User:Kickstart70/talkarchive3

Answers I have ;)

• You can use the {{TOCleft}} or {{TOCright}} templates to replace the standard table of contents with a left- or right-wrapping one (which will be at the position the template was placed). Just try them out, they can be very useful.
• The official answer to the second question is at Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, but I'll try to summarize your specific questions here in short: An obscure or minor topic is eligible for featured article status (unless it's an article we probably shouldn't have in the first place). In fact, minor topics are easier to get featured because it's just easier to write a concise and balanced article on them. However, being the best page in existence on that topic doesn't help really - the article has to live up to our standards on featured articles. If everything else in existence is bad and our article is mediocre, it still won't get featured. For more details and the actual FA requirements, have a look at the page linked above.

Hope that clears that up, if you have any more questions feel free to contact me on my talk page. Have fun and happy editing, -- grm_wnr Esc 17:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

RE: Pov tag at Nazanin

Please explain exactly what you see as POV before adding such tags to pages in the talk page, otherwise there is no point in it.

Also the main contributer seems to be a newbie, please see WP:BITE, Thanks -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 21:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, not every single statement needs a citation, only her first name is released to the public, it is obvious if you look in the sources -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 21:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

No, not everything needs a citation, but that certainly does, especially when it confused another reader as to why her full name wasn't included. And I certainly didn't bite the newbie. As you can see from my last talk post I'm trying to give him a hand. How about you easing off my attempts to make the article better as well? Remember, Wikipedia:Civility. --Kickstart70-T-C 21:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

That needs explanation, not citation, when you ask for citation that you means you need verification. You were not trying to help before, only by adding tags, and your suggestion that I did not improve the article is not very nice of you while I added a section to the article, added the correct tag and also discussed in the talk, perhaps you should read WP:Civil yourself. -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 23:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

If you look at my edits, I was most certainly trying to help (especially to maintain NPOV), while it appears you were not (attempting to clear up POV edits). In any case, that's done, the page is much better and I don't particularly feel like arguing this point with you. --Kickstart70-T-C 23:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to argue, but it doesn't hurt to be nice to fellow Wikipedians neither - have a nice day :) -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 23:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Shame you seem to have a bad temper. I encourage you to stay calm instead. -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 23:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

For your information, I've been very passionate about this subject (See my blog post from last week or so here). In any case I recommend you stay Civil from now on especially when editing controvertial topics, and making comments such as you just did now and you have had on my talk page will not help with anything. Peace for now -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 23:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Passion about a subject is not always beneficial to maintaining NPOV. --Kickstart70-T-C 00:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps images would look better on right? -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 22:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Only if they've been reversed to look at the article, as per the Manual of Style. --Kickstart70-T-C 23:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Ehem..what?! -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 10:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Just read the appropriate section: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Pictures --Kickstart70-T-C 15:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Nazanin on Reward Board

Hi there. I'm concerned about your posted reward, in that it seems self-contradictory. You state that you will offer "5 bucks to the person who does the most and most appropriate links". But "most" and "most appropriate" are completely contradictory.

I don't doubt that you have added this reward in good faith, but I believe that (even with the caveat you include about spamming) it encourages editors to over-link this article. I personally feel that if it were linked from Human rights in Iran (in addition to what already links to it), it would then be fully and correctly linked. But I would not expect you to give me the reward if I added just that one link. Hence, were I after the reward (which I'm not), I would face a conflict of interest between doing what I felt was correct for Wikipedia and what I thought would get me the money. And you wouldn't, ethically, be able to deny me the reward for that one link without saying, "no, it should also have been linked from this page and that page", in which case you may as well make the links yourself.

Do you see the problem? --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 10:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Heya...I'm not sure I see the problem with the first part, though I did use 'most' a bit superfluously. It could easily have been stated as "most, appopriate, links", I guess. If you agree I'll change it.

As far as where it should link from, I've already added it to the "Women's rights in the world" section of Women's rights, and to List of famous Persian women. I suspect that there is (or should be) a page on Women's rights in Muslim countries or similar that this would also belong on, and I don't really doubt that there are others. I don't suggest that I get a list of 50 places this article is listed on, but I'm sure there are more than I'm knowledgable enough to add. Further, I intentionally left the reward really low to avoid temptation to spam more than that. Thanks for the note, --Kickstart70-T-C 15:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Your response to User:Colin Kimbrell

Your response to User:Colin Kimbrell on Wikipedia talk:Reward board (suggesting that he work on the drama queen article) was borderline uncivil. I think he has a legitimate concern, and while leaving the project might be a bit of an overreaction, that doesn't make it right. Please try to respect the concerns of other editors. --Elkman - ^(talk) 15:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't really mean it to be uncivil, but sometimes people do really need to be called on their behaviour. I tried very hard to keep an open mind and have well-considered debate on the issue and users like this one did not respond in kind...instead choosing to 'drama queen' and threaten to leave the project if the proposal went ahead. Props to Colin Kimbrell for following up and actually doing it, but that doesn't mean any of us have to like or accept it. --Kickstart70-T-C 15:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Xeni Jardin

Thanks for the heads up on my talk page. We'll get this article stabilized over the next week or two! There are discrepancies in the information she has provided reporters, and her detractors have a rather inflated sense of their scope of influence. Just gotta get it all sorted out! Look forward to additional input from you as we proceed. Funny how her detractors assume I am "defending" her or something. I didn't even know who she was until I read the article. I have had the same kinds of dealings with POV pushers on topics like intelligent design or race and intelligence, but never with such vehemence on a biography. No wonder I never read blogs... Jokestress 22:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Your use of profanity in this edit summary was highly inappropriate. No matter how strongly you feel about the xenisucks.com website, please keep it clean. Wikipedia really does have higher standards than that site. Thank you. - Motor (talk) 07:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Your use of foundless accusations is also highly inappropriate. I, for one, wish I wasn't frustrated enough to use that word. Are you interested in retracting the non-evidenced claims you've made? --Kickstart70-T-C 22:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you willing to go along my condition of not linking to the xenisucks.com website from the wikipedia article? As I said on the consesus page, for sake of moving forward I'm agreeing to the proposal with that one proviso... and I've moved on the issue of the greasemonkey script and the NYtimes article itself. This isn't pettiness on my part... I'm quite serious about not directly linking to such sites from any biographical article. - Motor (talk) 18:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kickstart70, re the above post, I have made a reply pointing out that you have already addressed this point, so I don't think there's any need to do it twice. Tyrenius 18:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Clarifying Xeni Jardin RfC

Thanks for your note. I have no problem with receiving such communications. I agree with your point, and actually made it myself just before your statement that you referred me to. I'm keeping an eye on the discussion. Let's see how it pans out with some more responses. Get back to me if you want. Tyrenius 02:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Protected edits

Per WP:BLP, "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reputable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If not, leave it out." There are no reputable published sources demonstrated which document the incident discussed by the "temple of me blog." Per Verifiability policy, "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." Specifically, when writing about people, blogs are wholly unacceptable as sources about any person other than the blog's owners. Hence, said material has been removed until reliable sources can be produced. If those sources can be produced, we will link to their discussion of the issue and not a random blog's. FCYTravis 06:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kickstart70, re. your note to me on the above - you can see the rationale. I suggest you take it up with the editor if you feel that will do any good. However, I think the only thing that will do any good at the moment is for the involved editors to back away, and to allow others who are not involved to advise and act, as per FCYTravis. He has a point. Tyrenius 07:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Marijuana Wiki

Hi there,

I see that you are a pro-Cannabis Wikipedian so I hope this will be of some interest to you.

I've started a Marijuana wiki (aka The Sticky Wiki) which I think you might be interested in. I'm hoping you can help me get started with this project. Whereas lots of articles about weed get speedy-deleted on Wikipedia, they would be totally cool over at MarijuanaWiki. But really I want the site to be more of a marijuana community than merely an encyclopedia.

To give you an example, I want to have city guides about where to score, find pot-friendly cafes, marijuana events, and what represents a good price in that city. Etc. (You can check out the featured article: "Toronto" to see what I mean). I also want to have grow diaries and marijuana blogs. All in all, basically more communal than encyclopedic.

I am in need of admins/moderators, and people experienced with MediaWiki to help build policy, categories, and templates, etc. If you'd be interested in helping me with this project, the URL is MarijuanaWiki

Thanks for your time and consideration. Hope to see you there!

-- nsandwich 23:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Add yourself as a Subaru owner

Since you've added a photo of a nice red Subaru Forester, I thought you may want to add yourself as a Subaru owner using "{{user Subaru}}". It may assist in discussions in the future (or most likely, just add another user box to your user page).

--ric_man 12:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Xeni Jardin

You seem to have overlooked the request for involved editors not to comment for 5 days while the RFC was progressing. - Motor (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Eyelights

If your survey does show more persons experiencing the same phenomenon, on condition they have no knowledge of what you described, then it would be notable enough to be reported in a letter to one of the established medical journals, or a radiological journal. This would be as a "letter to the editor" or as a "communication". The editors love publishing such "firsts". I could help you with phrasing or write a covering letter, should you wish. The first thing is to see if there is anything to write about - not as unlikely as it may seem. Ideally, your questionnaire should not reveal what your are really looking for, e.g. include questions such as Were you nauseous? Did you itch, Did your ears buzz? You are trying to find genuine reports, as opposed to flights of fancy. If you have drawn up a form, I would be happy to look it through for you. If you do not find other reports, you may be inquisitive enough to see if you experience the same on another occason, and if so, whether you are able to correctly identify "dummy runs" from real x-rays, using the same machine that was used during your test. BUT do you wish to expose yourself to the radiation? If you have the info on the risks you can decide for yourself. The survey at least has no potential risk. Contact me at see_en_berg@yahoo.co.uk if you wish to. (Please edit out after you have it!) Regards Seejyb 21:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: NetTracker

Hi Kickstart,

Thanks for your message. It was obviously my mistake to think that they didn't do pure log analysis. Although on the other hand, their emphasis as a company seems to be on hybrid solutions, as far as I can see from their website. So I have mixed views. You decide whether they should be there or not; I won't interfere again.

Stephen Turner (Talk) 17:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)