User talk:Noisy/Archive02

WP:RfD

Ah, in deleting those entries from WP:RfD, did you happen to see the note at the top of the page asking:

When you delete an entry from this page, please make sure to put in the edit summary for that deletion a message indicating i) the name of the removed entry, and ii) the date it was placed here ... This makes it easy for people looking through the page history to find

I've added a entry to the history giving the data for the ones that were removed.

BTW, two of those three entries were still there because they didn't quality for a speedy deletion, but some admin deleted them anyway prior to the one-week delay specified by policy; in such cases I leave them for the whole week anyway in case someone wants to comment (and argue for keeping them), not because I was just feeling lazy about deleting their entries. Noel (talk) 23:07, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Great Game

May I ask you to answer one question on the Great Game talk page which I posed specifically toward your response? —Lowellian (talk) 05:15, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/WikiUser

I hope very much you will go back to this page, read what I have posted (along with checking the links I provide), and consider altering your position. I believe (though I may be wrong) that you were not aware of the facts of the case when you made the statements you did. Thanks very much for at least giving my position some consideration. Jwrosenzweig 00:22, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reverting Jimbo Wales on Autofellatio

Do you know who Jimbo Wales is??? Do NOT revert him. —Cantus…☎ 11:00, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

For once, I agree with Cantus. It's generally a Bad Thing to revert Jimbo. →Raul654 11:33, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

PS - Check your email :) →Raul654& 12:19, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Redirecting

I was about to thank you for saving me - then saw your "doh" - keep trying! Brookie 20:05, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reverts

In answer to your question, all you do is go to the page history, click on the unvandalised edition, then save page. Administrators have a super-fast version though.... wish I was an admin. Matthew Platts 18:06, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

With interwiki redirects it can be hard to get into the page history though. Add ?action=history at the end of the page's URL to get around that. Goplat 18:11, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please Respond

I'm sorry that you think you are being picked on:

I did not say I felt I was being "picked on". I asked you, after a third time, to answer why you think my link is inappropriate.

Wikipedia is a mass of rules, policies, guidance and whatnot (see Wikipedia:Utilities for just a partial list). I suppose that we should have asked you to revert the additions yourself, after offering our arguments, but when the first contributions by a new editor look like link spamming then the old vandal patrol mentality kicks in.

Wikipedia is a mass of guidelines, not rules.

In the harshest terms, it appears that all you are trying to do is drum up traffic for your own site by leeching off Wikipedia.

I do not understand why you are afraid of promoting communication from Wikipedia? Why not reject all forum links? Most are simply communities intereted in "self-promotion". I see no difference if you are not willing to list links on-topic. If anything, Wiki should be about facilitating communication, espcecially when it is non-commercial.

EDIT: I am not interested in "drumming up traffic" for my google ranking. I am not even listed on Google for crying out loud. What I am interested in doing is promoting discourse.

If you had added a single link to the philosophy article, then that may have been (and may still be) considered acceptable.

The philosophy article does not facilitate communication. People are usually looking for a specific author, as they are studying that author. In my opinion, adding links to forums which discuss Marx is on topic and conducive to the expansion of knowledge.

I'm pleased that you think that I am clever enough to use sophistry, but sad that you entirely missed the invitation to step right into the fray and start looking out for vandalism yourself.

Logically speaking, my missing a bit of vandalism has nothing to do with our disagreement.

Please have a look around: do some experimentation in the Wikipedia:Sandbox; work through the Wikipedia:Tutorial and the Wikipedia:Annotated article. And finally – though perhaps a bit late

No thank you. I am quite comfortable editing.

Wikipedia disapproves strongly of links that are added for advertising purposes. Adding links to one's own page is strongly discouraged.

A. My site is not advertising anything.

B. My site seeks to engage people in debate.

C. It is simply not a link to "a personal page".

"Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a chatroom, discussion forum, or vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not:

1. Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views."

My site covers issues from all perspectives, so it is objective and the only thing it can be said to advocate is philosophy itself.

Unanswered points from last post:

"How can my debates be considered spam if they are high-quality, non-commercial, and clicked by CHOICE? Only those not interested in debate would consider my links useless."

(Interleaved comments from User:Blueskyboris.)

Beer

I noticed you made a little change to one of the "brewbox" templates, and that you had done some previous work on Wolverhampton & Dudley Breweries. Would you be interested in lending a hand with a very new WikiProject Beer? – ClockworkSoul 00:09, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Autofellatio vote

Greetings. I'm contacting you because you voted to keep Image:Autofellatio.jpg, but you indicated that part of your reasoning was because the image was not demonstrated to be a copyright violation. Someone recently found the image on http://www.wowboy.com/welcome.htm, a porn pay site, with the notice "© WowBoy 2001-2004, All rights reserved". I don't know if this changes your vote or not, but I thought you might want to know. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 02:27, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Spam

Thanks — I'm normally more tactful with my choice of words, but the belligerence of some people gets to me. He hasn't responded to my last email, though, so I don't expect he'll try putting the links back up. — Asbestos | Talk 09:41, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Re: Joan Of Arc

Please use the article's talk page instead of an edit war to revert the exact same text over and over. You didn't make any point to why you wanted a change or what you didn't think conforms. I am happy to discuss such matters with you. We have already debated over details in the first paragraph, and your changes destroys them. Simply, your changes moves the article back to POV. You say you make the change for wikipedia standards, but POV is not a standard as NPOV. Mr. Ballard 00:53, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just to clarify an issue: "we" did not agree to the version Jhballard is still insisting on - rather, he kept reverting all attempts to clean up his edits (which, as another person pointed out, are often incomprehensible), and I finally just let his version remain rather than fight endlessly over every preposition and verb phrase. Noisy's recent corrections were extremely welcome, and do not need to be tediously discussed - since Jhballard has repeatedly altered material without any prior discussion whatsoever, he cannot now demand that any changes to his own edits need to be subjected to a thorough discussion first. (AWilliamson 02:44, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC))

Issues about school articles

In November 2003, there was a VfD debate over Sunset High School (Portland). The debate was archived under Talk:Sunset High School (Portland). What to do with the article is still being contested and has been recently re-nominated for VfD at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sunset High School (Portland).

I am writing to you because you have participated in such debates before. There still does not exist a wikipedia policy (as far as i can tell) over what to do in regards to articles about specific U.S. public school. My hope is that a real consensus can come out of the debate, and a real policy can take shape. Take part if you are so willing. Kingturtle 02:43, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Old sigs

Be prepared for some flak that may be heading your way. The old sig format that was rendered redundant by the latest release of MediaWiki is now screwing up the edit function. Some of your old sigs weren't corrected when the change happened (I've just cleaned some up on the English/American language differences talk page). I'm just going through my edit list to track down my old mistakes, but I expect I'll get spoken to. Cheers. Noisy | Talk 12:07, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think it would be possible for me to fix all those sigs manually--there must be hundreds of them scattered around here and there. Maybe someone will send in a bot or something. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:31, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wiki syntax, template standardisation

Please see the edit I made at 2:08, Apr 25, 2005 UTC to Wikipedia:Template standardisation (diff). My correction of your indenting makes it look better, plus the numbering is maintained throughout the list. r3m0t ^talk 21:15, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, increase the space between the picture and the text. r3m0t ^talk 13:00, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Template standardisation

Well done with your Wikipedia:Template standardisation submission, coming second to the excellent Coffee Roll. I see you voted for it yourself so I hope you are happy with the winning choice. Thanks for your submission, and it was great to see you responding to, and working on, comments and suggestions about your design. violet/riga (t) 22:58, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Vote on WP:TS

Seeing as there seems to be some contention about it, I've gone through and tallied all the votes properly (using the correct method of calculating approval voting). It's at Wikipedia talk:Template_standardisation#Results. Talrias (t | e | c) 14:12, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

RE:Requested moves

Indeed, a lot was removed. But, no, I did not delete it, so perhaps it is, as you say, a bug. All I did was excise my addition, which was as follows:

This article requires a qualifier to avoid confusion with the more widely known international relations theory of the balance of power. Ergo, it should be moved to Balance of Power (computer game), which is consistent with other articles of this nature.

How I did so, I cannot be certain, but I believe I edited via the 2 May 2005 edit tag. Thank you for fixing that error, and for not being accusatorial. Many would have shot first and questioned later.--Cyberjunkie 14:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring decency to my talk page

I think newbie Nev must have forgotten what was on his clipboard. He admits to some residual WP-procedure imperfections, as do most of us. All seems fine now. Robin Patterson 22:55, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Bow Fiddle Rock

Wow. How did I leave that out? Anyway, its been corrected, thanks for pointing out my glaring omission. I have a photo I should add, as soon as I get internet access at home. -R. fiend 20:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Count Edit

How did you know on what date your 500th, 1000th, etc edit occur?
Is there a help page or is it to do with the user contributions page, or something else? – AxSkov (T) 15:09, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Thankyou for your reply, I hope you can sort out your family crisis. If that method puts a heavy toll on the servers, then I probably won't do the milestone count. But its still good to know how its done. – AxSkov (T) 14:17, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Industrial Revolution

Hi, Thanks for the advice. I had not realised I had not watchlisted it it, hence by lack of input. Quite a lot to think about. The first one being to try and chnge the image of the porttable engine, which in fact dates from the later C19. My first reaction is the whole piece is too full of unsubatantiated generalisations. Lots to do! Apwoolrich 21:01, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi, If you have time I would welcome some feedback about how this is now looking. At the bottom of the discussion is a suggestion that we ought to have a 'British Industrial Revolution' page, and by inference another one for everything else. I disagree. I am adding chunks about new topics, and trying to find articles within Wikipedia to act as main references, but not always with success, since they have not been written. Kind regards Apwoolrich 08:36, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Category:UK Wikipedians

Hi, just to let you know that the list of UK participants at the UK notice board was getting rather long, so I have replaced it with the above category which I have added to your user page. -- Francs2000 | Talk 30 June 2005 20:33 (UTC)