User talk:Nihiltres/Archive-23

This is an archive of past discussions on Nihiltres' user talk page, as archived on August 24, 2008. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello!

Glad to see another wikipedian from Montréal! I'll be on/off for the next 3 days because i will be working at La Ronde :) So whenever you feel like talking to me, hook me up :). I have ideas for the next wikimania if you are interested... --Creamy!^Talk 13:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kristi Johnson

Hi, you deleted Kristi Johnson a while ago, based on a PROD proposed deletion. Could you tell me if there was anything useful there and/or userfy a copy of it for me? As a non-admin I can't do this. Thanks. --Rividian (talk) 23:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't appear to be much useful there; nevertheless, I'll userfy a copy of the last revision for you to User:Rividian/Kristi Johnson. I'll also cross-post this reply, unusually, because I nearly forgot about this request after reading it – inexcusable, I am sorry to have left it so long. Nihiltres^{t.l} 01:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC) (cross-posted)[reply]

Ιερουσαλήμ

Hi. I nominated Ιερουσαλήμ for deletion. Check Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Greek is not related with Jerusalem. This is not an alternative language for this article. It's been a long discussion in Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion/Redirects from foreign languages. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; I don't particularly care (I created it on request), but it certainly didn't qualify for R3 and removing the {{R from alternative language}} didn't inspire confidence. Nihiltres^{t.l} 16:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to apologise a bit. Sometimes I get a very wrong impression that everyone follows all the discussions held around in Wikipedia and I have followed. Plus, even if a always try to write summaries for my actions, it seems I have serious problems to explain my actions. Your revert was just ok. In fact, I tried to make two moves in one. First removing redirect from "alternative language redirects" and then nominating for speedy. It was not the best idea. Of course, I still believe the redirect should be deleted but the procedure does matter. Friendly, Magioladitis (talk) 17:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I in turn have been too defensive of what ultimately I don't need to worry about. I'm sorry. Nihiltres^{t.l} 06:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question re archiving/deletion of an old comment (on my Talk page)

The Question is on my Talk page. Thank you. Mike Schwartz (talk) 22:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied there. Nihiltres^{t.l} 02:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU. [see also response below] Mike Schwartz (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

>[...] yes, just delete the comment if you want, it's fine. :) Nihiltres{t.l} 02:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, I did. or, I will soon.

>You can archive it if you want. Archiving isn't automatic unless you get a bot to do it, so [...]
I am not familiar with archiving, but my mailbox on gmail is a sorta "write only memory", (well, also read, just hardly ever erase), so I sent a Cc of it to there. Before deleting it. Thank you. Mike Schwartz (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 50

It may not be weekly, but Wikipedia Weekly has finally reached Episode 50! Listen or download MP3 and OGG versions at the episode's page.

Have a comment about the episode? You can leave your comment right on the episode's page!

Miss an episode? Catch up in the Wikipedia Weekly archives at wikipediaweekly.org!

Know someone who would love Wikipedia Weekly? Tell them about it!

Care to participate in a podcast? Sign up here!

For the Wikipedia Weekly team, WODUPbot 00:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

Could you help me understand about your decision Regarding Van Resistance.

Your decision "no consensus" on the issue which the opposing editor claims that my language skills are poor and rejects any help, or guidance to improve language in the article. His response falls into personal clarification that he will not provide any information regarding his objection on my language skills, beyond he did not like my grammar. If the user failed to give "a detailed and specific description of what changes need to be made," and your decision of "no concencus" holds, also in this special case the user clearly stated in his response that "he will revert the article" constantly, which puts his edits as an act of vandalism. I believe, your decision should be accompanied by removing the lift from the page, and informing the opposing party to be more constructive in his edits. Thank you for your help. --Seemsclose (talk) 20:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My only decision was to disable the editprotected as the request was opposed. It should not have any other effect on the discussion. Further, although repetitive reversion is disruptive, it is not vandalism. I don't feel like getting involved in this dispute. Nihiltres^{t.l} 21:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Consensus" means having an agreement amongst editors. There is no consensus. Given that I think Seemsclose's aims and edits will be detrimental to the article, I will not work with him towards obtain a consensus if that means incorporating those edits in their present form and extent. Unfortunately, having the article protected means that we are in an all-or-nothing situation: either having to accept all of Seemsclose's substantial edits in one go, or accept none of them. If in a week or so there is still no concensus reached, I think the page protection should be removed. Meowy 21:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What might be a good course of action would be to go through Seemsclose's suggestions and suggest improvements to them, or at very least highlight specific problems. Don't worry too much about the writing at first: if you two (or more) can agree on the content itself, correcting spelling, grammar, or style would then be trivial. Nihiltres^{t.l} 21:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Consensus" only happens if parties with WP:GW, communicate based on non-personal comments or insults and giving clear and constructive response for each objection which the parties bring into table. In the absence of clear explanation of why one disagrees, we can not talk about a "process of consensus." I'm disappointed with Meowy's behavior of not involving a constructive "process of consensus". Seemsclose (talk) 21:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a light note, what does "Gnome Week" have to do with consensus? :p Nihiltres^{t.l} 21:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should have checked, sorry. There used to be an article for "good will in wikipedia." I thought I was linking to that article. The editor, who is interested at the same article which I was trying to improve, claims he knows the subject so well that he can plot the mistakes, but not have goodness in him to point out to me. :-) That article is in serious need, but there are so many "good will" floating around to prevent any form of improvement, as they perceived it lost of their battle. I was trying to be sarcastic (behind the keyboard), missed the whole point I guess ...--Seemsclose (talk) 21:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My core objection to Seemsclose's suggestions is that he is ruining the lead section by expanding it beyond all reasonable limits through adding trivial details. He doesn't seem to understand that it is just meant to be a concise summary of the essential points contained in the body of the article. So the dispute is not about content, it is about methodology. I don't doubt that I would take issue with some of the additions on content grounds if they were to be added to the body of the article - but I object to all of them at the moment because of where Seemsclose wants to place them. That objection will not change, because the objection is based on my well-founded understanding of what the lead section should be and what it should not be. Meowy 23:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Science

Per your revision to the Earth article, note that both geography and cultural anthropology are considered science.—RJH (talk) 20:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know that they can both be technically considered sciences. The term "science", however, usually refers primarily to the natural sciences and not to the social sciences, as the pair of groups constitute most academic knowledge. As most people make the distinction, I omitted it so as not to mislead them, which seems perfectly reasonable given that the knowledge in the article should be entirely academic in nature regardless. Nihiltres^{t.l} 20:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self: Discussions or relevant discourse are at Talk:Earth#Other_uses_statement, User talk:RJHall#Earth_article_hatnote, and here, in order of priority. Nihiltres^{t.l} 22:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That particular distinction in the use of the word "science" is a new one to me. I suppose I think of science in terms of its contrast to art or philosophy, for example, and don't really have an issue with science covering a broad range of academic disciplines. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 22:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thank you

Thanks! Yeah I'll use it carefully. Vishnava_talk 16:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to have helped. :) Nihiltres^{t.l} 16:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:zh-p

Hi, you recently did some changes at Template:zh-p, and now pinyin just looks terrible on my browser (Firefox 2.0.0.14, OS is Win Vista). An earlier similar change to the template was reverted by another user here, apparently for identical reasons, so I assume I am not the only one who has this kind of problem. Is there any strong reason to not simply ignore language within this template? Regards, Yaan (talk) 12:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the language specifier so that the {{lang}} template it contained produced valid XHTML. I've made a few edits recently (e.g. 1, 2, 3) to ensure that all current FACs produced valid XHTML according to the W3C source evaluator. As this valid code is producing a problem for you on a reasonably common browser and operating system setup, however, I've now simply removed the {{lang}} wrapper completely as technically problematic or semantically incorrect no matter what we specify. You're right; the only reason to include it is semantic markup of language, and that is not as strong a reason as technical compatibility with common browsing setups. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 14:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks perfect now. Thanks a lot, Yaan (talk) 14:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Schweff

Wanna salt it? I deleted it five days ago. Whaddya think... Tan | 39 01:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible enough that it could be used for a legitimate article or redirect (I've heard similar surnames) that I personally don't want to salt it unless the nonsense continues. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 01:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absorball

As a first time user, I apparently failed to write an unbiased entry for absorball. I think it is important that people know what it is and have a way to share that in an unbiased environment. Could you please let me know how I could better my entry on what absorball is? Is this more acceptable?

Launched in 2007, Absorball is a spray and odor absorbing gel that is produced by For Every Body. It contains O.A.M. (Odor Absorbing Molecules) which are said to form permanant bonds on contact to the odor molecules and chemically change their make-up, thus eliminating the odor.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianJ3 (talk • contribs) 05:20, June 16, 2008 (UTC)

Here are some problems with the article, and how you can correct them for a future version:

The article appeared to advertise the product. This is unacceptable as Wikipedia articles must have a neutral point of view. This neutral point of view should avoid using weasel words that ascribe a fact to an unnamed source: when saying something like "Item foo is said to have effect bar" one should explain who says so, e.g. "Party foo says that Item bar has effect baz."
The article did not explain why Absorball is notable. Articles are notable if there is evidence that citations can be made to reliable sources such that the article can be verifiable by anyone reading it. References which do not come from third parties generally do not indicate notability well.
The article was formatted incorrectly. While this did not directly contribute to the deletion, articles that are not formatted correctly are usually more likely to be proposed for deletion. You can learn how to format your pages by:
- Using the formatting cheatsheet
- Using the Wikipedia Manual of Style
- Looking at the way other articles are formatted and,
- Asking for help from people like me, who are certainly willing to help wikify pages.

If you have any further questions or comments, feel free… {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 22:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, for the edit at {{physics}}

I just ran the bot to see if things are still alright, and things look alright.

Also, two other things.

First, there was this section section that was also considered for uploading. It's supposed to allow to make intersection categories possible (so you can only the Top-importance articles of start-class for example). I think it that section of code would go after the two class and importance "switches", but I'm not sure. If you could take a couple of minutes to check it out that would be great.

Second, there is the {{physics}} tag on the template page and it shouldn't be there.

Thanks. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 21:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a problem (not critical, but not minor either). It looks like the "FL" are getting ignored unless the {{physics}} is inside a {{WikiProjectBanners}} Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 21:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into the other proposed change.

As for the two problems you mention – are you sure that they are problems? It is generally desirable to see an example of a template on its page, and I can't duplicate your problem with class=FL, class=Fl, or class=fl, nor do I see anything in the code that would suggest a problem. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 22:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Visit Category:FL-Class physics articles, and check what articles are listed. Then go at List of molecules in interstellar space and remove the banner. Refresh the FL-Class physics article page, and you'll see that the List of molecules is gone. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 01:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm looking into List of molecules in interstellar space and it is listed as a both a Category:FA-Class physics articles and a Category:FL-Class physics articles. I think it has to do with the {{WPAstronomy}} banner, but I'm not sure.Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 01:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand the problem with the FL-class. If I remove the {{physics}} template from the page, shouldn't I expect the article to be removed from the associated category Category:FL-Class physics articles which is applied by the template? I'm not sure, given that explanation, of the nature of the anomaly.

I can, however, confirm that the FA-class category is applied by {{WPAstronomy}}, at least. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 01:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean if you remove {{WikiProjectBanners}}, not the {{physics}} banner. I should've been clearer. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 02:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I add {{physics|class=FL}} to my sandbox, without {{WikiProjectBanners}}, it applies the category Category:FL-Class physics articles to the page. It's still active at User:Nihiltres/Sandbox and Category:FL-Class physics articles. I can't duplicate the problem. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 02:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well now I can't replicate it either. I guess that's a good thing. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 03:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two "new" things. Category, category, Cat, and cat don't produce an orange "Category-class" in {{physics}}. And unrated (importance-wise) articles don't get lumped into "unranked" category. Sorry to be so "demanding", but you're the only one who seems to be helpful (at least more help than simply refering me to talk pages). Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 03:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{physics}} (forget the old messages)

The list of current problems with the banner is this:

Temp and temp are not recognized whatsoever by {{physics}}.
Cat, cat are partially recognized by {{physics}}. "Category" does not appears on the banner, but are listed in "category-class" articles.
Category and category, not recognized by {{physics}}.

I think I found the problem and the fix. Head-on {{physics}}

List gets properly categorized, while list does not.
Unrated (in importance) articles don't get lumped in Category:Unrated-importance physics articles

I think I found the problem and the fix. Head-on {{physics}}

Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 03:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XXV - June 2008

The June 2008 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. SteveBot (owner) 03:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate notice of this issue delivered 03:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC) removed – {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 14:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Theories of gravitation

I think your reversal of my edits in Template:Theories of gravitation is not justified. I only included "w:" at the beginning of the section to avoid backlinks in the articles. Is this forbidden? Regards, --D.H (talk) 08:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#How to avoid backlinks?. Maybe there are other solutions. --D.H (talk) 09:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll comment on the Village Pump. It's not so much "forbidden" as "technically ugly". I didn't notice your edit, but merely "fixed", as it were, the links upon seeing them. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 14:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too Late Lucy deletion

hi there, I'm quite new to wikipedia Too Late Lucy was my first page and you deleted it, it was a band page, any chance you could tell me why you deleted it, I thought it obeyed the rules as the band had taken part in an international tour covered by several media companies, just curious so I can improve it and get it right for next time as I was sure it was ok.

Looking forward to your help and advice,

Jimmy- toolatelucy 24/06/08

(Toolatelucy (talk) 23:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Duplicate post removed – {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 00:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the band's taken part in an international tour, there's a decent likelihood that there are a number of references that can be made to make the article verifiable and so show its notability. On Wikipedia, "notability" is partly jargon; if an article cannot be referenced using third-party sources, then it is probably "non-notable". What this means is that if you wanted to try again, you should try to give some references which particularly reference Too Late Lucy and comment on the band, especially references that show particular notability in terms of the field of music. If you can give some good references to reliable sources, you could use them to recreate the article and it would then likely be kept. References from those media companies might be useful, for example, though I lack the specifics. If you'd like any help in formatting or other such details, I'd be willing to lend a hand, and you already know where to contact me. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 00:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC) (cross-posted)[reply]

ADOPTION

Alright, hope I don't screw this up. I've been a member for twenty minutes, and have already gooten myself into trouble. Not really. I am now a patroller, but I don't know how to use the tools after I put them into my book thing. I also don't know how to go back to my book thing. I am aquick learner, but I need someone to teach me as I can't learn from the Wiki help, as it already contains wki jargon that I don't get. Also, I won't be on here very much, so it won't be very taxing.

oh, and my user name is MyNameIsJasonBourne. Please leave a response on your page, or my talk page, as I don't know my way around yet, adn don't no of anythign else. Thanx

Don't worry, you'll learn the ropes in no time. Give me a bit and I'll try to figure out somewhere where you can get started and what you're using, and we can work from there. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 21:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A brief note of thanks

If I worked this out correctly, you, or someone else with your IP address, gave us (I am Kwamax Nedadh) on the Imperial Galaxy wiki (http://www.imperialgalaxy.com/igwiki/) some pointers on how to reduce spam. I just wanted to note that we really appreciate your help (we sure didn't notice the spam, the wiki can be a little neglected). Thanks! Macmaxbh (talk) 07:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to have helped; it was nothing. :) {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 11:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Weekly Ep. 51

Hey. Episode 51. Go. Listen. Comment. Enjoy. WODUPbot 04:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't want these notifications anymore? Remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery.

Proposal discussion resumed

Hi.

I'm contacting you because you were involved in the discussion concerning the renaming of the lists of basic topics.

I ran into resistance when I attempted to rename the set.

Therefore, the name change hasn't been completed, because the previous discussion wasn't widespread enough, nor announced in enough places.

I've submitted a new proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to rename the pages called List of basic x topics to Topic outline of x.

The Transhumanist 06:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on comment in wood reversion

You said in your comment "Remove spurious linebreaks left over from additions of stupid trivia section. XKCD is great; trying to make real life like xkcd isn't necessarily the greatest (http://xkcd.com/325/)"

I disagree, XKCD in real life is still amazing, similar to Colbert in real life, you just can't get enough of it. xkcd.com/325 would be amazing to re-enact in real life. The world is too serious, something that makes people go "WTF" is a good thing every now and then. I'm sure that the addition of a "stupid trivia section" makes more work for some people on wikipedia, but it will pass in time. There really is no need to insult anyone on the internet. You referenced an xkcd comic, I will reference two, http://www.xkcd.com/438/ and http://xkcd.com/386/

There are some important life lessons in xkcd, if you are able to pick them up. Also, the spirit of the comic is that we not take the world so seriously.

So again, I know you must deal with "vandalism", but there is no need to call what we do stupid. Some would say that editing wikipedia is stupid, some would say that spending all your time on the internet is stupid. Stupidity is in the thigh of the beholder --Summer Glav

I'm sorry. Calling such a trivia section "stupid" is largely due to my annoyance at people immediately deciding to edit Wikipedia to add pointless stuff when xkcd's comic is clearly a satire of the situation. I appreciate the underlying wisdom in xkcd; I just wish that people didn't feel the need to act on its overtones of nonsense. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 17:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility?

At Talk:Wood, you called a comment of mine incivil. I'm curious about what in particular was uncivil about it, since I didn't mean for it to be uncivil. Would you let me know if there's a way I could have said what I did better? Thanks, {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 05:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nihiltres. In reference to your comments on Talk:Wood, while I agreed on the whole with your sentiment the tone seemed decidedly angry. What I particularly took umbrage towards was the language used in the last reference to the xkcd comic. It seemed like you were angrily reading someone a riot act, which seemed contrary to a civil and rational discussion of the matter at hand. I especially felt that the sudden popularity of wood required the highest of Wikipeidian standards to be used in its discourse as there were certainly a good deal of new and/or non-editors reading those comments. Again, these are only my impressions and perhaps I should not have been so hasty to present them in a highly visible talk page. I just didn't want to see an already overloaded discussion degrade into name calling. LeilaniLad (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I suppose that I came off that way. Interesting; I'll have to go over it more carefully. Perhaps my use of emphasis was perceived as edginess. I'll certainly admit I was annoyed at the time, but it's important to make sure that it is the light which is perceived rather than the heat; I meant my comment to be an informed critique of the situation, calling people to reason, and it seems it instead was perceived as a lashing-out towards those who added the annoying sections. I must improve. Thank you very much for your input. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 22:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concrete learner speedily deleted

You're on that list that will e-mail copies? I don't think it was a viable act for it to be *speedily* deleted of all things; maybe you could give me your opinion on that matter too, but I'd at least like a copy. Thanks. Nagelfar (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Covell

I would like to suggest reading this article in Guardian today, I'm not familiar with Wiki editing but the site has proved useful to me over the years and if something seems a bit off, hope that feedback in this case can be seen as constructive criticism. The article is here, do read ! The bloody battle of Genoa.

Now why this might be interesting to you , is because I got a wiki first after years of use. Indeed, after reading an article or hearing something on the news, I like to do a check on wiki, sometimes you get a balanced opinion, things that were left out to promote that papers or tv stations agenda.

Yet, with google , and typing Mark Covell, or some key words in the article, wiki's listings are your talk page, or an admin talk page. Now, in fact I did read your comments, so Im not about to point the finger, or say that the author whos article you kept deleting (as well as others i get the impression) were right or wrong, but suggest you take a step back and see something went wrong, either from those in wiki in helping a new user to develop a page, or the fact that web searches on this subject now have your wiki talk as the top subject from wikipedia.

Perhaps you can say, from the perspective of people, like myself who are not "in" with the editing techniques how it appear? Mark Covell is very well documented, yet any attempt by him to set up an account of events, was continually deleted, and at one point you even say "I hadnt even heard of Mark Covell before today" (quoted from memory, it might not be word for word, but you may correct me if I am wrong)

Also, please consider, after you read about someone who was beaten so severely that they had broken hand, damaged spine, half a dozen ribs smashed, and a lacerated lung and being unconscious for two days (this was just him) then you come to wiki and you say "Second, I have no issue with the importance (or lack thereof, if applicable)" how would that make you feel? NutmegAndSpices (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I regret how that went about, I did try to deal with him fairly. While his case is compellingly just in some ways, Wikipedia isn't the place to make it, and his assertions that "a wikipedia page is very important to maintain the struggle for our case" [sic] meant that I needed to let him know that he didn't have carte blanche just because he felt strongly about what had happened and had been involved in it, that he needed to use reliable sources rather than just have everyone assume that what he said was correct: Wikipedia isn't for original research, isn't for advocacy, and all the rest. While being beaten to a pulp is tragic, it doesn't mean that one is treated as infallible once one recovers.

Certainly if it were to happen again I'd try to handle it differently as it clearly didn't work, but I can't say that I would let him do whatever he wanted. I only deleted one article once related to the incident, and I was then justified in doing so. No one had opposed a deletion, not proposed by me, for five full days (that's 120 hours) and I deleted it as cleanup.

For the record, those two quotes of me should probably be extended to include their context as "I don't doubt that you are Mark Covell - I extend that trust to you (on the other hand, I have never heard of any Mark Covell before today)." and "I have no issue with the importance (or lack thereof, if applicable) of the events. I deleted the article itself (N.B.: not the discussion page, which was where your essay was located) because it had been tagged with a proposed deletion template for the required length of time. Anyone could have removed that template at will."

What I really mean to say is that I'm somewhat sorry that I appear to have driven him off, when I really meant to merely ward off the things that Wikipedia can't accept like original research, point-of-view advocacy, and the like. While I appreciate that he must feel strongly about it and that his being attacked so was a tragedy, Wikipedia isn't the place to make the case about it and I couldn't just bow to his demands, especially if he's suggesting that he'll sue me if I don't (which is ridiculous to say the least).

Perhaps I could have handled it better; I can't change what's happened already and I'd try a different approach in future. It's unfortunate that our discussion seems laced with such frustration. I really think I was largely right in what I said, though I realize that perhaps I won battles while losing a war. My main concerns are with moving forward: I don't like to deal with all the political world, and I don't plan on talking to him (Covell) again lest he hold our last discussion against me. I don't harbour any malevolence towards him, but it's frustrating that it had to end as it did. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 20:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the prompt reply

I appreciate your prompt reply to my message on the Admin notice board. I have passed the information you gave me on and the person who has been unable to get connected will attempt to follow your suggestions. He may contact you himself, or through me if he is unable. Best Wishes, --Steve (talk) 05:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help. :) {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 13:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of religion

G'day Nihilres, I'm looking for someone to take a good hard look into the situation at Origin of religion. There has been sockpuppet activity that is pretty much chronic. I have WP:GHBH concerns and thought that some material at Evolutionary origins of religion was legitimate merging prospect. I noted and tag such in the right places but was reverted. Now the page has been salted and I can't access the history containing the info anymore. An administrator involved with this (and several other related articles) did the salting and I've left a message on their talk page with my feelings about this. Anyhow, you can tell by now I'm all in a state about this! Take a look please and give me your honest opinion.--Sting Buzz Me... 23:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Weekly

Hello there! New: Episode 58: Wikimania 2008, Jimbo and Reflections. Have a listen. Also, if you haven't heard, all of the other Wikimania episodes are up and accessible through the homepage at http://wikipediaweekly.org. Peace. WODUPbot 09:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.