Latest updates:

• The Banks and the Gateway Quarter at UrbanUp

Other:

• I don't give a fuck.
• This master is whipping the slave into oblivion.

Volume 4, Issue 38 — 2008-09-22

---

• From the editor

• WikiWorld: "Dr. Seuss"

• Wikipedia in the News

• Dispatches: Reviewing non-free images

• Features and admins

• Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

• The Report on Lengthy Litigation

---

Archives·Newsroom·Tip line·Single-page·Subscribe

Mr Miles is vandalizing the Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous Again

this guy wiki games the three edit rule to get other editors banned. and has been called out by Adminstrator Seicer for removing all the info that could be constured as negative from the Alcoholics Anonymous wiki page.

Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alcoholics+Anonymous&diff=197618867&oldid=197618528

A separate page had to be created for the Effectiveness of Twelve Steps that became renamed the Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous. Both Scarpy and Mr Miles did not allow the other studies to be readmitted to the Alcoholics Anonymous Pagen, hence a separtate page was created to contain the studies and perserve them for the wiki.

he has constantly inserted POV in the George Vaillant section and he constantly attackss the study I have submitted below, which has recently been reworded to be more accurate. By the way the the study below uses much the same methods as Project Match, where therapists trained in twelve steps deliver the treatment to the study subjects.

Ståhlbrandt, Johnsson, Berglund Sweden 2007- A two year study of 556 University students. The subjects were assigned to one of three groups that being a brief skills-training {BSTP} alcohol-intervention program, or a 12-step-influenced alcohol intervention program {TSI}; or to a control group that received no intervention. The Brief skills-training program was composed of lectures and discussions which was derived from the University of Washington's Brief Alcohol Screening and Intervention for College Students program and based on cognitive-skill intervention and motivational techniques. The 12-step program provided lectures by therapists trained in the 12-step approach. All participants completed a baseline assessment, as well as follow-up questionnaires one, two and three years following the baseline year. The study indicated that all three groups significantly reduced their scores on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) from baseline assessment to the two-year follow-up. Stahlbranndt indicated maturity could be a factor for this. However, among those students deemed to engage in high-risk alcohol consumption – defined as AUDIT scores of eight or above for men and four or above for women , and in greater danger of having negative consequences from alcohol consumption, the Brief Skills Training Program was more effective in that they decreased their alcohol comsumption more than the twelve step group and the control group. [36]

--207.194.108.93 (talk) 00:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)MisterAlbert

"Take it further"

What I meant by "Take it further" was to report Edward321's comments to whomever deals with that side of things on Wikipedia. I believe my comments were wilfully misinterpreted so that he doesn't have to issue me with an apology for claiming that I stated that I made something up when I clearly never made any such comment. --Bravo Plantation (talk) 11:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

While this may have been 'resolved' in respect to me not making a "legal threat" (which by the way was completely preposterous and totally over-the-top), Edward321 has still not issued me with an apology for stating publically that I had admitted to creating an article which I blatently did not do. Also, it would have been courteous on your behalf to inform me that the matter had been 'resolved' on my talk page rather than not bothering. --Bravo Plantation (talk) 13:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Uh no. I'm sure you can check the ANI page all by yourself to see it. seicer | talk | contribs 13:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

What a patronising response. Either way, may I suggest that if you are going to start a conversation on my talk page, at least have the good manners and courtesy to update my talk page with the conclusion. --Bravo Plantation (talk) 14:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

A user is not required to apologize for whatever they may have done. seicer | talk | contribs 14:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Even if it is liballous? --Bravo Plantation (talk) 14:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Care to provide a DIFF? seicer | talk | contribs 14:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what that is. Please elaborate. Thanks. --Bravo Plantation (talk) 14:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you specify exactly what it is that you consider libellous, and which page it is located on? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I have copied and pasted the following from the page that I feel I am owed an apology because of -

"When will I find out if my article is going to be deleted or not? It's been hours now. Thanks. --Bravo Plantation (talk) 20:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

AFD nominations generally stay open for 5 days. I would like to offer a friendly suggestion - that you check out Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. The article isn't yours, per se. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC) Yeah I know the article isn't mine :) It was just a figure of speech as I created it! --Bravo Plantation (talk) 21:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Delete based on Bravo Plantation's admission that he just made it up. Edward321 (talk) 14:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Comment Add it as a comment to the Slush article. That would make the former more substantial. --Shieldfire (talk) 04:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC) [edit] A Message to Edward321 You posted on the talk page for 'Jubbly' that it should be deleted as I confessed to "making it up". Please remove this comment as I NEVER once said this. I consider the comment that you made to be unjustified, and quite illegal. Please remove your comment and issue me with an apology or I will take this further. --Bravo Plantation (talk) 16:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)"

This shows exactly why I am owed an apology from user Edward321. --Bravo Plantation (talk) 14:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If you believe that you are the subject of a libellous statement on Wikipedia, please E-mail the information team. I don't think this would be characterised as illegal, but I think you're saying (in other words) that you feel Edward321 has misstated your position. Please note that users cannot be forced to apologize on Wikipedia, and demanding for an apology usually falls on deaf ears (or blind eyes). However, if a user has made a false statement and is unwilling to retract it upon request, then it's probably best you try and contact an admin to politely explain the situation and request for their assistance in having the statement retracted. Alternatively, you can try a form of Wikipedia's dispute resolution system. In any case, good luck! Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Please note that Bravo Plantation has only posted part of the AfD comments and has not listed the comment that I was responding to. In this edit [1], Bravo Plantation says "Yeah I know the article isn't mine :) It was just a figure of speech as I created it!" Since he said it was a figure of speech that he had created, I !voted to delete based on his admission [2]. Edward321 (talk)

Let me also note that I was not the first person to say that the subject of that AfD was made up. The AfD creator said the subject was made up [3] . So did the first person to!vote on the Afd [4]. Miquonranger03 calls it a neologism, which is a fancy way of saying it was made up [5]. At which point BP said "It was just a figure of speech as I created it!" [6] and I responded. Why is Bravo Plantation singling me out for complaint when I was the 4th person to say it? Edward321 (talk) 05:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's because others have indicated their belief that the content seems to be made up or fabricated. However, you're saying Bravo confessed to making it up, and it doesn't appear as if he himself has stated/confessed that he fabricated it. That's why it's important to comment on content rather than the contributor. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to maintain the trust you have placed in me. I am honored by your trust and your support. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 01:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Winter the Hedgehog

I don't think your rapid close of the AfD after only 16 hours of the list was a good thing to do. . Not that the article was likely to be kept, but that people should have a chance to discuss it, in addition to a pileon by the people there over the next few hours. I usually want to comment on such article, not usually to keep, but generally to suggesta merge or a redirect, and I shouldhave a chance. Others might possibly be affected by my argument. For that matter, I might possibly have said delete, as I sometimes for, and again I want the opportunity to show that I do sometimes say delete. In this case, it would have given me an opportunity to show I accept that fan fiction generally does not warrant articles. (not that I would bring a deletion review for something like this). DGG (talk) 17:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

In most cases, the content can be merged into the main article. In some instances, I take the time to merge the content over, but the information provided was so trivial and unencyclopedic that that wasn't really the case. It can be easily re-created if need be on the main article page, but it needed to be completely reworked. I'd be happy to provide a copy of the page if you'd like -- or make it available for others.

To elaborate, I didn't feel a need to keep an article that'd be SNOW'ed under in a matter of hours. In the future, I won't try to be as speedy with the closures unless it is patently obvious that the article isn't worthy of inclusion or deletion. This was borderline. seicer | talk | contribs 17:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay

Okay, I removed the info that I read in the blog about there being 16 songs. However I re-added the info about them taking their time on the album, the release date, and the album concept because I read that in AP magazine, I think I sourced it correctly but I am not positive. Less than you (talk) 03:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

^This guy is USEDfan all over again. Nobody comes to Wikipedia to make edits like this. His previous sock puppet made the change that I reverted, and to top it all off, also added the AP magazine info, unsourced of course. Not to mention that the edit summaries contain the same bad grammar and spelling. --Pwnage8 (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It is definitely USEDfan for sure. This user is picking up where he left off. It is obvious it is him, without a doubt. Landon1980 (talk) 21:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this enough for you to block as a sock? It is USEDfan's IP right in the middle of the new socks edits minutes apart making the same edit? I'm certain a checkuser would confirm the new sock a sock of USEDfan. Landon1980 (talk) 22:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't find a definative connection on this, and the user did respond to my inquiry on his talk page about reliable sources -- which is more than what USEDfan ever did. I'd be cautious on this, but I'll keep a watch just in case. Thanks, seicer | talk | contribs 01:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

To me, USEDfan's IP address in the midst of the edits making the same edit, edit warring, and using the same horrible grammar is as definitive as it gets. The checkuser that last dealt with USEDfan should be able to take a look and confirm this. Landon1980 (talk) 14:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

If you're still not convinced that it is USEDfan, this will spell it out clearly. --Pwnage8 (talk) 04:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've been making edits to improve the tracklist tables on certain pages and some user is reverting them with something called 'rv' and one was about socks and a used fan, I asked them why but they have not yet replied, you helped me with something a last week or 2 weeks ago. What do I do? Less than you (talk) 05:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I currently stopped reverting the rest of the pages, I saw these tracklist tables on My Chem's page and thought they were nice and it would be good to bring the style to the Used page too. I read about edit wars and this has potential to start them so I will wait and see what the other user does, maybe you could say your opinion on what looks better. I'm just trying to improve things and I don't understand what they said I'm doing wrong. Thanks sir. Less than you (talk) 05:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

We are currently discussing some of it, but you seem to know a lot about wikipeida. I think it would be helpful to voice the mis-understandings between the other user and I. Such as formats and tracklist tables. Less than you (talk) 06:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I have decided to end the dispute with taking their side. I left them a message ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pwnage8#The_Used_3 ) so hopefully it settles the dispute we had. They have been on wiki longer then me so they know much more then I do and I don't understand as much as them about an open wiki so I will use them as a guide for help in the future. Thanks. Less than you (talk) 02:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter, Issue 6 (FINAL ISSUE)

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 2, Issue 6 • 8 September 2008 • About the Newsletter
Departments Project news Deletion debates Featured member From the editors	Features Gap appears in freeway New York subproject appears on the Wikipedia Signpost New York State Routes leaves jurisdiction of USRD From the editors—newsletter decommissioned	State and national updates State and national updates
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—Rschen7754bot (talk) 03:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Michael Sandefer

FYI, may be coming your way. TravellingCari 01:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Seicer. I would like to thank you for your support in my RfA and the confidence expressed thereby. It is very much appreciated. :) The RfA was closed as successful with 73 supports, 3 opposes and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank WBOSITG for nominating me. Best wishes and thanks again, —αἰτίας •discussion• 23:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Article protection request: J.J. Thomson

Hi. I notice that you protected Ernest Rutherford due to excessive vandalism. I agree entirely, and I wonder if you could also protect J.J. Thomson for the same reason. Thomson was a slightly older physicist (in fact he was Rutherford's academic advisor) who discovered the electron and also won a Nobel prize, and his article history shows much of the same juvenile vandalism recently. Dirac66 (talk) 16:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC) Thanks. Dirac66 (talk) 00:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Afd run time

I tried to find something about Afd run times but could only come up with this "at the end of the discussion period (about five days), it should be closed within a few more days at most. Asking for someone to close the discussion is unnecessary." [7] Hobartimus (talk) 01:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

...and? I'm not sure which AFD you are talking about here, but discussions can be closed at administrator discretion if it appears that it is snowballing or if there is reasonable evidence to believe that the article should be kept or deleted without a full five day marathon. Care to provide a link to the AFD in question? seicer | talk | contribs 01:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

[8] I'm fine with the deletion just wanted to ask if you could add "no prejudice for recreation" or something similar as the case develops it can become more notable later. The original article was also tagged with rescue and I was working on expanding it to show notability so I thought there is a chance for some leniency or throwing of a bone :). Hobartimus (talk) 01:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Also I didn't vote in the Afd as I thought I have plenty of time. Hobartimus (talk) 01:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. If you want to recreate it in userspace (I can provide a copy for you), to expand upon its noteworthy-ness -- mainly due to its controversial nature and its duplication at two articles, I'd be more than happy to do that. seicer | talk | contribs 01:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I'd appreciate that a lot. Hobartimus (talk) 01:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I see it now. Hobartimus (talk) 01:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It has been userified: User:Hobartimus/sandbox2. I've got it watchlisted; I'm actually quite interested in how this will play out myself... seicer | talk | contribs 01:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Care to provide a link to the "reasonable evidence to believe" policy you cited above? DGG (talk) 18:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm already well aware that you hold reasonable grudges against those 'deletionists'. If the article is snowballing, or if there is evidence to believe the article is a hoax, or a duplication of an already existing article, then it can be deleted. In this case, it was information that was repeated on two pages. It was userified with the hope that it can be expanded upon shall it become a notable event, and to which the OP agreed to. Nothing to see here, move along. seicer | talk | contribs 19:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

USEDfan

Is this definitive enough for you? Landon1980 (talk) 07:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been away for a bit, but yeah, that was enough. I didn't act earlier because he hadn't done anything that was conclusive, such as this. I couldn't act on that or the prior examples, but I recommend filing future reports at SSP or file a RFCU. I may be away from WP for a bit. seicer | talk | contribs 04:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand. I will request a checkuser or file an SSP if he comes back in the future. Laziness on my part is why I didn't last time; I just knew you were familiar with him. So you are leaving us for a while? I hate to hear that, you're one of the better admins we have. Landon1980 (talk) 04:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Naw, I've just become so busy writing articles for my (soon to be four) web-sites, doing photography and working that WP has been put to pasture for a while. That and it's the fall foilage season, so I really won't be around much during that :) seicer | talk | contribs 04:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

TEAL

Hi. The Typo Eradication Advancement League got deleted recently, I think by you. I was planning to add to the article but didn't quite get round to it. I don't quite understand the mechanism, but could I see a copy of the article in order to improve it? Let me have a go at fixing it up (it is notable, AFAICS and there is more material to be added) and then perhaps pass it through AFD? Best wishes, Robinh (talk) 14:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Recreated at User:Robinh/sandbox. Let me know if you have any questions/comments or need help. seicer | talk | contribs 04:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. Well I've had a look at it to remind myself what the content was, but I don't think it deserved speedy. Other editors contributed to it too, not just me (although I couldn't find the history). Surely appearing on Language Log and Today programme qualify as noteworthy? Any chance of passing it through AFD? cheers, Robinh (talk) 07:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)