User talk:Binadot/archive2
DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This archive page covers approximately the dates between March 2005 and July 2005.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary.
Request for Comment
[edit]Greetings. :-) Thanks for taking the time to respond to my request for comment re user Wareware. I think it's scandalous that people on Wikipedia let racist garbage like that go unchallenged. They'd prefer to pretend they don't see it -- but then jump on me when I lose patience and respond with mere sarcasm. This website is appalling. No wonder there are so few black people here. I've posted a request for intervention on the admin page, so we'll see how it shakes out. Peace 2 u -- and, again, my thanks. deeceevoice 23:10, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Binadot, I saw you had moved your name from an endorser of the summary to certifying the dispute. Are you aware that this means you attempted to resolve the same dispute with Wareware before it came to RfC? That's what certifying means. Also, only two editors are required to certify. Unless you actually tried to resolve that dispute, it would make more sense for you to endorse the summary. Best, SlimVirgin 03:10, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
- This is why I didn't certify immedtiately, because I did not have enough evidence to suggest that I participated in the dispute, as such (I thought it was limited to Af. and related content dispute, with some left-over antipathty from other articles – but nothing of this nature). Still, on 2nd thought, I decided that considering I was involved per se., and did try to mediate the dispute (even though, again, I did not know it for what it was), and moreover, since Ww himself contacted me seperately (that he didn't get back to me was his decision, I was willing to help), likely meets the burden. This way, the off-chance for uncertified technicalities are no longer an issue, thus eliminating any potential delays. El_C 03:50, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Afrophobia
[edit]Done! I'm not sure how helpful my brief comments were (I could add nothing to yours); there seem to be more who think it should be deleted. We'll have to watch and see. Peace. :-) deeceevoice 18:07, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I personally don't get the concern over whether Afrophobia is a neologism or not. Who cares? If the subject is complex/broad enough to merit an article, then why shouldn't it be a separate article? Is there some unwritten rule that neologisms (or subjects/words of any other category) do not merit article status? Seems silly/arbitrary to me. deeceevoice 06:12, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I went back to Afrophobia and started a talk page -- just musings about the possible direction of the piece. I don't know if it's of any value to the discussion about whether or not to keep it. Any thoughts? Additions? deeceevoice 06:50, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Good morning, earlybird! :) Good idea send a notice of the rewrite. I hope you add your thoughts on the talk page, too, and direct them there -- so, perhaps, they can see the potential of the piece. I'm keeping my fingers crossed for this one. Peace 2 u. deeceevoice 11:02, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
In my earlier response to you, I forgot to mention that I concur completely that the Golliwogg photo is far too benign for this article. Something stronger, even jarring, would be far more appropriate and help to hit home the importance of this subject. deeceevoice 11:47, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
As of this a.m. (03/30), it looks as though the tide has turned in favor of keeping the article -- thanks in large part to your efforts. :) deeceevoice 16:47, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your help with afrophobia. The Golliwog image was an especially nice touch. It seems that it is open-season on unconventional ideas on wikipedia. Articles on negrophobia, colorphobia and pigmentocracy are showing the depth of research that is possible and it seems that they are likewise being targeted for VfD as well. Thanks again. --Nazikiwe 00:49, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes. I'll be sure to take a look when I have an opportunity. Right now, though, things are crazy for me. Will let you know my reactions. Peace 2 u. :) deeceevoice 03:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Golliwog
[edit]Greetings. I've made some edits to Golliwog which I hope meet with your approval. I think the disambig/article pages should be reversed, however. The actual name of Upton's literary character is the "Golliwogg," with the generic term, "golliwog" having only one "g." Since the article concentrates on the literary character, I think it should be titled accordingly. If you agree, perhaps you'll make the necessary changes? Regards. deeceevoice 05:10, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
One more thing. Are Upton's illustrations in the public domain? I've found a website that has four earlier (and, as a consequence, IMO, better) examples of Upton's Golliwogg. The hair is wilder, the character not as endearing: http://www.golliwogs.com/books/a4.html . If it's possible, I think one of these would be much better for use here and in Afrophobia. deeceevoice 05:15, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Since the two are so closely related and the article treating both is not lengthy, I think I'd just stick with my suggestion. Apparently, others saw no need to split the two, and I don't either. What's your take on the earlier illustrations? Aren't they great? deeceevoice 05:28, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of the page switch on Golliwogg. I haven't taken the time to learn the procedure for posting photos on Wikipedia, so I'll have to get to the older Upton photo for that article later, when I have more time. I'd been having computer problems (since Friday), which I finally managed to troubleshoot successfully late yesterday afternoon. And then there was/is that RfC process. (Thanks again for your support, by the way.) So, now I've got to tend to a couple of really, really pressing deadlines. Hope your day goes well. deeceevoice 11:08, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Just read your user page
[edit]And it gave me a good laugh. Thanks. And "Smartism"? I learned something. Thanks again. :-) deeceevoice 19:42, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
SamuraiClinton
[edit]Howdy.
Based on your recent responses on his articles that get nominated for VfD, and your recent activity on his talk page, I can guess that you're as frustrated with SamuraiClinton/GoofyGuy/TheSamurai as I am. I can't figure this guy out – he seems sincere, but he's made absolutely no effort to improve his contributions, despite dozens of suggestions from other editors. I don't know what to do at this point, besides start an RfC. Would you support that? android↔talk 05:00, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
I started a draft RfC page and have collected a large set of links to our pal's edits, broadly categorized. I started from the beginning of his contribs and got about 2/3 of the way through. I'm having a particularly tough time tracking down policy that relates to idiosyncratic/strange editing – AFAICT, there's no explicit policy like "don't add junk." Feel free to edit either of those pages as much as you want. Discussion would probably be best located here. Thanks! android↔talk 06:17, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
The SamuraiClinton RfC is up. Thanks for your support. android↔talk 02:43, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
Oligosynthesis
[edit]I see you added some material to Nahuatl language about Ernst Herrera Legorreta revival of oligosynthesis. Do you have a citation for this? I can't find anything outside Wikipedia itself. Thanks. --Macrakis 03:46, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Could you please point me to the many Spanish articles by Ernst Herrera Legorreta on Nahuatl? I can read Spanish. A quick check seems to show only references to other Herreras, notably Fermin Herrera, who has published a Nahuatl dictionary among other things. --Macrakis 04:26, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
MSIE on Mac OS 9
[edit]Hi, I'm currently hacking mediawiki to display a warning to users using MSIE on Mac OS 9 (see [1]), could you visit http-noparse://pig.berlios.de/OS9 with that browser and inform me when you've done so, thanks.
- Posted by Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason at 20:13, 15 Apr 2005
I have now reopened the notice board, if you are interested in contributing new topics, or in nominating articles for the Collaboration of the Week, which also received a revamp. Please post on the project's talk page if you show interest. Mike H 02:43, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
Please take a look at the recent edits to this article. - UtherSRG July 7, 2005 12:05 (UTC)
- Yes, that's exactly the case. Instead of continuing to revert, I'm asking editor who have worked on the article recently to take a look. Please look at the disputed wordings and make what edits/reverts you think are approprite. - UtherSRG July 7, 2005 13:06 (UTC)
Image:Lacan.JPG listed for deletion
[edit]An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Lacan.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —MetsBot 19:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC) Thuresson 07:26, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
