User talk:SpiderMMB/Archive 1

Archive 1

Spanish language

Some sources say that a majority of Andorrans speak Spanish. Also, I left all those sources for Ramirez, who'd removed Andorra earlier today. It's not the first time its name has been removed - even when the only claim in the infobox is that a minority speaks it, as stated in the article! - and I can't (honestly can't) imagine why. SamEV 19:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, SpiderMMB, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  -- ReyBrujo 23:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: User Reported

Hi there. Administrators block to prevent immediate damage. Usually, when 30-60 minutes passed and the user hasn't vandalized, it is removed. In 207.237.55.187 case, his last warning was given on March 3. In order to block him, you must warn him at least with a {{bv}} tag (in very serious cases), or with the test family of templates ({{test1}}, {{test2}}, {{test3}} and {{test4}}). Only after you have used a test4 or bv and the user vandalized again we would block him. As you see, we try to assume good faith as much as possible, giving the users as many possibilities as possible. Yes, it is possible the user will stop after a test3 and continue the next week, but at least we are giving them as many possibilities. So, I suggest to check WP:TUSER to learn about the different warning templates, and apply them with as much patience as you can. The idea is that this encyclopedia remains as free as possible, only blocking the people who are really damaging us. Hope that clarifies the matter. -- ReyBrujo 23:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Samurai Champloo Plot Section

Thanks for your response. I've only seen the first episode so far, so I really can't say, although I would certainly like to think that, from the way the image is framed after the coin lands on Fuu's forehead, the two are looking at her face prior to being distracted. Nonetheless, thanks for your prompt response and your assistance. HaikenEdge 13:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Reagan Lead

Well thank you for being so polite, and presenting your views in an assertive, but not argumentive way. I fully understand wat you are trying to say. If I can find citations, though, I might add back some of what was deleted. I'm fine with you reverting the edit; it's probably best for the article. Again, thanks a lot. Happyme22 04:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. I'm really very pleased that you would check with me before editing, and I have gained lots of respect for you.

I think that the lead should be in chronological order, so after talking about Reagan getting elected President, I think it's odd to go straight to his farewell address, and I might place that sentence in the "Close of the Reagan Era" section. Maybe we could include parts of the sentence, or what do you think about something like this:

Reagan stated that his two proudest achievements were expanding the economy and restoring American morale following a time of political setbacks, and economic stagflation.[2] Coined "Reaganomics," his economic policies consisted of large tax cuts, moderate deregulation, robust job creation, reductions in inflation, but soaring budget deficits.[3][4] Reagan was reelected by a landslide in 1984, after surviving an assassination attempt. He experienced several scandals during his presidency, the most notable being the Iran-Contra Affair in 1986.

I think that's better, but tell me what you think. Happyme22 02:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually I think that the lead in Reagan's article is just perfect, and doesn't need anything added, or taken away from it, but if you disagree, leave me a message. You should read some of the disputes we all had concerning the lead (which you can see on the talk page), and I was activley involved. It has taken a long time for us to reach the current lead, and I really like it now. It was nice working with you, and I hope to do it again sometime. Thanks, Happyme22 03:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Get out of the way?

Yeah, I realized about instantly that my edit summary could be taken the wrong way, so I tried to explain my position on the talk page. Gall, that was stupid of me. I meant the intro needs to get out of the way... the information in the intro needs to be useful, or not exist at all. That's all I meant... your good faith is extremely appreciated. Sorry!

As for why you wrote that, I agree that mentioning other things briefly may be useful, but just giving a group of names isn't going to help things. A phrase like "presided over the worst U.S. natural disaster in decades" would do so much better than just saying "Hurricane Katrina happened"... right? You are right about the war being overemphasized. Mostly it's just because that's the only thing (besides name, date of birth, etc.) that as of today has been expressed in a cogent and concise manner. The other important topics just need to be written up. Again, my apologies. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool, this seems to be a good example of Wikipedia working. I kind of like the version you just put up on the GWB talk page. This Monday or so I'll get back to "work" on finishing it up, andthanks to heavy collaboration we can all have a lead to be proud of. Good times having good faith all around. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 22:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Samurai Champloo

Cite references. Plain and simple. Otherwise....I will get edit happy. --293.xx.xxx.xx 23:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Never said I was gonna delete right away. Cite reliable references. Thats it. Otherwise, I can rightfully challenge said claims and delete them, because the contributor(s) never bothered to cite reliable sources. Try and read Wikipedia:Citing sources please. Especially this section.--293.xx.xxx.xx 23:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Cold War

Your assertion that the introduction looks "noticeably naked compared to similar articles" is no reason for change whatsoever. This is an encyclopedia; legibility should have priority over kitsch, as another user said a while ago . The 'Cold War infobox' removed from the article was awful. The topic was discussed in great detail in previous archives of the talk page. Please go through the archives so that I do not have to rewrite my previous long postings. 172 | Talk 21:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if my reply sounded terse. That 'infobox' just happens to be a somewhat sore subject with me. It was the subject of several long, frustrating discussions months ago. I saw it on my page and thought to myself, "Oh no, not again!" I regret not offering you a friendlier, better expressed reply. If you have any further questions about the box, I will be happy to reply in the future. 172 | Talk 01:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Reagan Lead

Hi again. Although I love how we Wikipedia editors were able to come to a concensus on the Lead in Ronald Reagan's article, I think we could add one more detail: Nancy Reagan. The Reagan's were often described as the closest President and First Lady ever, called "inseperable," and both described not wanting to live without the other. I think it deserves mention in the lead for those reasons, and according to WP:LEAD, every section in the article should try to be mentioned somehow, and "Marriage and children" (especially marriage) was a big part of Reagan's life. All we need to do is add another sentence in the lead, or expand one, saying maybe: "Reagan was born and raised in Illinois and moved to California in the 1930s where he met his wife, Nancy."

Wat do you think? Happyme22 04:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok well I added it. I'm also going to add a little sentence on tonight's GOP Presidential Debate at the Reagan Library in the "Presidential Library and Museum" section of Ronald Reagan, "Later Life" in Nancy Reagan, and in the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library articles. Thanks again for your input. Happyme22 01:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note

The syntax is complicated, but I will work on improving my references!

By the way, I had removed the Kyoto context because 99% of people know what it is, and if they didn't, they could click on the link. Also, I thought the description used lots of big words, so was hard to read. I think removing any extra wording makes things a little better. Anyway, thanks for fixing my references and I have studied the syntax and understand it better now!KeithCu 10:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Spanish language

I may be to blame; the IP user who put the tags in was just changing numbers, so I suggested that he should back up his facts. He's not very wiki-literate; however, I assumed good faith and all that, and he stuck {{fact}} all over the place. Acroterion _(talk) 02:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Samurai Champloo edits

I gave my reasons in the deletion reasoning. Several of the "reference marks" mention nothing about Samurai Champloo, so it got deleted. Plus, I can plainly see TWO messages left on your talk page, so don't accuse me of not "communicating" to you. Reverted back--293.xx.xxx.xx 23:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Israel

I want to apologize if you felt insulted by the tone of my message. I've been accused of bias myself on these boards, namely at Spanish language. As someone who tries to be neutral, I understand how you can feel personally insulted when someone makes that sort of claim about an article you've worked strongly on. I did not mean to imply that there aren't any neutral editors on the Israel article. I know there are some, and mentioned that in my message though I could have used more tact. It's just frustrating to me when good articles are in the process of being made because there ARE neutral editors trying to negotiate, and then people with their own agenda to push come in and totally skew it. This is not a problem exclusive to the Israel article. If you look at my history, you'll see I've raised similar issues on many other pages. It's more of less my frustration with Wikipedia, because there is so much potential and it is such a revolutionary medium in so many ways, and those trying to compromise and make a good academic article get sidelined by others. SpiderMMB 23:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering if you could take a look at the changes I've made to the article today, my reasoning on the discussion page, as well as several of the reverts that have taken place since then. I have gained much respect for you as a neutral editor of Wikipedia, both in the way you have dealt with me on the talk page and from taking a look at your history. With respect to the latter, your work on the Jerusalem article, which you self-nominated, has increased my faith that you are one of the best people to neutrally arbitrate the current wave of changes to the Israel article, which I now assume is being done in an attempt to achieve FA status. Apologies again if my earlier tone offended you, but I hope from here on out we can work together. To be honest, I'm a bit spent from my recent efforts, and would like to back off a bit and come at it with a fresh perspective. I hope in the interim that your good judgment can lend balance to the article's development. Best regards, SpiderMMB 20:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

First, sorry for the late reply; I've been away in New York City the past couple days and have not had access to Wikipedia (or a computer, for that matter). I'm not seeing much response to your comments on Talk:Israel explaining the reasoning for your edits so I feel tempted to support you based on that alone. However, I like the original version a bit better. Although we probably could do without mentioning every stat in the intro, I feel your revisions made the intro a little too vague. The use of "that some consider to be absent from other countries in the region" seems especially unspecific and even "having an array of rights and freedoms" even seems like we're trying not to be too harsh on Israel's Arab neighbors. Saying that Israel is more free in multiple ways than neighboring Mideast countries is not biased or a violation of neutral point-of-view; it's a statement of fact. We don't have to make this an advertisement for Israel, but I don't feel softening Israel's relative successes to such a degree is the best way to write a good intro for this controversial article. -- tariqabjotu 08:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

the majority of people speak Guarani in Paraguay

http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=py

Spanish map

You don't have to be an admin to change the map on Wikimedia (I do not have admin access there), but I'll be happy to change it for you anyway. I really want to get rid of the Philippines (only creoles are spoken there) on that map. Should we just limit it to areas where Spanish is an official language? I should take a look and see what was done to the French article. I am leaving for Oregon tomorrow evening, so let me know soon. --Chris S. 20:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I've updated the map. I have a feeling we're in for some unsatisified customers. --Chris S. 06:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I found out that I don't actually leave until tomorrow, so I've gone ahead and removed those islands that The Ogre was talking about. Thanks! --Chris S. 04:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Samurai Champloo Neutrality and Peacocking

Thanks for the note on my talk page. Please excuse the copying and pasting below. I wrote some comments on the Samurai Champloo Talk Page that I think get across my point quite well, so I just copied them where necessary. :p

I like the article a lot. It's more than a great beginning. But see a couple of problems that I think taint it, and the unnamed user (without an account) who commented on the Champloo talk page was right to note that it cannot be a Featured Article in this condition. These issues came to my attention when that unnamed user correctly noted a neutrality problem. The problem begins with the phrase, "of Cowboy Bebop" fame." Like most people who have followed Watanabe's career since Macross Plus, I have no doubt of the director's renown in the anime community -- it is a fact. But that unnamed user was right to point out that the word "fame" is problematic because of its subjective nature. Most people would not know who Watanabe is. Rather, he has undoubtedly "attained renown in the anime community" and "has a distinct following." So specificity here would really fix this. I suggested changing it to:

It was directed by Shinichiro Watanabe, whose Cowboy Bebop earned him renown in the anime commuity<reference>. It was produced by the studio, Manglobe, Inc.

The other section that struck me as problematic is the section on North American broadcasting. This is really the problem area -- much more so than the other phrase in the first paragraph. It says, "Geneon Entertainment licensed the show for distribution in North America almost a year prior to the show's airing in Japan. This decision was based almost solely on the reputation of its creator, Shinichiro Watanabe."

That's a hefty statement to say without sourcing. I happen to agree with it. I would bet my bottom dollar that this is the way it happened. (In fact, I heard a similar story about how the show acquired in North America.) But people should not have to take for granted an editor's recounting of the events that led to the various North American distribution deals. The sentence desperately needs sourcing. Even though I think the facts contained within those two sentences are by and large correct, that does not mean that this particular story is true (or wholly true). I, myself, cannot confirm it. I will need to find a source.

But the problem with this section goes beyond sourcing. Those two sentences are written in a way that makes the reader feel as someone's trying to pursuaded him/her of something. A lot of that is a result of the word "solely." As it's used here, "solely" is a peacock word and should be avoided being used in this manner in any Wikipedia article. The problem is that it is incorrect to say that any decision is solely based on anything. There are so many factors that go into most decision making that saying this particuar factor was the lone force this decion is a highly improbable statement, physchologically speaking. (It's also a statistical improbability. It would be almost impossible for it to go down that way without any other influences, the likes of which could be small and intricate.) Therefore, that sentence strains credulity. So although his reputation may certainly have played a very large role in the decision, it was not his reputation alone that led to it.

So these problems are small, but important. Otherwise the article sounds great. I thought I might go in and change those two small parts and see if there are any other areas that can be flourished. I'd love to hear your thoughts. Cheers! ask123 16:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Spanish Language

Thanks for your comments re Spanish language on my talk page. Regarding Belize, I have fleshed out the cite and edited the reported figure from 206,404 to 150,848. I have left an inline comment explaining "Table 1 on page 35 of 111 reports the total population as 240204, page 13 of 111 (numbered as page 7 of the report) reports that 52.1% of the population speaks Spanish very well and 10.7% not so well. 52.1 + 10.7 = 62.8%, 240,404 * .628 = 150,848 Spanish speakers." -- Boracay Bill 23:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Cold War Intro

Thanks for changing the Cold War intro back into a paragraph. I've been thinking of making that change for a while, but instead, I cleaned up and summarized the "History" section prior to the 1947 part. I notice on your user page that you are interested in pop culture. I created an article which hasn't had a lot of traction: Culture during the Cold War. Would you mind having a look at it and saying something about it, or make some kind of contribution? It's somewhere between list and discussion, and I'd like it to be more discussion. Thanks! Hires an editor 10:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I forgot that I wrote you! I'm just asking for your skills as someone who can take a list and turn it into a discussion. I'm not sure it's possible, but I'm stuck. I appreciate it in any case. Thanks. Hires an editor 00:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Samurai Champloo: shōnen or seinen?

If you want, check out the current discussion on whether Champloo is shōnen or seinen (or does it cross genres?) on the Champloo talk page. After seeing that the Neon Genesis Evangelion manga page categorized that series as shōnen -- which seems crazy to me -- I reliazed that the Champloo article might be making the same mistake. I originally justified the shōnen categorization with the fact that it was published in Shonen Ace but the Evangelion manga was printed in the same publication. So perhaps that's not justification here... In any event, we would appreciate any input you may have. Check out the thread, "Changed Genre Listing"... Cheers, ask123 15:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Election issue

I have responded on the page. Thank you for starting a discussion about this topic! Best, Happyme22 06:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Edition in Spanish languaee

You can see the discussion page, but I didn't write that "Spanish is spoken widely in Brazil". That's not mine. --Gimferrer 10:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI

When someone does not want to be mediated, don't mediate him. -- tariqabjotu 03:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I really do not want other editors to do any talking on my behalf. Days ago, I had requested mediation, which was rejected by User:Tariqabjotu. The idea he just sent you is clearly incorrect and, I believe, uncivil. Thank you. --Shamir1 04:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Tariq, with respect, if anything "sounds condescending, inaccurate, and, ultimately, unproductive," it is your response to me. I have indeed been following this discussion, and did not step in to "mediate." I stepped in because you and Shamir have been going in circles with your arguments. I agree consensus has been reached, I am the one who pointed it out. I felt the need to step in because clearly you two are not going to convince one another, and because all I have seen from either of you, at this point, are personal attacks. As for why I reverted the sentence, it is the same reason Okedem reverted your attempt at a new citation: I do not feel one person's actions should be responsible for changing the article. If that is not clear to you I suggest you re-read what I wrote. Whatever your attachment to this article, and whatever your frustration with other users, please refrain from insulting the intelligence of those who are trying to wind down the situation.

I responded to this on Talk:Israel. -- tariqabjotu 18:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason to convince you that I'm not mediating, suffice it to say that inserting an opinion which is neither yours nor Shamir's, and asking that the both of you "cool off," is not mediation. I'm entitled to voice my opinion on the discussion page, regardless of how that sits with either you or Shamir. That aside, think what you will, I don't intend to waste time on this.

Now, as to the issue at hand, I'll explain. The current truncated version does nothing to refute Shamir's policy arguments. If you shorten it to "Israel is a liberal democracy" and cite to Freedom House, he can still make all the same arguments about how Freedom House is improperly cited. Why not just be done with it, and cite to something else? Then no argument can be made that we aren't "citing Freedom House properly." SpiderMMB 20:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I responded on Talk:Israel, which I notice contains a slightly different comment from the one above. -- tariqabjotu 20:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:Shamir1

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Shamir1 (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Shamir1. -- -- tariqabjotu 03:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)