Jump to content

User talk:Renesis/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello Renesis/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  RJFJR 20:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

oneworld article

Hi, I just read your discussion in the talk page and subsequent decision. I have to say that I don't agree with your conclusion that it "can be formatted for first use". First, I'll admit I don't agree that this should apply to font sizes or bold or italic text, unless, as the style guide says, "it has to". Second, and more importantly, it contradicts with Wikipedia:Style#Article_titles, which says that the first use of the title should be in bold. I think this section is pretty clear, and I think it is an important convention to keep Wikipedia consistent. I agree with another user that the formatting is clearly displayed in the logo, which is also at the top of the page. I didn't want to just change it back though. Your thoughts? --Renesis13 01:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Under Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks), it indicates that the first instance of a trademark can include special formatting or characters, so I was under the impression that the oneworld style was acceptable in the first paragraph of the article. Dbinder 03:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

UK Internet for Learning IP block

You wrote:

I propose blocking anonymouse users from the whole set (about .5 - .45) indefinitely, and allowing only valid user accounts (there is at least one administrator who accesses his user account from this range). Is this possible?

Unfortunately it is not. When an IP range is blocked all edits from the range are blocked, including editors with user accounts. I was on the fence before about blocking the whole range, the fact that there is an admin editing from the range as well as an increase in vandalism. I would like other people's attention--would it be possible for you to copy the discussion out of the archive and bring it up on WP:AN/I again? Thanks so much for looking into it. Demi T/C 23:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't heard back from them. Have you discussed this with Celetianpower? User:Zoe|(talk) 23:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Double Standards

Why did you remove my posts as spam? The page Task list clearly has a number of external links at the bottom to relevant software. My addition was entirely relevant and in keeping with the article. There are three existing examples of software that are externally linked yet you did not remove these - why?

Moog Software 23:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Please don't take offense to my removal. There are a number of reasons I removed it.
  1. The software in question does not have a Wikipedia article. (Thus, questionable notability; in other words, likely spam. See WP:CORP)
  2. All of your other contributions have been to add the same or similar external link to several pages.
  3. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia but not a web directory. If the software is relevant and notable, then it should be listed. I am not necessarily supporting those products already listed - just trying to monitor the addition of new listings.
  4. Seeing as the software is by "Moog Software" and your username is Moogsoftware, I assumed you are involved. See: Wikipedia:Autobiography
I appreciate your dealing with this by talking to me. You obviously have good intentions. I personally feel the software is not notable enough to be written about in Wikipedia (keep in mind - Encyclopedia. See also: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not). The important point here is that even lists of software products on Wikipedia are not web directories - they are lists of notable products that have encyclopedic value. If you feel your product fits, I'd suggest bringing it up on the talk page for the article. Again, no offense meant. Thanks. -- Renesis13 23:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
No offence taken, I see your point about the multiple links. I am new to wikipedia and I am still struggling to understand how to add content in keeping with the general theme (in particular how to add new pages?)
In looking back I believe that the addition to the external links on Task list is reasonable since it is an external link amidst other external links. I accept that the other entries were out of place.
However, given that you believe the software is not notable enough I would like to propose to you that I add a wikipedia article about Moog Software and about our philosophy. We are not a large site it is true but it is a philosophy which I believe should be aired in wikipedia and which I think should be linked to from the relevant areas. The crux of the philosophy is that people spend more time trying to use applications than they save by using the applications. They then lose significant productivity just through having to deal with the very tool that is supposed to be helping them. This has come about because of the perfect 'product problem' - if a company is selling a product that performs it's task in an optimal manner then they must invent solutions to imaginary problems to give the appearance of increased value in each subsequent version. This leads to feature bloat which leads ultimately to the degredation of the tool itself and diminished value to the end user. This is particularly true in the case of overly complex project management applications. Our solution is to make our products free which leaves us free to make them as simple and intuitive as possible. If you are amenable to this suggestion then this is how I will progress.
I would furthermore suggest that the existing programs on the Task list external links section are less notable than SimpleTODO. As evidence I show that ackerTodo's sourceforge project stats show download rates of around 20 to 40 per day yet SimpleTODO alone gains download rates far in excess of this. Major independant download site tucows for example shows it has a popularity rating of 92%. A very high popularity rating shared also by SimpleDesktop and SimpleBackup.
Given this would you suggest that the existing external links be removed or that SimpleTODO etc are added?
Your philosophy seems well founded, but part of notability is that there is a large enough group of people who would be looking for an entry about Moog Software for it to be necessary to include an article on it. You seem to have very good intentions and I hate to turn you down, but it does seem there are a couple policies that would contradict the article on Moog Software that you described or throw red flags up to other editors who may come across it:
  1. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought (Original research, personal essays, etc.) (see entry)
  2. Wikipedia is not a soapbox (see entry)
  3. Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files (see entry)
  4. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (FAQs, "resource for conducting business", etc.) (see entry)
Wikipedia also highly discourages starting articles about yourself or your organization. Of course, this is all just my take, in repsonse to your request for my opinion. I would encourage you to read the policies yourself and try your best to see what you can do within them. I'd also encourage you to definitely try to get your message out using other appropriate means; it sounds like a good philosophy, but at this point probably not encyclopedic.
My advice to you is to use other forums and directories and such to spread your message, and stick around Wikipedia if you have the time to help. Your research on ackerTodo is highly helpful, and I would suggest removing that link from Task list, as it sounds like it was probably spammed onto there. Another thing you might do is to contact those involved in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam spam removal project and ask their opinion on your case. You are definitely going about it the right way by having participating in discussion, and I'm sure everyone appreciates that.
You could also go ahead and create the article, although the likelihood it will en up on Articles for Deletion is high. One reason I was monitoring the pages you modified was because earlier that day a president of another project management software company had gone around adding his links to all those pages. I checked his history, and in the past he created an article about his company, and that got deleted. He had links all over to his website, and they all got removed. It had been a few months so I guess he decided to try again. I appreciate you not going that route!
Hopefully someday you will have a strong enough influence that someone else will write an article about you! Good luck in the future, and keep in contact. Again, this is all just my take on the policy, and I am just trying to help. I'm perfectly happy to help you out however I can in the future. Thanks. -- Renesis13 18:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

wpspam invite

Hey there! I saw you reverting or removing linkspam. Thanks! If you're interested, come visit us in Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam so we can work together in our efforts to clean spam from Wikipedia. -- Perfecto 04:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Renesis, when you've got more than a moment, Tag 'em to stop 'em. Thanks. --Perfecto 07:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Chernobyl Edits

You removed a large portion of the section regarding the translation of wormwood and its comparison to Chernobyl. I have been muling over these changes, and I strongly question your removal of the sections that are purely factual and not POV. I am curious as to why you believe these sections should be excluded from the article. Thanks, --Matthew 02:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

If you are referring to my first change... First I removed "urban myth," because for Wikipedia to be truly NPOV, not only can it not support interpretations of prophetic or religious works (or interpretations of any works, for that matter), but it also cannot reject interpretations. Rather, it should merely report in a neutral way the facts relating to the subject. It is a fact that some people believe the Chernobyl accident was prophesied in the bible. It is not a fact, however, that this has been disproved. The word myth is thrown in to present the idea immediately as false, and is definite POV. (I think weasel words applies here.)
Second, I removed the following paragraph:
It is important to note that, according to theologians, the Book of Revelation is a book of prophecy, and that the events of the book take place in the future as a series, not isolated events throughout time. Theologically speaking, such interpretations are incorrect and taken out of context.
This paragraph has several flaws. First, it says "according to theologians", which pretty much discounts the rest of the paragraph as more "weasel words" (opinion attributed to an anonymous source). Second, it states as fact a direct interpretation of the Book of Revelation based purely on conjecture (that the noted "theologians" in fact know how the series of events was intended to take place). Third, the last sentence (starting with "Theologically speaking") draws a conclusion of assertion that the "urban myth" is false. I see no way to prove or disprove this, unless we travel back in time to speak to the author of Revelation and even then, we'd only be able to take him at his word.
Another reason for the removal is that "Chornobyl" in fact does refer to a type of "wormwood"—the problem is just that the translation in the other direction (English to Ukranian) is not as direct. The paragraph about the meaning of the word was incomprehensible, as well as misleading. This is the reason for my second edit. I tried to reformat the paragraph to better reflect the real meaning of the word, as I understand it from Chernobyl#Name origin.
What section do you feel I removed that was purely factual? -- Renesis13 03:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with your removal of the biblical piece and the its associated POV, I was specifically refering to the text you removed in your edit on | February 8, 2006 at 13:12 EST:
"The name of the city comes from the Ukrainian word for mugwort (Artemisia vulgaris), which is "chornobyl". The word is a combination of chornyi (чорний, black) and byllia (билля, grass blades or stalks), hence it literally means black grass or black stalks."
As well as:
"Chernobyl also could be translated as mugwort because the two had very similar properties, such as the plants looked almost identical, had a very bitter taste and had effects on people's moods."
I am not a linguist, nor familiar with these languages, but these paragraphs seem to me as if they are factual and are not really POV statements. Do you believe these statements are incorrect? --Matthew 18:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I didn't remove that text because of POV, but because it was difficult to understand and a little misleading. According to the first section of Chernobyl, "Chornobyl" is the Ukranian word for "Mugwort" (which according to Wikipedia, is "common wormwood"). Then it goes on to explain where the word chornobyl comes from, and says it means "black grass" or "black stalks". This is fairly irrelevant (in the context of the Chernobyl Accident/Wormwood discussion), since it already stated that "chornobyl" is the word for "mugwort/common wormwood". I did not remove it from the article Chernobyl, but rather tried to summarize the relevant information from that article. I felt the way it was before was a little misleading because it was as if it was trying to also say that Chornobyl does not translate to a type of wormwood (it does, as far as I can tell).
Overall, I was just trying to make it more understandable. The second paragraph ("Chernobyl also could be translated...") didn't really make any sense, because it is translated as "mugwort" in the first place, and in the second place what does it mean by "the two"? Anyway, that information may be useful if anyone else can verify what it is trying to say. I couldn't tell and don't have the experience to know. The section on the meaning of wormwood had been that way for several months (see my request for cleanup on the talk page) and I felt I could at least make it match the Chernobyl article better. I think it is more understandable now. If you don't agree, what do you think should happen? -- Renesis13 18:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I am inclined to agree with you that the section is a bit confusing, but it would be benefical to the article to have a piece that addresses the translations of "wormword" and "Chernobyl" more throughly. I am also inclined to think the article was better with the section than without it, but if you have a problem with including it we can ditch it. I really feel that just saying that the translation is disputed is sort of a cop out though. There is probably a right and wrong translation and a linguist would probably be able to explain it better. I think we should endeavour to find a proper, well justified translation rather than just cop out. I will attempt to find such a source. --Matthew 21:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Perth

Hi there, i just stopped by to say hello and to welcome you to the Wikiproject Perth. I hope you are able to help us to make Perth related articles better! --Ali K 00:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

Thanks for fixing Le Matin, and for your explicit support. I have been taking quite a lot of ad hominem hostility over this. Fortunately, a few more editors are deciding to do the same. If you would like to do some delinking yourself, I would be more than happy if you used my regex at User:Bobblewik/monobook.js/dates.js.

If you need any help getting it going, let me know. Regards bobblewik 08:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome. I have tried to install the script but it doesn't seem to be working. I edited User:Renesis13/monobook.js but it seems to be all out of order now. On the subject of delinking dates, I can't understand all the babble about needing consensus and WP:POINT... last I checked we don't need consensus to implement the guidelines in the MoS. Linked years are especially useless. I'd be glad to help, though I certainly won't be as fast as you. Keep it up... as soon as you are unblocked anyway. P.S., is there a discussion going on about the "controversy" of this practice? I'd like to put my voice in to support the delinking of years, month names, and day names. --Renesis13 03:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

oneworld/Oneworld, etc.

Hi DBinder, I noticed you came along and cleaned up a link I'd edited that pointed to oneworld and changed it to oneworld. The MOS suggests leaving these the way they are (Wikipedia:Redirect#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken). I didn't want to cause you any extra work...
Also, concerning the capitalization of Oneworld, I noticed your vote on the WP:MOS-TM talk page. I wonder if you'd support a new proposal that lowercase names always be capitalized except in cases where the formatting already causes them to stand out... such as in links (oneworld), titles (oneworld Ruby), tables (such as the Airline alliance global players table column headers) or the bold text at the beginning of an article. I don't have a problem with a name being written the way it is trademarked, but these trademarks should have a plain-text equivalent for paragraph copy. Let me know what you think. -- Renesis13 23:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I should have incorporated the redirect fix into another edit; sorry about that. As for the WP policy, I don't see why trademarks that are normally written in all lowercase need to be capitalized. Press realeases of member airlines all say oneworld, not Oneworld. If SkyTeam should be up to the editors, then shouldn't oneworld be as well? Note: I am not writing this from any kind of biased perspective; in fact, I hate American Airlines, one of the leading carriers of the alliance. I just believe that trademarks should be written as intended (within reason) Dbinder 23:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I see your point about being consistent with the trademarked format. I feel the same way except in the case of first letter capitalization, in which I lean towards capitalization. I believe the rules of English say the proper nouns should have a capital. This is how you distinguish between proper nouns and regular nouns, as with the company Apple and the fruit apple. I don't feel that press releases are an accurate source for formatting, as they are pretty much the opposite of encyclopedic content - copyrighted, POV marketing copy, written by the company about itself. -- Renesis13 01:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Two naming conventions questions.

Hi, I noticed you were the user to add the Non-alphanumeric characters guidance into the Wikipedia:Naming conventions article. I've been struggling with what to do with a case concerning the name of a software program (and related article). The case is a program named ]project Open[. The article has been titled )Project open(. According to the guidelines in WP:NC, this possibly fits under "page names should not begin with non alpha-numeric (A-Z,0-9) characters used solely for emphasis". To me, it seems like it's worse that it uses decorative characters in the name, especially substitute decorative characters since the square brackets do not work. In addition, it seems inappropriate to use these decorative characters in the opening sentence in the article and throughout the article, as well as links pointing to the article. It looks messy and pretentious, and in English these characters have no meaning but merely reflect the logo they have chosen.
If you have any ideas on what to do with such an article, please let me know. Maybe a change to the style guide would help. There is another case -- the article Oneworld -- in which one of the editors insists the style of the logo be used even in the opening sentence, causing it to appear oneworld. I think some guidance needs to be created on these silly corporate naming conventions. Again, please let me know what you think, as you have had prior experience with the official policy and MoS on naming conventions and titles. -- Renesis13 17:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I am by far the master of the naming convention, but heres my $0.02. The Avoid non-alpha characters part of NAME was most in response to article with nonsense characters being added to draw attention, or look special. There a few a few good reasons for naming conventions: They make articles likely to be wikilinked; they help our professional image; they provide useful search results; and the make entries appear correctly in lists, indexes, etc. As far the two articles you mentioned here's my thoughts:

)Project open(

The swapping of brackets for parenthesis does not seem to be very helpful. Anyone who isn’t very familiar with this special name is likely to try to link to this via the exiting redirector at Project open. I would support deleting the redirect page, then moving this page to Project open, but keeping the technical restrictions disclaimer regarding the omitted brackets. If consensus is gathered on the talk page for this, I’ll do a rename if you talk page me on it.

Oneworld (airlines)

This one’s a bit trickier, and isn’t a naming conventions issue, but still a MOS matter. I have no feelings one way or another as to it showing as ’’’one’’’world or ’’’oneworld’’’. What does look bad is the inconsistent mixing of case on the ’’o’’ throughout the article. The corporate site suggesting always using lowercase, and that seems appropriate in the article.

Hope this helps! -- xaosflux Talk/CVU 01:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Task list section removal

Hi Renesis13, I think the removal of the External Links section was a good decision. It seemed to be a magnet for spam links; I've removed links from there before. Is there some policy to cut down on the .com links in such articles? ChemGardener 02:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: School IP

You participated in a discussion concerning vandalism from the 62.171.194.0/26 IP range about 3 months ago (Dec 2005). An indefinite block of this range was discussed, and you reported that it was from your school and that a block would block you as well. The decision that was reached was that you would manage the block, and unblock for your own use when you needed to. Since then, vandalism from this range has started pretty heavily again. According to the block log, you seem to be refusing to keep the range blocked, and instead saying "Just revert the vandalism then". The entire reason for the block in the first place was that the vandalism was unmanageable, to the rate of dozens of pages of vandalism per day per IP. It is unacceptable for you to expect other editors to mop up the mess from the vandalism range just so that you don't have to keep unblocking and re-blocking the range. I would like to know why your position regarding this IP range has changed. -- Renesis13 16:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

12 vandalisms per day? Oh no, how terrible. </sarcasm> Have you every been in the vandalism channel? About that much comes in every 2 minutes. 12 is a very small amount comparatively. Also, how much do I unblock, once every two days? It's reblocked pretty soon anyway so I don't really see much of an issue. I feel that something is being made of nothing here, impacting me in the process. Plus, I often revert vandalism to pages of my watchlist at school, when I see it. Probably a few a day. This, and any good article editing or commenting I do, surely cancels out 12 vandalisms each day? --Celestianpower háblame 17:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

So surely you're in support of not blocking any IP addresses at all? ("</sarcasm>") If you reread my comment I said dozens per day per IP address. So, several hundred per day—on an isolated, blockable IP range. It doesn't matter that the range gets blocked again "pretty soon"—you have the ability given to you to unblock IP addresses because it was determined that you would use the ability for the benefit of Wikipedia. Back when this was being discussed, all other editors felt an indefinite block was needed. You volunteered to unblock and reblock yourself, not to unblock and then wait for vandalism to occur, then wait longer for Curps to instate another 30 minute to 3 hour block. Back in December when I went through all 30+ IPs cleaning up the vandalism, there were several bad-faith subtle edits and other vandalizations that had gone totally unnoticed. I never had a problem with you unblocking temporarily during the time you would be editing. I only have a problem with you dropping the issue that was only resolved based on your agreement, and letting the flood of manageable vandalism come back in. -- Renesis13 17:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I see. Okay, I now understand you and see your point. Sorry for my uncivility. I don't really know what to do about it then - I suppose I'll have to not edit from school, how moronic. Whatever happened to that proposal to distinguish between IP edits and accounts - surely that would solve all of my problems. --Celestianpower háblame 17:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Are you able to unblock just when you need to edit and then reinstate the block? It seems like it was going pretty well for a while. About that proposal, it seems to me that it would be an obvious decision —registered users should always be allowed to edit (especially sys-ops!) unless they are specifically blocked, also. The proposal seems to still be active and I voted my strong support of it today. Also, I appreciate the apology and apologize if I came across as attacking. -- Renesis13 17:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I could, but often I'm told to get of the computer pretty sharpish and then I won't have time to find the block page and reblock. Plus, both pages are quite difficult to find, especially since favourites don't work at school. Anywho, that's not for you to worry about. Thanks for baring with my incivility, --Celestianpower háblame 18:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

vandal to be blocked

I just reverted this edit by the user you already warned several times — MFH:Talk 02:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. Unfortunately I am not a sys-op and can't block. I'll keep an eye on it but luckily it looks like that IP address has been dormant for a few days now. -- Renesis13 05:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

AfD

Hi Renesis. I just wanted to let you know, with regards to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas BARBARO, that talk pages w/o articles meet our criteria for speedy deletion (general criterion #8); you could have just tagged the talk page for speedy deletion. Thanks for spotting that talk page, though. Keep up the good work. ×Meegs 05:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Lowercase

Thanks very much for pointing me at the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks), it's very helpful! Also, if you have time, would you be interested in participating in the discussion on the matter at Talk:Danah boyd? I've been trying to help out there, but with the number of anonymous users coming as a result of Boyd's blog post, I'm feeling a bit overwhelmed. Some help from another Wikipedian who can help explain Wikipedia guidelines would be much appreciated. --Elonka 00:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Commercial Players

Hello, Renesis. Welcome to wiki. In regard to PLM (and perhaps other disciplines on the ever-advancing computational horizon, of which, wikipedia is one phenomenon), the commercial players were/are very much part of the landscape and were/are instrumental in the progress (in part, of course) and are relevant (not extraneous) to any description/discussion. One precedence (of several) is that all NYSE listed companies (and, perhaps many others) are on reference pages. Now, the issue might be how to do the reference so as to not look like marketing. Thanks. jmswtlk 02:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Danah Boyd

Now that the anonymous editing of danah boyd has died out, and with another editor's reference to E. E. Cummings in a reply to your comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies), I decided to apply the rules in the MOS to her article and capitalized all instances of her name except in "(also known as danah boyd)". This follows what was done at E. E. Cummings' article. As much as she may cry about "danah boyd" being the "legal spelling", the fact remains that Wikipedia is not "misspelling" it (D and B are the same letters as d and b) and a decision has been made by consensus specifically regarding lowercase names with no internal capitals, that they should be capitalized at each instance. I will stick by this decision and monitor the article, and hopefully we don't have another rush of anonymous fans coming from her blog. -- Renesis13 16:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits, and I agree. I'd also like to see about getting formal consensus to move the article from "Danah boyd" to "Danah Boyd", per MoS, and also to avoid redirect problems from other linking articles on Wikipedia (the standard spelling in them seems to be Danah Boyd). What is your opinion? --Elonka 17:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as the title goes, I could probably be persuaded either way. I can see "danah boyd" being a correct article title, as it is a common "alias" even if Wikipedia doesn't agree that it is a permissible capitalization (similar to 50 Cent, Shakira or other celebrities with odd or single names whose article resides at the most common form). I think "Danah Boyd" would also be an appropriate article title, as her official name. I don't think it hurts too much right now for other pages to be redirecting through Danah Boyd. At least they are using that and not danah boyd. -- Renesis13 18:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Afera article

Hello, I notice that you have been active on removing links on topics such as project management. You saw Monte Carlo method, and see "Commercial packages" which uses Monte Carlo method. There are listed commercial packages. So my link is clear and it is not a spam or are there any double standarts when some software can be listed and others not?

Laserfiche article

Hello, I notice that you have been active on removing linkspam on topics such as document management and records management. Because you seem to be quite knowledgeable and impartial, I'd like to invite you to weigh in with regards to whether or not Laserfiche should be included in Wikipedia. Because I am an employee at the company, my claims regarding Notability, NPOV and Verifiability are being taken with huge grains of salt and I feel that the little flame-fest that's erupted on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laserfiche (second nomination) isn't going to be resolved by anything I say. --Docmgmt 18:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Teamgeist2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Teamgeist_Berlin.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Bono move

I agree with your move of Bono. The disamb page there is ridiculous. A disambiguation page exists where a word can lead to confusion, not to join any mention of a similar name together even though in other cases it is not used singularly. For example, people say pro bono, not Bono. People say Chastity Bono and then only refer to her surname having given her full name earlier. It would be like moving Northern Ireland to a disambiguation page where the word Ireland or the word Northern was ever used. A disamb page could be attached to Bono, but not there. It is nonsensical to place it there. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. It was quite a poorly thought-out move--not only did it not follow common sense, but also it duplicated the disambig page and forked it's history, and unfortunately several pages have now had links to Bono "automatically disambiguated" to Bono (U2) (See Bill Gates, which I was watching). Hundreds of pages link to Bono and my guess is all of them refer to Bono... I don't see why they wouldn't. Anyway, I don't know if it's important or not but someone should probably delete Bono, move Bono (U2) back in its place, and leave it as a redirect so that the move can't be performed again without consensus and an admin's help. I am not an admin so I can't fix this. Do you think I should list it at Wikipedia:Requested moves? -- Renesis13 04:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Please stop removing my non-commerical link to Zenlist. It is a valid, non-commercial, FREE avenue for people to begin to experiment with GTD and was not opposed until you began to remove it on a regular basis. There are no ads, fees, or any related arrangements that would constitute a commercial site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brightpool (talk • contribs) .

When was it first added? As far as I can tell, it was added 2 days ago, and then 2 more times today after being removed, both times by an anonymous account with no comment. Just because it was there for two days does not mean it should stay because it was "unopposed." I monitor this page and several others that are magnets for spam on a regular basis for new external links that are inappropriate. I do not see anything about the link you provided that is any more acceptable than the millions of other links that could be added to the GTD article. The point of external links on an article is not to provide a directory to useful resources - it is to provide encyclopedic content about "Getting Things Done" and valid references. All of the pages I monitor are on my watchlist because at one time each was a mess from too many external links. The goal now is to keep inappropriate links of the page so they do not draw more inappropriate links. Please remove the link yourself, as although it may be a good resource, it does not belong on Wikipedia. -- Renesis13 04:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Then explain linking to blogs. You are not making sense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.220.9.156 (talk • contribs) .
Read WP:EL and WP:NOT -- Renesis13 06:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi ... quick questino on your dahl edits ... why did you delink all of the date links? Tx.

--Epeefleche 06:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, you asked me about the date links I un-linked. The links that I removed were links which do not respond to date preferences (because they were not full dates—for example, "July 2006" or just "2001") and did not relate to the context of the article. There shouldn't be any disadvantage to having these dates unlinked. If I removed a link which was useful, then I must have made a mistake and I apologize. -- Renesis13 06:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks!
--Epeefleche 06:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:spam0

Howdy, I noticed you created the template {{spam0}}. We were probably thinking along the same lines; I created Template:Welcomespam a few days ago, but had not yet added it to the table. Do you think I should make it a redirect to spam0, merge the two in some way? Thanks (great minds as they say...) --TeaDrinker 19:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Cool! I actually had created the template a while ago because I felt that some users who added links in good faith would be less likely to return and vandalize Wikipedia if they weren't attacked immediately. I left it in my user space until today, I needed to make the page name optional so I decided to finish it off and put it in the Template space. I originally created it as {{spam-agf}} but then checked the index of test templates and realized that it asks editors to use the "0" convention for "assume good faith" warnings. So I moved it to {{spam0}} and am working on it there. In answer to your question, I think it would be a good idea to redirect {{welcomespam}} to spam0 but feel free to merge the content or edit it in whatever way you want! Thanks for checking. -- Renesis13 19:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
On second thought, I should have checked what your template looked like before I made my suggestion above! Since yours is a welcome template, I think {{welcomespam}} is perfect. I would just add it to the welcome table at Wikipedia:Welcome template table so people can start using it! Also, go ahead and add it to the {{spam-nav}} template so it will show up on the other spam template pages as well. Good work! -- Renesis13 19:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, I have added it to the table and templates. Keep up the great work! --TeaDrinker 02:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Jack Vance

That talk page is for discussion of the article only. If you wish to discuss the template, take it to the template talk page. If you wish to chat with Arvin, please use your user talk page. Thank you. Gamaliel 02:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were the one to remove the discussion. I thought Arvin Sloane had. However, I am not discussing the template, and I do not see how the discussion is not related to the Jack Vance article. I want a legitimate answer -- it is destructive to Wikipedia to have little corners of the article space like this that are owned by a few people exhibiting troll-like behavior. If he wants a place that projects, templates, and Wikipedia work do not apply, he needs his own site. I want to know why Wikipedia is so important and yet so disgusting. -- Renesis13 02:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Once again, if you want to chat with Arvin, take it to user talk pages. Please do not encourage trolling and off topic discussion by engaging him. None of that discussion is about Jack Vance and it does not belong. I will protect the page if necessary. Please do not restore Arvin's trolling again. Gamaliel 02:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
You know that Arvin has no talk page I can work with, since he uses a dynamic IP to avoid being blocked. I can't leave messages for him on my talk page. How else am I supposed to do it? My goal here is not to "restore his trolling" (I tried to remove everything but the relevant messages last time), it's to find out why he and a few others do not want to allow any cooperation on the Jack Vance page. I don't think it is fair of you to say you'll protect the page just because you have the ability and I don't, as I am not vandalizing, nor objecting to discussion, nor trying to prove a point. I only left a message that I don't want wiped away 2 seconds after I wrote it. -- Renesis13 02:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I will remove any past and future comments from Arvin that cross the line (too insulting, etc.) and you will wrap up this discussion shortly and not continue an off topic discussion indefinately. Will that be acceptable to you? Gamaliel 02:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. -- Renesis13 02:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
You can archive the talk page now, if you feel up to an edit war. I don't want to start anything, nor am I afraid of hiding the conversation like Arvin Sloane thinks I am, so I'm not going to move it to the archive just yet. -- Renesis13 06:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks....

I hope I don't come across like I'm trying to own the page -- I'm certainly not, and I'm not trying to take away anyone's right to edit it either. Let me just say that in the very beginning, I just thought Arvin Sloane's removal of the {{WPBiography}} template was inappropriate, and baffling. Blanking, threats, and insults are a problem no matter what is involved. He seems to feel that I have come in to lecture "all you regulars", but I don't know what I've done to give that impression. I do think that the attitude of the main editors of the page seems to reflect a bit of a feeling of ownership, but I can understand that you wouldn't like being told what to do by the "merely curious" that just happen by. My guess is editors who came across as insulting and uptight with the rules were merely trying to spur some improvement in the article that they were unable to do themselves, but it is a shame if they offended you. I personally know nothing about Jack Vance. It would be very easy for me to determine if a particular fact is sourced or not, but very difficult for me to fix it without just removing it. That's why I would ask someone who knows what they are doing to make a change -- not to say you are doing something wrong, but just because continual improvement is the way things work around here. By the way, I assume you already knew this, but the WPBiography template is a standard template being placed on ALL biographies. It is not saying that anything is wrong with the Jack Vance article in particular. There is also nothing bad about a "B Class" rating. It is just below an official Good Article, which is actually a formal review process. It could be reviewed for that right now if you wanted. -- Renesis13 08:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

For reference

Who have I personally attacked? I'm not personally attacking anyone; I'm attacking what I perceive to be a snotty-nosed attitude that I've discussed on Talk:Jack_Vance. It's not directed at any one person and I'm sorry you think it is. Arvin Sloane is Arvin sloane, I don't know who he is and I ask not to be paired off with him. Peter1968 08:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding my personal attacks comment on the Template talk page... you said the following: You guys (administrators, super-active Wikipedia addicts, template inventors, bored individuals, etc) seem hell-bent on converting Wikipedia from being an encyclopedia editable and readable by anyone, into some sort of esoteric cross-referenced morass of hypercomplexity." to me and Gamaliel regarding the template (a template that is being put on all biographies) that we were just trying to keep in tact (I'm neither administrator, super-active, or a template inventor, and I object to being called bored! :) ). Also, the phrases "child monitor", "hall monitor", and "guideline fetishism" aren't exactly civil. However, I'm not saying that you made some grieve personal attack... just that the preceding comments just make the situation worse. -- Renesis13 16:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, but I still don't think I made any personal attacks. My idea of a perosnal attack is me calling you a effing so-and-so, etc. My points remain valid re: hall monitors and zealots, IMHO. There are far too many little devils citing scripture for their own purposes here on WP, and the site is turning into a staggering welter of templates, policies and other sundry minutiae that undermines what WP is: a repository of facts.
I personally have no objections to the Biography templates, apart from the odd decision to use those two little girls to represent a living person.
But, as you can see from the Vance talk page another person has decided to step in and reinforce the opinion that JV's article is a thing controlled by a good ole boy's club and you and Gamaliel are not welcome. Once again, I don't agree with any idea that Vance's article is "owned" by anyone but, as you can see, I may well be in a minority here. Peter1968 16:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
You're certainly entitled to have that opinion. I probably should have never stepped in on the Jack Vance page, since it seems you're correct about it -- it appears to be lost... a corner of Wikipedia owned by a few academics on the topic who will insist on offending any newcomers. I was trying to help Wikipedia as a whole, but I guess I've learned my lesson. -- Renesis13 16:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Just as a coda, the good ole boy thing I was alluding to has heated up. It may be pertinent to point out here, that the people currently slamming Gamaliel for doing his job, are relative newcomers to the article themselves, if you go back through the history. So, calling you and Gamaliel a couple of johnny-come-lately's is a bit rich, if you ask me. I've had an association with the article, dunno, maybe 18 months or more. Anyhow, I'm going to exit stage left from the whole lot before it becomes a thorough A-grade mess. Peter1968 17:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
You're right. And the thing is, Gamaliel isn't even hindering editing or discussion of the article by removing that section. Archiving an inactive discussion that wasn't useful anyway in no way hurts any of the editors slamming him for it -- they can still get to it, just one click away. It's as if they are just insulted that someone would step on their precious territory. I appreciate having been able to work things out calmly with you and I apologize sincerely for grouping you in with that lot. It's a mess. Just curious, since you've been there for so long and are familiar with the topic--do you have any idea why it's like that? Does it have something to do with Jack Vance's philosophies or the nature of his fans? -- Renesis (talk) 17:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Why the good ole boy status? Vance is 90 years old and has been publishing since 1945...many of the contributors there have been dealing with Vance for 30+ years, quite often as a peer in the SF field, or as personal friends. So, it's a personal thing to quite a few of them, and it's understandable why many object to what they see as needless interference from "upstarts" and so forth. Yes, it all quite silly, but if you surf around WP, you'll find the pages of many other highly regarded and acknowledged fiction writers have been cultivated in a very similar way.
And, as you can see, WP's policies on no original research have head-on collisions with the contributions made as much of the info was imparted to them by Vance himself in conversations. Vance has told me a few things on the phone that I couldn't use in the article, for the same reasons.
So, a lot of them (admittedly, including me) object to what they see as intrusions by people only too willing to cite scriptures and throw guidelines and policies their way like backyard lawyers. Anyhow, I hope that explains why things are they way they are over at that article.
Lastly, but sadly not leastly, there's also some contention over the Vance Integral Edition project, which has soured much of the talk page too. There's decidedly two camps there, and I'll let you decide for yourself the status quo. Peter1968 09:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which finished with a tally of 66/11/5. I learned quite a bit during the process, and I expect to be learning a lot more in the days ahead. I will be taking things slowly (and doing a lot of re-reading), but I hope you will let me know if there is anything I can do to improve in my new capacity. -- Merope Talk 13:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Invest Sign on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Invest Sign. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. Aferistas

Hi, have a look back, there's been accusations of sockpuppetry or misintention. Cheers Khukri (talk . contribs) 07:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

Thank you for supporting my RfA that I have passed with 73/2/1.--Jusjih 10:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

oneworld

Hi, I saw that you followed a couple of my edits on Oneworld capitalization. I have two comments. I personally am fine with the "first instance" rule, but I don't think the MOS really "allows" this. Do you think we ought to work this into the MOS? Second, would you be ok with only allowing lowercase "oneworld" when the instance is bold-able, such as the the first line of an article (Oneworld or Oneworld destinations) or the template? I still think it looks weird and is more against the spirit of the MOS when it is lowercase in inline text with nothing to make it stand out. -- Renesis (talk) 19:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with the boldable concept (essentially if the article is directly about the alliance - the oneworld and oneworld destinations and the template) and that passive mentions of it in member carriers' articles should follow whatever universal standard is set. I guess it's not explicitly in the MOS, although I think this was the format agreed upon verbally quite some time ago with regards to this article. It probably should be formalized, since there are other trademarks in all lowercase, and all should be treated the same way. DB (talk) 20:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

{{GA-Class}}

I noticed you protected the template Template:GA-Class along with the other quality-scale indicators. I personally feel this is a mistake, since although it is a "high risk" template (included on hundreds of thousands of articles), it is also quite hidden from access. To know it exists you would have to know quite well how to dissect templates and inclusions, something that is above 99.9% of vandals (if not 100%). Can I ask that you revert the full protection to semi-protection? I am not an administrator and would like to tweak the background color that is used to indicated Good Articles. -- Renesis (talk) 22:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The issue here is not vandalism as much as it is server load. These templates are transcluded in hundreds of thousands of places, so every time one is changed, the job queue is overloaded with pages. Also, the color scheme was changed recently, so it may not be the best idea to change aspects of it again, especially after users complain about users coming and making changes that affect everyone without discussion; that's why I protected the templates. As for your change, you may want to ask at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment for more opinions. Titoxd(?!?) 22:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Is full-protection really the appropriate action to take for concerns about server load or the page being edited too many times? That would imply that a user who is not an administrator but doesn't wish to do Wikipedia any harm is either (A) not as smart as the average administrator, or (B) doesn't care about the good of Wikipedia as much as an administrator would. Neither are valid assumptions, and neither fits in with Wikipedia's policy of allowing editing by anyone. A position like that is quite offensive to those editors who truly want to improve Wikipedia, have spent countless hours contributing and have years of experience with how Wikipedia works, but are not administrators. A simple notice in the source would serve the same purpose for these editors. For your information, I simply want to change the shade of green slightly to not conflict as much with the background of the WPBiography template. I have no problem with consulting the Assessment team, but didn't feel it was necessary for such a small change. I did look into how the current colors were decided on before I decided to try to change the color as well. -- Renesis (talk) 23:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
No, that's not what I meant, and if I came off as implying that, I apologize. I simply meant that users have gotten annoyed in the past at the always-changing color scheme, and that it has gotten to the point where small changes usually end up being reverted by someone who based color schemes for their WikiProject on the current scheme, and who then changes it back to fit his/her project's needs. Since these changes end up being discussed anyways, it would be a better idea to discuss it first, as there are many admins who would gladly make a change to any of those templates, as long as it doesn't break havoc with everyone else. Titoxd(?!?) 23:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, that makes sense. I'll just propose the change at the location you suggested. Thanks. -- Renesis (talk) 23:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Sure, no problem. it's just that we don't want to get yelled at... Titoxd(?!?) 23:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Ouch. Anyway, I added my proposal. I saw you questioned the colors before - would you like to post your thoughts? New GA Green proposal. -- Renesis (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Question about "Revert to revision 85888471 dated 2006-11-05 18:51:45 by Renesis13 using popups"

Hello Renesis13,

I have done 2 time the same modification on the Wikipedia “getting thinks done” page … and two time a pop-up from you have cancelled this modification : see history of this page

Is it a mistake, a problem or is there a good reason for that ? Could you please help me to understand this phenomenom ?

Best Regards

Bernard

Please answer me on my talk page : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bernard_chabot&action=edit —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernard chabot (talk • contribs) 10:04, November 10, 2006

Hi Bernard, I apologize for not using a more descriptive edit summary. The reason that I reverted the change is that Wikipedia should not be used for advertising. External links are mainly used for references for the content in the article itself. For more info, see Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:Spam. Thanks for asking and welcome to Wikipedia. Let me know if you have any other questions. -- Renesis (talk) 18:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello Renesis13
Well, I d'ont really understand why making a link to a free software (I'm not the editor of the software :-), I'm just a user of this very useful software which could be heplful for many people interesting in GTD) should be a advertising :
1. There is link to other softwares in GTP page (See for exemple : GTD Gmail Extension)
2. Many page in Wikipedia have links to free (and also commercial) software treated as occurrence of the page topic (See for exemple Concept Maps Software)
So ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernard chabot (talk • contribs) 14:15, November 13, 2006


RFA Thanks

Thanks!
Thanks for your input on my (nearly recent) Request for adminship, which regretfully achived no consensus, with votes of 68/28/2. I am grateful for the input received, both positive and in opposition, and I'd like to thank you for your participation.
Georgewilliamherbert 05:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Election disambiguation pages

Good work on converting those election redirects to disambiguation pages. I think however, that it is a problem having the United States presidential elections so far down the list. Even though Wikipedia is not US-centric, the English Wikipedia is English-centric and one of the most common targets for "2000 elections" is going to be the U.S. presidential elections. What do you think we could do about it? I don't want to go and totally refactor all the work you've done without asking you for input first. -- Renesis (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that making the U.S. elections more prominent is a good idea, and I encourage you to make changes. Perhaps the pages should read something like:

"1996 election most commonly refers to United States presidential election, 1996. It may also refer to: ==In Australia==" etc. The only reason I didn't put the U.S. elections at the top is because I did not want to appear Americentric, but I think it would be a helpful change. Khatru2 21:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Renesis/Archive_1&oldid=1143261390"