User:Silence/Archive0008

...

This is the Talk page of zeppelin manufacturer and 'big steel' tycoon User:Silence. Feel free to leave a comment.

Archive I: July 2004 to September 2005. Nothing important happened in this one.
Archive II: October 2005. Nothing important happened in this one.
Archive III: November 2005. Nothing important happened in this one.
Archive IIII: December 2005. Nothing important happened in this one.
Archive V: January 2006. Nothing important happened in this one.
Archive VI: February 2006. Nothing important happened in this one.
Archive VII: March 2006. Nothing important happened in this one.
Archive VIII: April 2006. Nothing important happened in this one.
Archive VIIII: May 2006 to December 2006. Nothing important happened in this one.
Archive VV: January 2007. Nothing important happened in this one.
Archive VVIIIIV: February 2007 to July 2007. Nothing important happened in this one.
Archive IIIVXXXLCCCCDM: August 2007 to August 2009. In this one I edited Łobżany.
Archive IIXV: September 2010 to September 2015. Nothing important happened in this one.

Speak with a profound awareness of and complete lack of respect for what is desirable. Laws are a language, kings are a canvas. fac facendum haud solum (ne, miseramans, dementiarum cararum obliuiscaris). Also, if you have or are in the market for opinions, waste lots of time here. Toot toot.

Genetic evolution article

Hello, I read your suggestion on the talk page of the genetic evolution article. I suggested a modification to it that I think would make it more likely to be a success. For your conveniance I've copied your suggestion and my comments here:

Threads like the above are becoming increasingly common on this page, and it seems like there's no good way to keep the page clean of them so effort can actually be focused on improving this article, not on tangential theological debates. I'm as big a fan as anyone of tangential theological debates as anyone, mind you, but this is not the place. So, since simply deleting blatantly off-topic comments would probably cause ill-will and disputes among the editors, how about establishing a "dump" Wikipedia Talk page to move all off-topic comments and replies to? Since simply linking to talk.origins obviously isn't working (most people are too lazy to bother with getting accustomed to a whole new site just to continue a conversation), I think a branch-off for such discussion would do a great deal of good for keeping this page clean and thus not wasting our valuable editors' time with answering trivial questions. -Silence 03:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I already tried this in the form of creating a subpage for discussions involving religion or creationism. The idea was that all discussion with a religious or creationist focus would occur on this subpage and so stop other issues becoming swamped out. No one stuck to the rule and I was reluctant to enforce it without a clear mandate to do so. Any system needs either a clear mandate or to be entirely voluntary.
The problem with creating a separate page for off topic discussions (or indeed for discussions on particular irrelevent topics) is that only people familiar with both wikipedia and the evolution article will know where to go. Many of the people starting discussions will not be experienced and so will expect to carry out discussion on the article's main talk page. With a constant influx of such people any rule which requires them to post somewhere other than what is standard is going to fail. Furthermore people will be annoyed if we unilaterily move their comments to another talk page. Newbies may not understand why we are doing this and may not be able to find where we have moved their comments to.
On the other hand we could create an alternative page for work concerning the article and request that off topic discussions are not held on this page. Our regular influx of newbies will post on the talk:evolution page and we can keep an eye on that to ensure that we don't miss serious questions. However, most important work can occur on the alternative page without editors having to deal with tons of irrelevent material. This should work because all regular contributors to the article will soon see the links to the alternative page. Serious questions raised on the original talk page can be copied to the alternative page with notes (and links) inserted to this effect beneath the original copy. This system can be entirely voluntary and avoids deleting/moving anyones text unilaterily. Barnaby dawson 14:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

My current thinking on this is that the usual excursions away from improving the article could be quickly moved to the originator's talk page, preferably with a note to say this has been done, and ideally a brief not added to the talk page linking to any previous discussions on the topic, and to relevant policies and guidelines if the originator wants to do more than moan about pov. ...dave souza, talk 10:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I suggested as much after abandoning the hassle and potentially policy-violating nature of having to maintain a unique Talk page just for tangential debates. Simply moving off-topic discussions to the user's Talk page, and leaving a brief notice that all responses can be forwarded to that page, seems to me to be by far the most efficient, useful, and inoffensive way to minimize in-depth debates on totally irrelevant (though sometimes quite fascinating :)) subjects. -Silence 10:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that Tetrapod is better stated as four limbed than four-legged. I'm happy with your edit, but my usage was lifted straight from the Tetrapod article, and you might wish to review that page. ...dave souza, talk 10:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC).. Actually, doesn't Tetrapod mean four-footed? ... ;-) ..dave souza, talk 10:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Etymologically, both -ped and -pod mean "foot", and both quadru- and tetra- mean "four", so the two words are only distinguished in English as a matter of convention, to make it easier to discuss two distinct, but related, concepts. And the reason we don't use quadrupod or tetraped is because Latin and Greek affixes are usually only fused with other words of Latin and Greek origin (though there are a few exceptions, like television from Greek tele- and Latin uisio), as a matter of convention. However, what is significant in the context of the article is what the modern words mean, not what their etymological constituents refer to; in tetrapod, "foot" has, by association, been extended to mean "leg", because something cannot have a foot unless it also has a leg. From "leg", then, the meaning was expanded to include anything resembling or derived from a leg (including a wing or fin), hence essentially a "limb". Quadruped, on the other hand, retained its original, literal meaning, and refers exclusively to four legs: bats, humans, and owls are all tetrapods, but not quadrupeds. Tetrapod has even been broadened to include species that biologically used to be tetrapods, but are have neither four legs nor even four limbs, like snakes and dolphins. This distinction in meaning between quadruped and tetrapod is actually remarkably useful and efficient, and it's unfortunate that it's not more common in languages; etymology be damned! -Silence 10:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Vital Articles problem and possible solution

I've listed an idea at the village pump and on the vital articles talkpage in repsonses to Blockinblox's complaint on the lack of cross-cultural integration in the list. What do you think?--The i kiroid (talk/parler/hablar/paroli/说/話) 21:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Remember this?

It seems like two and half years ago, not two and half months! David D. (Talk) 22:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Heh. How naive we were back then; like children. :) Nostalgia aside, I'm about ready to give up on the human article; if so many people think that something as absurd as a POV fork over biological, cultural and psychological aspects of humanity, using protologism original-research new definitions of existing words like "humanity means 'humanity in a social context'" or "human means 'humanity in a psychological context'" and so on, is the solution to a problem in the article rather than the creation of a problem where none has existed before, or even that such a fork is acceptable whatsoever, clearly there's no hope for this article reaching any sort of encyclopedic standard in the foreseeable future. Time will have to pass, then, until the distant future, when the current generation of editors have moved on and progress can resume with fresh editors with open minds and an understanding of fundamental Wikipedia policies like WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, which nowhere permit fabricating new definitions of existing words for the sake of artificially splitting an article that was formerly coherent and cohesive.

A sad day for Wikipedia indeed. -Silence 22:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention frustrating. Teach the controversy was one thing that same said on the talk pages. Huh? I knew then we were sunk with respect finding a middle ground. David D. (Talk) 23:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

That Sam said, y'mean? Indeed. I'm all for teaching the controversy... just not for making up the controversy. Still no citations for the notion that "humans are Homo sapiens" is in any way controversial... Kind of disappointing, how easily and casually Wikipedia becomes a tool for propagating fringe POVs. The project's got a long way to go. Even if I could convince anyone on Talk:Human of the absurdity of coining brand-new English words to deal with so trivial a POV dispute, I don't want to waste the hours and days of time it would take to establish a consensus against a POV fork, only to have that be ignored by people who feel that "the majority is usually wrong" (with the unspoken add-on corollary, "except when I'm a part of the majority"). There are too many other articles I could be working on with a much better time-spent-to-progress-made ratio. If you ever want my help with or suggestions regarding anything in the future, though, Daycd, feel free to give me a ring. -Silence 23:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The context of the teach the controversy remark is even more ironic.

Sam wrote:

False dichotomies will not help a debate this intractable, nor will the misuse of the word "facts", or any other rhetorical tricks. The only absurd position I am seeing here is that which assumes a SPOV bias is logical, and that the exclusion of the majority POV in the intro would benefit the reader, rather than offending his sensibilities.

NPOV is NPOV. It is "absolute and non-negotiable". I think you need to re-read "views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all.", or perhaps given it a thorough reading for the 1st time.

In sum, teach the controversy, rather than telling mankind "your a dirty ape; get used to it." Sam Spade 06:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

My bold in red for emphasis. David D. (Talk) 23:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Though the most inane part of the statement, without question, is the fact that "humans are primates" (which is a scientific fact and is true-by-definition; humans are part of the order Primates, a biological Order named "the excellent ones" in Latin specifically because humans are a member of that Order!) somehow registers in Sam's mind as "your [sic] a dirty ape; get used to it". That's an extremist enough leap in logic to suggest that psychological counseling would be a beneficial future task. That, or a career as a politician, since he's so fond of rhetorical appeals to emotion. Also, on behalf of apes everywhere, I find Sam's speciesist discrimination against the apes and characterization of them as "dirty" to be incivil and offensive. :) Hairy is beautiful. -Silence 23:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Reverting Deletion review/Userbox debates

Please do not revert debate closures. The ones in question were closed in an appropriate manner and reverting them is disruptive and can be seen as merely vandalism. Both of which are blockable. If you have a problem, use the talk page, WP:AN/I or any of the other dispute resolution methods. Thanks. Rx StrangeLove 06:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I have already used the Talk page (though I probably should have done it sooner, yes; there are now posts to User talk:Cyde and Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review/Userbox_debates), now that it's clear that Cyde isn't about to, even to explain his out-of-process and disruptive early closure of a Deletion Review he was personally involved in. You are incorrect in your statement that "the ones in question were closed in an appropriate manner"; closer scrutiny of the circumstances involved should make this clear, though I can understand how this misconception would arise from a cursory review of the edit history. Thanks for the advice, though. -Silence 06:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

But you can't just go reverting debate closures, whatever issues you are having won't be helped by getting into a revert war. As far as Cyde closing them, if it had been a close call you'd have a point but there was no consensus at all to do anything. And since the debate was whether to undelete them, no consensus means they stay deleted. What I'm trying to say is that there wasn't any interpretation to be done while deciding the outcome, it was clear to anyone that looked that there was no consensus to undelete them. So it didn't matter who closed it. Technical issues aside, it didn't matter who closed them. Could he have forseen that someone might object to a voter cosing the debates? Sure, but that's no reason to keep reverting it....Rx StrangeLove 07:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The "default position" for Deletion Reviews where there is no clear consensus is not "keep deleted" (especially when it's a review of a speedy-deletion, which is a single user's opinion or whim, not of a TfD or other group decision following a discussion), for the same reason that "delete" is not the default for AfD: erring on the side of keeping rather than deleting, and of continuing the discussion over stifling it early, is almost always good practice, and is well-established in Wikipedia conventions by such actions as Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Userbox_debates/Archive#Template:User_marriage_man-woman (where there was a very similar deadlock, and the admin wisely chose to undelete it and submit the template to TfD so the community at large could judge the template). Also, one of the main reasons there was no possibility of establishing consensus is that Cyde closed it early, possibly even in an attempt to stifle debate and dissent before the view he opposed could gather even more of a majority ("undelete" already had more votes than "keep deleted", even though there was no consensus for either), though more likely he was simply taking advantage of an easy loophole to help push his agenda further, which he hoped would slip under the radar of the involved users (hence his leaving no trace whatsoever of the deletion or its results, which violates the established practice for every past DRV entry and must surely be attributed either to sloppiness (which is what I'm betting happened) or a deliberate attempt at deceptively concealing the results (less likely, though possible)). But, above all, regardless of whether or not determining that the DRV's result was "keep deleted" is valid (which is certainly a matter of dispute and a very borderline issue), Cyde's closure of it was completely unacceptable, as he was a major particpiant in the discussion prior to its closure. That last fact is the main reason I reverted it: if a neutral party had made the deletion, I would never have considered a revert, as the delete would have been legitimate even if I disagreed with the closing editor's rationale or judgment. But for the closing editor to be a user with a strong anti-userbox agenda and a vested, explicit interest in the deletion of the userbox whose DRV he is closing is clearly unacceptable, and cannot go ignored. I care less about the template itself than I do about the apparent corruption at play in its closure. -Silence 07:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, to clarify why I assessed that Cyde had a vested interest in the borderline userbox DRV which he closed as "keep deleted", please review the full discussion therein, at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Userbox_debates/Archive#Template:User_review (and, when you're done with that, the earlier Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Userbox_debates/Archive#Template:User_review_2). To show his obviously one-sided and non-neutral pre-set opinion on the userbox deletion, as well as his very deep involvement in the issue, both of which should have prevented him from closing the DRV, especially without any explanation whatsoever for his interpretation of the vote as "keep deleted", here are the comments he made to that DRV (note that they should be read in context for a full understanding of the debate; this is just to demonstrate his deep involvement and hard-set opinion on the matter):

"Keep deleted per Doc. These guys have lost all credibility because of the close association between some of them and various Neo-Nazi and anti-semite groups. Their kind of trash don't need free advertising on Wikipedia."
"I don't understand this argument. Are you in favor of this template or not? It can be settled here. Requiring that it be undeleted and then shipped over to TfD to deal with just creates more work for more people."
"Things change over time. This time it looks like there's a lot more people for deletion."
"There are still Nazis and anti-semites on Wikipedia Review who aren't banned. If you want me to name names in private, I will. And saying you will block anyone who reverts it as wheel-warring is like saying you'll murder anyone for committing murder. It's ludicrous."
"Grue, I can't believe you just undeleted the template and blanked this discussion. A lot of us are admins too, and if we all did the same thing you just did we'd be wheel-warring over whether the template should be deleted or not. Obviously that's unacceptable, and that's why discussion takes place here. You can't just close down the discussion and enforce the result however you want it, because that implies that you are somehow "more equal" than the rest of us, and you aren't."
"Wikipedia also has a speedy deletion policy that includes patent nonsense pages and divisive templates like these."
"No, I don't think we would censor this statement if it was on people's userpages, but you don't seem to understand that what is up for deletion here is a template, not something on someone's userpage, and is inappropriate alongside the rest of the encyclopedic content."
"Yes, it really is about template and category space. They should have the same rules on being encyclopedic that main article space does, because they primarily designed and used for encyclopedic content."
"Even a marathon starts by taking a single step."
"Flamebait -1"

That's a total of 10 comments (not even counting his earlier history with this template in its first DRV), a highly unusually large amount of involvement for anyone in any vote (especially a DRV one), and the content of the comments shows tha Cyde had his opinion decided from the very beginning, based on his pre-set biases (whether justified or unjustified) against both userboxes and Wikipedia Review, rather than on the contents of the discussion. While these may be valid opinions on their own, they are unacceptably influential biases for a DRV-closing user. I have no problem with his participating heavily in the discussion; many of the points he made were interesting and useful. But it's blatantly inappropriate for one of the most involved and strongly-opinionated users in a debate to be the one to close that debate, especially when he closes a marginal vote in order to favor the side he'd been so strongly supporting! Now do you understand why I found the closure to be an unacceptable breach of policy and a case that merits being immediately reverted so that some neutral party can close the DRV properly? (Or, alternatively, so that the discussion can continue; I have no strong opinions one way or the other.)

Incidentally, as long as I'm citing examples of why I found the closure questionable at best, there's also evidence that the other three DRVs he closd at the same time (which I have in no way contested up to this point, nor have I reverted them) were at the very least consistent with his views on each individual DRV, meaning that he probably wouldn't have closed them at that point in time if he didn't agree with their results. He closed: (1) "Template:User Copyright Nazi", which had a clear consensus for keeping deleted, and which he had also voted to keep deleted; (2) "Template:nathanrdotcom/Userboxes/ABF", which had a consensus for undeleting, and which was pretty much the only userbox is memory which he hadn't voted to delete (presumably because it was a userspace-embedded one); and (3) "Template:User evol-x", which had a consensus for keeping deleted, and which Cyde had also voted to delete. In fact, he was the first person to vote to keep that template deleted, saying "Stupid and possibly inflammatory. Certainly doesn't belong in template: namespace." So, there's significant evidence that, although Cyde was acting in good faith and doing what he thought was best for Wikipedia in the long run, he was also, at least as a side-effect, seeking to further his own agenda and promote his own views as law by closing two deletions which had consensus support for what he'd voted for, one which he was at most ambivalent about, one which didn't have consensus support for what he'd voted for but which he closed in a way that supported his vote anyway, and none that contradicted in any way his personal, pre-set views on those userboxes, as demonstrated by his comments at vote (at least, not the way he chose to close them). In light of all this evidence that Cyde is not a sufficiently neutral and open-minded party, at least in these specific cases, to analyze the pros and cons of both sides of the argument and judge the templates based on that, not just based on his own personal preferences and beliefs, I truly feel that it's not at all asking for much to simply say "hey, how about some other admin who hasn't participated so much in the debates closes this instead"? Indeed, that's pretty much the least anyone could ask for. -Silence 08:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Heh, Heh, Heh

Thanks for three out-loud laughs in a row: here, your userpage, and this page.

About Hazel and Wanda: I agree with you (especially when you're agreeing with me ...) Would you like to have a go at writing something about Wanda? The article on A Game of You has a good treatment of Wanda, so we could perhaps just tell people to go there. (It's a very good article — so good that I feel a bit daunted about writing about AGOY.)

—Chris Chittleborough 15:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, excellent. Well, I don't have access to any of my Sandman books right now (I'm away from home over this weekend), but when I get back, unless I'm feeling incredibly lazy, I'll have a go at it.

Also, don't feel daunted about anything on Wikipedia. It's even more important to be brutal with the good articles than with the bad ones, since it gives them a chance to become excellent. -Silence 15:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Quotation Marks

You are right, I apologize, I went a tad overboard. Sometimes I forget we are on the Internet, and I don't even realize what I actually am doing, as regarding that italicization thing—yes, I even knew it goes the way you correctly pointed out. Thanks for the heads-up, --JackLumber 18:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. Wikipedia's style conventions aren't all easy to get used to; to tell the truth, the first few dozen Wikipedia articles I copyedited, I went around putting the commas back into the quotation marks too! That, and overusing serial commas, ignoring the italicizing rules, deleting British English variants willy-nilly, etc. Wikipedia editing is always a learning process, so I'm just glad to have helped you with that today. Next time, you can point out to me when I've screwed up some grammatical oddity, and then we'll be even. ;D -Silence 20:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

==~~Do Not Remove AfD Notices~~== Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages. The notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of an article, and removing them is considered vandalism. If you oppose the deletion of an article, you may comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. Mboverload 04:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind

Sorry about the warning message, I thought VandalProof would ask be before it gave a message. I just selected a random user to try it on (in hindsight I should have tried it on myself first). Sorry about that. --Mboverload 04:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha, no problem. I'm honored to have been the first recipient of a newborn VandalProof's work. :) I'm leaving the struck comment, as I usually do for retracted statements of all kinds, just for organizational archiving purposes; edit histories become hard to sort through for long pages. Anyway, good luck with the tool! -Silence 04:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

ContiE's Administrator Abuse

Hi, I'm in a potentially awkward position with an Administrator. I have read the Wiki pages on dispute resolution but I'm still not sure how to proceed.

The Admin ContiE has a personal grudge against me for reasons I do not fully understand. He has been this way since I began frequenting wikipedia.

I have done work improving the furvert article. He has basically gone on a crusade against any edit I make. He controls every furry category article and several others ruthlessly. He is an iron fist and bans anyone he edit wars with. I had uploaded pictures and he deleted them with no talking. He seems to believe I am every person he has had an edit war against. He is always using personal attacks, calling me troll without reason. I uploaded them again and he voted them for deleted, but to his surprise the person who runs the images, thank you Nv8200p, found they were acceptable once I tagged them properly. Just recently he removed both the images without himself discussing it in the talk page (unless he was the same person who discussed only one) with the edit here [1] Then ContiE assumed bad faith, added his constant insult of troll in the talk page. It appears on a completed different wiki, a comedy one in all things, somebody else stole my username and I believe this was Conti himself and uploaded them. ContiE showed it as his reason. While vandalism like his, I would revert and mention it, he would ban me permanently if I undid his edit. That is why I am asking admins for help. He holds a couple of accounts on wikipedia and I think they are administrators so I have to be careful who I tell about this. Arights 06:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not an administrator, so I cannot directly help you in this matter, though I can recommend that you remain calm and follow all the steps on Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. If you do so, I am sure that the matter will be cleared up and the user, if he is acting improperly, will be reprimanded. In other words, first try to resolve it through reasonable discussion on his Talk page; if that fails, try Wikipedia:Requests for mediation (if you want dispute-resolving help from a neutral user) or Wikipedia:Requests for comment (if you want input from the community at large, which sounds like what you're looking for now). If you are looking for administrator help in some area, you may also find the Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention page of value; all of these options are preferable to spamming random users' talk pages with requests for intervention, though I understand that you are simply unfamiliar with how things work around here, and sympathize. If there's anything specific you'd like my help with, or if you have any questions, please feel free to ask. -Silence 06:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Cyde and Userbox DRV

In response to this discussion you started on the DRV for userboxes, I am also disturbed by the "abuse of process" that occurred. It seems that Wikipedia is now rampant with administrators, some who are ignorant of the established policies that allow us to settle disputes civilly. The DRV appeared to be evenly split between undelete and delete, yet User:Cyde in his infinite wisdom blanks the entire discussion, citing that it is "long over," nevermind Wikipedia:Undeletion policy. If somebody is bold enough (I am not), I would put User:Cyde on notice. --65.110.236.63 07:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear. I had come here hoping to find a note of at least semi-apology from User:Cyde, as I had appealed him most earnestly to provide. Perhaps he emailed you? I hope. He came to my attention on another matter where he wasn't IMO working for the best interests of the project. I'm not sure what to do about this young man, frankly. I feel he needs guidance of some sort but I'm not sure how it can be provided. Herostratus 03:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, I noticed your comment the other day on Cyde's userpage and meant to send you a message thanking you for how nice it was! Cyde's always had a bit of a strange fixation on userboxes; many users feel that he loses his better judgment, or at least some of his self-control, when he gets involved in the userbox mess. The fact that he feels that his personal dislike for userboxes is sufficient grounds to delete every userbox on Wikipedia on its own is not nearly as troubling, though, as the fact that he often just says stuff that's not very nice in such discussions, I've found. :/ I don't think he means any harm, and I do agree with him on a number of issues, but most of the comments of his I've seen are brisk, severe, and occasionally even threatening, which doesn't facilitate a very happy and loving and Wikitouchy-Wikifeely environment. :( Try a text search for "Cyde" on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates/Archive, for example, and you'll regularly run into unnecessarily pugnacious, acidic, and inflammatory statements like
  - "And block Objectivist-C for wasting our time. (What, I can't call for blocking someone, but you guys can call for desysopping of admins? Hypocritical.)"
  - "You're picking the wrong person to play hardball with."
  - "That's kind of a nonsense phrase right there. 'Respect the community's wishes'?"
  - "Stop being thick-headed."
  - "ignore the rantings of the troll/vote-stacker"
  - "The religion userboxes are all gone for good, period, per Jimbo's stance on this issue. None of them are coming back. Ever."
  - "please stop wasting our time with deletion reviews of stupid userboxes. Do we really need a vomit userbox? NO!"
  - "PS you forget to call BorgHunter a dick."
  - "I swear to the Gods, if we have to bring every single fracking deleted userbox template to DRV we are going to waste hundreds of man-years. Did you know there are already over 6,000 of these things?! I'm trying to fix the damn situation."
  - "Would you please stop spamming everything I'm saying with your reply?"
  - "What's ironic is someone claiming to care for the community voting to keep this garbage."
  - "Are you having fun attacking all of my votes on this page? That's kind of a lame thing to do. And anyway, I noticed that you couldn't bother to get my name right, and then just copied the mistake quite a few times. Very nice."
  - "Keep this polemical, divisive, bigoted trash off of Wikipedia."
- and his aggressive comments inevitably use potentially loaded language like "pointless" or "stupid" or "nonsensical" or "damn" or "hypocritical" or "silly" in them. One of his "campaign promises" when he was a nominee to become an Admin was that he'd stay away from userboxes, since pretty much all the voters there (both for and against him) considered that the main area where he regularly loses perspective. Unfortunately, he wasted little time in returning to the 'boxes and other areas where his needlessly sharp tongue gets let out of the box, and is contributing to an increasingly hostile and factionalized environment with his extreme absolutist views on userboxes and his caustic, uncompromising comments. That, plus the whole "abusing DRV closures of debates he was involved in to help get his way", makes me very concerned about his behavior and its potential to escalate and exacerbate these conflicts. :/ If further attempts to settle such issues fail, I think an RfC or ArbCom consultation may be necessary, if only to help scare him away from the userbox nastiness a little and back to editing articles. :/ -Silence 04:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Great user page

I've blogged your user page here! -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 09:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Flora nomination change?

I have tagged Flora (plants) as a stub, as a first step to change it to a WP:COTW nomination. I personally believe there should be a complete re-write of the article. Do you all agree to make the change? --Francisco Valverde 08:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't think there is a big rush. You might be right that I've been boldlest, but in the past, I have also been criticized by being too bold, at the least. I am no biologist, and my contributions to this article, would only be minor edits... I am just nominating it because as a reader I would like to learn more. My contributions would be small but my support big. If it is too late for both Fauna and Flora to go together, well, patience, then let them go one after the another. So, should I delete the nomination from WP:AID completely and start a new nomination on WP:COTW or copy and paste all the nomination to WP:COTW with all its votes...? I am also a bit new to this part of WIkipedia. Anyway, thanks for your criticisms... hope they are constructive.--Francisco Valverde 08:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

fyi

minor point - Bishonen is a she. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Bleh, I always do get shojo and shonen mixed up. -Silence 18:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Nah, Bishonen means "pretty boy" - but the user is female. She must be deliberately trying to confuse you because she's jealous of your post-modern witticisms! KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Curses! I knew that would bite me in the self-referential ass. :( Heh, thanks for the help. -Silence 18:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Evolution, Sam Spade, Impressed

I would like to start off saying how impressed I was with your evolution edits. My god, someone with actual editing skills! Too rare at wikipedia. I wish I could talk you into helping with the Flu and/or H5N1 suites of articles. I'm good at gathering data; but as far as editing goes, well, umm, I'm good at gathering data. With regard to Sam Spade, I think you are our best hope for salvaging what if anything can be salvaged from someone who is honestly doing his best, but his best is lacking in ways he doesn't (can't?) comprehend. I really like him and find his sense of humor great fun. In the past he has been attacked by groups of people that appeared to gang up on him just for the fun of it; although I'm sure they did not believe that's what they were doing. In this current situation, there is no evidence of that. The evidence is that there is an honest attempt to deal with Sam in a way useful to Wikipedia. I think you are the key to that effort's success. I can't find anything useful for me to say on the RfC myself, and I've suggested elsewhere that not giving Sam the excuse of being ganged on would be helpful.

If there is anything I can do to assist with anything, please don't hestitate to ask; but my skills are limited. Cheers. WAS 4.250 19:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm honored by your compliments; you're far too kind. Gathering data, I'd say, is much more important than the sort of organizational, aesthetic and stylistic editing I usually do, as it provides actual new information, whereas I only help polish the presentation. But they do make a good combination together. :) I'd certainly be glad to help edit the influenza or H5N1 articles as best I'm able; I'm always happy to help with an article someone needs copyedited, and both of those articles are indisputably very important.

As for Spade, I agree that he's a good guy, and an extremely valuable editor. If he's just willing to open up to the RfC criticism and calmly talk the matter over with us, I'm sure a lot of progress can be made and tensions can be greatly reduced. The problem is that if only one or two users criticize Sam, he'll try to "dig up dirt" on them and discredit them based on ad hominem attacks on their motives or characters; whereas if a lot of users criticize him, as is the case here, he'll dismiss all their valid points with rhetoric like "mob justice" and "the majority is usually wrong". There's no way to avoid one situation or the other occurring; the only one who can end the vicious cycle is Sam himself, by realizing that even the best editors make mistakes sometimes, and that the key is to learn from and accept errors so that growth can occur. Wikipedia is a collaboration, not a battleground. -Silence 20:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for not being more clear about what I meant by "I wish I could talk you into helping with the Flu and/or H5N1 suites of articles". I'm actually trying to get you to help out with a dozen articles or so linked by the Flu and H5N1 templates, not just H5N1 and Flu, although one could start there. Someone else has helped restructure H5N1 very recently, so be sure to check out a little of its history if you want to help out there. The other articles in the two suites are factual (I've gone over and over and over and over them) but as far as I know, haven't had a thorough going over by anyone with your class of editing skills. WAS 4.250 20:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Joan of Arc

Hi Silence; I've changed the wording slightly again. Saying that something "is believed" makes it sound like there's little dispute among scholars that that is the case, but I don't get the impression that that is true. The wording is now "She had visions, which many believe to be from God". I've changed the text appearing on the main page back to what you had originally, but if you agree with this last change, I'll fix the main page text as well. Thanks! —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 00:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand; It's a tricky thing to word. The problem, though, is that "believed" wasn't short for "which are believed" or "which many believe"; it was short for "which were believed" (i.e. by Joan and many people around her, including her own executioner). It was shortened largely because "were" would imply that noone believes they were from God today, which could offend Roman Catholics, who still believe that. I suppose it's tough to tread the line between ambiguity and neutrality; I don't think the current solution is satisfactory, though. "which many believe" makes it sound even more like it's a very widely-held belief, even though I'm sure that most people in the world, not being Christians, don't believe it. -Silence 00:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

- What about "believed by many to be from God"? That would save the past tense at least, and would make the sentence sound better. As for the use of "many", I don't think that it more strongly suggests that it is generally believed. For a different example, I'd much prefer "many believe that evolution is false" to "it is believed that evolution is false". Both sentences are technically true, but the first qualifies the believing. If the adjective were "most" or something along those lines that attempted to say exactly how many believe it, well, that's different. Ah, semantics =). —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 01:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

- - As, I've already said quite clearly, "it is believed that evolution is false" is a false comparison, as there was no "it is" in the original sentence; it merely said "She had visions, believed to be from God,"; "She had visions that are believed to be from God" would have a 100% different meaning, and failing to stop the difference is bizarre indeed. But your new suggestion is better, at least, than the one currently on the page. -Silence 01:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

- - - Sorry, I don't see any difference; it appears to me that "it is" or "they were" or whatever is clearly implied. Since there is no explicit subject who is doing the believing, I don't see any other option. No matter; I've changed the text back to the way it was originally, and I leave it to you to make changes you deem appropriate, if any. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 01:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Vote #7: Removal of voters with only votes as contributions

There is currently a vote taking place to help set a limit on who can vote. You might want to voice your opinion on the matter. --Steven 22:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Since

Since we're trying to keep the paranormal articles NPOV, why don't you join us, to keep things fom getting out of hand, yet still respectful. Really appreciate your kind answers on your project's discussion page. Martial Law 01:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC) :)

Thanks for the invite! I'd certainly be glad to be of service if you ever have need of me for that WikiProject; if there's a dispute or discussion or article you'd ever like my input in, feel free to give me a ring. -Silence 01:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject categorization

Great work on cleaning up the categorization; it was long overdue! One minor issue, though: now that the en.wiki replication lag is off the scale, Interiot's WikiProject List is going to be increasingly out of date; and since we're not leaving individual projects in Category:WikiProjects directly, there's no good category for active projects. (The subject-breakdown categories don't make this distinction, obviously; Category:History WikiProjects, for example, includes both highly active and utterly dead ones.) I'm not sure what the best way of dealing with this would be, though, or even whether it's a significant problem. Kirill Lok s h in 03:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you decide that it is a significant problem, the obvious solution is to simply have a Category:Active WikiProjects and put them all there; perhaps we could work out a system there every WikiProject that's not in "Inactive WikiProjects" is automatically placed there by a bot. And, thanks for the kind words! -Silence 03:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Japan category

Thanks for all the cleanup work you're doing with categories. However, please leave the [[Category:WikiProject Japan|*]] category tag on any WikiProject as is. This is done purposely so that all WikiProjects under WikiProject Japan will be sorted at the top of the list of articles tagged as part of the project. Thanks! --日本穣 Nihonjoe 05:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, but in the long run it would probably be easiest to just change the category on the WikiProject-Japan-template to a sub-category of the main WikiProject Japan category, for navigational and organizational purposes; otherwise you could end up with a mess like that at Category:WikiProject Films, where the number of articles listed actually makes it a hassle to find the daughter categories and projects (because subcategories will be spread across multiple pages too if contained articles are, even if you only have a few subcategories). That could always be done later, though, I suppose. -Silence 05:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Added reply

Hi! I replied to the comments you made on the Ultimate fate of the universe talk page. Remember, I do not wish to enter into a heated debate with you regarding this subject! Hope you will find my comments useful and thought-provoking. By the way, I would like to know whether you are an admin on Wikipedia. Cheers! --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification! If you do want to enter into a heated debate anytime, I'd be fine with that, but we should probably move it to our Talk pages. :) And, I am not an admin on Wikipedia. -Silence 21:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Librarians

Hi, I saw you changed the category on the Wikiproject Librarians to be under the Wikiprojects Books category. To the best of my understanding the librarian wikiproject is not a subclass of the books project, it's a related project. As such, it seems that subsuming it into Wikiproject Books doesn't make sense. The librarian wikiproject is not just about books and it is about more than books, so I think this grouping seems odd. I'd like to know your thoughts on it, but I'd be inclined to find a different way to categorise this wikiproject. Thanks. Jessamyn (talk) 01:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

If you have any other suggestions for good places to subcategorize the project, I'm certainly open to other possibilities. What, aside from books, does the Librarian WikiProject deal with? The reason I categorized it there was not because it's necessarily a "subclass", per se, of the books project, anymore than Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels, also categorized there (or Wikipedia:WikiProject Harry Potter, subcategorized under "Novels" in turn), is a "subclass"; it's just an organizational necessity because all individual WikiProjects are in the process of being removed from Category:WikiProjects to make navigation easier and simpler. If you want, we could categorize the Librarian WikiProject under the Book WikiProjects category and under other categorizes that apply too; that's been done with a number of WikiProjects already. -Silence 01:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Since when?

You wrote:

Wikipedia-space categories are not put under article-space categories, for the same reasons we don't talk about WikiProjects in articles. Just put an italicized link in the Shinto category instead

Since when are WikiProjects not listed under their related main namespace categories? I thought the whole point of categories was to help people to find related articles and categories. If so, then it makes absolute sense to include, say, Wikipedia:WikiProject Shinto in the Category:Shinto. If not, why not? I can understand not having an article as part of too many categories, but having a project being a part of 2-3 categories is hardly overkill. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 02:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

"I thought the whole point of categories was to help people to find related articles and categories." - It is. And the categories included on Talk pages, User pages, Wikipedia-space pages, Template pages, etc. are for editors, while the categories included on article pages are for readers. As a thought construct, you can imagine, even though they all use the same "Category:" namespace, that all of the former categories are really "meta-categories", which exist to help in the process of constructing Wikipedia, not to help readers, researchers, etc. find what they're looking for in the encyclopedia itself, while the latter are ordinary categories to help find related encyclopedia articles. It is thus very important to keep the two distinct, especially if Wikipedia is ever to release a standardized, non-editable version "for readers" (e.g. version 1), which would require the inclusion of article-space categories, but not of ohter types of categories. In other words, if Wikipedia was somehow magically a perfect, complete project from the very start, it would have a Category:Meteorology, but it would not have a Category:WikiProject Meteorology; the latter is a part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic content, while the former is just a means to an end. This is not to say that WikiProjects aren't important, but you should link to them directly from article-space categories, either on the Talk page or in an italicized message at the top of the category page or something (or both); you shouldn't mix up the articles and the editor utilities so haphazardly. -Silence 03:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but if I put a link to a WikiProject at the top of a Category, that would still interfere with your "for readers" version because they would have a link that went nowhere. What's the point of that? Wouldn't that confuse them just as much as having the category itself? --日本穣 Nihonjoe 03:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Nope, because it's a well-established practice on Wikipedia to include self-referential messages, such as disambiguation notices and, rarely, inter-namespace links (cf. the messages at the top of pages like WP and neutral, and the more unusual one I found and corrected on dab), in italicized and indented text, purely as a convention to consistently distinguish article content from meta-content (though dab notices, at least, are useful to readers, whereas WikiProjects are a further step removed and thus even more important not to mix up with article content). Wikipedia:Avoid self-references makes it clear that we should not mix up different article spaces willy-nilly; it specifically says that, for example, "User pages may be categorized under Category:Wikipedians, but not under Category:People"; that's because Category:People is an article-space category designed to help readers navigate encyclopedic content, whereas Category:Wikipedians is a user-and-Wikipedia-space category designed to assist editors. Furthermore, from a purely practical standpoint, as long as the cross-namespace link is explained so readers aren't completely baffled by its function and placement in the grand scheme of Wikipedia, and is clearly distinguished from the ordinary article-space links, there's no real harm being done if readers occasionally stumble onto a meta-message here and there. It's where the meta-messages aren't clearly and explicitly distinguished from ordinary encyclopedia content that problems occur. -Silence 03:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

See the discussion over here. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 03:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera category

Hi. I see you have changed the categorization of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera. I am a bit puzzled by this. Opera is listed (in my view appropriately) under Performing Arts - not music or theatre. I wonder if you were aware of this? If you look at the Opera Project page in detail you will see that this is explained. Thanks. - Kleinzach 08:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

There is currently no category for "performing arts" WikiProjects, and according to Wikipedia itself, opera is both a form of music and a form of theatre. Also, re-adding Category:WikiProjects to that WikiProject has nothing to do with "performing arts" (so I don't understand how your above comment at all relates to the actual revert you made); you are apparently unaware that Category:WikiProjects is currently in the process of being depopulated of all individual WikiProjects to make navigation easier. They are instead being moved to subcategories, like "Music WikiProjects" and "WikiProject Theatre" in this case. -Silence 08:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Please see [[2]]. If you are interested in re-structuring the categories then it will be necessary to make one for Performing Arts. Theatre is not a substitute for this. It doesn't mean the same thing, and there are various other problems (as you will see if you look more closely at the Theatre Project).

Moreover, opera is not a form of music! It has many extra-musical features. This is a complex subject and I think it would have been much better if you had posted on the Project Opera Talk page before you went ahead and made changes. You are evidently well-informed about categorization, but it's also necessary to understand the subject matter properly. If you had read the project page itself we could have cooperated in improving the structure. I see from this page that you have had friction with other contributors to other projects before by making arbitrary changes.

Anyway the way forward would be to move Opera to a Performing Arts group. Friendly regards. - Kleinzach 09:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

"Please see [[3]]." - I already have. I fail to see how that listing choice in any way supports your claims. I am deeply unimpressed, if that's all you had to show me. Clearly you're unfamiliar with Wikipedia's categorization system, else you'd realize that unlike a simple hierarchial system like the one at that page, categories allow an article to be subgrouped under more than one category! "Comic books" can be categorized under both "Visual art" and "Books"; they are not mutually exclusive (just the opposite). Plus a lot of the organizational choices currently in use on the WikiProjects page are just plain stupid ("Food and drink" is a "hobby"? Gee, if I'd known that I wouldn't indulge in that hobby so regularly); maybe I'll work on changing that at some point in the future.

"If you are interested in re-structuring the categories" - I'm not. The previous system of categorization was horribly inefficient, inconsistent, and disorganized, to the point of being nearly useless, and users had requested that the categories be cleaned up, so I'm spending a few hours to do the long-overdue dirty work. I find it dull and unrewarding, but it needs doing.

"then it will be necessary to make one for Performing Arts." - If you want to make one, then make one. Nobody's stopping you, and it only takes about 30 seconds. The main reason I could see for making such a category would be to have somewhere to put projects like "WikiProject Dance", since unlike "opera", dance doesn't fit under "theatre".

"It doesn't mean the same thing, and there are various other problems (as you will see if you look more closely at the Theatre Project)." - You keep making vague references to obscure areas of various WikiProjects, and consistently fail to provide any examples on any of these WikiProject pages that actually support your claims. Since you know where all this hidden, revelatory information is, why don't you just give it to me rather than trying to convince me with mere allusions to it?

"Moreover, opera is not a form of music!" - Wrong. :) Read 'em and weep.

"It has many extra-musical features." - ... And? Is that all? That's your argument? The fact that something isn't just music doesn't mean that it's not music at all! Opera is both music and other things, because it has musical aspects; that is why it needs to be categorized under Category:Music WikiProjects, just as a Musicals WikiProject would, despite having "extra-musical features". If something is both X and Y, the fact that it is Y does not make it not-X, it makes it both at the same time.

"This is a complex subject and I think it would have been much better if you had posted on the Project Opera Talk page before you went ahead and made changes." - Oh, surely you jest. You want me to have posted messages to the hundreds of WikiProjects before making any of the recategorizations that were required for every single one of them! That demand would be beyond unreasonable, even were it possible. What's so sinful and terrible about discussing these issues after they come up, rather than asusming that they always will beforehand? Silly, silly, silly.

"You are evidently well-informed about categorization, but it's also necessary to understand the subject matter properly." - I agree. That's why I took the time to research opera a little before making the categorizations I selected, based on Category:Opera's overcategories, the definitions of opera, theatre and music, and the existing categorization scheme in place. I also happen to be a moderate opera fanatic, relatively speaking; your insinuations about my ignorance of the subject matter are thus quite baseless (though I'm sure I'm not a master on the subject like yourself). This is not an issue of one person knowing vastly more than the other—it's an issue of stylistic disagreement. If you disagree with the option I selected, say so and explain why; replacing "theatre" with "performing arts" is understandable (though both are equally accurate where opera is concerned, unlike the situation with some other art forms, like dance), but you have yet to justify the removal of Category:Music WikiProjects, nor what you would propose replacing it with. I'd love to hear your rationale for why opera isn't musical, considering that music is one of the defining characteristics of all opera. :)

"If you had read the project page itself we could have cooperated in improving the structure." - I already did read most of the project page itself, when I made the recategorizations in question, even though I did dozens of other category moves at the same time. And we still can cooperate in improving the structure, obviously; I thought that was why you came to talk to me!, but it seems you're saying that you instead came to point fingers and complain. :/

"I see from this page that you have had friction with other contributors to other projects before by making arbitrary changes." - But you very clearly didn't actually read the discussions in question. If you had, you'd have seen that the only comment from a user who was actually involved in the Categories endeavor (rather than peripherally half-seeing the categories) was very complimentary, and that every single one of the category changes I made that someone came to ask me about on this Talk page has thus far turned out to be completely justified: the only two other editors to say anything here were Nihonjoe, whose ignorance of WP:ASR conventions led to the confusion in question, and Jessamyn, who has yet to explain why books and libraries are such profoundly unrelated subjects :). I do expect an apology for your calling my changes "arbitrary" at some point in the future (could anything be further from the truth?), when you've calmed down; afterwards, we can hopefully discuss the matter reasonably. I'd enjoy that quite a bit more than exchanging attacks and insinuations with you, but that seems to be all you're interested in at the moment. :/ -10:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll read this later. Obviously you have a major agenda that goes far beyond the innocent subject of categorization. - Kleinzach 10:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA, then revise your response. I'll give you the benefit of doubt and assume that you're just having a bad day. I greatly look forward to an insightful, calm, and civil discussion of the issues involved upon your return; I trust that you comments thus far have been an unfortunate fluke. Seeya later! -Silence 10:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't have time to play games. I will however make a Performing Arts category which I hope satisfies the substance of your argument. - Kleinzach 10:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Neither one of us is here to play games. But one of us is here to battle, and the other is not. When you put down your sword, I'll gladly discuss the matter with you in a civil and open-minded way that will surely satisfy both parties involved in the end. So, as I said: see you then! And have a nice day. :) -Silence 10:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed! Have a nice day! - Kleinzach 12:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Sloppy recats

Silence,

If you are going to recat projects, please stop breaking the chain to the major category such as you have done with Education and Psychology. Rfrisbie^talk 11:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Please clarify how and which of the recats are "sloppy", what the "chain" is, and how that chain has been "broken" so I can go and fix whatever problem you're alluding to. o_O; If you're merely saying that we shouldn't have categories under categories under Category:WikiProjects, then I don't see why: there's nothing new about such categories, and nothing wrong with them; I'm merely implementing more consistently what's already been the case for a long time now. None of the innovations are mine. But, as I said, if you could explain your request more clearly, I'd be glad to help. -Silence 11:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It took me a while to figure it out, but I already reconnected the projects back to the categories, Category:Education and Category:Psychology. Rfrisbie^talk 11:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see this is a misunderstanding; that's something rather different. I very much welcome you to join in on the discussion at Category_talk:WikiProjects#Okay.2C_this_is_getting_insane, where the conclusion has so far been that only article-space pages (not userpages, talkpages, wikipedia-space pages, etc.) should be categorized under article-space categories, though ordinary links may be appropriate (not to mention that this has long been the established practice on most of Wikipedia). I also encourage you to read my explanation for this immediately above, at #Since_when.3F, so you can respond accordingly if you disagree. -Silence 11:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I have to go to work now, so I'll check it out later and get back to you. Sorry for being so abrupt. Rfrisbie^talk 11:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

That's perfectly alright. There's no rush; we can work this out at your convenience. If it turns out that my edits were in error, I'll help revert them, though thus far it seems that they're consistent with established Wikipedia practices, as I believed when I undertook this task. We should be able to work out a suitable compromise upon your return. -Silence 11:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

My proposal is here: Category talk:WikiProjects#Proposed template. Rfrisbie^talk 14:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Australian Wikipedians

Hullo Silence, pardon my ignorance but you really must explain to me the significance of 'fele' instead of 'feel'... I'm on the edge of my seat with antici...... pation! Cheers, Ian Rose 12:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, I clicked the wrong button in the edit histories and saw your edits only as simple reverting. I fail at Wikipedia for the day. Thanks very much for the help and patience! -Silence 12:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

No worries, mate. For a second I thought I was going mad (never beyond the realms of possibility). Also your amusing user page actually gave me pause that there might have been a joke in there I'd missed. All's well that ends well! Ian Rose 12:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

As is usually the case in life, what seems like a bizarre joke at first is really a horrible and embarrassing mistake. :D Good talkin' to ye! -Silence 12:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

comment

bah, you have no email addy for WP communications? And right now if you were to email my WP email account it might be a couple of days before I can pull it. O-tay.

I have been reading your posts on Atheism talk page with great interest (and strong agreement). I wish to mention that although Wikipedia is not censored, neither is "fucking" usually considered an adverb in the normal sense, and might be regarded by some as uncivil. Just something you may wish to consider. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Uh, so are you objecting to my comment on the grounds that it's uncivil, or on the grounds that it's ungrammatical? I'm confused. I was just using it to emphasize my amused bemusement. -Silence 07:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I saw the above, read talk:Evolution, saw "the universe began with a single point expanding outwards from a singularity", and just had to come by and let you know (perhaps you already knew but didn't want to be confusing to your audience) that since the "big bang" (or time=0 in this universe) space-time has been created between particles, the particles that constitute matter-energy are not expanding into into space or anywhere else. And if big bang refers to that creation of space-time, then the big bang is a continuous and ongoing event that includes space-time being created as you read this between the particles that make you up as well as all other particles in the universe. The particles making you up are not getting further apart because EM holds them together; but galaxies not bound by gravity are getting further apart; and photons in flight are getting stretched as we speak. Cool. Huh? WAS 4.250 19:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, to some extent I was trying to keep the explanation simple; I doubt that the user I was talking to would understand much of that. :/ I'm also not sure one can really say that time and space are "being created"; time and space already exist, in much the same way that they existed shortly after the Big Bang, and we are just moving through time and space (time, for obvious reasons, cannot itself "happen"; only things within time can happen). -Silence 07:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

This is really cool, so I think it is important that you understand it. First you have to understand that space and time are not two seperate things, even though they seem that way. They are one thing and that one thing has aspects that we call time and aspects that we call space. This is not philosophy. This is scientific fact for about 100 years now. Second, you need to understand the concept of a finite size universe with no boundary. A two space dimension finite size universe can be visualized as a globe. A three space finite size universe can be visualized as a 3D space where thing go from one apparent boundary to the opposite side as in some computer screen games. We appear to be in a finite size unbounded universe. Third, the scientific theory of the big bang is space-time being created between particles. Lightyears of distance created in the initial seconds - not particles moving faster than light! As Big Bang puts it: Since then, space itself has expanded with the passage of time, carrying the galaxies with it. Photons are continuously stretched as space itself continuously expands. WAS 4.250 18:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject categories

Hi. Just wondering, is there a reason why you're removing categories from WikiProjects? I saw your edit at WikiProject Tropical cyclones, but I don't understand why. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, this should clear that up:

Category:WikiProject Meteorology is a subcategory of Category:Science WikiProjects, so including it in both is completely unnecessary and would lead to redundant clutter and disorganization. Just include it in the more specific category.
Category:History WikiProjects isn't really appropriate here, as this WikiProject is concerned with a weather phenomenon, not a historical period or event. The fact that you deal with historical (i.e. past) cyclones does not make the project itself "historical", anymore than Category:WikiProject Chemistry is a "historical project" for dealing in part with the history of chemistry. For the same reason, this WikiProject isn't in Category:Regional WikiProjects even though the individual cyclones only affect various regions or places, nor in Category:Society WikiProjects even though cyclones have had a large affect on human society at various points; all of rhose categories, like "history", are wholely subsidiary to the project's meteorological nature, and are largely only incidentally relevant, not because of the project's specific focus, but because almost everything is related in some way to history. However, if you feel strongly about this, you can restore the "History" category to that page: that was the removal which is least important, in my view, and most potentially disputable, despite my aforementioned rationale.
Category:Tropical cyclones is an article-space, not Wikipedia-space, category. See Category_talk:WikiProjects#Okay.2C_this_is_getting_insane and #Since when? for explanation. -Silence 06:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
All right, that makes sense for the Science and the Tropical cyclones category. For the history category, however, as the main focus of the WikiProject is to deal with historic events, and the meteorological aspects of tropical cyclones are a secondary aspect of it, we had believed it was appropriate for it to belong in Category:History WikiProjects. Additionally, all of the WikiProject's FAs are listed on the history section of Featured articles, so I might place that one back. I agree with the other ones. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

User Silence breaking Wikipedia:Three-revert rule

You have broken the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule by continually changing the category of Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera, a project to which you are not contributing. I don't understand why you doing this. Why is the categorization of this subject of such importance to you? Why don't you leave it to the people who working on the project? Why interfere? - Kleinzach 08:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you are incorrect. This edit, the one to which you are referring, is only my first revert to that specific version of the page; my previous edit, here, was specifically done to please you, because you had demanded that I go to the trouble of creating a new category just to satisfy your unjustified whims, even though opera is obviously a form of theatre and performing arts, which is why Wikipedia has it categorized under Category:Theatrical genres. That edit, obviously, was not a revert, and in fact did not change anything from your previous version, but rather altered the previous edit I'd made to suit your fancy. The edit before that was a revert, but to a different version of the page, and it was the only other revert I've ever made to that page. In both cases, your version was clearly in error, completely unjustified, and served no purpose other than to inconvenience users who might be interested in the Opera WikiProject by allowing them to find the Project by fewer methods; accusing me of breaking WP:3RR when I've clearly only made two reverts comes across as nothing but a rhetorical tactic designed to scare me away from a page, which is especially poor conduct considering what a trivial and simple disagreement you are attacking me over. Your consistently shrill, aggressive, uncivil, inflammatory, completely lacking in good faith, and overall hate-filled responses to my good-faith attempts to be of help by applying consistently the categorization scheme that already exists on Wikipedia are unacceptable. I strongly advise you to behave in a more civil and calm manner in this discussion, to read and response to my previous post (to which you have thus far only replied with "I'll read this later. Obviously you have a major agenda that goes far beyond the innocent subject of categorization."), and to review Wikipedia:Assume good faith, a page of fundamental importance in interacting with your fellow editors on Wikipedia. -Silence 09:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

So what's your problem? Why not leave opera in the performing arts category? That satisfies your intention of removing projects from the top level just fine. - Kleinzach 09:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

- I did leave opera in the performing arts category. That isn't the problem; the problem is your unjustified removal of "opera" from the "music" category, even though the definition of "opera" is:
  - A theatrical presentation in which a dramatic performance is set to music.
- And my intention is not "removing projects from the top level", it's providing users with an easy-to-navigate, user-friendly, accessible, consistent category system. Removing projects from the "top level" (which was completed yesterday, see Category:WikiProjects) is just one of several things to help further that goal. -Silence 09:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Opera involves much more than simply music. There is also design, spectacle, dance, poetry, drama etc. It's a mixed media art form. That is why it belongs under the Performing Arts and not as a sub-category of music. - Kleinzach 15:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Everything under "Music WikiProjects" involves more than music, to varying extents. That's why opera belongs under music and under performing arts (or, better yet, under music, performing arts, and theatre, that way it gets the most chances possible to be seen! free advertisement! :)). Wikipedia's categorization system makes it possible to list something under multiple different when it doesn't fit easily into a single denomination; it's both music and theatre, so we can list it as such with ease and make things a whole lot more convenient for readers who are trying to find WikiProject Opera in the category system. That's exactly why Category:Opera is listed as both "theatrical genre" and "musical genre", for example, and the WikiProject categorizations should mirror the Wikipedia categorizations wherever possible, to make navigation and accuracy easier all around. -Silence 15:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Re-categorization is a job for an expert

Vigilante-style re-categorization just makes the structure of Wikipedia even more of a mess than it was before. You should leave this work to admin who have a better sense of how to build the encyclopedia. People have written books about classification systems. It's not such an easy thing to make one properly without creating anomalies and contradictions. This is something I've studied a little and knowing the problems involved I wouldn't attempt, by myself alone, to re-organize Wikipedia. - Kleinzach 09:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Please review WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Accusing fellow editors of "vigilante" action is not acceptable, and clearly contradicts (as does your entire comment) the spirit of Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages.
Your accusation that the categorization system "more of a mess than it was before" is also unjustified; you have yet to provide even a single example of how any aspect of the WikiProject categories is messier than they previously were. Your argument is pure rhetoric, an insubstantial personal attack. I encourage you to provide real examples of how the categories or WikiProjects are worse off than they were before, rather than just making unsubstantiated, vitriolic claims. The former would allow us to actually correct any mistakes that have occurred, whereas the latter is just empty spite.
"You should leave this work to admin who have a better sense of how to build the encyclopedia." - Again, please review WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA—or at least say what admin you have in mind. :P The simple fact of the matter is that this reorganization has been under request for over eight months, and not a single user has stepped forward until now to do the much-needed dirty work. If I hadn't stayed up for two nights straight to get the job done, it very likely never would have been done, and the WikiProjects categories might have just eventually collapsed under their own weight. If you have a specific and actionable criticism regarding the reorganization I implemented, then just say it, and I'll respond accordingly; but your continued attacks on my credibility and editing ability are as offensive as they are useless, and will continue to ring hollow as long as you avoid providing any substantial criticisms.
"People have written books about classification systems." - And none of those people edit Wikipedia. :) People have written books about opera; does that mean that it's unacceptable for you to try to edit any opera-related article on Wikipedia? Of course not. You're just being silly now.
"It's not such an easy thing to make one properly without creating anomalies and contradictions." - Actually, I did find it relatively easy to do that. Thanks for the concern, though. :) Your understanding of the challenges involved in a task like consistently recategorizing hundreds of pages is heartwarming.
"This is something I've studied a little and knowing the problems involved I wouldn't attempt, by myself alone, to re-organize Wikipedia." - Good for you. Keep doing what you're doing, then, and I'll keep doing what I'm doing. :) -Silence 09:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you please see my question at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Librarians#Categorization? - Jmabel | Talk 06:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Picture deletions/revertions

Hi, do me a favour please, don`t keep erasing pics in the Iran articles, and/or doing major reverts in any article. Please discuss such moved with others first, as other editors may disagree and an edit-war may ensue. Just work with others more, as supposed to doing edits on your own. Thank youZmmz 23:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Which edits are you referring to? I have not deleted any images, merely rearranged them. I temporarily removed a griffin image from "Persian Empire" until I could find a suitable place for it, and moved a few images to other articles (like Iran naming dispute and Persepolis, where they're more appropriate and relevant anyway) where there was truly no room to pack them in without sacrificing readability, but other than that all I've done on Persian Empire is copyedit a few stylistic problems and move and resize images to improve the layout and aesthetics. Nor have I done any "major reverts"; if you're referring to my last edit to the Persian Empire article, I actually increased the size of the griffin image, which was made possibly by moving it down one section. -Silence 23:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I just saw your reverts, and saw you deleted a pic in the Name section of Iran, but in general, I see your point, actually the article looks good, so your rearrangements worked.Zmmz 23:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. And yes, I removed one pic from the "Name" section (and another from the "Achaemenid Empire" section, which had too many images and that one happened to be an artist's interpretation from the 19th century, making it less valuable than the first-hand archaeological findings or the map) primarily because of space concerns: for a section that's only two short paragraphs long and is already dominated on the left by a large infobox, adding an image not only clutters the page a lot (making the text harder to read too), but also necessitates that the image be so small that one can't even see it well! (I removed an image from Iran's "Name" section for exactly the same reason, though that one, at least, was legible—just too crammed-in, and also not especially relevant.)

If you do object to any of my changes, though, I'll gladly discuss them; I usually prefer (except for truly major changes), as a matter of editorial style, to be bold first as a way to easily find out if anyone disagrees with my ideas, rather than presuming controversy in all cases. This does not in any way mean that I don't like to discuss my changes, or that I won't compromise—just the opposite, I welcome it. -Silence 23:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I am going to go ahead and restore the image in the Iran article, as it is the only hint of ancient Iran in that article. Also, in regards to pics, it is very hard to get a high quality pic, then go through getting permission from its creator etc., so please let`s ask others if we need to erase a pic in the discussion page. That`s all. Are you OK with that? Keep-the the good work though.Zmmz 00:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean "the only hint of ancient Iran"? There's a perfectly good image of Persepolis not 2 inches below! If you must restore the griffin image to that page (though I honestly don't see the point at all, as its not directly relevant and doesn't add any new information to the article, and the article's already very tightly packed), then put it in the "History" section, where there's at least a little room. -Silence 00:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

That pic blends nicely/diverges into the naming issue, and is really a good indication of the country`s past, site attraction, etc. You used it in the naming dispute article, did you not?Zmmz 00:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I will restore it so people can see it and vote on it; however, please put a straw poll in the discussion page. ThanksZmmz 00:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Er, if you're the one who thinks a straw poll is needed, why don't you create one? I moved it to the "Naming dispute" page because there was a lot more room there than there is in Iran, not because I think that it's an especially appropriate image for either page. Moving it to a daughter article where there's move room for it was my attempt at a compromise between removing it altogether and leaving it in the jam-packed top-level Iran article, which is much too important to waste any of the space of with only quasi-relevant images. And it's not that the pic "blends nicely/diverges into the naming issue", it's that the pic's completely and 100% unrelated to the naming issue, but the caption of the pic attempts to create a flimsy link between the pink and naming issue. Truly tangential. -Silence 00:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

If you look at even text books, you`ll see many times they tie-in seemingly unrelated issues together with pics, and pics are not always boringly related explicitly to the issue, rather they make it related. Furthermore, it easily then transitions into the section below it, which is about ancient Iran. You are the only one who objects to the pic, so please set up a quick poll, I have a lot other stuff to do.Zmmz 00:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Oy. "related explicitly" to the issue is not "boring", it's necessary for such a brief article on such a vast topic. And this image isn't even implicitly related, it's just plain tangential, when the issue being discussed is the Iran/Persia name dispute. Moreover, we don't need an image at that point to "transition into" the section below, because the section on names is so amazingly short (which is a good thing; brevity is vital for an encyclopedia like this) that cramming images in there is like trying to make a slide into a quicker and smoother ride by covering it with cookie dough. We can get away with quasi-relevant images on articles with fewer images to choose from, more space to show them off in, or less ground to cover in general, but for an image as broad as Iran, including such a non sequitur in an already-overflowing section of the page is a bad idea.

But I have no interest in getting into a battle over this. You're the one who has more experience working with these articles; I was just stopping by to help. If you feel that this arbitrary image is vitally important to have in that specific part of that specific article, go for it, man. I defer to your judgment here. I honestly don't feel strongly enough about it to go to the extreme of devising an effective strawpoll; I just figured it was pretty obviously a good idea not to overburden our readers so unnecessarily when what they need most is a simple, unadorned transitory section between the two weighty surrounding sections ("lead section" and "history"), not an overabundance of pretty pictures. But eh, whatever. -Silence 01:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

List of WikiProjects talk

I'd like to apologize if any of my comments on Wikipedia talk:List of WikiProjects offended you in any way. I did not intend to insult, attack, or dismiss the contributions of any of the countless valuable editors who have worked on the various WikiProjects and the listings of them, nor did I in any way intend to imply that "no one has... thought of" my ideas before, as I'm certain that most, if not all, of my suggestions have at one point or another been considered by one user or another, even if most of those users didn't end up typing them out anywhere; and for the ones who did state them, I meant in no way to imply that I'm some sort of revolutionary just for making a few simple and unremarkable suggestions to help make the list of WikiProjects a little bit easier to use and navigate. Again, I apologize if I gave that impression somehow. (Though I am a bit confused by your describing my attitude as "I just can't believe no one has done or thought of this before.", as I don't see where I implied that specific message, and I don't in any case comprehend how someone could have "done" what I'd suggested already, since if they had I wouldn't be suggesting it; it'd already be on the page. O_o I appreciate your input, however, and welcome any further criticisms you have on my talk page.) -Silence 20:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't offended by any of your comments there, but I wanted to point out that others might be because of the "Doi?" comment and others with a similar feeling. Parts of the posts came off as somewhat sarcastic, and since some people here seem to have thin skins, I thought I'd mention it before someone else tore into you in a less constructive way. I hope you weren't offended by my comments as they weren't meant to be offensive. (^_^) --日本穣 Nihonjoe 20:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

No worries, I wasn't offended, and you're right, I probably should have bene a bit more diplomatic with some of my comments. I'm glad to hear that you weren't upset; I misread your comment as indicating that you were offended by something I'd said, so I'm glad that you were just giving me some good advice for avoiding future conflicts. Anyway, I look forward to working with ye and others on reworking the "List of WikiProjects" to make it more useful and organized, regardless of how many of my suggestions end up being implemented. Have a nice day! -Silence 20:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Baptism of Jesus article

Hi,

I've made some edits to the Baptism of Jesus article -- some shallow, some deeper. I'd like to get consensus on them.

Thanks, --jrcagle 02:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

T1 speedy deletions

That's a damn fine essay, and if I were running Wikipedia, I'd enforce it. However, I think that practically the best solution is to compromise on this one, go with WP:SNOW, and address instead the use of speedy deletion in the first place. I'm not sure exactly how to go about this, but maybe we could ask at the Administrator's Noticeboard for some kind of resolution against unjudicious use of T1 (such as what happened with the vomit template)? Anyway, thanks for sticking to your guns. TheJabberwʘck 05:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Heh. I probably chose a bad userbox to "stick to my guns" for; better to pick my battles and choose one that isn't completely inane. It's just a point I felt should be made, though: yes, the encyclopedia is more important than process, but process isn't irrelevant; if anything, we should stick to process in all cases except when there's really good reason not to, not ignore process in most cases and then use it as a last resort when absolutely necessary. Not because process is some holy thing, but because a semblance of order and consistency gives at least the impression of fairness, and ensures that our discussions are about the specific issue in question, not about "how much policy should we ignore for this template?".

I don't expect to change anyone's mind on some silly vomit template with my comment to the debates page, but I hope to at least remind people that CSD policy and TfD process aren't irrelevant, for future notice in similar DRV debates. That's all. That is what DRV was made for, after all: to analyze process and whether it was upheld correctly and in accordance with existing policy, not just to fight TfD all over again (or for the first time, in the case of most of the userbox speedies).

"I'm not sure exactly how to go about this, but maybe we could ask at the Administrator's Noticeboard for some kind of resolution against unjudicious use of T1 (such as what happened with the vomit template)?" - Sure, though if I were you, I'd probably choose some other userboxes as your example. :) For example, "user transhumanist" was a fairly innocuous template when it was speedied (certainly not "divisive/polemic" as Jimbo intended it, and even more certainly not "inflammatory"), and no harm could have come from sending it to TfD instead of straight to DRV with a speedy. -Silence 14:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll get on it. You think AN/I is the best place to bring this up? TheJabberwʘck 23:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, the noticeboard was your idea. I'm not really interested enough in userboxes to want to get too involved; I only stepped in where it looked like noone else was willing to, the majproty of userbox-users having been scared away by the hostile, and at times even abusive and threatening, atmosphere long ago. If you want to pursue this, good luck getting any sympathy; the current climate of users is more concerned, as recent comments demonstrate, with "killing" as many templates as possible, not with following process or policy or trying to set up much-needed new policies, so you'll need all the luck you can get to find an open ear that hasn't been deafened already by the divisive rhetoric spouted by both sides. :/ Have fun. -Silence 23:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, actually, looking at Wikipedia talk:Deletion_review/Userbox_debates, a lot of this stuff has been discussed before. It's probably futile to try to get consensus for a shift in DRV policy, so instead I just added a header to the userbox DRV page (hopefully it will help people to understand what they are voting on). Besides for that, I'll continue watching the debates and attempt to promote a policy-centric approach. Thanks anyway, TheJabberwʘck 01:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:WikiProject_The_Beatles

I've said this here to keep it off the Category_talk:WikiProject_The_Beatles page itself. In my view, characterising our actions as "Ego swollen miscategorisation" is probably not the way to convince anyone you're right. Please assume good faith. I'd like to work through to the right outcome, whatever that might be, but I think your recategorising the project category without a peep of discussion first, then casting aspersions on project members when we balked, is perhaps not the most effective way to go about that, so you may want to consider a different approach. I think we have valid concerns about assertion of control by other projects which have not yet been suitabily addressed. You can respond here if you feel the need, I will watch this page for a while, or there, if you're prepared to stick to the facts and omit character driven aspersions, but please not on my talk page as I like to keep threads together. ++Lar: t/c 16:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC) PS, have you read Shirky? Purely hierarchical classification systems typically fail. The Beatles belong in multiple categories as do so many other things.

I apologize for that needlessly judgmental slip of the tongue. You must admit, though, how ridiculous and surprising it is to see "The Beatles" as the only individual WikiProject at the top of the pyramid, the only one apparently meriting inclusion on the top-level of Category:WikiProjects, essentially saying "Our WikiProject is the most important WikiProject of them all!" That, combined with certain comments on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles and Category talk:WikiProject The Beatles, are what led me to my unfortunate and unwarranted accusation of ego-driven self-interest. Again, I apologize.

Well no worries, let's just get to the right answer, what ever it is... ++Lar

In the interest of clarifying an inconsistency in the categorization system, I've addressed the concerns regarding the "WikiProject X"/"X WikiProjects" system by correctly renaming all the other "X WikiProjects" that were at the time listed under Category:Culture WikiProjects; those misnamings were relics from a, and I apologize if they were misinterpreted as meaning that every other category that had "WikiProject X" as it name was solely for the use of that WikiProject and its direct subsidiaries. And in the interest of diffusing this situation and avoiding potential conflicts at this juncture, I've created a new category, Category:WikiProject Music groups, for WikiProjects related to groups of musicians, since it was correctly pointed out that Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians explicitly states that it deals only with individuals, not groups. Hopefully this will be a satisfactory solution and compromise.

I'm not hung up on exactly where things are categorised, believe it or not, especially for projects, which after all are for us the editors, not the readership, they're kept hidden by not putting articles in project categories directly, only their talk pages. What was getting up my nose was the read that this new project was going to come in and tell us how to do things after we've put a fair bit of work into thinking about how things ought to be done, and actually doing it. As long as that's addressed, (and it is being addressed) it's all good. Helps? ++Lar

As for your PS: The category system is not purely hierarchial. You should probably familiarize yourself with it more before you start labeling or judging it; any project can be placed under any number of categories, it's only a question of which ones are appropriate. If we put every WikiProject under every category it could conceivably, even in a minor way, relate to, it would be chaos; likewise it would cause bloat and unnecessary redundancy to relist every category on every level of the chain (i.e. having "WikiProject Tibetan Buddhism" not only listed in "Category:WikiProject Buddhism", but also listed in "Category:WikiProject Religion", "Category:WikiProject Culture", and "Category:WikiProjects", is just a really bad idea and will make it harder, not easier, to find the project you're looking for). -Silence 16:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

What makes you think I haven't familiarised myself with categories? You might be jumping to unwarranted conclusions there. Your example is fine and good, and I agree with it, but not really directly what we'd been arguing against. (our reversion was not because we thought top level was right, it was to go back to where we were till it was clear what was right. Seek consensus first is always my preferred approach WP:BOLD notwithstanding, or at least once you get reverted, discuss before changing anything else... I subscribe to 1RR) Further "WikiProject Tibetan Buddhism" actually belongs in distinct "Category:WikiProject Buddhism" and "Category:WikiProject Tibet"... that's the point I was making. that scheme is better than purely hierarchical. The Beatles belong in other categories than music related ones, I suspect (not just ones that are direct parents of music related ones, but ones that are not related parentally till you get very high in the graph to the root node) because, as the most successful and influential band ever, they're more than just music, and not just tangentially. In general the category structure should be (and) is, a directed acyclic graph, not a tree. ++Lar: t/c 17:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Spam to multiple users (13 of them)

Hi. From comments on Sam Spade's RfC, I got the impression that quite a few users, including you, were in favor of an RFAr on Sam, though no one liked, or perhaps had the time, to be the one to post it. If I were to start a request on the RFAr page, would you be interested in signing as an involved party, and/or write a short statement there? I'm asking because if people have lost interest, there's obviously not much point in my doing it; it would merely distress and aggravate Sam unproductively, which I've certainly no wish to do. I wouldn't supply any examples of my own, as I haven't edited any of "Sam's articles" for a long time (couldn't stand it, that's why I stopped), but would basically simply refer to the RfC. It seems to me that anybody who wanted to endorse such an RFAr could more or less do the same, as the RfC is so complete. It's full of evidence, and its talkpage gives a view of Sam's attitude. I believe that it's important for the encyclopedia and the community that the old dog should learn new tricks, but please don't think I want to put the least pressure on you or anybody else to take part in an RFAr if you'd rather not. Bishonen | talk 02:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC).

If an ArbCom hearing were started, I'd be willing to help give examples of his conduct on Talk:Human, at least, and to testify to Sam's failure to assume good faith in many cases. I don't know how much help I'd be, since I haven't had as much conduct with him as other users (though I've gotten the idea :)), and since he himself is perfectly willing to admit that he needs to do a better job of assuming good faith. Quite the sweet-talker when he wants to be. But, sure, I'd be willing to sign up to at least the incidents I'm familiar with. -Silence 09:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, it looked to me like suitable — minimal — drops of the sweet talking could easily hold up proceedings forever, or at least till the painstakingly gathered evidence got old. Me, I'm probably the least involved person on that RfC (as far as recent interaction goes), and was feeling a little frustrated at the way all the users with fresher experience kept calling for that RFAr, without opening it themselves. Not that I blame them for being busy people. But I do feel a bit of a fool putting myself forward so much. Still, I can read, and, as you say, have gotten the idea: I can see from the RfC that the experience of editing with Sam is still as stressful as ever it was, back when I used to do it. Anyway, I have now opened proceedings on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Nobody else has signed as an interested party or anything, so it looks a bit like it's me personally having a problem with another user — sheesh. But I guess more will follow, as several of my "spammees" have responded on my page. Best, Bishonen | talk 11:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC).

Comment removal

Please explain your removal of my comment. I'm going to assume it was a mistake, as I've run into that with Wikipedia before. --Cyde Weys 15:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, that was an edit conflict. Hard to slip edits in between the active periods on high-activity pages... My mistake. Also, thanks for helping explain your reasoning on deletion the "user infidel" template. Although I personally disagree that it qualifies for T1, I understand your reasoning in deleting it, and would define it as a "borderline" template myself—though my partial ambivalence may in part be because I don't personally care for the template; if I was one of the users who'd been using it, I'd probably feel more personally offended, for the same reason a user would feel offended if a "This user is queer" template was T1 speedy-deleted. Hence my concerns. -Silence 15:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Photo

What do you think of this Skeleton Demon photo ? Circumstances is also included. Is it a fake ? Martial Law 19:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC) :)