User talk:Peyna/Archive2

Archive2 Peyna 14:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic numerals

I appreciate your suggestion at Arabic numerals, and won't post anything on the talk page, or modify the article in any way until proper civilty is restored. It's unfortunate, since while this editor was away, we had resolved all the problems, and reached a consensus. In the mean time, could you keep an eye on some inaccuracies creeping into the article? The editor in question simply quotes references wrongly. E.g., dictionary.com [1], first defines the term Arabic as \Ar"a*bic\, a. [L. Arabicus, fr. Arabia.] Of or pertaining to Arabia or the Arabians. and then defines Arabic numerals as the nine digits, 1, 2, 3, etc., and the cipher 0. Now take a look at how this guy puts it into the very first line of the article. This is not a huge error, but his other references are quoted in a totally wrong way. Thanks a lot, and I hope it's not asking for too much! Regards. deeptrivia (talk) 15:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I too will stay away for a while :) deeptrivia (talk) 15:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are not helping to resolve this mess .--Vertaloni 14:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am attempting to facilitate discussion towards consensus. You are simply reverting and calling names. It doesn't take much to determine who is helping and who isn't. Peyna 14:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well whatever you are attempting to do it is not working and causing the article to get dispersed all over wikipedia and opening the door to wacky theories and quackery revisionism. Wikipedia is not about catering to the whims of lunatics who want to insert their nutty ideas into the encyclopedia , its about facts and reality.I should not have to tell you this.--Vertaloni 14:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on Antidote

H Peyna, I am adding more info to the rfc as there is such a huge amount of evidence I get tired looking through it all. Of course, the user denies things, I didn't really expect anything else. All I can do is present further evidence to try and get the user to request that their other accounts are closed and to get the user to moderate their behaviour. Arniep 20:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets

I am aware of this, and I also tipped User:Gurubrahma about it. However, with normal admin privileges, it is difficult to prove this. Only a few people can run a script that compares the IPs. You can leave a message with Gurubrahma asking what can be done about it. Thanks! deeptrivia (talk) 14:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Salaam/Peace

are you a Submitter? i am, i was just curious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David.ilyas (talk • contribs) 17:06, December 15, 2005

Probably not, since I don't even know what that is. Peyna 22:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunate Lounge Group and User:Fortunelounge

I understand what you said about it being advertising, and I agree, but the other thing is that Fortune Lounge Group is not a small company - they are a very popular, well established group that *EASILY* meets the criteria for inclusion in to Wikipedia, which has been unanimously agreed to be true. Therefore, the only issue should be to remove advertising. This kind of issue has been addressed in other articles previously, with one example springing to mind being User:Crissycums. I really don't see why we can't allow an article to exist just because one version of the edits may have been advertising. As online casinos tend to be characterised by advertising, it may be difficult to differentiate them from spam, but the reality is that this group is enormous. They also sponsor a lot of porn sites. I believe that they earn in the order of US $20 million per year from their exploits and are amongst the top 5 largest online casinos in the world. Very notable, enormously notable actually. And they belong in Wikipedia, which I don't think that anyone is disputing. The issue is how to write the article, not whether or not they belong. Again, this is a problem with the Deletion process - often a poorly written article is deleted because it was poorly written, and then speedy deleted without looking at it, even though its newly written form is actually greatly different. IMO an article shouldn't be deleted based on how its written - only on what its topic is. This topic is VERY notable. Its not just marginal. It is one of the largest of its kind in the world. They don't need advertising. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with deleting articles that are poorly written, because recreating an article with the same title but different content is not a criteria for deletion. Therefore, we can delete the bad article, and when someone creates a better one, that one will be kept. We only delete if someone recreates an article with the exact same content that was deleted. Peyna 18:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lutheranism

Thanks for the link to Closed communion. It could be that it is not as POV as I've seen. In my experience it's better to describe it and not worry about who thinks what term is more accurate. Adding the lnk is an improvement no mater the language used. LloydSommerer 23:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, but you also have to consider that the way it is currently worded might be confusing to some people, and the term "closed communion", which it may have a certain connotation among some groups, is a familiar term to a lot of people. Anyway, I think it's good enough for now until someone else thinks of a better way to word it. Peyna 00:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Your Tag

I am going to remove the merge tag on Giants Causeway if you don't mind. The link says click here to discuss, but no one has said a thing since you put it up almost a month ago.--God of War 06:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Antidote and User:Zordrac/Poetlister

I note that you are involved in the above RfC. Please see my sub page for evidence of the entirety of the dispute and related issues. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 12:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu-Arabic numerals

Hi! User:RN moved the article to Arabic numerals despite 28 votes favoring the title "Hindu-Arabic numerals" and only 17 favoring "Arabic numerals." He argues that if we don't count voters with less that 150 (or sth like that) edits, only 56% voters "support changing the title to Hindu-Arabic numerals", while at least 60% support votes are required. However, it was agreed between all parties in the beginning of the vote that the proposal is to move the article to "Arabic numerals" from "Hindu-Arabic numerals." It was also agreed (though I thought it was very unfair) that:

Those opposing the move have the advantage that it won't be moved unless there's a 60% majority
Those supporting the move have the advantage that the person proposing the move can do the *short* opening statement.
For all the rest of the voting procedure both parties are equal. (quoting Francis Schonken from 21:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

I would definitely have preferred it the other way round, since I think an opening statement makes a HUGE difference, since many people just read the opening statement and understandably don't bother with the discussion below the votes. The present situation was accepted with the agreement that the article will be moved to "Arabic numerals" only if more than 60% voters favored that title. Thus, only 40% oppose votes were sufficient to retain the title "Hindu-Arabic numerals." In the present situation (with over 60% voters opposing the change), I find the move to "Arabic numerals" ridiculous, besides being completely unjust and unfair. Your comments will be appreciated. deeptrivia (talk) 05:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thumbshot

I disagree with your latest edit on Thumbshot as being the removal of spam. If you go back in the history, you'll note that that information came as a result of me correcting the article because it said that the Open Directory Project uses thumbshots. It doesn't, one of the users of its data does, which is what I corrected it to. It's certainly not spam. --Wrathchild ^(talk) 23:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's an unnecessary commercial link that isn't need to understand the subject of the article. Peyna 01:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no big fan of theirs either, but it's certainly not spam. In any event, such an article could do with some examples, but I don't know how you think that can be accomplished without linking to somebody's website. --Wrathchild ^(talk) 01:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brackets

I think the KJV for John 17:11 uses brackets because are isn't in the original manuscript. --jeolmeun 04:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, I flipped through a few versions at [2] and found it be done in several different ways. Peyna 04:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Daytonians

Just thought I'd mention Vince Heflin. He graduated from Wayne in 1977 or 78 and went on to play several years with the Miami Dolphins.

He deserves to be listed at least as much as Rob Lowe, who is actually from Xenia.

In 1978, Huber Heights wasn't an incorporated city; Xenia, though, was.

If we're going to include Daytonians, let us include Daytonians and not Xenians. Regardless how you wish to argue it, whether Rob Lowe was born within the Dayton city limits or not, he grew up and went to school in Xenia.

I seem to recall, also, that Rick Derringer was from near Dayton, but not Dayton. Can't recall where, though... Greenville maybe? Although I may well be wrong here.

Otherwise, I enjoy the lists - I learned alot about my home town that I knew before. Living in Europe now (going on my 20th year), it's good to remember where one comes from.

Regards, Gary Maloy, Wayne HS 1979 vikingyankee@c2i.net

Meehan and Wikipedia

I'm aware of the news article that makes the allegations that you claim are fact. If they are indeed facts, let's see the proof. I think that it is highly likely that the Senators staff did indeed edit this article. But when you claim that an allegation is an unassailable fact you damage the credibility of wikipedia. I added the wording alleged because I was unable to verify that those specific sentences were indeed accurate. Note that even in the text of the source:

"Matt Vogel, Meehan's chief of staff, said he authorized an intern in July to replace existing Wikipedia content with a staff-written biography of the lawmaker."

Matt Vogel did not admit to making the specific changes as laid out in the wikipedia article. In the interest of accuracy I changed the wording.

We probably agree on the content of the article, instead of engaging in an edit war let's work to make it more accurate.

Meekrob 19:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By this reasoning, we should preface every statement of fact on Wikipedia with the word "alleged," because we can never be completely certain that any particular account in correct. Wikipedia is concerned with verifiability. Relying upon a media account is acceptable. Peyna 20:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--But my concern was that the senators staff only admitted to one change on one particular date. The wording of the article at the time would lead you to believe that Matt Vogel admitted to engaging in an edit war and every accusation in the following paragraph. That was not admitted, only alleged. I don't think that the 'wikipedia incident' belongs in this entry at all, but if it must be there we should be cautious and accurate in our language. From the changes you have made, it appears we agree here. Meekrob 05:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed 'possibly' and added link to Hatch act in the Meehan article...

I corrected your revision and added a link to the Hatch Act of 1939, which should satisfy your problems with my addition to the Meehan article.

See my reply there. The Hatch Act does not apply to House employees, so the claim is baseless. Peyna 18:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Tavares

--Hi, I'm working on the Sara Tavares npov problem. While trying to verify the article I discovered the entire article was copied word for word from another site. I haven't been a 'wikipedian' for very long so I am unsure how to proceed. Although I read the copyright procedures under the community portal, I don't want to overstep my bounds. I was wondering if you could take a look at the Sara Tavares talk page and give me some advice. Meekrob 18:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply there. Peyna 18:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

For all your hard work on the Samuel Alito article

Awarded by Wikizach

Appreciated. Peyna 21:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About your comment-LOL Wiki eZach 21:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]