User talk:Justinfr/archive3

David Lake

Please slow down and look at the article, which I am still working on. This is a notable architect.Elan26 (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26

Looks like you've added more buildings. I'll take the tag off. justinfr (talk/contribs) 17:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Your revert of Aram Nahraim

I'd be interested to know what your expertise is on the topic.

Why do you consider it a stable page when it has repeatedly alternated between two very different perspectives, and why is it you don't use the discussion page to make your case before reverting something.Rktect (talk) 18:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no expertise on the topic, I based my revert on the discussion here. But you're right--instead of 'stable' I should have said, "The one that's concise and appears to be well referenced, as opposed to the one that appears to be a bunch of original research with references only to Bible verses." justinfr (talk/contribs) 19:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: Beyond participating in that AN discussion though, I don't really have an interest in the article--it just happened to still be on my watchlist. I'll stay out of any content disputes. justinfr (talk/contribs) 19:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The list of Bible verses referencing the relation between toponyms is submitted to get at a problem of internal consistancy between the primary source and the much later greek commentaries referring to the twin rivers. Essentially the issue is that the Tigrs and Euphraties are not the only pairs of rivers used as boundaries in the ANE. In the ANE the watershed of the Orontes and Jordan rivers is the topic of discussion in everything from Egyptian campaign literature to Sumerian, Akkadian and Assyrian king lists. Repeating an obvious mistake that has found its way into bad secondary literature can ruin the value of an encyclopedia article. Correcting the mistake is not original research just good editing. Rktect (talk) 20:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasilla Assembly of God

I am a retired mathematician formerly at Stanford unfamiliar with Wikipedia publication standards.

About fifteen people, including yourself, made conributions to the Wasilla Assembly of God article. Similarly, a number corrected and sourced Larry Kroon and Ed Kalnins, including articles with them prior to Palin being nominated.

The revisions were made per the suggestions.

How was it and related articles completely deleted without warning?EricDiesel (talk) 02:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I restored the article per Synergy's request. It seems the article wasn't a G4, as it discusses a different church in Wasilla, Alaska that Palin also attended. Regardless, the article has now been nominated for deletion here. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 02:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was the one who nominated Wasilla Assembly of God for deletion because it seemed to be the same content as other Wasilla church articles, only with a different name. An administrator, User:AuburnPilot‎ agreed with me and deleted the article. Other editors, however, have disagreed and so the article has been restored. My apologies for the mixup.

Regarding the other deleted articles, there have been a number of messages left on your talk page with links to WP publication standards. The most important one is WP:NOTABILITY. The article's subjects must be notable enough on their own--outside of their association with Sarah Palin--to warrant an article. The consensus has been that most of them are not. justinfr (talk/contribs) 02:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand how anyone reading the two church articles, one of which was in the Atlantic Monthly for the controversies long before Palin was nominated, the other which has a pastor making political statements based on theological arguments, said statements later adopted as policy positions by Palin, and referenced by the Chicago Tribune, could be confused as having identical content in good faith.

Most delete recommendations based on lack of sources were made before the major media sources were added, so they should be irrelevant to a consensus.

I wrote personal messages addressing each deletion suggestion, then responded to their suggestions. I was accused of Spamming, which means sending the same message in an automated way. Does Wikipedia have a different definition of Spamming? Why bother to respond to suggestions if the response is called Spamming, and if the implemented suggestions are simply deleted?

Sorry if this sounds angry, but Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and no historian would not want encyclopedia articles on schools and churches, and pastors and teachers of a historical public figure whose claim to fame is application of her theological thinking to her policies, especially when the teachers and the historical figure share controversial views, and those same views make the historic figure become relevant. I (and) many others on the edit page responded to each suggestion on my talk page, both in the articles and to them individually. Thanks76.167.163.164 (talk) 02:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to assume that IP 76.167.163.164 is also EricDiesel, and that you just forgot to login. You've both been posting the same messages; EricDiesel has said he's from Stanford; and the IP resolves to California.

I assumed they were the same because the names were similar and the content was almost identical. Further, you have been creating the same article under different titles (e.g., Sarah Palin's pastor, Sarah palin's pastor, Sarah Palin's Pastor, all day. It's not unreasonable to assume that, based on the apparent similarity and the previous examples of multiple article creations, that they were the same thing under different names. In any case, I was wrong, the mistake was corrected, and I apologized.

Second, I'm not saying the church is completely un-notable. I'm saying I don't think it's notable outside of it being a church that Sarah Palin attended. Therefore, the best place to mention it is on the Sarah Palin article. You are free to disagree with me, of course. That's why we have the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wasilla Assembly of God, so everybody can weigh-in.

Lastly, I'm sorry your first few days on WP have not gone well. As somebody else mentioned, there are a lot of guidelines that are not necessarily intuitive. By jumping right in, especially on a political topic, it can be easy to run into a lot of them. There are lots of guidelines at Help:Contents that you might find useful. Another suggestion is to consider making smaller edits to existing articles, rather than creating ones from scratch. As a former professor, I'm sure the people at WikiProject Mathematics would love to have your help! justinfr (talk/contribs) 11:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasilla Assembly of God, Ed Kalnins, Wasilla Bible Church and Larry Kroon

Thanks for your time. I deleted several messages in varioius places that had not yet been responded to, since any response would be better made where I posted Five Requests for Clarification on Wikipedia Policies and Standards summarized from numerous Palin related Wikipedia deletion discussion pages on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wasilla Assembly of God. If you havbe time, it may be more appropriate to respond on that page, since the five questions were culled from numerous other editors and others on the four deleted articles, Wasilla Assembly of God, Ed Kalnins, Wasilla Bible Church and Larry Kroon.

These were my first four articles, two for creating, two for editing. After review of Wikipedia people and policies, I think I made inappropriate, and certainly unproductive comments all over the place. I did not even know about my own discussion page until late in the deletion debate.

• If you think I should apologize anywhere or delete communications that are inappropriate, please let me know if you have the time.

That said, I still think the edits (deletions of information) of WasillaAG were politically motivated, and that homophobic or anti Semetic sermons, voluntarily attended by Palins, are notable because of their etiological relationship to her bizarre public policy views and reasoning (bizarre at least from the perspective of science).

I would like to post this message at a page I can not find, which includes posts regarding these four articles, and posts by by Seicer and Carl, where there is a discussion of my being naive or malicious. Do you know where it is? Thanks. EricDiesel (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. Thanks for the kind note. I fully agree with the comment CobaltBlueTony left on your talk page under the heading "Wikipedian experience."

Second, I don't think I know the page that you're talking about.

(Is it one of these, Wasilla Assembly of God, Ed Kalnins, Wasilla Bible Church and Larry Kroon?EricDiesel (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There's a link on the upper-right of your screen called "my contributions". It lists everywhere you've made an edit. It may be slow going, but you could look through the list to find the page your talking about. Cheers.... justinfr (talk/contribs) 17:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for info on how the contributions page. I would not otherwise have had time to read about it as I am now communicating with what appears to be tens, if not hundreds of people, interested enough in the deletion of these four articles to be weighing in.

If I write another article (for instance, on another church where the notable Anti Semite referred to in one of the two deleted articles gave another speech that also made national coverage, should I expect this level of "deletion heat"? For example, I am the director of the Thomas Henry and Aldous Huxley Foundation, and I was thinking of having some members do articles on Wikipedia. But no one would want to endure this kind of heated passion for deletion on an article, especially on a subject which is claimed to not to be notable, yet generates hundreds of lengthy comments arguing for deletion.EricDiesel (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin Page is not the right place for information to go

Hi, You wrote on another page regarding Wasilla Assembly of God and Wasilla Bible Church "The church articles are basically cover for discussing Sarah Palin, and so such content would better be covered on her own page." justinfr (talk/contribs) 02:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason the church articles should not be on the Sarah Palin page is that the very different controversial quotes of their speakers and pastors were not made by Palin. Wasilla Bible Church is in the Israeli press for inviting internationally notorious anti Semite David Brickner, who used the church to make some of his most bizarre comments. Sarah Palin did not make the controversial remarks. She was merely sitting there. I am the original poseter and no Sarah Palin fan, but putting this kind of stuff on the Sarah Palin site would be guilting Palin by association.

• Is there a way to get the two different church sites BOTH back up, since the articles had completely different content?

• Better, is there a way to restore all four deleted articles on Larry Kroon, Wasilla Assembly of God, Wasilla Bible Church, and Ed Kalnins? (but NOT Palin's main pastor, Riley, who is in more major press stories, but is only notable for his relation to Palin, and is only in the stories describing Palin).

This would enable a focus on the controversial pastors, without associating every church member with the controversial pastors, but still allowing information about the churches. I note that user WasillaAG wants their own church article, and it is unfair to deny a church an article only because Palin was nominated.

(I am new and I hope you are the correct person to be asking.) Thanks EricDiesel (talk) 01:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Just a note to start--I am just one of many editors who express their opinions on these matters. Mine is no more important than others because wikipedia works on consensus (WP:CONSENSUS). But, I'd be happy to explain and clarify my personal thoughts. I have no opinion on how or if the Brickner incident should be reported on the Palin page. I had only meant that it could be mentioned on her page that she attended there, if it's considered important.

If you think that the pages have been deleted in error, Wikipedia has a process for this; it's called Deletion Review and can be found here: WP:DELREV. There are instructions there on how to request a "second opinion" on the deletion. However, I think the Bible Church deletion is unlikely to be overturned, as there seemed to be a pretty strong consensus that the church wasn't notable outside of its association with Palin. I hope that helps clarify things, or at least points you to the right place for requesting a deletion appeal. justinfr (talk/contribs) 01:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

What Wiki is NOT

I know Wikipedia is NOT a social meeting place, but I noticed you wrote "I'm also interested in religion, pseudoscience, and individual rights, especially where these topics intersect with politics."

I am a retired desert mathematician, but I also happen to be notorious for having gotten the San Francisco Police Chief fired and the mayor removed in 1992, financing and winning a million dollar malicious prosecution case against the city, then being maliciously prosecuted again for 12 years more, with the prosecution using (pseudoscience) junk science as evidence (his evidence was the subject of the keynote adress by the president of engineering geologists in at their annual meeting of about 2002, on junk geological science in the courts, with junk science used against me taking up the whole talk, ultimately resulting in my losing almost 20 million dollars(!), leaving me with comparatively little, my being left totally disabled from the judge ordering me to appear in court immediately after nonelective neural surgery, and the case only ending when I agreed not to appeal and to forever give up my right to habeas corpus (if one can even give that up). My girlfriend is a neuroscience grad student formerly at USC, now at Newcastle. This hits all your points but religeon, where the closest I have ever gotten is the church article DELETE arguments that brough me to your page.

Maybe you should delete this post so as not to get in trouble for abusing Wiki. EricDiesel (talk) 02:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello! I just wanted to pass along my thanks for your support in my RfA from earlier this week. I hope I did not disappoint you. I am going on Wikibreak and I will let you know when or if I am back on the site -- I am trying to take time away to clear my thoughts and refocus on this and other priorities. Be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

edits

sorry for the quick edits with no explanation, I will try to follow your advice because i can understand how it can be hard to follow my many changes. The main problem was i didnt find see the bar, and am still learning all about wikipedia and making edits, but i will make the effort to add in my changes for the future —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jd.101 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, I appreciate the apology. I didn't have an issue with the edits per se (except the ones that went against what had been decided on the talk page), just that with so many in a row it's very hard to follow changes on the article. The edit box looks like this:

It doesn't need to be anything fancy -- even just "adding mts centre photo" or "re-wording intro paragraph"--anything so there's some idea. Feel free to chime in on the talk page too! That's where we discuss potential changes for the article. I also noticed sometimes you make changes then revert them right afterwards. I don't know whether you've seen the preview button (see WP:PREVIEW) but that will show you what the article looks like before making the changes to the actual article. (If you knew about that already, please disregard.)

All the best.... justinfr (talk/contribs) 23:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sigh

You might be interested in the discussion here. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I know. So strange. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

PJ Morton

[1] Brownie points to you for returning to this article and making a sincere effort to whip it into shape. Just thought you should know your efforts were noticed. Risker (talk) 22:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for the feedback. It's nice to be noticed in a good way :) I like to keep an eye on my speedy deletes to see what happens to them. If a bunch get declined I know I'm doing something wrong! justinfr (talk/contribs) 22:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I left the Admin request thing

there was a black/brown backgrounded frame at the bottom of the article, within the quick links boxes

it said something along the lines of "for good gay sex call so-and-so, also go hates n*****s"

the person left a calling card but i cant rememeber now what it was(the message disappeared some time later and i thought someone here had resolved it)

if you can, be on the lookout for unauthorized access, as well as other admins

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.226.110.142 (talk) 04:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping an eye out, though there doesn't appear to be anything there now. (I looked back a week in the edit history.) Maybe the template for one of the boxes at the bottom was vandalized somewhere. Being that anybody can edit wikipedia, vandalism tends to crop up here and there. Fortunately, we have lots of contributors who watch for it and get rid of it fairly quickly. If you notice anything else in the future, feel free to be bold and delete it yourself if you like. Cheers.... justinfr (talk/contribs) 11:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Candidate lists

Just so you know, some of the candidate lists that you started this morning (Green, Liberal) actually already existed at other titles — given that the election writs were only dropped two days ago, some stuff is still in the process of being moved from "40th Canadian federal election" to 2008. So if you come across any other similar articles that seem missing, could you check first to see if they already exist at the ordinal "40th" instead of the year "2008", and move them to the 2008 title if they do? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 18:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Crap, sorry. I went to the 2006 articles and just changed the year. Though I did think to myself, "It seems odd there isn't a page on this already." I should have listened to that voice. So to confirm: (1) Our naming convention is to use the year, not the number, right? and (2) Did you fix the articles, or should I do it? justinfr (talk/contribs) 18:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No worries, really. Yeah, we use the year rather than the number once the year is known, but for advance articles on the next election, we use the ordinal instead since the year is only a guess until the election is actually called. I've already fixed the articles, but of course they're still going to need additions and style fixes and such. Bearcat (talk) 18:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, okay. I understand. I came to the pages through a number of AFD discussions for candidates. I'll continue to add to the candidate lists as I come across names. Cheers.... justinfr (talk/contribs) 18:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Canadian federal election, 2008

The reference to the Tory clean air act that you removed--I re-read the reference and think I've integrated it into the article in a more npov fashion than User:Boondocks37 had been doing. Wouldn't mind hearing what you think. justinfr (talk/contribs) 13:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It's definitely better. (There's a lot in that article which could be noted/summarised in that section. And only including a point without the counter-point, could cause bias. So perhaps it could still use some tweaking?)

And btw, thank you for making the effort. - jc37 23:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! I know what you mean though--for every point that every party makes, each of the other parties makes a counterpoint. It leads to a messy article. Maybe we should make a chart :) justinfr (talk/contribs) 23:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

New Articles

You requested some feed back on your initial forays into wikipedia....

• Your article Taman Inquiry may in fact be better suited to wikinews or both wikinews and wikipedia. The sources have to be done differently on wikkinews, but it is an event that is being watched in the media recently.
• your article Martin S. Minuk may look better with an infobox like what was done for Raymond E. Wyant or one of these infoboxes. This will also help formulate an outline for the article. Biographies usually include...these sections as a generality.
• regarding Conditional sentence (Canada) a good thing to do would be to visit other articles in the categories to see the points covered in those articles as well as to see discussion on the talk page of related articles via categories as well.
• You have done an absolutely awesome job giving references, as usually a reference per fact is needd and a minimum of one per paragraph, which you have excellently done. You have provided wikilinks and see also to other wikipedia articles as well. Keep up the good work! For more advice you may also wish to join the Wikipedia:WikiProject Canadian law. You may wish to add your articles to the task project under the new article section as well!

Keep up the good work SriMesh | talk 01:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Kind Regards

Mansoor Malangi

Mansoor Malangi article was removed using "speedy deletion". I have recreated the article, the person is a noteable singer in pakistan. A search on google / youtube reveals a bunch of his songs.--Mahak library (talk) 02:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, though the article still lacks references from reliable sources. Claims about him need to be verifiable (WP:V) to ensure he meets the notability requirements at WP:MUSIC. There were no references and no details (i.e., about why he's notable), so that's why I thought it met the criterion at WP:CSD#A7. Without those details, there's a good chance it will get deleted again. justinfr (talk/contribs) 11:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

genuinely not a conflict

hey justin

one of my 57k readers of my blog (a guy called fletch) asked me if he could add an entry about me

i said yes

he posted an entry and i went to check, editing a few things he had got wrong

now the post has been removed as i gues sit looks like a conflict

its not - please check IP addresses - or contact him - etc

i was genuinely honored to have someone list an entry and it seems like i have violated something or other!

aside from this - KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK!

thats it!

jonathan

Jonathan MacDonald (talk) 17:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the note and explanation. I didn't mean to imply that you and fletch were the same person, and that you had created the article yourself, only that it can be a conflict of interest when you edit an article about yourself (even if you weren't the creator). The message was just intended to clarify those guidelines if you weren't familiar with them, not make you feel like you've violated anything! :)

There are ways around conflicts of interest, however, and they're outlined at WP:COI#Editors who may have a conflict of interest. Generally nobody will complain if you're correcting obvious factual errors, the bigger issues are usually around using a neutral point of view and not including any original research. Looking at the deletion log for that article, it looks like the author didn't explain why the article met the notability guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. (I'm not saying you're not notable or anything, just that perhaps it wasn't made clear enough in the article as written.) If the person from your blog has any questions, they can feel free to ask them here and I'll do my best to answer them. justinfr (talk/contribs) 17:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry?

I notice you have accused me of "sockpuppetry". This is a shared IP address used by thousands of people, in addition the IP changes nearly every day with no control coming from the users. If that makes me a "sockpuppet" then whatever. By blocking one person on this IP you are effectively blocking over 20 000 other "sockpuppets". And after I log off and log back on tomorrow or whenever, knowing the nature of my provider, I'll likely have a new IP through no doing of my own.41.245.165.140 (talk) 13:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You equivocate, but haven't denied that you're User:Dr Rgne. Is it just a coincidence that you started editing just hours after that user was banned, and also share interests in wrestling and Illyrians? justinfr (talk/contribs) 14:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Apparently an admin has confirmed that your claim was mistaken. I do hope this resolves this issue, and any words that any person involved said that may offend can be put aside. It really is in the best interests of everyone involved if we can all just try and constructively contribute to wikipedia without any undue unpleasantness. I wish you well and hope we never have reason to discuss anything on wikipedia again, apart from how best to improve articles. 41.245.165.140 (talk) 09:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not my interpretation of the admin report, but no worries. I am fine with burying the hatchet. I have a few things on my plate this morning so I'll respond it more detail later. justinfr (talk/contribs) 13:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Review of your action requested

I've asked for a review of your non-admin closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nokia N70 at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FNokia_N70 Exxolon (talk) 10:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• The close seemed fine as it fairly represented the discussion. Don't be shy about such action which is well within the spirit of WP:BOLD and is good experience in understanding our processes. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Just a heads up, that info about it being the 2nd best selling phone is still not in the article. Exxolon (talk) 16:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Bruce Sanders

I don't understand why you deleted the information about Bruce Saunders. I am just curious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbie pug (talk • contribs) 19:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I thought that it didn't explain why the article's subject met the notability requirements for inclusion as a wikipedia article, and so it was eligible for deletion under the A7 criteria for speedy deletion. I nominated the article, and then an administrator, User:Master of Puppets, agreed and did the actual deleting. If you think the deletion is in error, you could talk to Master of Puppets, or request a review at deletion review. It may be useful to read the article Why was my page deleted? If you have any other questions, please let me know. justinfr (talk/contribs) 23:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Butterfly (1982) -- removal of article link

I posted a link to my review of the film Butterfly (1982), and you removed it as unnecessary (I happen to think it's well-written, with quite a bit of information that anyone looking up the film on Wikipedia, will find interesting). But the "Allmovie" link remains, and it doesn't even work (it's disabled). Why is a review from DVDTalk any less worthy than from Allmovie? And why is a review of a film an "unnecessary" link when I see them linked on many, many other Wikipedia entries?

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.182.38.8 (talk) 14:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I did not think those links met the guidelines for external links (see WP:LINKSTOAVOID point #5) because, though it also contained a review, the primary purpose of the site seemed to be to sell DVDs. If that review is a reliable source, it's better to cite that information in the article and use the page as a reference rather than an external link. justinfr (talk/contribs) 12:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

We don't sell DVDs at DVDTalk -- we're the single biggest source of DVD reviews on the internet. We're a resource site, not a retail outfit. We simply don't sell DVDs -- we're not Amazon or DeepDiscount or anything like that. Ads are bought on our pages, like any other website, but we're strictly movie reviews, and only reviews. If you look at how our reviews are structured, you'll see that just as many reviews tell our viewers a film is bad, as are good -- hardly what a retail site would do (my review of Butterfly said the film was awful -- why would we do that if we were trying to sell the DVD?). All you have to do is look at our homepage to see that we're a reference site -- not retail in any way, shape or form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.182.38.8 (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I went to the site--there are links to buy DVDs all over it. Even if they're ads, the guidelines for external links also suggest that links to pages with excessive advertising should be avoided. This also brings up a second point: Wikipedia is not here to promote your site. Repeatedly adding links to it isspam. Please see WP:BFAQ for more on this. justinfr (talk/contribs) 02:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

So why are there links to other reviews from other sites -- including ours -- up and working on Wikipedia? There are links to TCM (Turner Classic Movies) reviews all over the place on Wikipedia -- and they actually sell their OWN DVDs, while we're not a retail operation. How does that jibe with what you just wrote? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.42.30 (talk) 12:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I've read other posts here, and I've noticed when someone calls you on something you have no answer for, you ignore them, like my post. You have no argument or reason for taking off my review, so you ignore the post. That's why Wikipedia is getting a reputation fast for being a capricious at best "reference" source, because of arbitrary editors like yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.42.30 (talk) 19:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

In this case, as I've noted on my user page, I'm on wikipedia infrequently once the school year starts. I already provided sufficient links to policies about avoiding links to sites with excessive advertising and commercial ventures. Obviously, you're affiliated with the site, which leads to a WP:COI and makes it look like WP:SPAM. Did you read WP:BFAQ? The fact that other articles have bad links is not a reason for adding more of them. It just means we haven't gotten around to removing those other ones yet. justinfr (talk/contribs) 12:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

résumés

Hi, Justinfr.

You've linked to WP:RESUME on a user talk page. There's a discussion about that essay going on at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not the place to post your résumé#Tone - you might want to join in. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 19:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the notice. I've been away for a few days and seem to have missed the bulk of the discussion. I'll keep an eye on it though. You've made a good point, and I could see how that could seem bitey. Best....justinfr (talk/contribs) 12:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Serial accuser of anti-Americanism

Back in September a wikipedian left you an accusation of anti-Americanism. They left similar accusations on half a dozen user's pages. You might be interested in my invitation for them to be more specific.

Yours in cooperation and collegiality. Geo Swan (talk) 21:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I'll keep an eye on it. I had asked them to be specific too, to no avail. Cheers..... justinfr (talk/contribs) 12:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)