User talk:PHenry/Archive1

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

iPod#Criticism

I was the one who deleted the Criticism section of iPod, because I feel it's somewhat POV to confine any negative comments to a separate section, and because it's somewhat confusing to have discussion of the same subtopic in two different places. This isn't specific to criticism of the iPod; I don't like Criticism sections in general.

What I did was not just delete the section, but instead I split its information into the various subtopics, where relevant. Here is the diff, if you'd like to see it. I'm more than flexible on how things are split and where they go, but I'd rather see ugly Criticism sections gone whereever possible.

I'll hold off before splitting the criticisms into the relevant sections in iPod for a bit; I'd like to hear your reply. A Man In Black 00:42, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, you moved almost none of the substantive criticism of the iPod into other sections when you deleted the Criticism section; most of it you deleted entirely. Examples:

You completely eliminated any mention of the iPod/iTunes combination as a potential vertical monopoly (in my opinion the most important criticism of them all).
You soft-pedaled the FairPlay system's incompatibility with non-Apple music players to the point of unrecognizability.
You eliminated most of the criticism of the iPod as being technologically inferior, in the eyes of some, to competing players, retaining only a narrow and somewhat esoteric criticism regarding gapless playback.

I don't know whether or not your motivation was to whitewash any and all criticism of the iPod and turn the article into a big wet kiss for the device, but that was very definitely the effect your changes had--which is exactly why it's so important that the Criticism section remain in the article.

"Criticism" and "controversy" sections are by their nature POV. This does not create a problem when they are presented in context, in an effort to fairly and appropriately report upon legitimate criticism that the subject of an article has engendered. Often partisans of the subject being discussed come along and pair some or all of the criticisms in such a section with rebuttals, which can be entirely appropriate if done well. In some cases a subject garners so much criticism that it gets broken into its own article entirely, as for example here and here. POV? In some sense, yes--but in a larger sense such articles are necessary to eliminate bias by ensuring that all sides in a dispute are fairly represented.

You may not like criticism sections in articles, but they've evolved as a widely accepted means of achieving compromise on topics that tend to create controversy, and it's not up to you to unilaterally decide that they should be removed from articles. I will oppose any attempt to eliminate the Criticism section in the iPod article. --PHenry 05:18, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The third point was partially intentional and unrelated; the same language, changed slightly, could be applied to every single electronic device in the history of electronic devices. To say that there are those displeased with the performance in a general way is a tautology. I retained the battery complaints and the gapless playback complaints; what is left in that paragraph, besides some vague references to subjective sound quality complaints that aren't much bourne out by reviews?

That aside, these are fair points, and I probably didn't do a very good job of integrating them into the other sections. My goal wasn't to eliminate criticism per se, but to eliminate the ugly Criticism header where all of the negative comments are sequestered, a full screen away from the origina subtopic being criticized. Why isn't criticism of the iTunes integration under the iTunes header? Likewise the vertical monopoly comments? Why not put the criticism of the battery with design? Why do we need a pouporri of negative comments all in one place?

I understand the value of retaining criticism. What's the value of a specific Criticism heading, though? A Man In Black 02:50, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've made a temp version in my userspace, for you to take a look at. I retained all of the vertical monopoly wording (and even reinforced and reiterated it somewhat), and harshened the commentary on unsupported formats and the battery replacement issues, while deleting the criticism header entirely. (I also deleted a bad link, moved the Harmony stuff, and move the BMW link to the body of the text, but I doubt you care about that.) Let me know what you think. A Man In Black 03:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, with a week of no comments on the iPod talk page, I'm just going to be bold and do it. A Man In Black 22:06, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

*laughs* I was planning to aim a bit lower than that, but what the hell, I'll see if I can't so something about restructuring Wal-Mart. If I'm going to do something, might as well not do it in half measures. A Man In Black 00:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hm. After reading Wal-Mart, I'm having trouble seeing how it could be restructured. The elements of criticism are topics in their own right, rather than downsides or caveats to other topics mentioned. For example, it's reasonable to talk about both the functional and negative implications of the iTunes/iPod integration in the same place, much of the critical commentary in Wal-Mart is strictly critical commentary.
On the other hand, there's no reason to have the "Employees" section separate from the "Employee/labor relations" section. Hmm.
Not entirely sure if it was an earnest challenge to take on those articles, but I'll see if I can't do something with Wal-Mart once the protection is taken off of that page. The recent trolling will make people extra-vigilant about "whitewashing," so it shoould be interesting. A Man In Black 01:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vandal tags

Thank you for reverting vandalism on Wikipedia!

Be sure to put warning tags on the vandal's user talk page (such as {{subst:test}}, {{subst:test2}}, {{subst:test3}}, {{subst:test4}}). Add each of these tags on the vandal's talk page, in sequential order, after each instance of vandalism. Adding warnings to the talk page assists administrators in determining whether or not the user should be blocked. If the user continues to vandalize pages after you add the {{subst:test4}} tag, request administrator assistance at Request for Intervention. Again, thank you for helping to make Wikipedia better.

Wikipedianinthehouse 01:06, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Keetoowah Arbitration case

Hello,

The Arbitration case against Keetoowah that you contributed to has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Keetoowah. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Keetoowah/Evidence.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Air America Radio Stalemate

I know we're not trusting eachother's references and sources at all at this point. I've taken the initiative to list the article section at Wikipedia:Third Opinion in the hopes that someone neutral who hasn't been involved with the battle can come in and take a look at it. I'm hoping that you and I can come to some sort of conclusion based on third-party intervention on it as opposed to what we've been doing. Thanks. --Badlydrawnjeff 16:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the map images... they look great! --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs - count) 02:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Washington State Route WP

Thanks for the route maps.

However, the map for SR-99 does not travel nearly the entire distance of SR-99. Having driven the road for many years, I can tell you that the State Route starts at an intersection just west of I-5 / SR-18 and intersects with SR-516. From there is travels north past Sea-Tac to a short freeway section, which then intersects with the map you have. If you could please update your map I'd greatly appreciate it. Remember Fife/Federal Way to Everett.

Also if you could, we could use a map for SR-525 Spur.

Thanks: TEG 17:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Road stubs

All of the following made their way to WP:SFD:

--Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TDC

I noticed you have been getting in a revert war with TDC. Probably not surprising to you, you are not alone. See: Talk:Winter Soldier Investigation, Talk:Human_rights_in_Cuba TDC has been rebuked by Tony Sidaway Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:TDC

So if it continues contact Tony. And TDC can be booted for a 12th/13th time. Travb 17:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work

I like your 'Synonyms for "say"' on Wikipedia:Words to avoid. I've found it helpful. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 20:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

rfc comments

if you have spare time, please review Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Deeceevoice and comment. -Justforasecond 17:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Healing

I left a response to your question at User:Alabamaboy/Healing Wikipedia. best, --Alabamaboy 15:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Left a new reponse there to your new comment. In short, I apologize. I was wrong. I've also stated this publically and have proposed a remedy to put both DCV and JFAS on parole for stirring all of this up. Please check it out.--Alabamaboy 19:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Evergreen State College

I made the original move and I was wrong. I left a more detailed message on the article's talk page. I've also moved it back. My apologies! Semiconscious · talk 02:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Game

Can you please explain why The Game should not be classed as a game here. Kernow 13:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-12 U.S. Roads

If you are interested in this case please leave a statement at this page for the mediator. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help for WA

Look at the List of Washington State Routes and at the new completion list off WP:WASH. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Washington State Route infobox

Please comment, if you wish to, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Washington State Highways#Shrunken infobox. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

Cool. But where do I add my statements? I pretty much agree with yours, but just wanted to provide support... also there's SPUI's move log and SPUI's block log. You can add that to evidence. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I add the above links myself? Also added an inside view. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, you're not supposed to revert the page moves... to be fair I will have to block you if you move any more Washington State Route pages. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware, and it's nothing personal.,.. but I've faced criticism for not blocking you... and then at the ANI page they were clear that it applies to all parties. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rschen7754/HDD look good? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my plan: Go eat dinner. Then give them all the link and see what they think. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Comment

I don't know, it seems to be all the rage in any case, along with claiming that your opinion is that of "the community" so you might as well keep at it, and leave SPUI out of it while you do so. Karm a fist^{Save Wikipedia} 03:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In re to: List of Washington State Routes Sorry but...

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. A dmrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 19:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! A dmrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 19:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of this so quickly. No hard feelings. --phh 19:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maine

The war has spread there. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD 4 on the Game

I'm sorry about that. I hadn't noticed your earlier comment. Even if your earlier comment hadn't been there, my comment was probably too harsh. AfDs do seem to bring out the worst in people but that is not an acceptable excuse for my comment. Please accept my apologies. JoshuaZ 03:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason you should have remembered that comment, or remembered that it was from me. And certainly my new comment wasn't as helpful as it could have been. No hard feelings. --phh 15:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Washington State Route 704

Map request: Image:Map-WA-704.svg; currently in development, but WSDOT site has a map. Thanks A dmrb♉ltz (t • c • b • p • d • m) 04:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) A dmrb♉ltz (t • c • b • p • d • m) 16:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WT:UTSH comment requested

I know you are in WA but could you check out my proposal listed on the linked title. Thanks A dmrb♉ltz (t • c • b • p • d • m) 01:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go to WT:UTSH (had a p there accedently...) A dmrb♉ltz (t • c • b • p • d • m) 04:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wyoming Shield

Thanks; I was planning to do that once i got around to making all the wyoming shields. Any particular reason for the naming convention WY-789? I've been making everything as [state name] [route number].svg. CA followed this model, so i've adopted it as well. So far, Colorado, CA, North Dakota,Rhode Island, and Virginia follow this model. atanamir 20:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SPUI has made a more descriptive model [state_name] [route_number] Shield.svg. That's being used at Utah and Florida as far as I can tell. atanamir 20:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be a DICK

I did not "lose" anything on Category:U.S. Highways in Washington and Category:Interstate Highways in Washington. I urge you to read JohnnyBGood's comment - Washington highways (which was kept with no consensus) is for stuff that is not a state highway, like the Pacific Highway. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 18:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm applying normal editing in a case of no consensus. These categories hold state highways. I will continue to revert your mistaken edits until the cows come home and give birth to calves who grow up and come home. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 04:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you're as relentless as the Ebola virus aren't you SPUI. JohnnyBGood t c 21:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

?

I leave for four days and mass moves occur at Texas, California, Washington, and some other state (that I forget right now)? What's been going on? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit comment on Arthur Rubin

Since when is adding the {{unsourced}} tag to an unsourced article "disrupting Wikipedia"? The discussion simply brought my attention to the article. It needed the tag. My action doesn't even have anything to do with deletion, which is the issue on The Game (game).

Thanks for adding a source, by the way.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CA/SR

I see you've moved a lot of pages back to CA SR xx citing "no consensus". According to State Route 2, there's no consensus for your preferred method, either. I'd move them all back, but knowing the degree of stubbornness you guys have shown, it'll just get moved back to what it (incorrectly) is now. atanamir 22:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what I said was "Please don't move these pages without consensus." If there is no consensus for a change, the status quo wins out and the pages should remain as they were until and unless the situation changes. I truly am not nearly as concerned with which naming standard "wins out" as I am with ensuring that SPUI doesn't simply get to steamroll over everyone else with his blinkered ideas about what is "correct." Perhaps you'd be interested in explaining just what it is about the two of you that makes you so incredibly special that no one else's input matters? --phh (^t/_c) 00:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious here we're using disambiguation wrong; the official names for state routes in California are State Route Number X or State Route X, not the proper noun California State Route X. Hence, the the word "California" is the disambiguation mechanism much like how "Lugo" is the disambiguation mechanism for Río Grande (Lugo) or Hondo River (Belize). If the article was at Lugo Río Grande, which is an obvious violation of the disambiguation policy, and several people wanted to keep it at Lugo Río Grande "just because that's how it's always been," that would only contribute to disorder. If you want road examples, Autoroute (Quebec), not Quebec Autoroute. Furthermore, the current 'status quo' system was also devised by spui a few years ago (all the article names were all over the place when CA/SR first started, and spui had moved all of them to create a uniform system). He realises that it's wrong now and is trying to fix it. atanamir 00:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that your interpretation is the best way to meet the requirements of WP:NC(CN), which says at the very top: "When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?" The page itself gives a dozen examples of articles where the common name used for the article title is at odds with a more "correct" name. My belief is that an average user, knowing that Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, when looking for information on this highway would be most likely to search on a variation of "california state route 87" or "california state highway 87". I can't imagine that someone in, say, Amsterdam or Singapore would ever think that "state route 87", disambiguated or not, would be the best search term to use when looking for information on a highway in California specifically. I may be wrong. But I may not be wrong.

Look, you seem like a reasonable person, and this is an issue on which reasonable people can disagree. I truly believe this is an impasse that can be resolved. I honestly do not care that much which standard ultimately prevails, so long as it's arrived at in a reasonable and civil manner. It's just wrong for one person to unilaterally decide that he knows best and that no one else's input matters. My contributions are as valid as the next person's, and so are yours, and SPUI's contributions are no more valid than anyone else's. If you're interested in resolving this peacefully through discussion, then I'm with you all the way. --phh (^t/_c) 16:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been wanting discussion, but now everyone on eiher side has turned so stubborn that it's practically impossible to resolve anything with a objective view now; everyone is caught up with what spui does that no one is discussing the acutal thing that matters anymore -- the naming convention. So with a lack of anything better to do i've been sort of inclined to join the move wars... but as of late i've been moving to editing other sorts of articles besdies highways now since it's going nowhere.

Anyways, I agree with what you're saying -- no one would search "State Route 76 (California)". This is also the point Rschen has been making a lot. However, I don't think many of the disambiguated pages WILL be the common search term. If I didn't do wikipedia, i'd prboably never use parenthesis in search things like "Courier (typeface)" -- I'd type "Courier font". I'd search "X-files movie", not "The X Files (film)" and like the example I gave above, I'd search "California Rio Hondo River", not "Rio Hondo (California)". Hence, I think all the disambiguation with parens IS at odds with the common anmes policy; nevertheless, it's the way things are disambiguated now (with the eception of City, State) atanamir 20:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right. Personally I'm beginning to think that there's enough inconsistency among the way people talk about highways, with state route X over here and state highway Y over there and "Illinois Z" messing things up, to make it difficult or impossible to guess how users are likely to search for highways anyway. (One last thing though: why is Governor of California an article, while Governor (California) isn't even a redirect?)

Either way, the wars have been going on far too long over something that's so ridiculous I feel foolish bringing it up anywhere. There's more blocking going on here and here and we both know it's not going to make any difference. What's really needed here is for a group of people on both "sides" to agree to start from scratch, listen to each others' arguments in good faith, come to a decision that's grounded in policy, and agree to abide by whatever decision comes out of the process. My hand is out, if you'd like to shake it. --phh (^t/_c) 20:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point with Governors; I initially thought it was just another misimplementation of disambiguation, but: they all refer to the same governmental position / job, only in different states -- whereas the ( ) disamibuation refers to different objects of the same name... I dunno. That's the best explanation I can offer.

We should create a highway naming tribunal somewhere and get afew poeple from either side. To be honest, I don't think Rschen would make a good addition because we've offered him a lot of arguments but he steadfastly repeats his own arguments over and over again... but otherwise i'm all up for it. atanamir 20:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California State Highways was created by an admin the other day. (scroll to the bottom) atanamir 21:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't be too hard on Rschen; he and I were working on a proposal very much like this one last month, and then SPUI preemptively shot it down. He may have gotten a little too invested in the struggle, but I believe he's sincerely interested in working out a consensus solution. In fact, I believe there's only one person on either side who isn't interested in working out a consensus solution... no points for guessing who it is. I'm hopeful that the dialogue on WT:CASH will result in progress, but SPUI's already rejected anything binding, so I'm not optimistic. --phh (^t/_c) 21:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Road dispute ArbCom notice

In the road naming dispute, you have been named in a disputant @ Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration this is the required notification diff -- Tawker 01:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any help crafting my position statement would be appreciated. JohnnyBGood t c 18:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

State route naming conventions

Please join the discussion at Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll. --Cyde↔Weys 20:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should be OK to post anedcotal negative drug information

I consider the official FDA research on drugs to be biased. I think that other, anecdotal stories about people with negative drug reactions SHOULD be included, as long as the source is clearly marked as such.

I mean, if you were considering taking this drug, and you looked here for information, wouldn't you WANT to see negative information, even if it is merely anecdotal?

It is true that there has been no formal study about negative drug reactions. Just because someone hasn't spent a lot of money on a research study doesn't mean it isn't valid to include other viewpoints.

3/0/0

Be fair; James F said he was accepting the case but *not* to look at the naming convention. Only the Flying Spaghetti Monster knows what the case would end up deciding if half accept for one thing and half for the other. Don't get me wrong though; it's clear there are a lot of good reasons to think the idea of a binding poll like that is a bad one. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 17:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence shall we gather together? JohnnyBGood

t c 18:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on the evidence thus far. Unfortunately, I'm very busy at the moment, but I should have a contribution up by the end of the week. -- Northenglish 00:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion debate confusion

Hi there. You voted delete in the debate here. I'm a little bit confused as to why the nomination was made in the first place, as you will see if you read my vote/comment. I'd appreciate your views as to what is going on. Thanks. Carcharoth 00:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And thus...

[1] (Keep me updated over the summer through email.) --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I will be away from Wikipedia for a few months. My access to the site has been limited and I can only get on during a few hours a week. However, during summer my schedule changes, and thus I am unable to get back on Wikipedia.

You may contact me however, at Wikisource or by email (keep me updated on the arbcom case, I will be able to respond)...

I'm not really sure when I'll be returning. Possibly in August or September... although I signed up to take AP Chemistry, AP Language, AP U.S. History, Pre-Calculus, Spanish 4, Physics, and Eschatology and Hermaneutics. Don't know how the homework load will be. But rest assured... I'll be back.

--Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I'd share this [2]. I thought that was a bit odd. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 00:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom

I feel obligated to ask you what prompted you to state "The ArbCom is happy to let SPUI use this place as his personal toilet". IMHO, the Arbcom case is going quite well, and accomplishing what it is meant to. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 04:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways

The case has been closed and the final decisions published on above's link. -- Drini 16:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]