Leng doesn't actually say that (at least not in that location), and that while Lavezzoli writes of GH incorporating veena and sarod, it's specific to "Marwa Blues". (Having said that, it's more than likely that elsewhere in his book, Leng does touch on the issue of all four Indian string instruments being represented in Harrison's slide playing, I reckon – it could be a case then of combining the Leng sarangi–esraj mention with his acknowledging veena and sarod. This along with Leng's recognition of Cooder's influence on Harrison would create a perfect, informative sentence on Harrison's slide approach generally, all of it attributable to a single source, of course. The other thing with guitar work is that point about Harrison's solos on Living in the Material World being considered by many as the best solo playing of his career. As notable as that is in its own right, I'm also mindful that Guitar work, Songwriting, Guitars, Sitar and Indian music offer almost nothing about Harrison post-Beatles, when in fact Harrison bloomed further in those fields after the break-up. I hadn't fully appreciated this until finally moving past the Beatles section and coming up with those recent comments on the article's post-Anthology sections.

Songwriting:

• The Martin quote would be very welcome. It seems to me that the strength of the message regarding Martin's admission and regret that GH had no collaborator is something Martin himself has escalated in interviews over the years, from all that I've read. I hope you can find something (Scorsese doc?), because in some ways this point about Harrison receiving no help or encouragement provides much more than the two current mentions – that the Beatles were reluctant to record his songs and (later under Songwriting) Harrison had problems getting the Beatles to record his comps. Not only that but, like those points under Relationship with other Beatles, it's a matter that's well-known and much-documented.
• Harrison's uncredited help on some Lennon–McCartney songs, as well. There are other songs besides those I mentioned, but it's bugging me that I can't remember where the more specific Eleanor Rigby point, and the one re Come Together, come from. I've read it very recently, just since this FAC's been up, and I think Harrison's claim about Come Together and "Ah, look at all the lonely people" in Eleanor Rigby might actually be in the same quote. I'm thinking it has to be the Anthology book.
• Those collaborations with other songwriters – no comment on that suggestion on the FAC page.
• Much like Guitar work needs to cover his slide approach concisely, Songwriting (I think) has to provide something informative on Harrison's songwriting approach. That's why I mentioned the Pedler book, maybe that Everett one (Revolver through to Anthology) could be useful, I don't know. The best thing I could come up with was Gilmore's point about dissonance and it being so groundbreaking; Harrison's dissonance is straight from Indian music's microtones – in Western music there are 12 notes in an octave, whereas there are 22 pitches (I believe) in Indian music. That's all reflected in Harrison's melodies, so it really is a vital point to make under Songwriting. Certainly more than all Spitz's comments (when such a simple point can be made about Harrison matching his bandmates by 1969) and probably the end-of-section mentions of Harrison's lead singing on those other Beatles songs.

Hope this helps, Evanh. I really need to get the solo years sections done and move on to something else – I feel very bad that I'm letting down another contributor who I'd promised to help with their FLC. Which is why, from the start with George Harrison FAC, I've tried to explain points in detail, in the hope that there can be no confusion regarding my suggestions and why I think they're important. (That doesn't seem to be the case unfortunately, looking on the FAC review page!) Cheers, JG66 (talk) 12:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

No, you've done a great job, and I am very thankful for your input. And by "most recent batch", I did mean your comments from the tenth; I probably could have been clearer about that. I'll be online again later tonight and will do my best to look through these in detail and make the necessary changes then. Thanks again, and take as much time as you need getting around to the rest of the comments. No rush, of course. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Evanh2008, hope you're well. I'm not sure if you're necessarily watching the Harrison article talk page, so thought I'd drop you a line to say I've just added a comment regarding instruments that may (or may not) be of interest. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification! I should have time here shortly to drop by and leave my two cents on the subject. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Right, Responsibility, Good, and Evil

I didn't say that I was asking for opinion.

Republicanism (talk) 06:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

You asked whether something was good or evil. Being that there is no universally agreed-upon standard of what constitutes good and evil, you are (a priori) asking for opinions. Anyway, I won't edit war with you. I'll let someone else hat it. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Sources?

Hello, I noticed that you reverted some of my edits with Time magazine references because they were unsourced. How should I provide a source if it comes from a printed copy of the magazine? Thank you! Whitestorm17 (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The Template:Cite journal template should work, or you could just enclose the year, volume, issue, and page number in ref brackets and I'm sure someone will come along and convert it to a template for you. Thanks! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Re:Pink Floyd

Thanks. I'd appreciate your input on the talk page. Friginator (talk) 01:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

As would I. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: rounding up step one

Hello. This is a boilerplate message for participants in the moderated discussion about the Jerusalem RfC - sorry for posting en masse. We have almost finished step one of the discussion; thanks for your statement and for any other contributions you have made there. This is just to let you know I have just posted the proposed result of step one, and I would like all participants to comment on some questions I have asked. You can find the discussion at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion#Judging the consensus for step one - please take a look at it when you next have a moment. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 17:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Strad. I've been a little busy, but I was actually just about to head over there to take a look. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry, you still have a couple of days to comment before I formally close step one. And even if you don't comment, hopefully I have been good enough at representing everyone's views that it shouldn't matter too much. There are a couple of interesting questions that I would like more opinions on, though. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{♪ talk ♪} 00:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Why does Hollywood copy our films?

If you're going to cap part, take out HiLo's insult please. --Onorem♠Dil 02:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't an insult, but an observation. He explicitly included non-Americans in the statement, and I think it's pretty sad that some immediately assumed otherwise. I'm an American and I cannot see anything insulting about his post. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

He amended to say that, but his original insult was clear. In any case, please explain how that part is useful instead of just the beginning of the worthless tangent. --Onorem♠Dil 02:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

There was no insult, and I will stand by that assessment. If you want something more done, go talk to someone else about it, please. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I am talking to others about it, but you chose to hat part of the conversation, so you should be prepared to discuss your actions. If you don't like it, unhat and talk to someone else about it, please. --Onorem♠Dil 02:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I've discussed it to the extent necessary. If you've inexplicably convinced yourself that there's an insult there (and, assuming there even was an insult, why assume it was directed to the US in particular? Couldn't he have just as easily been referring to Canadians or Britons? Unless you think American film studios don't distribute outside the United States.), I can't help you, and nothing else I say is going to convince you otherwise. I've had my own share of disagreements with HiLo before, but this is clearly a case of people summoning problems out of thin air. If you want to exacerbate an imaginary problem, that's fine, but I refuse to assist or encourage you. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Based on the original question, the original response, prior comments, and current userpage...I think it was directed at the US in general. Don't cap conversations if you don't want to deal with feedback on it. --Onorem♠Dil 02:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Last I checked, I'm "deal[ing] with feedback on it" right now, so let's not get confused here. What you're asking me to do is not to "deal with" anything; you're asking me to capitulate to your demands and pretend that a perfectly pertinent reply to a ref desk question was a racist (?!) smear against the United States. My refusal to see reality from your point of view should not be construed as a refusal to listen to you. You can take the comment however you wish, but don't expect me to roll over and fetch the ball at your every whim. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

You are responding...but one of your first replies was to suggest that I "go talk to someone else about it".

Your first response made it sound like you didn't see that he'd added in much later the extra (not just the US) part.

I never said anything about racist...so please don't shove that word in my mouth. It makes absolutely no sense here.

I don't expect you to roll over or fetch. That was never the point at all. Fuck it. Never mind. Hat everything. Hat this. I'll fetch for you. Morning paper and coffee. What can I get for you? --Onorem♠Dil 03:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

So you don't expect me to cater to your demands, but your first post here was to tell me to hat HiLo's post. You came here telling me to do something for a specific reason. Rather than be dishonest, I told you that I didn't agree with your rationale and declined to do it. And no, I never shoved any words into your mouth. The word "racist" was bandied about at the thread and I made reference to it not knowing whether or not it was a notion you subscribed to, hence the interrobang which immediately followed it. I thought bringing up the topic may prompt you to make your understanding of it more clear; in hindsight, that was silly of me. Logically and quite civilly, I advised you to contact others, and you decided to intepret that as a refusal to address what I did and resort to a profanity-laden non-sequitur. Congratulations. I'm sure that will make everyone take you much more seriously. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I made a request. (See the please part?)

If you didn't know whether I thought racist applied, you shouldn't have brought it up in the conversation here. It's a stupid argument to say someone is racist against a country.

I agree that you were civil enough to the point where you told me to go somewhere else, but it basically seemed like you were saying "I disagree. If you don't like it, go talk to someone else"

Profanity-laden? Didn't realize a single profanity had that much power on a discussion. I'm done either way, but I'll stand behind the idea that you should be ready to deal with a bit of backlash if you make the decision to hat discussion. It was hatted. It was unhatted. YOU decided to hat it again. YOU should be ready to talk about it. Have a good night. --Onorem♠Dil 03:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I hatted it once, not twice, and I actually wasn't aware that it had been unhatted until you mentioned it. I see no reason to assume you weren't making an honest mistake in that regard, though. I have nothing against you, and if you took any of my comments that way, I apologize. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Into as a preposition in phrasal verb

I may have misunderstood your earlier point about "into" always being a preposition in the STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS debate. Although there are some sources that classify "into" as a particle in a phrasal verb (see http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:English_phrasal_verbs_with_particle_%28into%29), there are other sources that classify "into" as a preposition in a phrasal verb. I now think that you were saying that because "into" always is a preposition even in a phrasal verb, it would not fall under the MOS rule which applies to particles in a phrasal verb. I remain unsure if the absolutist position in your statement is correct, but I belatedly see your point. Jjuo (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: step two

Hello. This is to let you know that we have now started step two in the Jerusalem RfC discussion, in which we will be deciding the general structure of the RfC. I have issued a call for statements on the subject, and I would be grateful if you could respond at some time in the next couple of days. Hope this finds you well — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Arizona State Senate -Page

You made a mistake... That top information was updated. Obviously i don't know how everything works, but it is out of date now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.44.7.185 (talk) 07:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Check your talk page, please. I reverted what looked like mass removals of information from the article. In hindsight, I understand that the info is outdated, but you should have left an edit summary. Someone at the Arizona WikiProject should be able to take care of it. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Arizona State Senate -Page

updated every thing, but could not update the top right main side bar... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.44.7.185 (talk) 09:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

les miserables

Hi Evan, take a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Les_Mis%C3%A9rables/GA1#the_reviewer_has_retired

Especially at the new section I opened, at the bottom... Azylber (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: step two question

Hello everyone. I have asked a question about having drafts versus general questions at the Jerusalem RfC discussion, and it would be helpful if you could comment on it. I'm sending out this mass notification as the participation on the discussion page has been pretty low. If anyone is no longer interested in participating, just let me know and I can remove you from the list and will stop sending you these notifications. If you are still interested, it would be great if you could place the discussion page on your watchlist so that you can keep an eye out for new threads that require comments. You can find the latest discussion section at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion#Step two discussion. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. This is just a quick message to let you know that unless there is significant ongoing discussion, I intend to wrap up step two in a few days, probably on Thursday 31st 28th February. I invite you to have a look at the discussion there, especially at question five where I have just asked a question for all participants. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

D. C. Juster

Yeah, you're right, the author of the article is listed in the contributors section as having been the head of the UMJC. I suppose he might be seen as having a prejudice or POV regarding the subject, and that possibility should certainly be taken into account, but he is also, presumably, one of the best informed people, at least regarding the MJ variations about which he is most knwledgable. John Carter (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Pluto

You might be interested: [1] Wnt (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

FAC request

Hi Evan, since you've reviewed its second FAC, I wanted you to know that I've re-submitted Sesame Street research for its third. [2]. You should also know that although the 2nd FAC closed before I could address your feedback, I took them to the article's talk page and worked on them. I'm afraid that the article will fail again, for the same reasons it failed before--lack of support--so I'd appreciate your assistance. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure thing! I'll give it a look here in the next few days and should be supporting before too long. Thanks! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Appreciate it. Just finished addressing your feedback; thought you'd like to know. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I was just asking a question?

Why did you do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.171.9.130 (talk) 02:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I've gone illiterate overnight, but I'm having a very hard time construing this as a question. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes

I have a bit of an obsession with dinner, ha, its pretty good to use often, but yes, I will calm down on it. =) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.171.9.130 (talk) 03:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)