User:Improv/talkarchive made jul2006

This is an archived talk page. If you want to comment further on something in it, I'll happily move (or copy) the old conversation from the archive to my current talk page.

Patrin on Roma people

This page is quite useful since it covers the topic and is neither promotion nor hysteric propaganda. It had suvived many deletions, even by me. IMO this link is one of more useful there.

The other links should be pruned, though. There's one clearly promotional for a San Francisco organisation and couple of newspaper articles with rather low information value. Pavel Vozenilek 23:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Far worse links were placed here in the past. I still think something is better than nothing but am not going to push it futher.

What regards primary sources: say people from Museum of Romani Culture (in the Czech Rep.) could provide such sources but their only interest and contribution here was creation of a self-promoting article. And they are no exception here. Pavel Vozenilek 20:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Conclusion dispute

I'm not sure what to do about it, but I'm pretty sure that this section of the Media bias in the United States article does not belong in Wikipedia. I've shown User:Rick Norwood why such a 'conclusion' doesn't belong in Wikipedia, but he disagrees. What do I do? - ElAmericano | talk 01:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. - ElAmericano | talk 05:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

God

You don't have to convince me that it's POV... All I object to is the "mythological" part... there are any number of other wordings that do not make any assertion one way or another, that would be fine, as long as the "mythological" part goes... Regards, ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Looking through various recent versions and making something of a composite, here is what I would suggest for npov...

God is the term used in English to denote the deity who is believed in monotheistic religions to be the creator and ruler of the universe. Conceptions of God vary widely, despite the common use of the same term for them all.

Regards, --ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Random side note to an old thread: "mythological" isn't actually an assertion of any sort. A "myth" is just any information that is passed down from generation to generation, usually in the form of a narrative. That doesn't mean that it's not true, only that it derives from a series of tellings, generation to generation. Technically, the Judeo-Christian God is a mythological figure, regardless of what you believe (just as, for example, Shiva is) -Harmil 21:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Photo

Note: This is in response to [1]

Actually, it's just some piece of mind for myself. With the arbcom's recent promotion of Jimbo to godhood, I want to make sure that if Jimbo decides to get rid of me on a whim someday(since apparently he is never wrong) that the encyclopedia will feel the void that I leave. Let's hope it doesn't come to that. Karm a fist 04:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Article for Deletion

Greetings. You may be interested in voting on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse (image free). Thanks. --Descendall 01:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

RfM

Would you look over and consider taking Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero? No special reason, I'm just matching available poeple up with available cases. If you're agreeable, would you leave me a note on my talk page? Thanks! Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 00:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Pathoschild/Projects/Userboxes

Hi, I notice that you removed my notice on the above project from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates. Would you consider replacing it? My reasoning for putting it there is that really all most people want is to get their pretty box back. They don't care if that involves recreating a template or copying in wikicode (as one would do with Pathoschild's code library). Pathoschild is working to reduce conflict between those who are deleting userboxes and those who like them.

Think of it as a compromise--once the userbox is no longer a transclusion, it becomes a matter of userpage content, for which we already have fairly well established standards, and the userbox wikicode on their userpage, should it happen to be inacceptable, becomes an individual user conduct matter--though as it happens Pathoschild has a blacklist of templates that he considers unsuitable even for a userpage (such as using pacifists for target practise) and has not made available in his code library).

I placed the notice prominently on the page because I reasoned that it would provide a productive solution to the problem of a user seeing that his pretty box saying "This user identifies as a socialist", "This user doesn't likie the EU", or whatever has disappeared, and that as a community we are a lot less worried about individuals expressing opinions like this than about the social ramifications of Wikipedians making such a declaration as an organised faction (which is something for which the transclusion mechanism effectively provides the glue). --Tony Sidaway 13:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

User Atheist

Is there a particular reason you deleted the User: Atheist template? TKarrde 23:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

It is divisive, harmful to the project, and is now a candidate for speedy deletion, as per Jimbo's dictum. See WP:CSD. --Improv 23:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

According to who? You? Jimbo? You'd both be wrong. A template stating one's beliefs is only divisive when people like you decide to take it that way. By your logic, ALL religious templates or templates regarding any sort of belief, humor or not, are divisive. And if you believe that, you should have deleted all the other religious templates at the same time you deleted the atheist one. But you didn't. This is called "favoritism", and is a direct attempt to counter freedom of expression. If this is sanctioned under Jimbo's rules, it's news to me. I sure haven't seen any "Atheists can't have their own userboxes, but everyone else can" rules listed anywhere. TKarrde 00:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd point you at the golden rule of last resort -- he who has the gold makes the rules. Jimbo's judgement trumps any consensus that might ever occur. He has weighed in on this issue, and devisive userboxes must go. It's not of any dislike for atheists -- eventually these divisive userboxes will all go away. I am starting here, and moving to delete/protect others after a bit, getting my toes wet a bit at a time. I think you'd be surprised at my actual positions on faith, religion, etc -- I am telling you they are not relevant to the userbox discussion though. --Improv 00:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

If that's the case, and Jimbo has specifically stated that userboxes are divisive and have to go, why not nuke ALL userboxes simultaneously? You have to understand that ANY group represented by userboxes is going to be justifiably miffed if theirs is the only one to go while you're busy "getting your toes wet". This is no different than if User: Christian or User: Muslim or User: Polytheist had been deleted (and all the others left intact), and should be treated as such. TKarrde 00:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Eventually I intend to do just that, but not singlehandedly. I am asking you to trust me that I have nothing special against atheists, and that this is certainly not an attempt to single them out. It is purely a matter of policy. The corrisponding userboxes will go too, be patient (or delete them yourself, and I'll back you up). --Improv 00:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, so I try to keep the amount of rampant deletion I do to a minimum ;) I just edit and add content. Still, though, while I don't want to see ANY userboxes go (I prefer to think of the internet as a domain of inherent free speech and freedom of expression), if any one religion-affiliated userbox is deleted under the logic that it's divisive (whether the Atheist one or some other userbox), ALL of them should go. Just in the interests of fairness. And I'm pretty certain that once the other ones start dropping there will be a lot of unhappy users. I'm not here for the bumper stickers either, but I think they add character to the site ;) TKarrde 00:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand your concern, and it is a reasonable concern. If you really want, go digging on Google for the name "Pat Gunn", and you'll find that we're more similar than you'd think. I realise that this issue is very painful for the community, and I don't enjoy these matters, but I worry about the project and think that userboxes represent a great harm for it. I want the help of everyone I can get to purge the threat, and feel that people will understand afterwards. --Improv 00:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the deeper issue here is that the community is beginning to take on a life of its own and Jimbo is panicking ;) He doesn't want to see the website crumble down into anarchy and chaos. Neither would I, but I think that fear doesn't take into account the fact that the website exists inherently BECAUSE of the community, and the stronger the community is, the more people will be vigilantly eliminating vandalism efforts and putting serious work into streamlining and improving the overall quality of articles. Snuffing out self-expression isn't in my mind something that's going to eliminating bickering or disagreements between users - that's another part of this website that simply can't be removed. People are going to disagree about what belongs in an article, at the very lowest level. The important thing is to teach those users who don't know how to disagree civilly how to be a little more mature ;) Userboxes don't even factor into the equation. TKarrde 00:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You may call this a panic by Jimbo, but I don't think it is. I think he sees a growing threat to the project, and has taken reasonable steps to deal with it. People who have a sense of entitlement are just being human in their opposition to it, and I don't blame them, but I am with Jimbo in trying to counter the threat, and am hoping to convince other people that it's necessary to do what he has called to be done. In any case, it is his site, and it is not for people to question that judgement. --Improv 00:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, it's his site ;) And sure, any articles created here are licensed under the GFDL (smart move there). But where is Jimbo's site going to go when he's ostracized the entire community? This incident alone won't do it, but if he keeps making efforts to remove users' ability to express themselves I don't think the future bodes well for the project. I think you and I are two sides of the same coin regarding this issue.. Needless to say I don't really understand your logic (other than it's his site, which legally is true), but I respect the arguements you've made. We'll see how it pans out :P TKarrde 00:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice work on the atheist userbox, to allay suspicion that you are somehow anti-atheist though you might want to start deleting other religious userboxes, like "This user is a Christian", "This user is pro-life", etc. That'd be grand. --Cyde Weys 01:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Dude, I am an atheist, and an evangelical one to boot, in real life. I chose to start with this one precisely because my motives are *very* clear here. --Improv 02:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Would recommend beginning deletion of the other userbox templates soon, before too many people start catching on (they're already raising Cain in the debate page).. which will create even more of an outcry. Out of the frying pan, eh? I'd hate to be in your shoes :( TKarrde 02:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I very much do not appreciate MY religious user box (atheist) being snuffed while every other religious userbox lives on...what kind of message do you think this sends "to the community"? I would suggest getting a move on with the deletion of every userbox that states a theistic religious affiliation. bcatt 05:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I think all the userboxes should be left alone unless they clearly violate Wikipedia policies. Allowing editors to generally do what they will with their user pages is a perk of being an editor, and allows people to find others with similar interests. As NPOV does not apply to user pages, a person expressing a particular viewpoint (unless it's expressing a particular POV in a way that bashes another view instead of simply expressing the user's own POV in a neutral way) should be a problem. I don't think any userboxes should be removed unless it's something like "Athiests will burn in hell!" or "All Christians are misguided morons." If they are something simple expressions of a belief ("I've been touched by His Noodly Appendage." or "I'm a devout Buddhist.") then they aren't disruptive and perfectly acceptable for a user page. --nihon 06:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, actually. I was being sarcastic about deleting "all" religious userboxes. I consider myself an inclusionist and also see userpages, including userboxes, as useful in their purpose - to "meet" the subject. It's easier to talk to someone if you can get some kind of idea of who the person is. No, this isn't about socializing, it's about creating a fabulous collection of ever-evolving information. But, as with any collaboration, it works best when you can learn about who you are working with. Could you imagine not being allowed to get to know who your co-workers or classmates are...or your family members? In fact, new users are encouraged to introduce themselves via the new user log and their userpage. Human life is divisive and polemic in it's very nature...we all have a different set of beliefs, even if some parts are very much like other people's beliefs. Harmony is found not in insisting that everyone have (or pretend to have) exactly the same belief (for how could we choose which one of all the human beings in the world is "right"?), but rather in tolerance of the fact that everyone has a unique set of beliefs. And since this is an encyclopedia, and its primary goal is to represent all points of view from a neutral point of view, it is extremely helpful to the project to categorize people by their points of view and to be able to learn what POVs are held by whoever you communicate with in collaboration in an article, and to help find balance in who is contributing to an article (also in the interest of NPOV). My boxes represent all the things a person would be likely to learn about me if I got into a conversation with them about an encyclopedic topic. I could write an essay about it instead, but userboxes make it a lot easier for both myself and those who are looking for an "overview of who I am". Diversity is what makes life beautiful, bearable, and interesting...it is also how we learn and grow. However, this is my personal view and I will be tolerant if you choose to discard it as total crap, but, if that is the case, here is a list of all the userboxes that should be deleted if the atheist box is not restored: Wikipedia:Userboxes/Religion. bcatt 09:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC) (as you requested on my user page, not because I thought to provide it of my own volition) bcatt 09:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Userboxen

I know why you may be coming here -- if it's about userboxen, there are two things Jimbo (who is the head of Wikipedia) has said, and one discussion I've been involved in where I covered most of the conversational points there are to cover. I stand by my position, and if you dislike it, you can take it up with Jimbo or the Arbitration Committee. I promise not to take it personally.

Please also understand that while my position will not change without Jimbo/Arbcom's direction, I do not enjoy the strife involved in pruning the weeds from our culture. The weeds are the userboxen, they are *not* the people, and I hope either way, people will not leave the project over this. Several other Wikipediae already have blocked these, and they are doing well. --Improv 21:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You are making controversial edits at bot speed. Please stop. None of Jimbo's comments endorses a mass-deletion of userboxes today. No other Wikipedia has, to my knowledge, gone through such a painful process of purging userboxes. Haukur 23:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

If you want a temporary solution (to keep the changes from wrecking your user page), you can replace {{user template}} with {{subst:user template}} in all of your userboxes. This will copy and paste the code that makes up each userbox FROM the template page TO your userpage. End result will be that once the template is deleted, your userpage will not change. Downside is that when you go to edit your user page the code will be quite spammy. Keep in mind that this is just a temporary solution, as it looks like Jimbo will be going after manually-coded userboxes as well and not just template userboxes. TKarrde 23:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any userboxes, I don't care for them. After some thought I decided to include Babel boxes for me as a speaker of Icelandic and Faroese since we aren't that many. Then I included more Babel boxes for consistency. Haukur 00:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

You are deleting userboxes at bot speed. Please stamp down harder on the gas (as I understand you Americans say). David | Talk 23:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

For now, I will stop, because I actually have an IRL obligation to go to. I will continue when I get back unless you can give me a good reason not to -- I believe that this is implementing Jimbo's mandate. --Improv 23:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Please don't start again once you get back. Jimbo has not asked us to immediately purge the boxes. I was one of the first people to vote for you in the ArbCom elections because I believed you would be fair. Haukur 00:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually they're currently being done at a pretty slow rate ... at this rate it would take several days to delete all userboxen. That's not exactly immediately. --Cyde Weys 00:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

This looked fairly fast to me [2] but the exact speed is not the real issue. All I'm saying is that people could do with a grace period of more than a few hours before Jimbo's warning and the associated action. Haukur 00:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the need for any inbetween-time ... actually, inbetween-time would be counter-productive. Jimbo's issue is mostly with the divisiveness that the userboxes cause, not necessarily just that they are templates. If you give people a lot of warning they can subst: out a lot of the templates, making it a much harder job in the end to go through and delete individual userboxen off of users' pages. --Cyde Weys 00:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Now I'm completely confused. Less than 24 hours ago you were hailing substitution as "the way out of this mess" [3]. Haukur 00:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

That was before I saw Jimbo's latest statements. I've changed my mind now. --Cyde Weys 00:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

If we're proceeding under the assumption that any comments made by Jimbo represent a mandate and carry the force of policy (which isn't something I'd agree with—he's said that "... in this entire userbox conflict, I have actually done absolutely nothing. There have been no decrees from me, no mass deletions, nothing but a serious attempt to engage a wide variety of people in serious discussion."), shouldn't we also take into account his (perhaps reluctant) tolerance of userboxes in user space? In his mailing list post yesterday, he said: "I think it is somewhat problematic to have users pasting bits of cruft on their userpage which make them seem to be engaged in Wikipedia as activists for a particular POV. ... But, whatever, if people want to do it, I see no reason to get absolutely draconian about it." In a mailing list post from Saturday, he said: "I've become more and more convinced that the right thing to do is to take any and all userboxes which don't fit some very very narrow "practical" uses into people's personal userspace.". From his post at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs (which I copied over to /Religion, as I think it applies there too), Jimbo says that "It should be noted that use of such userboxes is strongly discouraged at Wikipedia, and it is likely that very soon all these userboxes will be deleted or moved to userspace. Their use and creation is not recommended at this time." (Emphasis mine in all quotes.)

While Jimbo clearly has considerable objections to userbox templates and isn't happy about userboxes in general, this looks to me like he's at least showing some tolerance toward user page (non-template) userboxes. If the goal is to use the mop to serve Jimbo's directives here, shouldn't his tolerance toward userspace-based alternatives be reflected in administrator actions as well? Is it really that important to take the hard-line approach of pushing rapid mass deletions in order to deliberately counter-act the attempts of those pursuing a more tolerant and compromise-based subst'ing approach (such as the Pathoschild proposal mentioned by Tony above)? — Jeff | (talk) | 04:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Some of your userbox deletions seem rather odd, as if you're not really looking at them properly before hitting delete. For example, how could {{User religion...}} (which said "This user wishes to study more religions.") or {{User:Disavian/Userboxes/relirespect}} ("This user repects other people's religions and realises that not all people wish to follow the same path.") be interpreted as being "divisive or inflammatory"? Please remember that not all of the userboxes that were listed at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Religion made statements about the user's religious belief. -- AJR | Talk 01:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I am done for now. As I told Haukur, it's time to let the dust settle, let people know we can all still be good co-editors, and let the community adjust. Eventually, the political userboxes will probably have to go too, but I'll leave that for another time (and perhaps to another editor). --Improv 04:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing for or agsinst to offer. Personally I feel that use of userboxes have gone beyond comprehension. I simply wanted to convey that when you chose to delete the userbox of a particular religion, you could have taken few moments more to delete userboxes pertaining to all other major religions. Or, were you not actually aware of what exactly you were deleting? --Bhadani 17:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

There is not a comprehensive list of all userboxen. I used one list page and deleted all the userboxen on it. If it was incomplete, I apologise for not completely even coverage, but I did my best to get even coverage. --Improv 18:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

CSD T1

Improv, I was about to speedy restore and suggest for listing this on TFD instead, but don't want to start a wheel war: regarding Template:User flying spaghetti monster. IMHO, this is {was) a humor based user template, and not a support for either side of a religious issue. Can you please state why you feel this box is considered divisive or inflammatory? <Please respond here> xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 04:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

You can't delete the real religion templates without also deleting the fake religion templates because that would sure as hell piss off the very religious people and make them feel persecuted. --Cyde Weys 04:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I am concerned that evangelical Christians especially, whom this joke religion was invented to poke fun at, will consider this to be mocking them. Are you familiar with the history of the flying spaghetti monster meme? --Improv 05:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- In other words, you certainly can't pick and choose which you think can stay and which should go, because for someone with a different strongly held viewpoints (and religious viewpoints are some of the most strongly held on this Earth) it might be construed as offensive. So the safest bet is to get rid of all of them ... which coincidentally happens to be what I and some others wanted all along anyway. --Cyde Weys 05:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- I am, and though I don't agree with you, thank you for your quick reply. As you seem to have something to go on, I'll drop the Speedy Restore suggestion, and consider dragging it through DR if I get motivated enough (probally not). Personally I don't really care if people have these userboxes, but understand the community issues related to them, and have tried to avoid the Great Userbox Wars as much as possible so far. I only came to notice this because I was using that userbox. I plan on making a personal userbox that utilizes some of it's elements (not all of them) for personal use, hopefully that is not going to trigger an immediate issue. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 05:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  - Please reconsider against bringing it through DR. We are trying to get away from userboxes here, especially non-encyclopedic content in the template namespace. We are trying to get away from the bumper sticker mentality which gives the wrong impression about Wikipedia. This is all rather elegantly explained in Jimbo's statement to WikiEn-l. Thank you. --Cyde Weys 05:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    - As I said above, probally not is most likely. I've read the statements, and they do not appear to be a definite decree of what should or should not be, to wit I've tried to avoid all of the DR or TFD debates about userboxes. I've subst'd in most of the box back to my page where I liked it, and as long as noone wants to start a userpage edit war with me over it I'll proablly never think about this again. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 05:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I am signing off for the night, If you have further commentary on this, please post it on my talk page. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 05:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Userbox Deletions

Here's another 2 cents: Contrary to Jimbo's view, with all due respect, I believe user boxes help Wikipedia, because they reveal the background of the contributor, and the possible bias/priorities that likely spring from that background/training. If only the MSM made such disclosures, we'd all be better off. More important, you cannot eliminate one's Point Of View by deleting user boxes. People carry a POV with them at all times regardless of what is on their User Page. User boxes also serve a valuable community purpose by allowing users to identify facts about themselves voluntarily that may be of interest to others, such as region, language, education, ethnicity, religion, hobbies and sports. These common user boxes help knit the Wiki community together by promoting the "common ground" that exists among Wikis. I, for one, will be far less inclined to participate in this project if the user boxes go. Seems like a well intentioned but very misguided move. --Rehnquist 19:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Restore the userboxes immediately. Jimbo did not call for this and you are abusing your power. I am prepared to take immediate action upon you. Jimbo decided to not tell people like you to act on his request. Nowhere in it does it ask for a mass deletion. --Shell <e> 05:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Just a little update. I will bring you in front of ArbComm if the userboxes are not restored in 12 hours. --Shell <e> 05:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

You may do so. I will bear no hard feelings towards you for doing so. --Improv 05:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- You know I'll be the first to stand up for you. --Cyde Weys 05:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Not sure if it even counts in this case, but I still disagree with the principle behind the whole matter (i.e. userboxes are divisive). I think the problem runs much deeper than that - HUMANS are divisive ;) But anywho, Improv, you've gained about a bazillion coolness points for keeping your cool and maintaining a respectful attitude towards those who disagree with you, even when they didn't return the gesture. Mad props. teh TK 05:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

~~Exactly why did you delete some userboxes?~~ I had one on my watchpage, and it certainly raised an eyebrow to see it suddenly vanish without even a hint of discussion and the commentary being just, "Delprot." I haven't been following the proposed userbox policy, but as far as I know, it's not even in the "proposed guideline" phase yet, and a controversial topic at that. It would have been a really good idea on your behalf if the deletion commentary would at least point to some explanation for those editors who usually just get on with the business of editing an encyclopedia. Thanks. — squell 06:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I am pissed off at you people and your fucking around with userboxes. You really ought to learn some fucking restraint and how to properly follow your own god damned rules, your blatently ignoring the template for deletion process really jerks my chicken, you wandering around deleting things with no valid reason, no proper form or even an ounce of thought is retarded and I really dislike it when people such as yourself with administrative powers abuse it like this. If you're just going to be dicks, all you're going to end up doing is making people angry enough to vanalize or even just leave, you're not biting the hands that feed, you're pissing in their faces. EOF 64.229.41.176 04:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

While I agree with the general sentiment of this posting, I find it humorous that an anon IP editor posted it. :D --日本穣 04:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not against process -- it's part of the speedy deletion criteria, and as such is part of process. Speedy deletion candidates do not need to go through VfD. It is also supported, I believe, by Jimbo. I am saddened at the thought of people leaving, but I believe these deletions are necessary for the project. I hope you all stick around once this is over. --Improv 04:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

If you would just bother to read other users opinions, you would see that speedy deleting is more of an attack to the users than any userbox ever created. There are only 3 or maybe 5 of you, who think you can just speedy delete anyithing you don't like, only you think speedy deletion covered this. A lot of the people angry now would have 'agreed with you' on the deleting if you had followed the complete process, so that the users that had that userbox could copy the contents to their own space maybe, or just remove it from their page. I, for instance, would have just appreciated a heads-up. But, again, I don't think you care at all, that just makes me more sad than angry =( --A/B 'Shipper 女 ^(talk) 14:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Why don't userbox deletions appear in the history of the user pages? Schizombie 06:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. It is nevertheless altering a page, so I think some method of making the change appear in the history would be desirable. Schizombie 18:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

There are various tools at wikimedia.de that allow you to do this, and you can always just check the Deletion Log in Wikipedia. --Cyde Weys 18:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that gives quite all the functionality that might in theory be being asked for (deletion != template change). The best solution in the end is to place templates in one's watchlist. --Improv 19:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

If your really really feel that a userbox should be deleted, why don't you simply nominate it for deletion? Or are you afraid that the consensus would go against you? Harvestdancer 17:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

There are hundreds of userbox templates that violate Jimbo's exact views on "no belief userboxes". Why should we waste everyone's time with TfD? --Cyde Weys 19:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see now, Jimbo thinks for you, now I understand why you don't waste your time with that. Take it like it's meant, mildly ironic, so to shake you into listening. --A/B 'Shipper 女 ^(talk) 19:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

No, Jimbo does not think for me. If I felt that Jimbo did not support me, I would not do as I did, but I would still feel that it is in the best interests of the project. I assure you, I don't need any shaking :) --Improv 19:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I was replying to Cyde Weys, not you ... But, you are saying that you are doing what you are doing against, what I at least see as, a big majority, because Jimbo said so? ... =( sad --A/B 'Shipper 女 ^(talk) 19:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

So did all these userboxes get moved to userspace or what, and can we not access them anymore because of this? I wanna have the Christian userbox back :(. Homestarmy 20:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I just wish you would give userboxers fair warning before you delete their userboxes, so that these users can move the userboxes into their userspace. For example, you could have changed the agnostic template to read, "This user is an agnostic. Note: this userbox will be deleted on 1 March 2006." But now I can't copy the agnostic userbox onto my user page because it's gone. thejabberwock 00:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom request filed

You should know that a RFAr has been filed against you by DotShell. I have added some comments, but I will leave it up to the ArbCom to decide whether it should be accepted or rejected. I have no issues with you apart from that you voted to delete the TCS Victory article. (And that's no big deal either because it was kept and we even got a nice fancrufty category to put it in.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Minor response to post on my talk page

Well. Um. See my talk page, really. Seems easier to have responses in one place. Michael Ralston 03:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It's good to be loved

From: "Matt Tweedt" (I'll let his email be private)
To: "Pat Gunn" <pgunn@dachte.org>

I am astonished that you have admin power. Is it your total number of edits? Is that how it's done? I think you need to go back to remedial reading. If you think that user boxes are divisive, you are delusional. And if you REALLY beleive they are, then that would be judgement call on your part, which I TOTALLY disagree with. If that WAS the case, then ALL usrboxes should be deleted.

I'm guessing that it was you who lead the charge on the mass userbox deletion. Am I wrong? That's total abuse of power. There's a lot of people who actually DO stuff here on Wikipedia, like write articles and contribute.

And don't get on your soapbox about how somebody spammed people with religious userboxes. Userboxes aren't to blame for somebody finding people who agree on a topic and addressing all of them. Ever heard or Categories? Or searching through a history of edits?

You are an infant. and yes that's a personal attack against you. Don't go running home to mama to whine about it. I'm not making it public. That's why I'm using email to tell you. But it's not like you haven't made a public mockery of yourself already.

Now go away and actually do something productive on wikipedia.

If you really don't enjoy the strife you're causing, why are you showing this off? squell 20:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Note to Karmafist

This is from Karmafist's RfAdmin after being de-Sysopped by Jimbo:

4. You seem to be encouraging banned users to create sockpuppets at [4] as of the 19th (5 days ago). Before I or others change their votes, would you mind explaining that?

A. Yes, I apologize for not clarifying this as soon as NSLE nominated me, just sometimes, life gives you too many balls to juggle at once.

Before I answer, let me clarify with one precept I have seen from the workings of Wikipedia...

It is incredibly easy to make a sockpuppet

95% of my edits come from a laptop with wireless access, around 75-80% of my edits come from when i'm on AOL. If I was indef blocked, I would only need to wait a few minutes or go down to the street to another hot spot to create another account if I wanted to. Many vandals are stupid, but many aren't, and they know this, thus why you'll see about 50 "User:CURPS IS TEH TATOR TOTS SUCKS FIREFOX" every day. (and no, I don't make those accounts, before anyone reads into what i'm saying)

However, for every 10-20 of those nihilistic vandal accounts, there is the account of someone who could contribute valuable content from their expertise, whatever that might be, but unfortunately, they've run afoul of someone important or they've broken some asinine rule(it's my belief that they need to be reformed since most of them are so vague that they're just asking to be ignored, such as with the New Year's Day Userbox Purge, or they contradict or have been contradicted arbitrarily by other policies.)

Those people are the key. To me, Mistress Selina Kyle is the perfect example. She's never going to win "nicest person of the year", but when she wasn't being nasty towards others for what she believed in, she was contributing to the encyclopedia. Selina Kyle and Lir and all of them over on Wikipedia Review could add something that would make Wikipedia far more credible to outsiders: balance of viewpoints.

They're exceptionally critical of Wikipedia, and they could add that expertise in a NPOV and WP:V manner and make Wikipedia better by doing so, despite being banned forever for doing whatever the hell they did in the past.

Because ultimately, that's just the argument that those who disagree with me usually use -- "The Encyclopedia comes before all else." That argument goes both ways. If Lir or Selina Kyle or anyone else can contribute to the encyclopedia in a constructive and civil manner, and anyone tries to stop them, whether it be Jimbo or the arbcom or some overzealous admin, then I say Jimbo/the Arbcom/those Admins are wrong. The encyclopedia is bigger than any of us. Bigger than me, bigger than Jimbo, bigger than the Wikimedia Foundation, it's hopefully a truthful and open sourced collection of all human knowledge. I still try to believe in that, regardless of whatever boundaries anyone puts up towards gaining that.

And ultimately, if we can stick with that ideal, that Wikipedia will continue to thrive. It is theoretical that we could get a good criticisms section on here for Jimbo Wales, but it is highly dubious that there would ever be a balanced portrayal of Bill Gates at Encarta, or even if there was, that people would dismiss it as Microsoft trying to get some good PR. We're still not at the preconcieved bias stage yet(see Fox News for a perfect example yet), but once there are sacred cows, we'll be there, and we'll be no different than Encarta, which would suck because I can't edit Encarta. And in order to do that, we need people to assualt those sacred cows in a civil and constructive manner, thus what I said on Wikipedia Review.

I hope this clears up things. Karm a fist 20:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe I understand how you see this, but I wanted to give you another perspective that might be more in line with the way many of the concerned admins think. I understand there's a certain amount of solidarity between you, Everyking, MSK, and a number of other editors who have recently run into trouble on Wikipedia, and this has been a major topic of discussion on Wikipedia review. I believe that unlike many of the others, you have been clever in a bad way -- you have attracted a number of very new users to your cause and brought them on your side by being the first to greet them, and using that opportunity to introduce them to your crusade. A number of your supporters on RfAdmin and your petition, I believe, are results of this recruitment -- new users who have no deep understanding of the way things work, already ready to decide on policy and near-policy matters (polls, adminship, etc). That's not cool -- people should ideally be initated into the way things work on the wiki a long time before they start to participate in these areas of the project, so they're informed and absorbed into the community. Without a stake and without understanding, our notion of consensus is very prone to destructive manipulation, and the project will suffer. Users like MSK are not merely people who have "run afoul of someone important", they're people who have shown severe behavioural problems that will hurt the community unless they either reform or leave. They may be very productive in some ways, but like in a workplace, people must at a minimum be civil, no matter how productive they are, or they will be let go. Wikipedia Review may, in theory, have been a way for discussion of fixing problems with Wikipedia, but looking at it, it is a spectacular failure. They have discussed banning people who have either defended the project or wanted to do more than simply vent frustration at the ejection of the majority of them from Wikipedia. I believe that any serious discussion of reform of Wikipedia, conducted in a civil way, would be accepted *on* Wikipedia. Instead, Wikipedia review is like the Pro-ana movement -- it actually hurts the people who participate there because it tries to legitimise counterproductive behaviour. If MSK, Lir, and other similar users would cut it out, I believe they would be accepted back into the fold. Often, people get second chances, but most of the time they go right back to old patterns of behaviour, and are blocked for the same thing they were originally blocked for. If any of these users want to give it another shot, they can email me and I'll go to bat for them to get them unblocked. If it works, I'll be watching their every edit afterwards for a good time, to be sure that they actually have reformed. There are just a few things people need to accept before this happens:

Jimbo runs the project. No matter what, people must accept that -- if they disagree with him on any matter, they can either leave (forking the project if they like) or they can try to convince him to change his mind on the issue. If you feel a "higher calling" to truth, knowledge, or similar that you think Jimbo is a barrier to, either cope or fork.
Jimbo delegates some of his authority to others in a non-democratic way, for various reasons. If you don't like that, see #1
People need to integrate into our culture before they expect to contribute to decisions in areas where consensus is relevant
Consensus is not relevant everywhere
Our community is based partly on consensus and partly on judgement of individual people who have come to be trusted in their judgement
Being able to still contribute when we don't get our way is very important.
Civility is a prerequisite to discourse on Wikipedia. No matter what one's arguments are and how much sense they make, if they are not expressed civilly, they will not go anywhere. Being civil does not mean agreeing with people, it simply means expressing one's views in a paletable way.

By and large the last point is the most crucial. Most of the time people fail in that (often after they fail to get their way). For example, one of MSK's last actions was to protest the not-fully-democratic nature of the processes we have on Wikipedia by comparing Jimbo to Hitler. If she were being more reasonable, she might instead have simply said "I am concerned about the effect that concentration of power has in these instances", and listed a few. I believe that her views on the concentration of power were making it difficult for her to deal with how we do things on Wikipedia, in which case it would probably be a good idea to either decide if she would be comfortable contributing to a project organised the way Wikipedia is. I understand that it might not be ideally organised from some perspectives, but if one cannot accept the way it is now and one is unlikely to change it, one probably should leave the project, because to do otherwise is nonproductive. The same can be said for several of the other people mentioned. I believe your perspective that instead Wikipedia is both rotten and that it must be reformed is going to lead you to do nothing but bring the disorderly waste of Wikipedia Review back onto Wikipedia. I don't believe that Jimbo or other parts of the community will allow that to happen. --Improv 02:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow! We wish we could speak as cogently as that. You do speak well in our place, thanks Improv, from hydnjo talk 02:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely strong ditto here. I believe trolls can be reformed, but I don't believe it happens overnight. Editors must integrate into the community, and so must trolls. They can't form their own subculture and then try to convert others to it; that's factionalism and is bad^TM. (A comparable political analogy is the problem of integrating immigrants into their new home country -- if they consider it their home country at all.) Johnleemk | Talk 03:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Karmafist's Response

I'm sorry when you tried to reach me the other night on IRC that I was unable to respond, the window wouldn't open, and ultimately that night wasn't a good night to talk anyway(as stupid as it sounds, I have had nightmares on certain days about Wikipedia and that night was one of them.) However, i'd love to civilly(don't worry, I don't bite) discuss what you just said, you have many good points, some I even agree with. However, apparently i've been unable to describe my ideas properly to this point and hopefully you can help me out with that. Karm a fist 12:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

(p.s, apology in advance for any unwarranted formatting, this is just to make it easier to find from the rfa for me. Please remove the new section if you'd like.) Karm a fist 12:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Removing comments from MSK's talkpage.

"Reverts: All edits by a banned user made since their ban, regardless of their merits, may be reverted by any user." Wikipedia:Banning policy

Please reconsider. We are asked not to encourage banned users. Grace Note 04:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for reverting the edits of Jyoder63. Эйрон Кинни (t) 19:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Userbox problem

I've recently noticed a disappearance of one userbox from my user page: template: user protestant. The log said that you deleted the box. May I ask,

From the discussion result of which debate did you decide to delete this box?
Why is this template deleted, but not other religion-related templates such as template: user eastortho?

Please reply at my talk page if you can.

--De ryck C. 10:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Similarly, you deleted {{User:UBX/separation}}, citing CSD T1, while the referenced speedy deletion criterion in no way justifies the deletion. I would begin to question your reading comprehension, given that this seems to have happened to a lot of userboxes not relating to the criterion in your little blitzkrieg last week, including a box that said the user would like to study more religions, a concept that is not inflammatory in the least. Rogue 9 15:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

My major point is that userboxes help users understand each other through the communication of ideas. For example, to remain the neutrality of articles, some editions have to violate Christian morality. I'm just using my userbox to tell that I won't agree with such edits, backed by my own moral values. It is more than enough of an legitimate reason for me to add such note onto my user page. De ryck C. 04:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:User hindu

I would request you to please state the reason for deleting this? Thanks. --Bhadani 15:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I also object to the delprot action. Was there a vote page? The continued presence of {{user christian}} and {{user mormon}} is objectionable if {{user hindu}} is going to be handed a delprot. ManVhv 20:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

your block of 80.55.199.19 (talk · contribs)

I've noticed that you blocked 80.55.199.19 indefinitely for vandalism. However, I've reduced the block to one week, as we aren't really supposed to block IP addresses indefinitely unless they are open proxies. If this IP is indeed an open proxy, then please let me know. Thanks. --Ixfd64 21:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism of Roma People by the "Wroclaw Troll"

(That's Istvan's name for them.) All I can say is that if you want to take the trouble to look, you'll find the same kind of crap (vandalism of the page over the picture of the 3 Roma girls), all of it emanating from Wroclaw, Poland. (I wouldn't have known how to locate these IP addresses before last week, when I got a demo copy of a program called VisualRoute that does traceroute.)

Specifically, all these IPs have participated in this latest rampage, all of which trace to Wroclaw:

82.143.162.72 (the original one who gave us so much grief over the pictures and other issues)
80.55.199.19
83.16.144.67
84.40.137.140

This person even went so far as to taunt us with the promise that they'd simply go from Internet cafe to Internet cafe, which is apparently what they're doing.

So I did suggest banning all IP addresses from Wroclaw from editing this article in earnest. Sounds strange, I know, but it seems we're going to have this ongoing problem otherwise. Now, I don't even know if this is technically (or, just as problematic, administratively) possible. But if it is, I'd say do it; if anyone from that place has a legitimate need to edit the article, I'm sure they could be accomodated.

Anyhow, just a thought. --ILike2BeAnonymous 04:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Got your note, thanks. Except for one thing: why in the world would I want to avoid insulting anyone? I insult those who deserve it. It's the human way, you know. --ILike2BeAnonymous 19:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, let me be more specific: I'd like to formally ask that 84.40.137.140 be banned. (See recent series of vandalism edits by this user.)

Roma people semi protection

Hi Improv,

Do you mind explaining why you semi protected Roma people? I just looked at the history, and there's been only one anon edit (removing the image though) since vandalism on 23rd. WP:SEMI states "Semi-protection should only be considered if it is the only option left available to solve the problem of vandalism of the page. In other words, just like full protection, it is a last resort, not a pre-emptive measure." I understand we may have problems with a couple of IPs, but it's probably better to block them when they start making problems on case to case bases. All the best! --dcabrilo 00:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Orissa?

82.143.162.72 19:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)Two things that don't surprise me. 1) Nobody has questioned you about why you mentioned Orissa when blocking me. I have not made any changes to the Orissa page. It shows that administrators answer to nobody. 2) Nobody has found a verifiable source for the picture at the head of the 'Roma People' article.

You delete pictures of Roma people that can be verified by anyone with the necessary resources. You delete information about the Roma if it is verifiable but in some way negative. You include links to pages with ardent political views in favour of the Roma. You continue to portray the Roma as perpetual victims but delete any contribution that mentions the extent to which they choose their lifestyle (including when the information is confirmed by other Roma organisations) but you still insist the article has a neutral point of view.

So if following the rules gets someone blocked it shows that Wikipedia is nothing more than a collection of trivia in which the side with the most people shouting on prevails.

Whatever you think the role of the picture is, if it cannot be verified independently then it is not available for use, according to the rules. It is as simple as that.

It seems some of the other people I have mentioned this to have come up with their own way of addressing the issue of verifiability. I like the way they have managed to get an entire internet cafe blocked permanently! At least that's one fewer portal for contributors to this pretend encyclopaedia.

Well, if it is impossible to uphold the rules, best to switch to the next-best option. Fill the pages up with the same piece of text so that at least when people view the 'History' button they see how many times the information gets changed. That way they might be less likely to mistake this for a real academic project.

I have responded on your talk page. --Improv 02:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

MEDIATION REQUEST -- RE: STEPHANIE ADAMS DISCREPANCY

The article on Stephanie Adams is no longer being edited from an objective standpoint. A group of users are maliciously ad vigorously removing factual comments that have been added by GODDESSY due to a frivolous discrepancy and are decreasing the quality of the article substantially.

We ask that you take a look at it and proceed with mediation and/or have the page fully protected.

-- Justice For All

Off-wiki personal attacks poll

Since you have previously participated in discussions about the off-wiki NPA policy, I wanted to let you know about a quick opinion poll that is now posted on the Talk page there. Your input is appreciated!

Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks#Poll:_Off-wiki_Personal_Attacks

Strom 21:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Stop posting private irc logs

Do it now. Lapinmies 15:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah? Is there a policy that says that only #wikipedia is protected? Why is only #wikipedia a secret channel?

Central Asia

Hi, I'm trying to start some sort of working group to improve the coverage of Central Asia and related topics in Wikipedia. Leave a message on my userpage if you're interested. Aelfthrytha 04:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Not so fast

Please facilitate harmonious editing and avoid remarks like this. While you were charging me with not being "interested" I was writing a long comment. Can't you even wait 15 minutes before dismissing me? Sheesh! --Uncle Ed 14:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Slow down please

I made an edit at 14:45 and you commented 7 minutes later. It took me a total of 12 minutes to write the comment explaining my edit.

Also, there was an edit conflict. You could not possibly have known that I was still typing away.

So my explanation did not take into account your comment, and your comment did not take into account my explanation. I wasn't ignoring you. I just can't always type fast enough.

Please read my comment at Talk:Totalitarianism in this light. I await a new response there. Thank you. --Uncle Ed 15:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Age of involvement

I don't recall bringing up my age of involvement anywhere. What were you referring to here? --Uncle Ed 21:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Oops! Perhaps you mean this: I helped to establish the NPOV guidelines. Yes, that's a bit of a stretch. I meant only that in the first year of MY involvement (beginning Nov. 2004) I helped clarify NPOV. In particular, I championed the formula X said Y about Z - although I'm sure I didn't originate that formulation.
I'm not a thinker-upper as much as I am a person who recognizes a good idea. Speaking of which, I appreciate your reply to my question about why totalitarianism is "not a form of goverment". I'm going to hold off editing the article until I've digested your answer. Thanks for giving me some food for thought! :-) --Uncle Ed 21:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Committee Business

Dear Fellow Mediators:

I'm writing to all mediators listed as active to point out several emergent issues that require the immediate attention of all active mediators. The Committee has come to a place where we can neither provide the function we were created to provide (timely formal mediaton for the English Wikipedia community) nor correct matters to be able to provide that function. In specific, we cannot perform any mediations, because most mediators are no longer taking cases, and we cannot add new mediators, because mediators are no longer responding to requests to join the Committee. I am in a place where I continually accept new cases for the committee, only to see them go stale after several months because there is no mediator willing to take it, and where I deny candidates a place on the committee because no mediator will speak up in support of them. I ask that all mediators take ten minutes to look over the following matters:

There are five requests to join the Mediation Committee, three with no comments whatsoever, and two that have been up for more than a month without sufficient commentary to determine a consensus on promotion.

There are four unassigned mediation cases, and will likely be at least two additional ones within the week.

I beg, beseech, and pray each Mediator to please take a few moments to at the very least comment on the five candidates, and to consider taking one of the open cases. We are at a place where we are literally relying on the kindness of strangers: Almost all cases are being taken by non-Commitee volunteers at this point. Putting the open tasks page (which only changes when we add a new case), and the main committee page on your watchlist so you will know when new nominations and cases are added, would go a long way to helping the Committee succeed. (If having the main page pop up on your watchlist every time someone else comments in a nomination is too annoying, I can move them to subpages like RFA, so that the page will only change when a new nomination is added.)

Additionally, I ask that all mediators check that they have a current email address subscribed to the Mediation Committee mailing list, mediation-l, to avoid the need for future talk page messages of this sort.

My apologies for having to air the committee's dirty laundry in this manner, but I fear it is the only way to get everyone together to bring the Committee back to life. For the convenience of those who simply cannot be involved due to time constraints, I will be listing those that do not participate in any Committee activities as mediators emeriti, so that we have a clearer picture of who exactly we have available to take cases. I am, by separate posting, asking all mediators emeriti to return to actively participating in the requests to join the commmittee.

Yours respectfully, Essjay (Talk • Connect) 02:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Mediation

I posted a rather lengthy response to your message from yesterday on my talk page; because it is quite lengthy, I've archived it to it's own archive page (I really hate for my talk page to be long). I wasn't sure if you'd had the chance to read it, so I wanted to make sure you knew where it was. Please feel free to continue the thread there, I have it on my watchlist. Yours, Essjay (Talk • Connect) 11:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

deletion of User christian

You were aware that it was only recently restored by DRV and re-listed on TfD? CharonX talk Userboxes 19:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with this deletion as well. I share your opinion that the template should be deleted; however, it would seem that the community disagrees. As it recently survived a DRV, and its TfD was just closed three days ago with a pretty overwhelming consensus to keep, I find this deletion to be quite severely out-of-process. I also wonder how you judged this as a T1--had it not been for the recent TfD, I could understand justifying its deletion under (the as of yet not accepted) T2, but T1 doesn't seem to apply here. It's generally considered acceptable to reverse another admin's out-of-process actions, but I do not wish to wheel war, especially not over something so insignificant as a userbox. I would, however, like to ask you to please restore the template, at least for the time being. You're simply causing yourself and others a lot of unnecessary stress by deleting it. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

MOSBIO and honorifics

I'm not misreading it at all. I have studied the matter most carefully, as it's not the first time similar issues have come up. The WP:MOSBIO page most carefully draws a distinction between the standards applying to NOBILITY and those applying to ROYALTY, which are addressed separately. To quote: The inclusion of some honorific prefixes and styles has proved controversial on Wikipedia. Wikipedia currently distinguishes between three groups: nobles, government officials, and members of royal families and popes. Clearly H.M. Haile Selassie falls into the last category, royalty. The part you quoted me deals with nobility, but the section on royalty is a bit further down. There is nothing prohibiting honorifics from being applied to royalty except in an intro sentence, and in the special circumstances of an article like this, it is actually more than appropriate, since His Majesty's name almost always appears with H.M. or H.I.M., and indeed in such a context, merely stating "His Majesty" by itself leaves no doubt as to exactly who is meant. Trying to prevent it from being used, when there is absolutely no policy prohibiting its use where appropriate, almost seems like an attack, in fact. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I realize standards in English are different and not uniform... In Amharic, the honorifics for royalty are practically part of the name. Like way down in the article where one paragraph starts out "As Dr. E.E. Cashmore observed"... Would you make a fuss about Cashmore being referred to as "Dr." in English, and remove the "Dr." part calling it 'veneration'? It's exactly the same way in the Amhric language for royalty, only more so than for a regular doctor or a mister. This is so ingrained into the language that it did not even change after his reign, he is still referred to as "Atsie" (His Majesty) Haile Selassie, and all the other Emperors like Atsie Minelik, Atse Yohannes, Atse Tewodros etc. are still called Atse. It's commonplace and afaik not against the rules to translate this word "Atsie" that became part of his name directly into English as H.M..., just like titles such as Dr. and even Ras, Dejazmatch etc. may be used within an article. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: "That may be true, but the English article is not meant to be a translation of the Amharic article, and it should not stand out as following different rules than other articles (which is part of what I'm concerned about)"

Let me be a little more direct. Yes, we DO often use honorifics for royalty, just as in many articles we use "Dr.", "General", "H.I.H.". "H.R.H". as part of the name, and for all Ethiopian-related articles, the consensus is to use titles like "Dejazmatch", "Ras" etc. as if they were part of the name, where appropriate, and I still haven't seen what "rule" you are pointing to or trying to enforce to single out this instance, nor do I understand why you would single out this instance. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a note, but "Atse" doesn't mean "his majesty," but simply "emperor." It comes from Old Amharic "Hatse," which in turn comes from Ge'ez "Hatsani" (perhaps earlier even Had.ani, s. and d. having merged in most Semitic languages into one letter).

ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 19:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Bulwer's Pheasant

The article is NOT a HOAX !! It is a valid species as you can see in the external links provide in the bottom of the article. Please do some research before you post/edit any articles. If you believe it's a Hoax, which part ? --Stavenn 16:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Those fawning phrases described the courtship display of the species. And the kitchen-fridge drawing is showing the likeness of the bird. --Stavenn 17:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding rename/move the article to Wattled Pheasant, thank you for discussing it first. For your consideration, Bulwer's Pheasant is more widely used as a common name of this species than Wattled Pheasant. Almost in every publications and "Birder's Bible" such as Sibley-Monroe checklist, James Clements Birds of the World A Checklist, The Howard and Moore Complete Checklist of the Birds of The World, Handbook of the Birds of the World, Pheasants-related books and others, listed the bird as Bulwer's Pheasant or Bulwer's Wattled Pheasant. On the other hand, Birdlife International is one of the most reputable birds organization. They have their own reasons to use Wattled Pheasant name instead. I don't know which names has more priority. Some people/birder might agree, some might disagree. As for me personally, I prefer Bulwer's Pheasant, but both name are fine with me.--Stavenn 03:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for dealing with that. There is a serious problem if there exist administrators who think that irrelevant formatting that messes up discussion is immune from refactoring. We're not in Kansas any more, Toto. --Tony Sidaway 05:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Raphael1

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Raphael1. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Raphael1/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Raphael1/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 11:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Mending Wall

Yes, I put the excerpts from Mending Wall back in the article. The entire poem is public domain, so the matter is moot even if the excerpts would not otherwise be fair use. (Some seem to be under the impression that the posted excerpts are the whole poem: they aren't.) The poem was first published in the USA in 1914, and even at the most crabbed reading of US copyright law, anything actually published before 1923 by US citizens in the USA is public domain. Copyright extension means that nothing after 1923 will ever enter the public domain within my lifetime, but it does not retroactively put anything that has already entered PD back under copyright. The 1923 cutoff date means that the author's longevity is irrelevant as well: that is, in fact, its chief significance. Smerdis of Tlön 18:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis)

You wrote:

Regretfully endorse deletion. The article actually was rather well-done, and I do hope that this content survives elsewhere, but the level of detail makes this feel out of place on an encyclopedia, and similarly may make us vulnerable to claims of copyvio. A brief synopsis has its place on the article's entry -- a detailed separate-page synopsis does not have a place here -- when the synopsis is close to enough to recreate the film, something's not right here. I believe the decision was correct, and as for how it was reached, it's not unusual for people closing VfD to analyse the arguments as well as weigh the numbers. It's a judgement call. JasonP, if you want my help to find a better home than Wikipedia for this content (which you've put some time into, I notice), drop me a note on my talk page, and we'll figure something out. --Improv 14:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. So, this is the end – too bad.

I just want you to know; just as the powers that be haven't changed their minds, neither have I. I still insist that this is a wrong decision. I branched the synopsis article from the main film article in an act of good faith. This was the work of many and not any single individual. This user thinks 2001: A Space Odyssey is the best science fiction film ever made; and a 196-word synopsis just does not do the film justice. -- Jason Palpatine 13:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC) ^{speak your mind}

PS: Thank you for your kind offer, it is appreciated. -- Jason Palpatine 02:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The existennce of wikiproject Stargate

Hi, I am kind of upset after reading your comment that Wikipedia:WikiProject Stargate shouldn't exist. You basis was that it reprensents articles from a fictional perspective. Our recent efforts have been to make articles view stargate from an out-of-universe perspective. On many of our articles, we are providing info about props, actors, visual effects, orgins of the ideas, real-world-plausibility and many other things that look at Stargate from a real perspective. Could you take a minute to look at our project and some of our articles, because we really are a lagitamate project, about a very notable topic. (Stargate is the 23rd most popular show on TV) We currently have a large team of over 40 people (with 3 admins) deveoping the project and trying to make it more encyclopedic. Take a look and you will see that we really are good to have. Tobyk777 23:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Although I see your point, Stargate project members have been merging and deleting articles to make them less crufty, as well as adding real info. Many people agree with your view that individual episode articles are too detailed. This is actualy a major issue, there have been tons of Afd discussions on it, but in the end it was decided that they are acceptable. Now tons of TV shows have individual articles for episodes. For example here and [hhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Star_Trek:_Deep_Space_Nine_episodes here]. If wikipedia does however decide to delete all episode articles (which i am strongly agaisn't), it would be unfair to only delete Stargate episodes, but leave other shows untouched. I personaly see no harm in immense detail, and I see no reason to delete an article simply because the subject is obscure. (Jimbo Whales agrees with this philosophy). But nontheless, our project is attempting to please both sides. We have already merged 2 part episodes into single articles rather than an article for each part. We are merging charcters into lists, and in places like here and here we already have Good Articles which we are tying to raise to FA standards. Just give the project time, the coverage gets less crufty every day, it really does deserve to exist. Tobyk777 02:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Stargate WikiProject

I find the comment you made here to be over the top and undue deletionism and assumption of bad faith. The project itself makes every effort to be non-fictional and out-of-universe with its articles, and continually strives to remove fancruft and such intonations. You don't delete the project before the work is completed. (You dont delete wikipedia because there is vandalism). -- Alfakim -- talk 00:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree see the above section. Tobyk777 07:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Not "assumption of bad faith". Improv merely has a different opinion. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 15:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

major revisions complete

The Half-life computation article has undergone substantial revision which has hopefully addressed everyone's concerns. If you have any further comments after looking at the article again, please list the items you do not like, make whatever comment you have and please be specific and allow time for further revision. If there is any reason I can not comply with your wishes then I will let you know the reason why. ...IMHO (Talk) 12:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The previous comments are left by User:Pce3@ij.net, who has an unfortunately confusing signature. --Improv 18:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I am confused

Why is it that you removed two pictures off my talk page? you said this is not the place. I dont understand how can a picture of a F-22 and a M1A1 abrams be bad? Please do not make meaningless edits that could be considered vandilism on my user page, again or action will be taken.

F 22 08:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

How come you have bias material on your user page but i cant have death to communism! Why cant i do what i want with my user page while you can? What if i try to make your page unbias then. Its my page. I'll do whatever I want. You better mind your own business.

F 22 04:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC) i have a right to free speech You dont interfere with other's articles. You vandal. You freak.

Central Asia

WikiProject Central Asia has finally been created! If you're interested, please consider joining us. Aelfthrytha 21:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

No rest for the wicked, or spies

In the latest post to his Talkpage IMHO appears to shift from vague but sinister threats against WP to vague but sinister personal attacks against you. If you really are an Al-Queda operative, you better go deny it before he blows your cover :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 22:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

FR, DP, and FD of India

Hi. Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties of India is now an fac. Nichalp felt that it requires copyedit by someone who hasn't edited that article. Can you help? -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 09:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 15:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

armking

most mods have yet to hear of the armking vandal...he is notible he is here....he made this post

Armslap 11:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

ps ps i am still the spiciest redirect vandal ever!

Archiving soon

I will be archiving my talk page again soon. --Improv 15:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Please help me

Please tell me why my article on Samrat Upadhyay was not suitable. I will try me best to write the way you will tell me. I am a new user. So I am having problems. Just tell me what to post and what not to post. I want to be a part of wikipedia. Are you an editor of Wikipedia? Please reply me.--Nepal avish 01:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't use fair-use images in userspace

Fair use images are not permitted in userspace, and place the project in legal risk. I have taken the liberty of removing all those I could spot from your userpage. Please do the same for your talk page and avoid their use in the future in userspace. --Improv 20:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Your requests are not un-reasonable, but how do I know what fair use image is or Isint? I'm not sure as I am still learing. When told I will assure that your requests are met.

Dfrg.msc 23:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation Cabal

Hello,

I've chosen you on WP:MEDCAB because of your statement, "Primarily interested in non-content disputes".

This is about the "list of conductors" on Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra: another user wants the list in blog format (reverse chronological). Non-content dispute, right?

He's been reverting multiple times to his last edit, a 10-days old version, cancelling all later improvements. Warned on his talk page. A discussion has been opened on the article's talk page, but he seems to be a German whose grasp of English would make Yoda proud.

And last but not least, his agenda seems to be to ensure his favorite conductor will be listed at the top, hence the bias for reverse chronology, and the lack of consideration for other arguments.

AFAIK, there's still no official MoS about listing works and people in chronological order, it's probably so widespread nobody thought it should even be prescribed. What can be done?

-- 62.147.112.36 12:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: "means of contact", as per your request

I could email you an email address to reach me, if you temporarily "enable email from other users" (if really needed I can login for sending an email, because that operation isn't stalkable), or if you provide an addy.
Or you could use, say User talk:62.147.112.36/BPO and I would check it.
Or I could create a temporary account for this thing, but it's maybe overkill.
Or if you have another solution.

(I'll check back here.) Regards, -- 62.147.112.36 16:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

--

User Dontworry has rejected mediation (diff), and engaged in a series of daily petty vandalism on the article. (As well as changing/moving various other articles in order the reflect German spellings rather than common English spellings...). What would be your advice on the next step? "3rd opinion"? RFC? Something else? Thanks for trying. -- 62.147.112.38 12:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

At this point, it may be worthwhile to consider arbitration. They'll be reluctant to take a case so based on content, but I believe akk other steps have been tried and there may be enough meat for the arbitration committee to be comfortable with accepting. --Improv 14:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Help

I've taken your advice, and thankyou for your praise, though how do I know what is and isnt a free image? Dfrg.msc 23:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Reformed

Improv, your advise is sound, reasonable and helpful to me. I thankyou, and my page does look better. You actions here are a reflection on this fine website and you are to be congradulated. I hope to work constructivly with you in the future. Dfrg.msc 02:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Emailed comment by User:Pce3@ij.net AKA IMHO

Since I have unlimited IP addresses available I am afraid your collaborative immune response is both wasted and indicative of a desperate, selfish, and spoiled child. Nonetheless it will not stop the investigation from continuing or prevent its escalation. I suggest you check to be sure all your parking tickets are paid.

Ah, good ole legal threats. Improv, I just wanted to tell you that the block message at User:Pce3@ij.net points to the wrong block log; could you please fix it? Thanks, Melchoir 18:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Uh, never mind! I thought it was protected for some reason. I'll get it myself. Melchoir 18:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Chiang Kai-shek

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Chiang Kai-shek. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Chiang Kai-shek/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Chiang Kai-shek/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 20:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Concerning your request about my userpage...

No. --Irongaard 20:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

On blocking users

In most cases, I do. For the obvious trolls and vandals, I see no need to do so. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)