User talk:Pmanderson/Archive 5
I've started this RFA for you. You know the drill :) (Radiant) 10:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Pmanderson, are you aware that your RFA is not yet listed at the main WP:RFA page? Dragons flight 08:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- It is now. (Radiant) 09:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- It seems people want you to change your signature to match your username, or the other way around. You may want to comment on this. (Radiant) 10:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- It is now. (Radiant) 09:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Matawan and RFA
[edit]Pmanderson, I have given you my vote of support on the RFA based on our discussions in the past. But your difficulty to explain yourself and address the concerns of others on the Matawan matter is disconcerting. I may have to change my vote to neutral citing this thread. If you've made a mistake, that's nothing to be ashamed of. We all do. Admit it and let's move on. That's the characteristic of an admin. But to stubbornly grasp to a position that you cannot even explain is not. Please consider rereading the entire section as if you are a neutral party deciding whether to vote in support of your adminship, as this is what others may actually be doing, and add an entry accordingly. Thanks. --Serge 18:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
The difference in Usage I seem to see
[edit]Well, thank you, Serge. A friend suggests an explanation for the difference in usage you seem to see. Along the Delaware, the following conversation is natural and normal:
- A: "Where are you from?"
- B: "I'm from Doylestown, Pennsylvania." or "Doylestown, PA"
If A knows Doylestown, PA, there may still be a Doylestown, New Jersey, and B is avoiding confusion. If he doesn't, the state tells A something, at least: which side of the river. (The natural phrasing for Philadelphians is "I'm from Philadelphia", but that's an example of primary usage.)
Coastal California is further from a state border than most of the United States can be; and I don't suppose you get many visitors from the deserts of Arizona or Nevada. Septentrionalis 18:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Once again, I have no idea what your point is. Do you really think that you need to explain to me why someone would clarify the state a city is in, regardless of whether the city name is unique or ambiguous, in a context where the state is not clear and may be relevant? If so, that's alarming. Two strangers talking about where they are from is a very different context from Wikipedia U.S. city article naming. In the former, the state may be very relevant; in the latter, it's completely irrelevant, except as disambiguatory information, if necessary, just like for any article in Wikipedia. --Serge 19:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Since I am the friend who suggested that you two are having a difference in regional usage, it would grieve me if my attempt to help became the cause for further dispute between you. The difference between you is stylistic. Reasonable people will see style issues differently, often for reasons that are hard to articulate in a way that the other person will understand. That doesn't mean that they are impossible to explain, but a false step or two is only to be expected, and it may require some effort on each side. Robert A.West (Talk) 14:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
On the basic issue, as I understand it, the great majority of places that I can think of in this region require disambiguation. A lot of place names come from England (Buckingham, Bedminster, Warrington, York, North Wales), famous world cities (Rome, Philadelphia, New Madrid) or even countries (Egypt, Holland). All of these require a qualifier perforce. There are at least three areas named "New Britain" that I can think of. Others have names from common features that doubtless have inspired names for places in other areas, like "Pineville", "New Galena", "Long Pond". Transliterated Algonquian names can be found anywhere that those tribes inhabited, sometimes with slight variations of spelling. Unique names are actually rare.
While there is nothing logically inconsistent with having Holicong surrounded by Buckingham, Pennsylvania, Solebury, Pennsylvania and New Hope, Pennsylvania, it seems silly to have most place names include a state and a few not. Robert A.West (Talk) 20:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Re: Username
[edit]One solution would be changing the sig to, say Septentrionalis (aka. Pmanderson)? That way confusion can be avoided and Septentrionalis stays also in the sig... feydey 18:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Username note to dlohcierekim and reply
[edit]The concern about my sig is surprising; I've been asked about it only twice in all my career. My sig has always been this; changing now would mean disavowing my former edits and be perhaps more confusing. Some editors think of me by sig, some by username; changing either will puzzle somebody. If I must choose one, I would prefer the sig, which I intended as my wikipedia identity; but I have usually, and may have now, too many edits to change my username, and I do not wish to put that quite considerable burden on WP:CHU. Septentrionalis 18:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC) (brought over for continuity)
- Thanks for your note. I guess I'm being overly picky. That's just a pet peeve of mine. I get confused when sig != username. It probably should not bear on the AfD. Will strike from my comment. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Disambiguation
[edit]May I ask you a question about disambiguation? I am newly exploring this area, because I was editing this article Classic Arts Showcase just randomly and noticed a link at the top to a disambiguation page. So I click it, and on the page Classic Arts Showcase (disambiguation) there is only the link back to the page I was editing. I thought it was odd so I spent some time reading up on the subject and determined there was no need for this page. So then I spend time trying to figure out how to delete pages when they don't qualify for speedy deletion, which I read about yesterday (a lot of reading to do around here). Anyway, while I was posting on the editor's talk page, I notice other people have said things to them about this issue, so I also find Hyperactive (disambiguation) which as you can see links back to one article but just lists things that don't have articles. Is this proper? Am I even making sense? :) Ugly Elephant 14:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- I asked you directly because it looked like people didn't like people posting specific cases to that page. You seem to post there a lot, so I asked you. So it is normal to have a disambiguation page when none of the listed articles exist? Ugly Elephant 17:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikistalking
[edit]Cyde's "wikistalking" is illusory. I spend time on discussion pages such as WP:DRV, WP:MfD; and WP:TfD. We tend to disagree; I thought, and think, that editors should be generally be left alone, and that the userbox matter was handled with excessive abrasiveness; I also think namespace redirects are harmless. I !voted accordingly in several polls. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- I dunno what to tell you dude. When you're only getting 50% support for an RfA, that indicates some pretty important community trust issues that need to be addressed. When you have respected admins like Cyde talking about "Wikistalking" and vendettas, it certainly doesn't help your case. Even if the allegation is false and you are acting in good faith, it's still pretty bad that he perceives you as out to get him... either way you should work on that.
- You've gotten some pretty good feedback and I doubt that RfA will reach consensus. I would honestly recommend a withdrawal at this point. Combine the really small issues like the improper RfA listing and the shady sig (props for addressing that right away, even though I'm sure you didn't like changing it and I wouldn't either) with some of the big ones like community trust and accusations of severe incivility and the recent 3RR, and it just equals horrible timing man.
- If you really want an RfA to succeed, take six months and focus on being especially civil. Earn the respect of some of the oppose voters by making a genuine effort to work with them in harmony. Also, get really involved in the janitorial tasks that admins do so that you’re familiar with everything and so that people will have more confidence that you won’t make good-faith newbie mistakes as a new admin. And then file another RfA, which should go much much better.
- I hope that advice helps. This is my first interaction with you and I'm certainly not out to get you, but in all honesty... the allegations raised in the oppose section are genuinely disturbing and do need to be addressed before you can expect enough support to achieve sysop status in a future RfA.
- Good luck man. Look forward to working with you in the future. – Lantoka (talk) 20:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Green Frog article
[edit]A vandal added wrong data to the article, yet when I tried to remove it you kept reverting it back, leaving a "experimenting with wikipedia" template on my userpage. Allow me to refer you to WP:AGF.
The Brothers Broke
[edit]Please consider that Phillip Broke and Charles Broke were different individuals, and I am reversing the redirect accordingly. Largely, because I am attempting to find information. Cheers V. Joe 19:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 11th.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 50 | 11 December 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Bad Idea?
[edit]I could use an assist (maybe two). I have a pet peeve, and thought I'd come up with a good concept for making chides to editors who leave incomplete documentation trails by creating sort of a wet diaper award. It seems to be drawing some adverse reactions, and even before I'd spammed a request to some others like this for brainstorming on how to shorten same and evolve it, as I'm not happy with it either. Subsequently, it's already drawn fire (here) before I could ask in help and get suggestions. Can you take a look and comment here. There has to be some way to let people know 'shallow edit actions' that reflect poorly on our pages need a talk note justification, no exceptions, thankyou. Much appreciated // FrankB 23:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you
[edit]Thank you so much for your added content. As for the talk page, I tend to agree, but I think it's useful information elsewhere. I'm realizing there is a huge gap in history on Wikipedia right now. This is a big goldmine.
I'm doing some rather brutal copyediting right now. My aim is to make this article as simple yet intelligent as possible. I would ideally like for schoolchildren to read it. I also have a personal goal of removing the red links from James McCune Smith and get them all up to GA or FA by February (Black History Month in the US).
Again, thank you so much. This is making my day (which was already a good day). NinaEliza 04:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
RFA
[edit]Just a quick word to inform you that I have closed your RFA. As you know, it didn't have the required level of confidence for me to promote you. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Madison in the "Democrat Party"?
[edit]Did I read you right, when you made this edit saying James Madison was a member of the "Democrat Party"? I realize you may not be happy about your RfA, but you yourself have complained when people use that term; I have backed you up on it. Skyemoor 22:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
The 12 December, you removed a request for citation tag I had put in the sentence:
"Originally the term was used to refer to the presiding officer of a committee or governing body in Great Britain."
In the president article, under "Modern history of the designation".
Since you removed the tag, I think you should be able to explain how is it known that the term was first used in Great Britain (and not, e.g., France). Then I could add it to the article (since you didn't).
Thanks --euyyn 10:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 18th.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 51 | 18 December 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
JSB - Good Article Efforts
[edit]Hi Thanks for the note left at my comments page. I appreciate your efforts to be conciliatory and to find validity in some of the comments raised by the GA folks. I, however, have no such patience. I did the first time around I came across this spectacle here, which resulted in a lengthy dispute at the project page about inline citation policy. As I see it, the good article project has been taken over by semi-literate hacks who pride themselves on having an "everyman" approach. They ask for clarification and substantiation that tends toward reduction ad absurdum and are simply lazy when it comes to chasing down concepts they do not understand. They ask for inline cites for basic things, stumble over simple ideas, and make foolish critiques (such as the imbecile original research claims raised at the GA review). There was some talk of forking GA to specific areas, such that people who were generally literate in the field could review relevant material (this was particularly so in the science pages), but in the end, no-one has the energy so WP:GA is becoming an empty concept. Intelligent criticism is always welcome; mindless nitpicking from a willful, even virtuous dilettantism is a waste of time. I note that none of the editors of the Bach article has commented. I have because this approach irritates me, but I am not a contributor to the Bach page, as you know. Anyway, these fellows are unlikely to take me too seriously and will not be too bothered by any comments I have to make, no matter their trenchancy. Eusebeus 10:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
"waste of time"
[edit]Thank you for your kind words.
It's OK for different groups of people to hold opinions that are polar opposites. In fact, it's good. Democrats sometimes revile Republicans and vice versa, but in truth both are necessary to check the excesses of the other. Ditto for Deletionists and Inclusionists. Ditto for people who hold inline cites dear and those who wish to (almost) abolish them.
But there's an awful lot of unreasonableness being perpetrated in every one of the above discussions. Maybe I should start a guideline WP:Be Humble and Cooperative Even When You Are Absolutely Convinced You Are Right. That should be read by both sides of every debate.
And good work on Agrippina. Why couldn't we have worked instead of yammering and insulting each other?
--Ling.Nut 17:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Regarding "setting up the rules in their favor": Actually I think both sides of every debate do their sneaky-best and forceful-best to set up the rules in their own favor. Sometimes one side wins; sometimes the other. The danger would be if one side wins too consistently. That's my humble opinion. --Ling.Nut 18:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Regarding Wikipedia:inline-citation cabal: I'm really, really afraid of starting another argument. But I would very humbly suggest that perhaps ..just perhaps.. you are not seeing the forest for the trees. At the end of the day (a terribly hackneyed phrase, but it fits here) it is manifestly true that many articles are improved because WP:GA exists. And if articles are improved, then Wikipedia is improved. And if Wikipedia is improved — despite all the yelling and hollering and pumpkin-smashing — then it is all worthwhile. Those are just my personal thoughts. I don't mind at all or don't take it amiss or whatever if you disagree.
- Best regards --Ling.Nut 21:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- knock knock! hate to interrupt the discussion. I hope you saw my note immediately above. But the reason I came here again is 'cause you dropped a note off on my talk page that may have been intended for Homestarmy. It mentions Autobianchi Primula, which I have not yet commented on.
- Later! --Ling.Nut 01:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thoughts
[edit]Hi,
I see the grappling has begun. I am visiting relatives for the holidays and am sick as a dog. I hope to be feeling better tomorrow. But even if I am, I have limited access to the computer, and most spend time being sociable. :-)
You flatter me by calling me a linguist. I am currently a linguist-wannabe. I won't be a linguist until I hear those words, "Congatulations, Dr. Ling.Nut!". That won't be until two or perhaps three years from now.
I'm not sure how to reply to your comments. I actually think we are grappling with macro-issues such as "Is Wikipedia itself a reliable source? What role do domain experts play within Wikipedia?" You and I may or may not disagree on those.
I also think you've made this a personal issue; perhaps even a "crusade." I kinda question your ability to remain impartial & see the validity of the other side's. I hope that is not an offensive remark; it certainly isn't an insult. I've been in your shoes many, many times before.
I hope you can see the tremendous contributions GA has made to Wikipedia. I hope you can see that the question of whether WP is itself a reliable source bears on the issue of inline cites. I hope most of all that you can see that domain experts do not, cannot and should not have the same pride of place within Wikipedia that they enjoy elsewhere.
I'm sure you'll have many things to say. I hope I can reply a little.
I also hope there won't be any animosity between us. I seem to be acquiring a track record of offending domain experts (bot real and self-anointed). I dunno if that's a good thing or a bad thing. I try to do what I sincerely think is right; people choose to be offended.
Best Regards, Not-Yet-Dr, Ling.Nut
Re: Johannes Kepler
[edit]- I appreciate your comment. I'll reply here to make sure you get the response.
- There are several paragraphs on the Kepler article that aren't referenced. I would prefer one reference after each paragraph, to avoid misunderstandings.
- When it comes to page references, I think they are useful and should be added when possible. Personally I like to add them for my own sake, so that I can check up on my own references.
- I think the standard is to add the year of publication for the book within the reference, so that those with different editions of a book won't mistake. In this case the references should therefore be something like "Caspar (1993), pp 208-211"; see also Wikipedia:Harvard referencing.
Happy holidays. Fred-Chess 16:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Another sign of the Apocalypse
[edit]Check out the featured article for December 23, 2006. A Pokemon???!!! I'll retire to Bedlam! Robert A.West (Talk) 17:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
A hint
[edit]Thanks for the tip, I'll add a little something.--M m hawk 22:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 26th.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 52 | 26 December 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Assuming?
[edit]I don't think you're achieving much by bitching on me for trying to apply naming conventions. There's absolutely no harm in shortening these kind of article titles. And the comments at talk:Fala are just really uncalled for.
Peter Isotalo 23:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Chile settlement article names
[edit]There is no more consensus for you to move articles back than there is for Jaxhere to move them in the first place. Jaxhere is trying to do the right thing, and has moved a small number of articles at my suggestion to test for consensus in the absence of any well-known forum to discuss his proposal with other Chilean town article editors. If you have an opinion, you may voice it at Wikipedia talk:Chile-related regional notice board (created since Jaxhere raised his proposal, and therefore not well known yet), but ideally the discussion should be driven by the people most affected, not by us. You are the only person to have objected to any of that batch of moves so far. Please do not revert the rest without a demonstrated consensus to move them back. --Scott Davis Talk 13:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 2nd, 2007.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 1 | 2 January 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Great Occitanian slugfest
[edit]Hello Septentrionalis! In your recent comment on a Category for discussion debate [1] you conceded that the Girondins were not Occitan. Inquiring minds want to know why not? EdJohnston 23:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Sesqui...
[edit]Would you mind also looking at sesquitertium, sesquiquartum, sesquiquintum? I am not familiar with these terms, and their articles show little claim to notability; I prodded the articles as dictionary definitions from another language. CMummert 20:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Saparmurat Niyazov
[edit]Despite the overwhelming consensus against moving this page, Svitrigaila is insisting the article on Saparmurat Niyazov reflect his transliteration. Please revert him so he understands that he does not have consensus. KazakhPol 01:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 8th, 2007.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 2 | 8 January 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Republicanism
[edit]I don't have time to read Banning, for starters. What definition is being employed? For that matter, who among the founders would not have described himself as a "republican?". Robert A.West (Talk) 11:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- In re Banning: "Access to the collection is restricted to faculty, students, members, and staff of subscribing institutions." Robert A.West (Talk) 18:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- I see you have labeled it. Robert A.West (Talk) 23:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Categories for Perth Amboy, New Jersey
[edit]There's a Perth Amboy article and Perth Amboy category, which I will refer to as PAart and PAcat. You have removed three categories from PAart and placed them in PAcat, to include Category:Cities in New Jersey, Category:Faulkner Act and Category:New Jersey Urban Enterprise Zone. Placing category A on the article for category B is appropriate if all articles in category B will also belong to Category A. For example, it would make sense to put the category "People from New Jersey" on the category "People from Perth Amboy"; after all, every person from Perth Amboy is from New Jersey. Putting the Category:Cities in New Jersey, Category:Faulkner Act and Category:New Jersey Urban Enterprise Zone on the PAcat is stating that every building, school and bridge in PAcat is a city, a Faulkner Act and a UEZ, which is completely illogical. On teh other hand, it makes sense to keep the Middlesex County category on the PAcat, because everything in perth Amboy is in the Middlesex County cat. As such, I will revert the changes to remove the three categories in question from the PAcat and put them back on the PAart where they belong. Alansohn 07:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
DOMAlicious!
[edit]I replied to your comment on my talk page. In short, you're right, but inline citations would vastly improve the article by weeding out OR speculation. GertrudeTheTramp 06:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, and my apologies for poking you in the pet peeve. GertrudeTheTramp
Democrat Party
[edit]Pam--Thanks for keeping your eye on the "Democrat Party" article. If it were up to me, that article would just disappear, but I'm glad you're there to keep it locked inside its filthy little cage. 71.139.33.169 18:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello, an idiot anon-user has added a 'garbage' posting, after your posting on the subject 'March 4th'. Just lettin' you know. GoodDay 22:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
the REAL name: Trentino-Alto Adige
[edit]So I did some research and checked with some pretty credible sources as to what they print, in ENGLISH, for the name of this region (and province) in Italy.
- Fodor's - a well recognized and respected name (and expert guide) has regional and local publications that show the region and local names of "Trentino-Alto Adige", "Alto Adige", and "Bolzano".
- Michelin - also expert in travel guides - has regional and local publications that show the region and local names of "Trentino-Alto Adige", "Alto Adige", and "Bozen".
- Rand McNally (name speaks for itself) has world, regional, and local publications that show the region and local names of "Trentino-Alto Adige", "Alto Adige", and "Bolzano".
- Streetwise Map's regional, and local publications show the region and local names of "Trentino-Alto Adige", "Alto Adige", and "Bolzano".
- Dorling Kindersley or "DK" - by far, probably the best travel guides available - has regional and local publications that show the region and local names of "Trentino-Alto Adige", "Alto Adige", and "Bolzano".
- Lonely Planet (the self-proclaimed largest independently-owned travel guide) regional, and local publications show the region and local names of "Trentino-Alto Adige", "Alto Adige", and "Bolzano".
- Hammond Map - a subsidiary of Langenscheidt Publishing Group (a privately-held German publishing company) - has regional and local publications that show the region and local names of "Trentino-Alto Adige", "Alto Adige", and "Bolzano".
As far as proof, I am quite sure that the above sources are credible enough, especially in the sense of geographical knowledge, expertise, and English-translation. Rarelibra 03:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- You ignore the facts. The sources I quoted are PUBLISHERS, not just 'mapmakers'. Several are world-reknown (and world-based). Just keeping you informed of the ongoing mistakes. Trust me, it doesn't matter here - I was very relieved to see that everywhere else BUT wiki people will see the real and official name. Rarelibra 05:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Your field more than mine: is there any excuse for this template? Robert A.West (Talk) 18:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 15th, 2007.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 3 | 15 January 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Consensus and the Celestial Masters
[edit]Before you read this stuff. What do you mean by 'closed' in the edit summary you made when reverting my move? Should I wait for an admin to 'close' the debate? Zeus1234 04:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
This is about the article Way of the Celestial Masters which you changed back to Tianshi School after a 4-2 vote in favor of having it at Way of the Celestial Masters. Let me give you a short history of this article. I wrote it in early December. In late December, a user changed the article name uniliateraly without any discussion to Tianshi School. Instead of following the controversial move procedure, he moved it himself. Ever since then I have been trying to change it back. I was hoping that a 4-2 vote would have been enough, but it seems that it is not. I don't understand why I have to go through so much effort to get an article back to its original title after someone else used an incorrect procedure to rename it in the first place. Shouldn't the onus be on the user who changed the name to Tianshi School to keep it that title? Can't the article be put back to its original name? Then if the user still wants to have it changed to Tianshi School, he should have to go about the proper way.Zeus1234 03:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, on the Wikipedia page about consensus, it says that a super-majority that consists of 60-80% in favor can count as the equivalent of a consensus. a 4-2 vote would be 66% in favor, therefore it would seem this would qualify as a supermajority. I moved the article because I saw this information and thought that such a move would be fine as per the wikipedia guidelines about supermajorities in article name changes. Look at the info here:[2]. Is 66% not enough? If that is the case, what is?Zeus1234 04:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Persian Gulf
[edit]Thanks for the offer. For now I'll take a raincheck; I may be called on for travelling to the other side of the globe any moment now, not knowing when – starting sometime in the next four weeks and lasting for a month or so. Right now might be bad timing. I must also say that the topic is rather distant from what actually interests me, and also, having looked at some RfCs in progress, that these appeared to me as a drawn-out and excruciatingly boring process, with unclear effectiveness. --LambiamTalk 07:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Move relisted
[edit]Sorry to drag this out, but the requested move at Basel earthquake was deemed malformed, so I had to relist it. As you participated in the previous discussion, please add your opinion at Talk:Basel_earthquake#Requested_move. Thanks. Carcharoth 13:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Using English
[edit]Hello - I'm contacting you because of your involvement with using English instead of foreign terms in articles. A few are trying to "Anglicise" French terms in Wiki articles according to current guidelines but there is some resistance (eg/: "Région => Region"; "Département => Departement"). Your input would be appreciated here. Thankyou. --Bob 16:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again, there is now an RfC open on the subject of using English in French administrative division articles. I don't expect you to contribute much time to this, but if you can, could you please voice a statement and disagree/agree with those statements found there. Maybe we will arrive at a reasonable conclusion soon. It can be found here. Thanks in advance. --Bob 22:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
"You guys should put the cart before the horse"
[edit]Yes, that was actually said in an emotional plea to keep a template [3] that noone else (including the members of the relevant project) sees a need for. I thought it an oddity worth noting. Robert A.West (Talk) 17:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- If he is a nice guy, he should step away from the Reichstag. He has obliquely accused five well-established Wikipedians of being a group of sockpuppets, directly accused all five of bad faith and assuming bad faith and dismissed reasonable assertions by editors whose edit histories suggest knowledge of, or at least interest in, the field. The template in question was created by User:Nintendude, who is permabanned. I wonder if FrankB feels that Nintendude got a raw deal or something? His vehemence is hard to understand otherwise. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Catholic Encyclopedia
[edit]I thought you might be entertained/bewildered by the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_January_18#Template:Catholic-link. No need to comment if you don't want to, and as always, feel free to point out if you think I am wrong. Robert A.West (Talk) 03:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
To quote from Wikipedia:Requested moves: “Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another. The naming convention used by the earliest contributor takes precedent.” — For your information, I happen to be that “earliest contributor” to Florian Gate article. I suppose, you didn’t care to read what was being said on its Talk page. I wouldn’t be surprised, considering your final unilateral move. --Poeticbent talk 21:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- On the contrary. I have read it; and that's how I know you have no support. As for me, Florian Gate is at least possible English, and that's why I haven't !voted. If the closing admin finds you have consensus, that's fine by me too; but you certainly don't have it now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I thought we were discussing a possible survey by User:Piotrus. Anyway, I guess you didn't care for it much, since you didn't care for the fact that "the naming convention used by the earliest contributor takes precedent." Consensus means general agreement. Such agreement has never been reached, so what were you trying to prove. --Poeticbent talk 22:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 22nd, 2007.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 4 | 22 January 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| Wikipedia modifies handling of "nofollow" tag | WikiWorld comic: "Truthiness" |
| News and notes: Talk page template, milestones | Wikipedia in the News |
| Features and admins | The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007
[edit]The January 2007 issue of the Military history 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.
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
User notice: temporary 3RR block
[edit]Regarding reversions[4] made on January 27 2007 to Tenedos
[edit]
Grrr, you got yourself blocked over those maps? Pity, I came late to the rescue, I was just going to make you a little present that might have helped. Was just testing my skills in mapmaking today. Like this one? Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I've read that talk and I've done something. Your proposed scale in terms of width (Limnos to Troy), suggests respective height (Lesbos/Mitilini to Thrace/Constantinople). The map didn't include the sea boundary, but it wouldn't be difficult to draw it if we had the data. I've also "tilted" it a bit from South to North, so as to give your requested perspective re mountains etc. NikoSilver 17:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Request for mediation filed. Please sign.
[edit]A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/St. Florian's Gate, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.
Alternatives for establishing possible changes to the US comma guideline
[edit]Would you consider changing your comment 'Con per all the arguments above; again,...' since that sounds like a vote. This was not intended as a poll but rather a list of pros and cons. Thanks. Vegaswikian 01:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Pmanderson. As the Mediation Comittee are unable to assist in settling the naming dispute on Talk:St. Florian's Gate (as you refused to agree to mediation with no reason provided), I have tried to settle this dispute before it proceeds to the only subsequent step, which is the Arbitration Committee.
I have suggested Florian's Gate as a compromise, and thus far all parties have indicated this would be acceptable. Would you be happy with this? Proto::► 13:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Bureaucratic nonsense
[edit]A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Jogaila, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.
But you'll have seen that already. However, I wouldn't like to queer the pitch by not following sacred process. I don't know if you want to sign up or not. Would be nice if you could find it in yourself to join in. Cheers! Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Consensus
[edit]I'm tired of discussing about Waldemar and Mario's spelling, aren't you? I'd rather not worry about them anymore as all the real arguments have already been stated. Right now you have replied to both of them so this is my proposal, I'll let you have the last word on Waldemar's topic if you let me have the last on Mario's (of course, this just applies to the exchange of arguments between the both of us), what do you think?Rosa 04:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Mooncow Glosses has moved!
[edit]Thanks for linking to my Mooncow Glosses! For your information, it has moved, and the new URL is http://zompower.tk/gloss.php. Again, thanks! Bi 13:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, I decided to be WP:BOLD and fix the link. Sorry and thanks! Bi 04:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Polish Sock Puppets
[edit]Thanks for the explanation. :)Rosa 19:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
US cities naming conventions
[edit]I definitely will go through the archives. As a newcomer to the discussion, I had no idea for how long this had been going on. Nevertheless, since the issue is open once again anyway, I reserve the right to voice my opinion on it. I am not going to (ever) re-open the issue myself once it's closed (I have a lot of other things to do without adding US cities naming conventions to my to-do list), but I am going to participate each and every time the discussion is legitimately re-opened, not because I am stubborn and unreasonable, but because I genuinly believe it would be for the best of Wikipedia, and because I find none of the opponents' points convincing. That's my right as a Wikipedian, and I'm going to use it.
Rest assured, I have no personal prejudices against either you or Serge. No matter how many things we agree or disagree on, I don't see it as a barrier for any potential future collaboration. If you see something you believe I can help with, you are very welcome to contact me and ask for my help; any time. Hopefully, same is true the other way around. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, we can't expect everyone to want the same thing. That'd be too good to be true, wouldn't it? :) Truth is, there are plenty of policies and guidelines in Wikipedia that I personally don't like, yet, as an administrator, have to uphold. I am not challenging them all, simply because I know that my time could be far better used elsewhere, but I do usually participate when those policies are challenged by someone else. If a policy is changed as a result, I can get back to editing happy; if it's not, well, then I just get back to editing. No big deal, really. (Universal) Consistency is nice and imprortant, and would be great to have, but content and organization (as opposed to lack of organization) are more important still. After all, we are writing an encyclopedia here, not a "How to Write an Encyclopedia" manual. See you around!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Sara Ramirez
[edit]After five days without discussion, the RM at Talk:Sara Ramírez could use an endorsement. Or opposition if you choose, but I see no reason for it Gene Nygaard 06:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Please stop edit-warring about the name of this city and instead join the other editors in discussing it at the article talk page. If you continue to revert others' edits without discussion, especially against the apparent consensus judging from the article talk page, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thanks. Sandstein 11:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
*
[edit]It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Template:Polygons. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Kamope · talk · contributions 14:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
WP:ATT
[edit]- Please read WP:ATT#How_to_cite_and_request_a_source; simply removing unsourced material, unless it is attacks on a living person, is strongly deprecated. Also, your {{cn}} has stirred me to add a footnote to 2 Samuel 11:4; but you really should have consulted a concordance yourself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hi. Please can you let me know what I deleted? I'm generally an inclusionist, so I find it hard to believe I would have deleted anything, but rather would have added a cn tag. --Rebroad 23:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- I've now read the WP:ATT, which I had already read recently, but I'm not sure why you have suggested I read it again. Please could you explain? Thanks, --Rebroad 23:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment at Wikipedia talk:Attribution#Role of truth. Please explain how the sentence would be misleading, in your opinion. Could you suggest other ways of addressing the concern? I fully admit that that particular sentence is not a very good way of doing it. I would really prefer to just delete "not whether it is true", which in my opinion is no longer needed once the word "verifiability" is not there. I'm sorry, but I need to clarify: are you opposed to inserting the sentence I suggested? (This may seem obvious, but I thought it was very obvious that Crum375 was opposed and I was wrong on that, so I'm trying to get everyone to clarify -- sorry to take up your time in that way.) Thanks. --Coppertwig 00:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply on my talk page, but it doesn't really answer my question. You say the sentence is ambiguous and that you and I think it means different things. What do you think it means? What do you think I want it to mean?
- You suggest having the discussion on the Community Discussion page. Somewhere on WP:ATT/talk, some people clarified that the Community Discussion page is for talking about such questions as whether WP:ATT is policy or not, while (if I understood correctly) WP:ATT/talk is for discussing the wording of the policy. Is my understanding on that wrong? Is the different purposes of the two pages laid out somewhere? Is the Community Discussion page never going to be archived? Sorry to take up your time with all these questions. Actually, none of them desperately need to be answered -- I think other solutions are better than that particular sentence, anyway. --Coppertwig 16:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment at Wikipedia talk:Attribution#Role of truth. Please explain how the sentence would be misleading, in your opinion. Could you suggest other ways of addressing the concern? I fully admit that that particular sentence is not a very good way of doing it. I would really prefer to just delete "not whether it is true", which in my opinion is no longer needed once the word "verifiability" is not there. I'm sorry, but I need to clarify: are you opposed to inserting the sentence I suggested? (This may seem obvious, but I thought it was very obvious that Crum375 was opposed and I was wrong on that, so I'm trying to get everyone to clarify -- sorry to take up your time in that way.) Thanks. --Coppertwig 00:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
David
[edit]Hi. Thanks for the citation you added here. I'm not sure why you labelled the request as frivalous though! It's pretty important considering it's disputed by Muslims. Also, why did you change the redirect to the disambiguation page at the top of the article please? Was the existing description not sufficient? I merely changed it to reflect the description given on the existing disambiguation page as it is currently written. --Rebroad 23:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I just checked the citation and I couldn't find any mention of David commiting adultery. If you could please clarify the citation it would certainly help. In the mean time, I shall re-instate the cn tag. Cheers, --Rebroad 23:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello, please see my response to your comment in Talk:David#Adultery. There are indeed commentators who construe the passages involved in a way that absolves David of adultery, and Wikipedia can't accept an editor's own personal opinion about what the Bible means in general, and particularly not when there are reliable sources who say otherwise. Would you be so kind as to identify and cite a notable commentator who reads these passages in the way that you do? One more comment: Suggest reviewing WP:Assume Good Faith policy. Recommend not assuming an editor is being disruptive merely because he or she is coming from a different point of view. Best, --Shirahadasha 01:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Hann. Münden
[edit]Just for you to know, I strongly disagree with you ignoring the RM result and moving the article to Münden through the back door. The article is now up at WP:RFC. doco (☏) 00:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
sexual objectification
[edit]I submitted a photo to sexual objectification of women in panties heels and nothing else vacuuming; it's of a fashion show by Imitation of Christ, a well-known label. Several editors want NO images on the page, but I think this one is pretty clear: at a fashion show, these topless models vacuuming in heels shows women objectified sexually. Could you interject with your opinion please? Talk:Sexual_objectification#Request_for_Comment--DavidShankBone 04:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Triacontagon -> Tricosagon
[edit]Hi ! Noticed you moved Triacontagon to Tricosagon yesterday, but the article itself still uses the term triacontagon (4 times in article text plus once in image caption). Is there some mystic reason behind this, or should I go ahead and fix it ? Gandalf61 14:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ummm ... your reply implied that you weren't sure whether tricosagon was a real word, let alone whether it was the correct term for a 30-sided polygon. So I did some quick checks. Mathworld uses the term triacontagon for a 30-sided polygon here. And triacontagon gets over 1,000 Google hits. Whereas tricosagon gets only 7 Google hits, all of which seem to be using the term to refer to a 23 sided polygon - see here for example. Are you quite sure this article shouldn't be called triacontagon ? Gandalf61 17:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I am still unhappy about the current inconsistency between article name and article text, but now I don't know which direction to take to fix it. I think we need a reference. Do you have a reference for using tricosagon rather than triacontagon, which we can add to the article to support the renaming ? If not, should we perhaps consult the collective brains at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics to see if someone else has a reliable source for one name or the other ? Gandalf61 11:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Hann. Münden
[edit]I have moved it back. I think unilateral moves directly after an uninvolved editor has examined the arguments and closed the move debate are not a good idea. If you care about the page title so much, please wait a month and file another move request per WP:RM. Thank you, Kusma (討論) 15:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
You may have my support on that RfC on Serge
[edit]He has been vote canvassing for the page move Talk:Boston, Massachusetts with people that have supported him in the past here. I think that is crossing the line. Agne 23:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Chicago quote in the Manual of Style
[edit]Hi PMAnderson,
You might be interested to know that a user wishes to remove the CMS quote on the Manual of Style and is leading a discussion to remove it on the grounds that it is ugly, American and pretentious. The discussion is ongoing and can be found at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#That quote in the lead. Your views would be appreciated.
Neonumbers 01:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 5th, 2007.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 6 | 5 February 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Should you wish to comment, User:Rarelibra has opened Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Shuppiluliuma. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Clarified that the indicated view is "a" Talmudic view. No need to address the question of whether it is the only such view. Thanks, --Shirahadasha 23:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Proposing to merge List of basic classics topics to Classics
[edit]Seeking concensus on proposed merger at Talk:Classics. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 01:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Request for Mediation
[edit]
|
A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Jogaila.
|
I am asking you to please stop adding unsourced material to this article reflecting your personal point of view. You added a claim that the Rabbis of the Talmud represented a "later Abrahamic tradition" and took the viewpoint they did because they felt distressed etc. about what "really" happened. You have no sources for any of these claims. There are different religious perspectives about what the David story says and means. WP:NPOV prevents you from claiming your personal reading of the text is "true" no matter how convinced you are of its correctness. And WP:V as well as WP:NPOV prevents you from providing your own original research explanations that those who disagree with you do so because they are "distressed" etc. Wikipedia requires laying out the different points of view and indicating who holds them. You can't favor one view over the other just because it's the one you happen to agree with. And you can't add your own personal beliefs about why you think people who disagree with you hold the views they do. If you have difficulty discussing this we can take it to mediation. Best, --Shirahadasha 05:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- OK, go ahead and revert back if you'd like, I disagree with portions of the article but agree they aren't yours, clearly I'm up too late and under Wikistress. Will sort this all out later. Good night. --Shirahadasha 05:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Where do you get the right to edit my replies on a talk page?
[edit]If you have some issue with style, fix the style and leave my reply intact.
--Mactographer 09:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- I have no idea what this template "not yours" is all about. All I saw was a bunch of my text that I quoted from the LOC site removed in the middle of an edit by you. On one side it was there, on the next side it was gone and all that was left was, "Insert the text of the quote here, without quotation marks." And you did both the edits, so it looked like you did it. If Nardman was somehow to blame, then he made it look like you did it and you have my apologies. --Mactographer 09:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- P.S. Another look at Nardman1's memo, and it appears he is tell me I should have used that template. So maybe he isn't to blame for the missing text. But the changes still happened in-between a couple of your edits as linked above. If you can explain to me how it happened between two of your edits and yet you had nothing to do with it, then I will apologize. But for now, it looks like it was a function of your edit. --Mactographer 09:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I have listed the shapes at WP:DRV Nardman1 15:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- The people at DRV think it might be more a case for mediation. I will submit it to the unofficial mediation cabal [5] as a first step if you agree. I don't want to get into an edit war with you and I think that would be the outcome without outside help. Nardman1 15:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Jag(i)ello
[edit]Would you support either Jagello or Jagiello? What other names would be acceptable for you? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 23:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
you've been blocked for 48 hours for 3RR. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC) I reverted a revert warrior three times; and, after the third edit, made a minor edit to a completely independent section. When a third editor reverted both edits, I accepted the decision on the point of dispute, and repaired the collateral damage. There was no fourth revert. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- I've asked the blocking administrator to respond to this, after which I will review it. Newyorkbrad 17:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Naming conventions
[edit]If you have a problem with me, it is incorrect to attempt to slander me on a talk page. You have the right, if you wish, to bring up a RfC if you think you have a case against me. So be warned - I will not sit by idly and allow you to slander me on a talk page for a professional discussion. Rarelibra 22:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, all accusations and uncivil remarks in any direction stop immediately. There is no reason for heated name-calling on any page and much less regarding something like a map or a naming convention.
- I took a look at the page the two of you are disputing but frankly have not been able to figure out exactly what is being argued over. If this can be put in terms a little more accessible to previously uninvolved editors, I'll be glad to offer my opinion. Newyorkbrad 22:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Newyorkbrad - the point I am arguing over are the constant comments coming from Pmanderson - intelligent insults, comments that are demeaning or condescending, etc. He won't stop. In the Naming conventions (geographic names) area, I decided to give my input and Pmanderson's response was to slander me as an "uncivil" and "profane" editor. If these words have merit, I am asking Pmanderson to call out a RfC. Otherwise, I am asking him to stop such insults, accusations, and slanderous words. If he is mad about something, he cannot take it out by attempting such responses on a professional discussion page such as that with the naming convention. That is all. His comments should remain clean or he should refrain from commenting at all. Rarelibra 21:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
If you put {{accuracy}} to that article as a revenge for lost consensus that's not a good way of good faith wikipedian. You did not discuss accuracy on the talk page so I removed that tag. If you wish to re-add it, do it, but please discuss what do you think that is wrong with the article otherwise I will remove it again. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 22:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Consensus was pretty clear, his name is really Matuška. It is the same case as you are not Anďeřson but Anderson. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 23:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think your tag will be removed by someone else, consensus has been set and was clear. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 23:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Tag has been removed by the administrators. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 20:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Do as you think, but as wrote by Husond, it is now considered as a vandalism. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 05:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Tag has been removed by the administrators. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 20:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think your tag will be removed by someone else, consensus has been set and was clear. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 23:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 12th, 2007.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 7 | 12 February 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Re:Polish obscenity?
[edit]That user declares that he has a command of Polish language 'intermediate' and his obscenity is similarly 'medicore' :> 'glupy dupek' is only partially correct: the first part is a mispelling of the word stupid (głupi), the second is correct obscenity for the word asshole. Without going into more details (the user also forgot about declinations), I had warned this user about observing WP:CIV. As I am not involved in this matter (I have never interacted with that user), I cannot sign a RfC but I'd be happy to translate the obscenity and confirm it indeed is one. Also, if that user continues to be uncivil, I'd support blocking that user for violations of WP:CIV/WP:NPA.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 22:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- You incorrectly assume about misspellings and definitions. Sorry, but there was no direct obscenity used, nor did anything translate correctly. Because you are pushing this issue after it was already handled, I will assume that you have a personal vendetta against me. Piotrus cannot warn me about something that was already handled and corrected (and warned before). Now I am going to issue you a warning. You will cease and desist against me, as Newyorkbrad has asked you to, or face the same fire. I will not stand for your professional accusations and your intelligent insults against me. So cease this now and go back to constructive edits. Thank you. Rarelibra 14:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Responding because my name was mentioned. Constructive edits for everyone, please. Obscenities toward or about other users, near-obscenities, foreign phrases that could be understood as obscenities, all should not be used. Work issues out like colleagues or stay away from each other. And let past incidents fade. Newyorkbrad 14:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
After my recent interactions with Rarelibra (removing warnings from his user page, issuing threats, failing to provide any diffs to back up his accusations) I am now ready to review an RfC of that user if it is ever created and describe his behaviour as I have seen it so far.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 15:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Regarding your edits to my userpage, FYI - It's a common misconception that it's appropriate to try to force users to keep some kind of brand of shame on their pages. Please see "User space harassment" in Wikipedia:Harassment, and several threads currently on WP:ANI, e. g. this and this. The templates about not removing warnings, and the block threats, are for anonymous vandals, not for cases like this. I have a right to remove anything I like from my userpage(s), as removing is an acknowledgement of reading it. Just so User:Piotrus understands, his continued involvement on my userpage will cause a violation of 3RR and become reason for being blocked for 24hours to consider his actions. Just so we are also all aware, User:Piotrus is an administrator who is currently the topic of an ongoing RfC for his own actions. Let's not get carried away here. Thank you. Rarelibra 15:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I can help mediate this situation. Can you please leave a note on my talk page letting me know what your current view on the situation is and what your desired outcome would be? Hope I can be of service. Best, JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits) 04:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your prompt response. Just to clarify, you are in favor of the current status of these articles, keeping them as redirects to and with relevant comments in the Polygon article (and Prism (geometry) article). One question: what part or parts of the definitions did you dispute? What rewording of the definitions would you propose? Thanks, JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits) 05:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for the clarification. I found this page at MathWorld, which appears to be mostly consistent with the table presently included at Polygon. Do you consider that website to be a reliable source? --JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits) 06:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for the information. I'm going to wait for Nardman1 to respond. --JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits) 06:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Please indicate if this compromise offer is acceptable or if you would like to suggest changes. --JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits) 23:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Please stop
[edit]Stop making accusation comments that I am suggesting that Wikipedia "lie" to its readers. It is not true, there is no proof, nor does anything I mention in my comment allude to such an accusation. You are incorrect in even attempting to phrase such. Please remain civil in your approach and DO NOT attempt to 'reword' someone's input, like mine. Removing your comments is not 'vandalism' by myself - it is removing incorrect comments. Read my quote - I am saying that a direct translation is incorrect, therefore, I believe we should use the diatrics to be most correct, with a redirect from the non-diatric name. That is all. No suggestion to lie or deceive. Rarelibra 18:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- You do not have the right to offer up "opinion" in the form of accusation. That is presenting a false statement, and in itself, can be removed. Doing so is a violation of WP:CIVIL. Please stop. Rarelibra 18:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 19th, 2007.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 8 | 19 February 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Indian Mathematics page: request for comment
[edit]Talk:Indian_mathematics#Request_for_comment:_Reliable_Sources_for_Indian_Mathematics Feedback is requested for a problem on the Indian mathematics page, where two users have a disagreement about what constitutes reliable sources for claims in the article. 19:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
You may want to reconsider your stance, see my reply to you there. Cat chi? 13:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Subsidizing Newspapers
[edit]Jefferson kept an editor of a paper he founded (Freneau of the National Gazetter) on the government payroll, and that is the kind of government "subsidy" it appeared was being alluded to for Hamilton in his article. Hamilton founded two newspapers and wrote for them, so I suppose that can be interpreted as "subsidy" -- do not newspaper founders support their enterprizes?. Patronage certainly holds true by his steering government contracts to favorable printers, but that kind of activity does not appear to be unusual in the US or likely anywhere else in the contemporary period - and continued up through the late 19th century I understand. The implication in the article that Hamilton's actions were unique is misleading. A nice little piece related to this may be found at http://epaper.jdnews.com/Repository/ml.asp?Ref=SkROLzIwMDYvMDkvMTcjQXIwNDIwMA==&Mode=HTML&Locale=english-skin-custom Hope you enjoy it.Shoreranger 02:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 26th, 2007.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 9 | 26 February 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007
[edit]The February 2007 issue of the Military history 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.
Delivered by grafikbot 17:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your comment at the above-named page. I have responded to your comment; as I say in my response, I believe you may want to take a second look at the Garrett talk page. Best wishes, and again, thanks for your comment. Hydriotaphia 02:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Number of Tigrinya Speakers
[edit]Thanks for responding to the "Number of Tigrinya Speakers" RfC. I've posted my interpretation of your comments. I'd appreciate it, if you indicated to what extent my interpretation agrees with your intention. Thanks. Itayb 08:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Azerbaijan (Iran) page
[edit]It's ridiculous what some of those editors are doing here: [6] They remove fully sourced information, enforce POV, and remove dispute banners. Can we involve more administrators, as this is not right, they shouldn't be allowed to do this. --AdilBaguirov 15:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't mean to offend you of course. Please do place the disputed tag and make other edits. The reason I replaced the intro paragraph is because the one you had (I didn't notice your name, I paid attention to the content) was the same as from the old version, citing such POV sources as Kavekh Farrokh, etc. I appreciate your involvement and once again, didn't mean to put you in an awkward position. --AdilBaguirov 04:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Blocked
[edit]
Blocked: 48 hours for general edit warring and a 3RR violation on Azerbaijan (Iran). Thatcher131 06:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- {{unblock}}
No 3RR violation; three reverts, in dealing with undiscussed reversions which removed sourced information, which is blanking, and a compromise edit. I was attempting to settle a pre-existing revert war. Please note that the block last month was not based on WP:AN3 and was found to be unbased.
- I may be sailing too close to the wind, but I don;t think I crossed the line, this time. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 5th, 2007.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 10 | 5 March 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Ralph Nader
[edit]Hi Pam. Long time, no see. You helped me out with "Democrat Party" and "Democratic-Republican Party" a while back and I'm wondering if you would like to weigh in on an editorial concern at the Ralph Nader article. I put the following in the first paragraph: "In the Atlantic Monthly's list of the 100 most influential Americans, published in its December 2006 issue, the magazine ranked Ralph Nader as the 96th most influential American: 'He made the cars we drive safer; thirty years later, he made George W. Bush the president.'[1]" However, some of Nader's fans want to drop the 17-word quote from the magazine article and just say that Nader was 96th on the list. I think the quote is necessary to explain why he's on the list, but some think it's unfair to Nader. Want to weight in? Griot 20:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
New article on Steve Omohundro
[edit]I found some new information on Steve Omohundro that was not brough up in the original AFD discussion - 17 publications and a US patent - and thought this significant enough to warrant restoring the article. After restoring it, I made enough edits that I feel it's a new article rather than a restoration (it would have been easier to start from scratch than to restore), so I have removed the CFD tag. However, I wanted to invite you to take a look at the article as you participated in the original AFD discussion. --Zippy 00:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Well said
[edit]Your WP:ATT poll talk post that ended with "As one of those who both worked on WP:ATT and supports it, I ask you to think again before you keep on with this" was one of the smartest things I've seen said on WP in weeks. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Ron Chernow
[edit]I have responded to your comments at Talk:Ron Chernow. Casey Abell 13:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have given in, albeit reluctantly, on the issue of quotes from a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner and from one of the nation's leading book review publications. I believe these quotes accurately represent the critical consensus on Chernow, which has been strongly positive. But I am making a good-faith effort at compromise.
- However, I can't understand why you continue to revert the bare mention of DNA research into Hamilton's ancestry. This is not controversial or in any way "hagiographic" about Hamilton or Chernow. The article doesn't praise such research, only mentions its existence, which is a fully sourced fact. I also can't understand why you have reverted the fully sourced and accurate item about the George Washington Book Prize. The article already contains information about other prizes, including the National Book Award, which Chernow has won. And the Wikipedia article on the prize itself mentions Chernow's award. So why can't we mention it in the Chernow article?
- I also don't understand your reference to my factual and sourced statements about your Wikipedia record as a "personal attack." This is ironic from an editor who referred to me as "irresponsible" and "dishonest." [7] I only pointed out your record to explain that I did not want the Ron Chernow article to become another example of the edit wars which have led to your blocks, or the incivility and conflicts with other editors which have led to your failed RfA's. I realize that such a record is unfortunate, but it's completely within your power to change the behavior which has led to the record.
- This is not easy for me to write, because I strongly dislike conflicts with other editors and I always look for compromise. I have attempted to compromise on the Ron Chernow article, even beyond what I think is justified. Please don't make this into another one of the conflicts which have hampered your contributions to Wikipedia. Your record is strongly positive in many ways, and there's every opportunity for you to work cooperatively with other editors to improve the encyclopedia. Casey Abell 15:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- A quick Google search found some independent stuff referring to Chernow's involvement in Hamilton DNA research: [8] and [9], for instance. The item isn't of huge importance, but there's no reason to delete it from the article. There's no excuse for deleting the award won by the biography. Not many bios of founding fathers get a 50K award. Casey Abell 21:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
[edit]The occasion of our private(?) discussion concerning WP:ATT reminds me to do something I have thought many times. Which is to say: Thank you for all the contributions you make to bringing more sanity to Wikipedia. I usually abstain, because I haven't the stomach for it, except for scattered remarks for the WikiProject Mathematics folks. But you have bearded the lions and kept your head. The result is a better product, and a better process. I've noticed, and I appreciate it. --KSmrqT 22:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 26th, 2007.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 13 | 26 March 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 14:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
[edit]Thanks for the fix on "note that". I need to fix that on other pages I was trying to include the regional words on. G** d*** your page is slow with Firefox! :P Icsunonove 23:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I think you need to move the talk page? there is a bolzano and bolzano-bozen talk now. Icsunonove 23:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I've decided to stop pussy futting around and really improve the Sulla article. I am removing gratuitous opinions and unencyclopedic qualifiers. The version Sulla16 keeps reverting to is pretty bad, so it would be a good thing if others helped clean it up too. Sulla16 might eventually realize that he doesn't own the article and that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Hope you volunteer! Vincent 05:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
French princes
[edit]Hello;
I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)#French princes revisited. Would you care to comment? Thanks. Charles 10:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Poll
[edit]Please stop adding sections, unless you have decided to buck all concensus and ignore the Q1 poll. Also, you can be reported for a 3rr violation. - Denny 16:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Very peculiar how you took yourself out of the equation... as if the mess at the poll had nothing to do with you and you were a mere bystander.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Endorse the simple version conditionally
[edit]While it's now been lost in the shuffle, I've suggested rather than the verbose question to accompany the simple question, simply having an open end. Ask the simple question and then, without a list, "what arrangement do you prefer?" The workability of this would all be in the instructions. Would you endorse the simple question, if we could properly describe an open end? Marskell 19:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Discussion
[edit]Please move your comment under Discussion, to keep everything organized. --Mardavich 16:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- There different sections for a purpose, discussion should not be taking place under the vote section. --Mardavich 17:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's not a rule, it's a matter of courtesy to the person who opened the survey and designed the layout. The discussion section was put there for a reason, to keep everything organized. But do as you wish. --Mardavich 17:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007
[edit]The March 2007 issue of the Military history 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.
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 20:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Your ATT poll !vote
[edit]When I refactored all the !votes into sections, I put you in the neutral camp, but I'm not sure that's where you actually want to be. I think this was a mistake actually, as your message seems to be "I could have supported, but must oppose". I'll leave it to you to move it where it belongs if necessary. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
ATT poll refactorisation
[edit]Re: ATT Poll My !vote is not broad opposition to ATT, but opposes this merger to its present text. I have classified your vote in the same category; please correct if I am wrong. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmm. We've got "Support some merger, but not this one." and we've got "Compromise/Neutral" - but surely to compromise is also to "support some merger but not this one"? - particalarly in my case, where I've said I'll support the merge but with a few qualifications (or read: compromises) -- perhaps I am mistaken, and perhaps you can clarify what is meant by 'compromise'? In any case, I don't know if "Compromise" should strictly be next to neutral. But overall, the way it was before you decided to rearrange it, was perhaps better. Rfwoolf
- I am less concerned about the merger than about what the policies going into/remaining in effect declare, imply or encourage. Therefore I want vote options that don't "grandfather in" overly-restrictive policies which have not hitherto been adhered to by most editors in practice. Thus:
- I oppose wording that authorizes deletion of undersourced content (rather than tagging it) unless it is disputed as inaccurate, libelous, or misleading.
- I oppose wording that protects content widely known or overwhelmingly alleged to be non-credible (based on relevant, reliable) sources.
- I oppose exclusion from WP:RS of sources that are widely treated as reliable by experts in a field, particularly in obscure fields where sources in English are relatively rare or not updated, even if they are personal websites, Usenet FAQs, conference presentations, or texts that may not meet the expertise in relation to the subject at hand standard because they do not focus exclusively on the subject of the article, such as dictionaries, textbooks, encyclopedias and other survey sources. (And thanx, Septentrionalis, for asking!) Lethiere 11:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab
[edit]Dear editor,
You recently took part in the discussion of this move request. The format of the move request has been modified, to simplify the discussion and thus help the closing WP:RM administrator.
You are invited to re-state your opinion on the issue, or modify your previous comment, under the new format. - Best regads, Ev 20:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Take no notice of me
[edit]I take it back, if I annoyed you. I should point out that I am a mere nobody around here, to say the least, and that my comments won't make the slightest difference to how the votes are counted. In fact, I am slightly surprised that anyone read them. qp10qp 23:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Poll bias
[edit]Over at the ATT poll, I've just flipped the order of the Oppose/Support sections, on the theory that it is heavily biasing the voting. I expect to be reverted within minutes. I'm not willing to violate WP:3RR over this, so additional eyes on the matter would be helpful. My theory is that if the vote is being biased by Support being at the top, it is only fair that they be inverted for the rest of the poll, and if this effect is not happening, the change will have no effect at all, ergo the only reason to revert it is to support bias in favor of Support votes. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Regarding this, the tag cannot remain there indefinitely until you get your own way. You'll have to start a WP:RM and if it fails, start another one or accept the outcome. If you want to move it to "Chalcidice", I won't object, in fact I'll support it. However, tags should remain on articles for as little as possible.--Domitius 23:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 2nd, 2007.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 14 | 2 April 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
isarco
[edit]I seem to get much more hits on Google for Isarco than Eisack. Icsunonove 23:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I posted mine as well. cheers. Icsunonove 23:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
3RR block
[edit]Hi. You have been blocked from editing for 52 hours due to a 3RR breach (rv1, rv2, rv3, and rv4). Please be more careful in the future. Many thanks in advance. El_C 16:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Pmanderson (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The third edit is not a reversion; and the fourth undoes Rarelibra's fifth exact reversion. See note below
Decline reason:
It was a 3RR violation, valid block — HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 02:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I have expressed my willingness to undo this edit if it is counted againt the limit. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Requesting input from the blocking admin. Newyorkbrad 17:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, if I get a chance to get an edit in... The same line ("The Venetian name Scutari was derived in antiquity...") was removed in all four instances, so that's a 3RR breach regardless of anything. While I welcome review, no admin should unblock without clearing it with me first. Thanks. El_C 17:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- It has always been customary to revert the last edit of a 3RR violation, on the grounds that it should never have been made. As for "Venetian"; yes, I do dispute the propriety of that word, but I offered a novel alternative, which said neither "Venetian" nor "Italian"; the point at issue. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- What is certain is that it has never been customary to violate 3RR to revert the last edit of another 3RR violator. It dosen't matter if you view it as "novel," you removed the same line four times. El_C 17:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- If you unblock me, I will revert myself.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, naturally you will. And Rarelibra would undo his 3RR-breaching edit if he could. The key with self-reverting is that it can only work before a block is issued. El_C 17:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- I asked your opinion on the matter before the block was issued; the block was your only answer. You need merely have asked; I expected you to agree that the last edit (as undoing a violation) didn't count. As for Rarelibra: if he is content to undo his last two reversions, I am perfectly content to have him unblocked. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- If you asked me about it, then I missed it, because I would have asked you for diffs. El_C 17:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- This was intended to elicit your opinion; perhaps I should have copied to your talk page, but it didn't occur to me. You were plainly watching this page. The diffs of Rarelibra's actions are on WP:AN3; I'll get them in a minute. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- I was not reading every exchange between you two; it was your responsibility to ensure that I read —and responded— to it. El_C 17:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- This was intended to elicit your opinion; perhaps I should have copied to your talk page, but it didn't occur to me. You were plainly watching this page. The diffs of Rarelibra's actions are on WP:AN3; I'll get them in a minute. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- If you asked me about it, then I missed it, because I would have asked you for diffs. El_C 17:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- I asked your opinion on the matter before the block was issued; the block was your only answer. You need merely have asked; I expected you to agree that the last edit (as undoing a violation) didn't count. As for Rarelibra: if he is content to undo his last two reversions, I am perfectly content to have him unblocked. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, naturally you will. And Rarelibra would undo his 3RR-breaching edit if he could. The key with self-reverting is that it can only work before a block is issued. El_C 17:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- If you unblock me, I will revert myself.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- What is certain is that it has never been customary to violate 3RR to revert the last edit of another 3RR violator. It dosen't matter if you view it as "novel," you removed the same line four times. El_C 17:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- It has always been customary to revert the last edit of a 3RR violation, on the grounds that it should never have been made. As for "Venetian"; yes, I do dispute the propriety of that word, but I offered a novel alternative, which said neither "Venetian" nor "Italian"; the point at issue. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
This block should be reviewed on a timely basis and either endorsed, shortened, or unblocked, as the reviewing admin deems appropriate. I've unblocked this user in a prior 3RR situation so I don't think I should review it myself. I'm going to post to ANI, noting El C's request to be consulted. Newyorkbrad 17:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. Rarelibra's diffs are here. To summarize: he made three exact reversions, edited the last of them, made a partial reversion, and then made two more exact reversions to the last edit he had made, all within ten hours. He was then blocked. I undid this fifth exact reversion, 15 hours after he was blocked for 3RR; I thought myself right to do so, but offered to revert myself if El C thought otherwise; and am still willing to revert myself. I had only made three edits all told, and believed one of them not a revert. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Iran War
[edit]I could use some help here. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iranian-American War--Lee1863 15:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 |
Septentrionalis, thanks for your support in my successful RfA. As the picture shows, the goddesses have already bestowed my new weapons, |
Could you please take a look at the talk page for this article and also Talk:Philip of France (1116-1131). The history suggests that I created the talk page on April 2, 2007. I think that the talk page existed before then, and that I might have mucked something up a week ago. Is it possible that I had the edit talk page open, then moved the article page (with the talk page), and then saved the original talk page with my comment - thus making a mess of things? Noel S McFerran 20:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that we should try to reach consensus on a convention for naming consorts, male and female, of sovereigns and cadets, and I want to be helpful in moving that decision to completion. But I'm confused about the role of this vote in that process: If I vote on this name in isolation and without reference to what I understand to be the applicable naming convention, I don't want that vote to contribute to a precedent on what the naming convention should be because my vote won't reflect all relevant considerations -- I'm either treating it as a "one-off", or I'm applying the "most common name in English" convention, which necessarily yields a vote relevant only to the name in question. But if I vote on it based on all the applicable conventions, one of those is that monarchs' consorts revert to maiden name posthumously.
Another is that conventions are discussed and decided upon at the appropriate page so that the decision is informed by the rules and rationales layed out there. Procedurally, this !vote bothers me because it seems to affirm the rogue tendency to ignore or defy conventions put in place in good faith. That tendency has produced flagrant violations I think should be deprecated, such as Princess Astrid of Belgium, Archduchess of Austria-Este (over-long due to appending obscure title), Ernst August V, Prince of Hanover (use of Roman numeral for pretender), and Archduke Sigismund, Grand Duke of Tuscany (attributes sovereign title to current pretender).
As it happens in this instance, I don't think Sissi has anything like the fame among readers in English that Marie Antoinette has -- ergo my opposition to treating her similarly. Given that I don't think there is, in English, an overwhelmingly popular and acceptable name (or "Sissi" would prevail), I think the next applicable convention should apply, i.e. use maiden style of deceased consort. If I'm to ignore the latter convention, I'm not sure why and I don't know what criteria you're suggesting I apply in voting? Lethiere 20:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't understand why "Use maiden name posthumously" is in the guideline if it was never agreed upon. Nor why anyone would bother to contribute to a guideline if it is not intended to be prescriptive. Your opinion that I misunderstand and (presumably, therefore) misapply the guideline as prescriptive is not helpful because I don't understand the grounds for it. Nor do I respond well to what feel like peremptory opinions & instructions, when I have asked for rationales for any feedback given. Sorry I'm not being more helpful here -- I had hoped to be. Lethiere 20:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 9th, 2007.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 15 | 9 April 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
Special note to spamlist users: Apologies for the formatting issues in previous issues. This only recently became a problem due to a change in HTML Tidy; however, I am to blame on this issue. Sorry, and all messages from this one forward should be fine (I hope!) -Ral315
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
...
[edit]I would prefer it if you didn't use edit summaries such as these [10]. You haven't understood what I was trying to say apparently. And I would also prefer it if you didn't judge me so quickly. I just cannot see how, somehow, it could be claimed that the republican revolution of 1923 would be considered as establishing a "new state" rather than "régime change" - thus the "re-capture" argument. There is nothing wrong with discussing this, and nearly all sources out there agree that Turkey is the successor state of the OE, legally, functionally and morally. On historical hindsight, I have yet to see a modern third-party history book which refers to it otherwise. Therefore the "re-capture" argument. Please try to see the finer points of my comments. Thanks Baristarim 06:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
your vote
[edit]In case you didn't notice the main options are between historical fiction (history with fiction) and plain 'fiction' - which implies no connection to the real account. If you have read Herodotus as you claimed then you must be familiar with the "army of slaves", "led by the whip" versus "free men", "fight in the shade", "molon labe" and similar terminology he uses (most of which is being ignorantly criticised by many). I'm only contacting you because you justified your vote by having read Herotodus. The similarities the storyline has to Herotodus are also noted by various scholars (cited in the article), and it's been precisely the reason I find a purely "fiction" label as undue weigh. So I'm rather amazed by your remarks. Miskin 11:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, "based on Thermopylae" is certainly not synonymous to "fictional account of Thermopylae" that you voted for. I don't remember the Spartans advocating anything about democracy in the film. I remember about "free men", which is Herodotus' words, and "an age of freedom", which is directly linked to "free men" and is open to interpretations. It is by no means fictional. Miskin 16:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
ATT compromise committee
[edit]Just FYI, over at the ATT comm. discussion talk page, names are being thrown into the hat for building a compromise working group. I nominated you for the "neutral" camp, as I thought you were one of the more articulate participants, who genuinely believes that compromise is possible. Without discussion this nomination has been reverted twice (while another has not), you've been shunted into a "reserve" pile, and someone (guess who) has moved a clear ATT supporter into the "neutral" section to pad it out. Thought you might have something to say about that. I'm so disgusted with the farce going on over there I'm probably just going to leave. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
You may want to weigh in at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 15#List of songs containing covert references to real musicians, since you were involved in a previous discussion of this article. - Jmabel | Talk 05:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 16th, 2007.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 16 | 16 April 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
RS for Women Slaves in Islam
[edit]Hello, You gave the opinion that Arlandson is not a RS for Islam and reverted edits. Could you point specifically to what parts of Wiki policy you invoked to make that judgment? Please note that Arlandson has written not one, but many articles on Islam. Thanks, NN 06:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. I think there are some philosophical issues here. There is of course the academic community that cites its references. Then there are magazines and suchlike, where the style is more informal. I would say an opinion is magazines (especially ones like New York Times or Al Jazeera) are notable and as per Wiki policy belong to Wiki. The fact is that academic opinion treats Islam with kid gloves, hence it is even more important to have the other source (magazines and suchlike) represented. Again, Wiki policy does not make academic sources mandatory. Academic sources are okay, there are other sources that are okay too. NN 04:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Regarding "Exploratory Committees"
[edit]You're invited to comment at Template talk:United States presidential election, 2008 navigation, on this proposal:
And please note this argument on the same talk page. Exploratory equals Candidate.
- Best regards, Yellowdesk 07:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Help me out
[edit]Pam, can you help me with something? Go to Talk:Walther P22#Request for Comment: Walther P22 and state whether you think a mention of the Virginia Tech massacre belongs in the article about the Walther P22, the gun the shooter used. (Hope all is well with you). Griot 23:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 23rd, 2007.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 17 | 23 April 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Walter P22
[edit]Thanks for hanging in there on the Walther P22 and Glock 19 articles. If you have any trouble with CINEGroup, check out this incident report against him: CINEGroup Incident (archive). MiFeinberg 17:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
3rr? good luck
[edit]editing isn't 3rr, learn it. CINEGroup 17:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Althing(i)s considered
[edit]I just wanted to say my reply to your reply on Talk:Snorri_Sturluson is musing, not argument. It's certainly not enough for me to go adding -i to Althing (or Everything)... — OtherDave 23:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Baronets
[edit]No trouble at all. After seeing the PIRA vs. Scots feud flaring up again, I'm hoping to develop a mutually acceptable compromise, at least for this particular issue, before user conduct remedies start getting handed out (and it appears they're getting close).
I had to look up the trick with the anchors; see Help:Link#Section linking (anchors). Never had to use it before, but there's a first time for everything. Choess 04:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
The Vilnius Issue
[edit]I thought it best to inquire here rather than at talk (Where to now?), as some might think it OT. I'm curious what your position is regarding Cracow? When it has been suggested that the German, Krakau, would be historically correct, and a more appropriate designation during the time period that the city was under the Austrian partition, it has met great resistance from some quarters. What in your opinion might justify this position, as the Russian name, Vilna seems to be preferred by you? As for Kraków, why would "Cracow", no longer be the English usage description for the city? Interested in your viewpoint. Dr. Dan 13:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- In case you missed it, I place a new but related question concerning the correct name for Cracow on my talk page. Since you've "weighed in a little" on the subject earlier, I thought you might have a further opinion. Dr. Dan 18:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Walther P22 disputes continues
[edit]Hi Pam. The discussion of whether to include a mention of the Virginia Tech massacre at the Walther P22 article continues. Earlier, a compromise was reached to include a mention of the Viriginia Tech massacre in a "See Also" section of this article, but now that idea is being debated. Care to weigh in? The Walther P22 is being discussed here. Will this nonsense ever end? Griot 16:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
RFA thanks
[edit]
|
Thank you, Pmanderson, for your constructive comments in my recent RFA, which passed with 86 support, 8 oppose, and 5 neutral !votes. I will keep in mind all your suggestions and/or concerns, and will try to live up to your standards. Please, if you have any comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page, and I will respond as soon as I possibly can, without frying my brain, of course. |
|
walther ad infinitum
[edit]No. The removal does not carry a taboo just because of who was doing it earlier. I am not reverting to "CINEGroup's version", I am reverting to my preferred version, and under my evaluation of the talk page discussion. Do not treat my editing as anything but my own editing. Talk:Walther P22 shows no consensus for the addition of the content and no consensus for the proposed compromise that you are trying to enforce. Without consensus for either of these content additions, the article reverts to the pre-incident state. That even appears to be the specific outcome of this discussion. It is the responsibility of those who would add content to gain consensus for that content if it is disputed. No such consensus has ever been mustered. The article must default to the pre-VT state. ··coelacan 19:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- I've requested as politely as possible that you not characterize my edits as acting in support of anyone's version except my own. I am editing the article as I see appropriate. For you to say "If you reverse my edit, done explicitly on the ground that CineGroup's revert war should not stand, then you do support him" is akin to some kind of joke from Wayne's World ("a sphincter says what?") I've stated my reasoning mulitple times now; my version is my version and I do not appreciate being smeared. I supported the block of CINEGroup, and I deleted his talk page to remove harassment, so I'll thank you to stop this association game immediately. As to mediation, I don't know yet, I think it's a little early to jump to that, but I'm not opposed to the very idea of it. I'll wait a while and how things progress. ··coelacan 20:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (Talk) 20:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Cantor
[edit]Hi. I responded to your comments on the Cantor talk page. --Tellerman
- Hi again. I responded again to your comments. I won't leave a message here anymore if you don't want. Also, I think at this point we should be moving towards the best way to present the information rather than finding out what the real truth behind Cantor's background is. --Tellerman
Signpost updated for April 30th, 2007.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 18 | 30 April 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Walther and Glock
[edit]Pam--Thanks for your work on these articles. The gun culture crowd is relentless, but we put up a good fight. And I believe you're right, it is censorship on these people's part. I wish they would just come out and say they don't want the VT massacre in those articles because it reflects badly on gun regulatory laws in America. The real debate should be about whether the gun articles should be confined to narrow discussions of the guns' technical qualities. The articles, of course, should be more than that, since this is an enyclopedia, but we were debating idealogues, and that is nearly always a losing proposition. You're the best! Griot 17:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Griot
Cantor
[edit]Will you maintain the present version of Cantor? If so, are we done? 212.227.102.5
You may find this to be nitpicking, but I disagree with your latest changes to the article. "Non-unitary ring" should be "Not necessarily unitary ring" if you disagree with "pseudo-ring". Also, the change from sub-pseudo-ring to "subring" is in direct contradiction with the convention adopted within the article itself, since a "subring" is presumed unitary. I don't think it clarifies matters for readers to contradict the conventions adopted in the very article, out of a sense of fairness to people who disagree with the convention. Joeldl 04:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Your latest version is fine. Joeldl 05:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Bremen or Frankfurt?
[edit]Hello Pmanderson! I would like to ask for your reasons for changing the example of a major city in Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany/Conventions#Disambiguation. Bremen is the only settlement (at least in Wikipedia) with that name, and therefore there is no need for disambiguation anyway, like the first sentence in the edited section says. I think Frankfurt instead was chosen as an example because there is Frankfurt am Main and Frankfurt an der Oder, but the major urban center (Frankfurt am Main) is reached directly under Frankfurt. Thanks for taking the time. Daranios 09:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hello there! Thanks for the fast reply. I still don't completely agree with your argumentation, as the first sentence of the Disambiguation paragraph says that no specifier is needed anyway when there is no other place with the same name, which is the case for Bremen. But the formulation seems to have been unclear, so I tried to improve it by taking Essen as yet another example. (Maybe Frankfurt is not the perfect example because of the discussion if it should Frankfurt (Oder) or something else.) I don't always have a knack for the clearest phrasings so maybe you want to have a look at it once more. I guess it is a convention for only a few cases anyway, as we don't have too many "major urban centres" in Germany, but still... Daranios 16:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV (April 2007)
[edit]The April 2007 issue of the Military history 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.
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 15:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 7th, 2007.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 19 | 7 May 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Georg Cantor
[edit]I don't understand your question, I'm afraid. Aczel says that his mother was probably of Jewish descent; if so, she is likely to have been Jewish in Jewish law, hence so was Cantor himself. Thus we cannot say for certain that he was not Jewish in Jewish law. Do you imagine that you are only Jewish if your mother was a strictly orthodox Jew? That is not the case. If your mother or your grandmother or your great-grandmother was Jewish and you can prove it, then you are Jewish. See for example [11] and [12].--Newport 21:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- If you look, the first site isn't a blog. As for the second site, reliable sources do not have to quote references; if they did, you'd get an infinite regression. But look at it this way; if Cantor's mother's mother was Jewish, and she may have been, then his mother was Jewish by Jewish law. Whether she was a practising Catholic is irrelevant; she would not lose her status in Jewish law. If she was Jewish, so was Cantor in Jewish law. It might be simpler to delete the phrase and just note that he was not a practising Jew. --Newport 21:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
The point is that we have a source that she probably was of jewish descent. To assert therefore that Cantor certainly was not Jewish by Jewish law is to ignore this source. I have no intention of going around inserting into articles that people might be of jewish descent unless I have a source. However, as I say, the best thing is just to delete the phrase, which adds nothing to the discussion.--Newport 21:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
DR summary
[edit]Currently, I am attempting to summarize each stance. Supporting opinions are not truly relevant yet. I think during the process there is a survey. Let's first agree on what each of our opinions is so we can isolate the disagreement. I notice you are counting support numbers. I do believe some supportive comments arose. You seem to ignore them. Lack of understanding of the priority scale is not appropriate at DR. You must understand my argument and I must understand yours. Please reread the priority scale so you will understand why he is being tagged. I will attempt to reedit without much extraneous stuff you added. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- P.S. I seem not to understand your argument. If the following does not summarize your contention please reedit it and add it back: "Any group of individuals should be able by consensus be able to eliminate banners selectively from talk pages if in their collective opinion it does not belong regardless of their participation in the project. Unsure whether he believe a consensus could change the parameters of a banner template used by a project. (requesting clarification)" TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- P.S.S. There seems to be contention about my use of the title Director. If this is part of the DR let me know so we can clearly state both sides of this issue as well. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Let me attempt to understand your argument. Do you support or oppose the following statements.
- Any group of individuals should be able by consensus be able to eliminate banners used by a project selectively from talk pages if in their collective opinion it does not belong regardless of their participation in the project.
- Any group of individuals should be able by consensus be able to change the parameters of a banner template used by a project selectively from talk pages if in their collective opinion it does not belong regardless of their participation in the project. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 23:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Is it your position that {{ChicagoWikiProject}} is harmful to talk pages in general or Jon Corzine's in particular?
- Is it your position that the WP:CCC which governs articles applies to talk pages? TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 07:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Addendum Is it your position that use of {{ChicagoWikiProject}} states a POV (in a way that controverts policy) such as
- The subject's relationship to Chicago is or should be important to the subject.
- The subject's relationship to Chicago is or should be important to the general reader.
- The subject's relationship to Chicago is or should be important to the Chicago reader.
- The subject's relationship to Chicago is or should be important to the general editor.
- The subject's relationship to Chicago is or should be important to the Chicago editor. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 15:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- My current understanding of your position includes the following (please confirm):
- Consensus prevails even with respect to use of a project's banner template and without regard to membership in the project.
- Banner template excess is contrary to conservation of wikipedia resources.
- Neutrality does not apply to talk pages.
- Consensus applies to talk pages. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Could you state your position on which of the following are valid reasons for a project to attach a banner template to a talk page:
- By virtue of their editorial interests and resources they are likely to be strong researchers capable of adding significantly to an article.
- By virtue of their editorial interests and skills they are likely to be strong copy editors capable of refining an article.
- By virtue of their editorial interests they are likely to be interested in vandalism fighting for an article.
- By virtue of their editorial interests they want to monitor quality improvements for an article.
- By virtue of the readership interests (related to their topic) they want to monitor and assist in quality improvements. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- None of these, as stated, especially against consensus. All of these are more claims to tag any article in Wikipedia. The only valid reason to use {{ChicagoWikiProject}} is if an article substantially relates to Chicago; and if it does, the tag may be added by agreement of any editors, "members" or not. Nick is probably right that it would be desirable if the project members also intended to improve the article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Suppose, for example, a group of University of Chicago students decided they wanted to design bots to fight vandals on all alum pages tagged with {{ChicagoWikiProject}}, would this be a valid reason to tag an article? TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- It would be a stupid and mischeivous bot; and any tagging that did not declare its purpose would be disruptive editing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- And is this a real proposal, or a mere hypothetical? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- It would be a stupid and mischeivous bot; and any tagging that did not declare its purpose would be disruptive editing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Do you know of any policy page that asserts the proper use or limitation of talk page banners. I have scanned Help:Advanced templates, Help:Template, Wikipedia:Talk page & Wikipedia:Banners. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Let me attempt to understand your argument. Do you support or oppose the following statements.
We are making progress on isolating our issues so far. Summary so far of discourse (Please confirm):
- Agreed
- POV issues not considered relevant to the matter at hand as POV not relevant for talk pages.
- Use of the term Director not relevant
- Banner template excess is contrary to conservation of wikipedia resources.
- Banner template usage is desirable if the project members also intended to improve the article.
- Contentious
- Consensus applies to talk pages (including banner templates)(PMAnderson). Consensus does not apply to talk pages (TonyTheTiger). TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Consensus applies double to talk pages! :-P. Anyone can put anything on a talk page, and anyone else can get rid of it if it's not helpful for whatever reason.
- Hmm, Note that use of Wikipedia resources is not a concern for wikipedia editors (In part because it is somewhat counter-intuitive. Removing content from a page increases the amount of storage space needed for that page, for instance. Template behavior is downright weird). Editors should just work on making as good an encyclopedia as possible. The poor devs will figure out how to make sure that mediawiki keeps running ;-) --Kim Bruning 18:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- I am still awaiting PMA's response, but to answer your question, I have never before seen cases (excluding vandalism) where it was considered proper to remove other editor's contributions to talk pages. In fact, I was under the impression that a talk page was where consenting, assenting, and dissenting opinions could all coexist. In a sense the opposite of consensus seems to exist in talk pages because all opinions are suppose to be recorded. For example, if one creates a survey on a talk page, after the debate concludes the majority is not suppose to erase all traces of minority opinion (if I understand talk pages correctly). WP:CON would imply that at the conclusion of a debate only records from one side remain. Please correct me if I am wrong. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, for starters, we do not recognize majorities. Hmm, also, talk pages certainly may be refactored --Kim Bruning 19:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting link, but PMA are trying to engage in serious discussion. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I thank you, Kim. I am not sure any discussion on premises so far off base as Tony's can count as serious. ;} Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Is that your best argument by condescention you've got.? I suppose you are attempting to avoid the question I am posing, but in case you missed it I will restate it below TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting link, but PMA are trying to engage in serious discussion. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, for starters, we do not recognize majorities. Hmm, also, talk pages certainly may be refactored --Kim Bruning 19:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- I am still awaiting PMA's response, but to answer your question, I have never before seen cases (excluding vandalism) where it was considered proper to remove other editor's contributions to talk pages. In fact, I was under the impression that a talk page was where consenting, assenting, and dissenting opinions could all coexist. In a sense the opposite of consensus seems to exist in talk pages because all opinions are suppose to be recorded. For example, if one creates a survey on a talk page, after the debate concludes the majority is not suppose to erase all traces of minority opinion (if I understand talk pages correctly). WP:CON would imply that at the conclusion of a debate only records from one side remain. Please correct me if I am wrong. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
RESTATEMENT OF DISPUTE PROGRESS AWAITING CONFIRMATION We are making progress on isolating our issues so far. Summary so far of discourse (Please confirm):
- Agreed
- POV issues not considered relevant to the matter at hand as POV not relevant for talk pages.
- Use of the term Director not relevant
- Banner template excess is contrary to conservation of wikipedia resources.
- Banner template usage is desirable if the project members also intended to improve the article.
- The {{ChicagoWikiProject}} is not a harmful addition to talk pages.
- Contentious
- Consensus applies to talk pages (including banner templates)(PMAnderson). Consensus does not apply to talk pages (TonyTheTiger). TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Proposed naming conventions for Republic of Macedonia
[edit]I'd be grateful if you could have a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Republic of Macedonia-related articles), which is intended to establish a consistent basis for naming RoM-related articles across Wikipedia. I'd appreciate your views on it. -- ChrisO 00:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, I forgot about the "Proposed" tag! *blush* -- ChrisO 01:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Just saying hi!
[edit]Haven't seen you for a while! Cheers! // FrankB 04:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Request for mediation
[edit]A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud), and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. -- tariqabjotu 14:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
NPOV and naming conventions
[edit]Hiya Pmanderson, on balance, I agree with you on the NPOV policy content, but I think the issue of "synonyms" still merits additional attention, because you forwarded a rationale that may not be entirely consistent with a good-faith reading of other relevant guidelines. I feel the current version does not provide sufficient context and may introduce unintended potential for confusion.
I do agree with your underlying objectives as you stated them, however, so my main concern is that the modifications be able to withstand scrutiny should others feel the need to chime in on the issue. Regards. Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#NPOV_.26_naming_conventions. dr.ef.tymac 15:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 14th, 2007.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 20 | 14 May 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)