User talk:Corporal Tunnel

Welcome!

Hello, Corporal Tunnel, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

 ~ clearthought 00:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Purple Urine

I'm sorry if my entry about purple urine was seen as "infantile" but my genuine intentions were to give a detailed description on how to achieve purple urine and the science behind it. I hope you realise this and we can put this matter behind us. ➨ Darren

Amy Brenneman

I'm not sure what you mean in your edit summary when you say, "Plenty wrong with embroidering them." Did you feel that I was somehow "sexing up" her involvement with the Ms. Magazine project? The fact of the matter is, she did "support" the project by lending one of the few celebrity names on the petition (so far, anyway). I'm not sure what your addition of "public" means in this context, either. After all, wouldn't you agree that most petitions are "public," i.e. "open " to those who fall within the class which the petition purports to represent? Please elaborate on your objection to the language I used, which seemed to me to be more factually informative than the terse prose that you replaced it with. DickClarkMises 21:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DCM - I left a note on your page as you were leaving this one on mine. I left in "public" simply because you had it in yours. We do not know why she signed; I know Amy to be a complex and thoughtful person, and for all I know she just wanted the matter up for debate, or wanted to let out a fact that she had kept in over time. We know she signed, and I'm not happy with ascribing any intent to her. As I said on your Talk page, the "embroidering" bit was not meant to be directed at you. It was meant more as a response to your comment that it was notable, if anything - the two earlier edits, however, were the typical foaming sorts. I was looking at the arc of the page, not at your individual contribution. - Corporal Tunnel 21:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my point would be that a petition project by definition is supported by anyone who signs it. I mean, a ballot access petition says, "We the undersigned do hereby request that Candidate X be included on the General Election ballot on 7 November 2006." Signing the petition means that you support the candidate's ballot access in that race, period. Now, a "petition" that has as its goal to get women who have had abortions "to declare they are unashamed of the choice they made" seems to me to be "supported" by any such woman who signs. I don't see how this involves any interpretation. Surely you aren't suggesting that a woman would, say, sign the petition, but then explain that she is ashamed and thus does not support the project. It seems to me to be a tautology to say that "The petition-signer supported the petition she signed." As for the inclusion of "public," I said she had "publicly" disclosed the fact to make sure that readers didn't think that this bit of salacious-seeming information was simply dirt that had been uncovered, and was rather made public by a willful act on her part to associate herself with a particular class of women. DickClarkMises 21:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As Amy is a living person, I do not believe it is proper to assume anything about her reasons or intentions. Also, New York State has an unfortunate libel law which could be construed to apply in this case. While I understand what you're saying, I'll note only that I myself have signed petitions that I don't entirely support; there have been other reasons for my actions, in those cases. That I stand by them does not necessarily mean I support them. The ground simply is not black and white.

Since neither of us knows for certain the verifiable truth of Amy's intent, it is not proper for us to place it into her Wiki entry. The fact is that she signed the petition; that's what we know, and that's what it says. There is no need for anyone's opinion to follow. When Amy speaks on the subject, there will be no reason not to revisit the subject. - Corporal Tunnel 21:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lolita

I edited the article for Lolita with the intention of adding a fully referenced paragraph on how the novel has influenced popular culture, even if just through the creation of the term. I cited my sources along with the paragraph and when I went back to fix the citation it had been reverted. I really don't think what I did was "vandalism". If I re-added something that had been removed it was because I thought I must have not applied my changes. I've made an account now to make it easier to see what changes I have made. I noted on the talk page what I edited. There is no page more suited to this information because lolita complex redirects to lolicon and there is no page for the term lolita rather than the novel. Jseipel 17:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jseipel - glad to see you've registered, and I've responded over on the Lolita page. I completely understand what you mean about adding something; as I guess you see now, it's useful to check the edit record to see what happened, but no worries on that account.

Generally, the Wiki is open to shaping. In this case, regardless of the state of other pages, the page about the Nabokov novel is no place for that information. It's pretty simple to unlink a redirect - instruction here - and if you're prepared to create a page on the Lolita Complex I'll be happy to help you structure it (hint: start small and very true, and then elaborate). Otherwise you might wish to open a new section on the lolicon page. But the page on Nabokov's Lolita is just that: a page on the novel.

I'm pleased to see that you are pursuing this and obviously making quick work of the learning curve here. - Corporal Tunnel 17:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per your suggestion, I created a page Lolita (term) to hopefully arrange information more clearly, and allow for non-book specific information.Jseipel 22:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Morning, Mr. Vandal

Hello Helpers: I found the above charming message on my Talk page on login. What is my proper Wiki response?

In general, I revert a great deal of vandalism. Yesterday, after fixing up a few vandalizing edits from anon user 67.172.18.139, I noted a Blatant Vandal warning on the anon's Talk page; I added another. The edit in question was nonsense about Sonic the Hedgehog on the Communism page.

This response is from a different anon user; I don't have the resources or expertise (or the time, really) to figure out if it's the same person. What am I to do? I have left the literary epistle above as is for now, for reference. - Corporal Tunnel 15:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's never a good idea to feed the trolls, so simply remove the message, and leave an appropriate warning message on the perpetrator's talk page. Cheers, Tangot a ngo 15:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's pretty much what I figured. I'll keep my fan mail for giggles for a time, I think, though I've moved it here:

HEY FUCKWAD. I ADDED A NEW COMMUNIST TO THE PAGE AND YOU CALLED IT VANDALISM. YOU HAVE SOMETHING AGAINST FREE SPEECH. GO BCAK TO LICKING GEORGE BUSHES FAT TEXAN ASS.

And they say education is dead. - Corporal Tunnel 15:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greatschools

[1]

I agree with the removal, but not for the same reason. See, now a lot of its features are free. BUT, the link isn't appropriate for the NYC article; we already have New York City Department of Education. WhisperToMe 23:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Guster

Allow me to shake the virtual equivalent of your hand following your elaborate comment in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Codex of Ultimate Wisdom. After I recently saw an AfD where six people voted for speedy delete on grounds that the second line of the nomination explained to be inapplicable, a thoughtful and articulate approach was more than slightly refreshing. It was particularily to your credit (sadly enough) that you considered the applicability of the rules and the end results of their use. One of our larger problems with fiction is probably an overreliance on rules, a tendency to build rigid, all-encompassing rulesets instead of flexible ones -- when the latter is what they have originally been and indeed have to be in an environment this large and chaotic. Trying to legislate away the need for thought beyond the core principles would be madness. (Of course I have a defiant streak a mile wide, but that doesn't necessarily make me wrong.) --Kiz o r 04:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Harvard

Hello, Corporal Tunnelw. Please, can you tell me what is the notability of Harvard's stay in the colonies. He moved in 1637, and died in 1638. Could expound, what "British-born" refers to? Is it American, when USA did not exist, or maybe a kind of combination of the British expatriates in the colonies? Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kiril. Sorry I'm late answering your post, I was out of town for a few days. The notability of John Harvard's stay in the Colonies, as you know, is that he was here long enough to found a university that went on to become one of the greatest in the world - so it's very pertinent where he was when he died. I don't really know a lot about what else he did here.

The term "British-born" connotes birth on the British Isles, even if it doesn't actually mean precisely that. All English citizens in the English colonies were English, including those born in the New World and those who married into English families. I prefer the use of "British-born" here because it gives the reader a shorthand specificity. It suggests to us that he was born in England, and came to the Colonies, where he died; the truth of the matter, in a very few words. Calling Harvard an "Englishman" makes the American reader, or me anyway, stop for a moment to consider the whole "not yet the USA" issue. The word is correct, but it's not as helpful as one that speaks to what we already know, and amplifies it. - Corporal Tunnel (talk) 17:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regina Spektor and the Butterflies

Nothing mysterious! I used one of the obscure options in Google News. Go into Google News, click Advanced News Search, then Archive Search, which gets you to this page where you can search historical newspaper archives (for instance, spektor butterfly farm). More often than not they're commercial links, but you can usually get enough of a preview for a citable source. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep Kamal

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandeep Kamal. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The whole world knows (insert knowledge that u took for granted)

I bet you don't know all the prefectures in Japan and the main islands in Indonesia. So don't assume the whole world know something just because u know, and prevent that basic info being added. We all know London is in UK but we don't remove that info from the London page just because you assume the whole world knows. Please. Da Vynci (talk) 12:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have not added relevant information to a geography page, you have overlinked to an article on a music festival. Please refer to WP:OVERLINK: "Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article, avoid linking terms whose meaning can be understood by most readers of the English Wikipedia, including plain English words, the names of major geographic features and locations, ...". As I said, Texas is immediately identifiable as a state in the United States of America, and providing a link to the USA in an article on a music festival is inappropriate. - Corporal Tunnel (talk) 16:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added ONE link in the introduction. I think you are misinterpreting the guideline. It is a musical festival in USA, it makes perfect sense to mention the name of the country in the introduction at least once. Being an American music fest, it clearly fulfils the requirement of being "particularly relevant". Your "Texas is immediately identifiable in the USA, and providing a link to the USA is inappropriate" argument falls apart in millisecond considering the USA country link has been there since as early as 2006 and is still here today (and you seem have no problem with it). So I take it u don't like to see the link appear in the introduction? If my addition of the country link in the intro resulted in more than one link in the article, you should consider to remove the second link and those after it, not the first one. Please try to adopt a Wikipedia:Worldwide view. Da Vynci (talk) 07:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should really read the link you cited, and learn from it. In any case, I am done with this. - Corporal Tunnel (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's actually the project link which doesn't particularly address the issue in question here, what I meant is this: Wikipedia:Systemic bias: English Wikipedia is dominated by native English-speaking editors from Anglophone countries. These Anglophone countries tend to be in the global North, thereby accentuating the encyclopedia's bias to contributions from First World countries. For someone who think "the whole world knows that Texas is in the US" that's an perfect example such bias, and we should combat this. How exactly you have become the full representative of the diversity of the world? If you are done with this, please retrain from removing the country link in the intro when I put it back. Da Vynci (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]