I hereby slap you for being insufficiently bold when the page explicitly asks for it. :-D Never ask to edit. I would be the one in the wrong if I reverted you for it, not you for editing it. A well-founded rebuttal on the talk page would be easy enough for me to write if I really disagreed with it, and other people would have a chance to shout me down if I were wrong. That's what it's all about. This proposal is yours too. I appreciate your tact, of course, but if I had to veto everything we would never get anywhere.
Incidentally, I see I've forgotten to thank you for commenting on the proposal, as I have done with everyone else so far. Please don't feel left out, and accept this . JRM 21:33, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
Nice article! The order in which things are told isn't easy for the reader to follow or predict, though. I believe that a very short summary, with the salient points only (e. g., nevermind whose guest he went to Antarctica as), should be followed by a chronological account, so that you avoid leaving him in the middle, at the point where he finishes college. I have so edited, just put it back as it was if you don't like it! Also, before you start laughing derisively, please bear in mind that I did it rather hastily—probably, to fit the new structure better, I should have changed more sentences around as well, and my headings are downright silly... oh, well, it's a start, and something for you to think about.
I'm reluctant to suggest removing info, but the lists are very long, and a lot of ephemeral-looking writings are included in them (the complete (?) list of newpaper articles right back to 1973 frankly looks like Ashlee Simpson country to me). Maybe these full lists would be useful to someone, so don't be in a hurry to shorten them, but you could go to other articles on people in the same category to compare...hang on..why is the cat "United States journalists" redlinked when you need it...? OK, got it: the true cat is "American journalists". Now then: 206 articles on American journalists...hmm. You have a better chance of knowing who more of these people are than me, you do it. Look at some of them that would be similar to your guy in importance and amount of output, and get a sense of what looks reasonable in the way of listing his stuff.
Definitely not all the awards! Select the important ones for a few sentences of prose, lose the list.
The reverse chronological order in the lists looks more like a newspaper article or indeed a website (which I suppose is where the material comes from) than an encyclopedia article, I'd turn that round if I were you.
A detail: not enough info on Feeling the Heat, compare the surely more minor pieces under the heading "Articles". Moreover, H's contributions to Feeling the Heatare articles. If you can find out what exactly his contributions to it were, I suggest you list those separately in the article section instead, with some of those full a-chapter-in-an-anthology type references. (Or just give me the relevant chapter titles and I'll do it.)
I have edited to reflect some of these concerns, and removed some magazine-type over-cute or admiring bits (young David should not get to splash around on Long Island! curse the little tyke!), but have left most of the above points intact for you to consider. --Bishonen|Talk 13:43, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hi, Theo. It looks good overall. I've made a few tweaks and left a few comments and questions on the talk page. Maurreen 02:26, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'd suggest changing the years for his works from subheadings to bold text to get the TOC under control. Filiocht | King of Regulars 07:46, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
Got your message re: the FAC nomination. I can't do anything at the moment, but I'll look at the article again in detail this evening, and let you know what I think. --Dcfleck 12:21, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been unable to put as much effort into the article this weekend as I wanted - I did make some minor changes, but I'm handicapped in that I don't know the subject well. I'd still like to take a few more swings at it - is there any sort of deadline as far as the Featured Article thing goes? --Dcfleck 02:02, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
I've just done some semi-major editing on Helvarg. My main concerns with the article at present are: (a) duplication of information, and (b) excess of detail. Regarding (a), I've tried to mash all the journalism information together in one place, which resulted in reworking the structure of the article a bit. Feel free to revert if you disagree. On (b), I'm not sure what is to be done - I just don't think it's important to list as many works and articles as you do, but I don't know the subject well enough to suggest a more focussed shorter list. Anyway, just giving you a heads-up. --Dcfleck 13:46, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
By the way, what's the {{inote|Arnold|Arnold}} thing? It just shows up as a newline in my browser. --Dcfleck 13:49, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
Hello Theo, I am Aled Seago. Thank you for your complimentary messaging. To clear up a few facts: The poems can be found in 'Dream Weaving', page 56 by Dogma Publications and 'Reflections in Time', page 52 by Dogma. The whole statement is valid, with the exception of the Village Idiot Concept.
Hi Aled: Thanks for the explanation. Congratulations on having your poems published. Sadly having two poems published by a vanity publisher (Dogma do not pay for submissions and require their poets to buy a copy of each book in which their work appears) does not make you sufficiently notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. --Theo (Talk) 13:01, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment! Just being bold and acting on reasonable suggestions. :-) I wish I had more to add to that page, but as it is I think adding much would be missing the point... Mindspillage(spill yours?) 16:45, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
And thank you for your support on my RfA! It's always a nice thing to know that those whose own work you admire support you; I shall attempt to put the shiny new buttons to good use. Mindspillage(spill yours?) 02:41, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In UK law there are exceptions subject to "fair dealing" (which is the same as "fair use"). Short extracts of a work may be used for the purposes of criticism, review or news reporting. Fair dealing with a work "must include a sufficient acknowledgement". Photographs are excluded from the news reporting exception. The United States became a signatory to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works in 1989 so Wikipedia and you are bound by its terms to respect the copyright conditions of other signatories, of which the UK is one. For photographs published in the Illustrated London News, the best starting point for identifying the rights holders would be the Illustrated London News Group. --Theo (Talk) 10:44, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
User:Toytoy says: "Be careful, the life + 70 years rule is possibly not applicable to "works created before 1 January 1996" (see that UK Patent Office page). I don't have time to explain it step by step because copyright laws and copyright litigation, created by the Princess of Darkness himself, are extremely complex and evil (Berne Convention, personal jurisdiction, 1909 Copyright Act, 1978 Copyright Act, Sonny Bonno Act, ... blah ... blah ...). In a nut shell, Project Gutenberg's rules are all you need to know. Works published before January 1, 1923 are in the public domain. Please visit that page and read all the rules." Evidently you disagree - can you tell me why? Adam 11:53, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Also, is it remotely possible that anyone at Illustrated London News Group today would know the names, dates of death and heirs at law of people who took uncredited photos for their newspaper 89 years ago? Adam 11:58, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have just explained my reasoning at w:Reference desk ... we must have been typing simultaneously! Frankly, it is most unlikely that ILNG will wish to spend the time chasing down such information but the law requires one to make reasonable fforts to trace the rights holders. Contacting ILNG seems to me to be reasonable efforts. If they cannot help us then the law has been served. And, if they can identify rights holders then we have a moral and legal duty to seek their consent to use the images. I may feel this more strongly than most because my family holds copyright on some photos that appear regularly in commercial contexts on the web without consent. --Theo (Talk) 12:09, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
OK, thanks for your help with this. Adam 13:28, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I flagged a good deal of articles yesterday. You can find all the documentation here [1] You can quickly locate the Titanic cite under 2004. Lotsofissues 13:39, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your message, and for your confidence in my fledgling admin abilities. I've never tried this, but I set about it, only to find that Special interest can't be deleted because of the compression issue ("Can't delete this article because it contains new block-compressed revisions, which are not supported by the new selective undelete feature and could result in data loss if deletion and undeletion happened. This is a temporary situation which the developers are well aware of, and should be fixed within a month or two. Please mark the page for deletion, protect the page and wait for a software update to allow normal deletion. If there is an actual complaint from a copyright holder or other suitable legal complaint and they are unwilling to accept page blanking and protection as a temporary measure, please ask a developer for assistance"). So far as I can make out, temporary deletion is the only way to merge the page histories, which means that we're stuck.
The best thing to do, I suppose, is what the 'how-to' page suggests for interleaved-history cases: "forego the procedure above and instead put a note as to the original source of the page, and author credits, on the talk page". Sorry. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:52, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for complimenting me on Hrafnkels saga. Somehow my burst of activity ended right after I got the article through the FA-process :) But that's one of the things I like about Wikipedia - I can work when I want to and when I move on other people will pick up the torch. Haukurth 21:23, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hello. I was lookin through my contribs, and stumbled across the History page on Kapellbrucke, saw your name, and was amazed to see my old school on your user page. I was in KES, left in 2002.So you will be linked now from my userpage. I'm guessing from ur photo that you left at least a decade before I did (no offence). --Newnoise 00:06, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I left KES in 1976 so thank you for the "at least"! --Theo (Talk) 13:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Please "be bold" and edit what you like, I merely stopped redressing his comments because it was obvious that he was going to keep finding one after the other, and his comment about "deja vu" seriously pissed me of, as I knew exactly to what he was referring, and I did not agree with him then either. I frequently edit other peoples pages myself so have no problem with people editing mine, in fact people have nbeen editing one of mine all day on the front page, so some "you win and some you loose" Giano | talk16:49, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TheoClarke, I've moved your recent addition on echelon (geological) formations from the echelon (tactical) formation page to the echelon disambiguation page, I realise that geology has an equally valid definition of what an 'echelon formation' is as military tactics does, but I felt that leaving it where it was created unnecessary confusion. I hope that is OK with you. ChrisU01:53, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
> Is the ornithological information appropriate to a military article?
Music to my ears! Yes, I'd like to remove the geese information, but not for the reasons you state: the article isn't strictly a military one, it's simply about the properties of the formation itself. If it's employed by geese in addition to the military, then I believe that mention should be made of that fact.
Unfortunately, the formation flown by geese is called a vee, not an echelon, which is why I would like to see it removed or significantly abbreviated. Sadly, the person who wrote it doesn't agree with me, so we're at a bit of an impasse. You can read about it from the discussion page. ChrisU21:21, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, take a look at this diff [2]. That information was changed by the uploader after I tagged the image as PUI. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 19:32, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
I have no control over any member of my family, even my dog is out of control. If you are thinking she is a sock puppet you are mistaken. Giano | talk13:01, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking she was your doting aunt. I imagined that you would all be greatly grieved by the sudden passing yesterday of her sister Mrs di Drakula and that any criticism (however mild) of her behaviour would best come from an intimate relative such as yourself. I am not surprised to find that you have no dog trainers in Italy; we have no dog training in Wikipedia, either. As for Longburton, my paternal grandmother came from Templecombe and her father and his ancestors for some four centuries came from Chiselborough. --Theo (Talk)13:16, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should start Wikipedia:WikiProject Dog training. The Marchesa could be our patron, if she can find time in her busy social calendar. Nice to see the southwest of England so well represented. Pass the cider, please. Filiocht | Blarneyman 13:38, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
Good stuff, that Strongbow; still haven't forgiven him for invading Wexford. The real question here is "Is your dog judge verifiable?" Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:30, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
You really know how to sour the pint, don't you. Next thing you'll be sending me a Cromwell. Filiocht | Blarneyman 09:06, May 12,2005 (UTC)
I find your lack of sympathy on the loss of a valued loved one very distressing. Dearest Giano (thoughtful person that he is) is accompanying the body to the the Capuchins' Catacombs as we speak. Fortunatly Giano re-drew her will for her only the day before her passing, he does that so often, draws up people's wills and then they suddenly pass away. I sometimes think he must be psychic. I'm sure he'd write your wills if you asked. Signora Monferrato11:15, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, yeah, I felt like saying "Oh I see, you're voting without having read my page!" but that wouldn't go over well. ;) --Golbez 13:45, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for finding that reference — I'd only been able to find paper references. What did you use in search engines, by the way? The combinations that I tried produced thousands of irrelevant hits. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης)16:10, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've just realised why I didn't find it — because I was thinking about its use in the English Midlands and the North, I restricted my search to the UK. That'll teach me. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης)17:35, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's a delight. I actually read it in the paper the day it was printed and am going to pin up by my desk here now that you've reminded me of it (I work in scientific publishing, believe it or not). Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:20, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the warning. The broken link was what caught my eye at first; that's when I changed the other part as well. I'll be more careful with fix descriptions next time. Quicksilvre
Take a look at the massive amount of quotations that are about the core of the article that Morning star removed. In my opinion, all the "other" changes Morningstar made were designed to hide the fact a sub article coverying just the 9/11 essay controversy was created. With the historic consensus that lead to the article I don't think it too much to require that someone explain in detail on the talk page what they want to do. It does not make sense to have a sub article on the most relevant "controversy" of a person when less relevant controversies such as the ethniticy disputes and plaugiarism charges remain in the main article (subtle POV attempt is not an unreasonable thing to assume given the history of that article). If someone truly has size concerns we should reduce verbosity rather than merely move it to a new article. zen master T 00:10, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Re: morning star -- editors should not intentionally or needlessly commingle controversial changes with clean ups if they don't want people to consider the possibility that such an action is subtly duplicitous for the purpose of POV. The reverter should be under no obligation to spend their time salvaging any good parts of a bad edit or series of edits. It is a common internet troll technique to force non-trolls to waste or expend their time and energy on the little picture, though I don't know Morning star enough to say whether that internet common sense applies here exactly. zen master T 00:40, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I actually started editing the page to make one of those ""other" changes" when I noticed the "This may be longer than is preferable" notice and simply picked the largest section to graduate into its own page. Looking over the Wikipedia:Article size guidelines I see that I acted hastily; and for that: I am sorry. —Morning star07:12, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the best place to note that the "clean ups" to the reference section that Morning star made actually increased the size of the article by 3k. I thought size was a concern? Over wikification should be discouraged in reference sections, and now there is even more potential for verbosity reduction in the article generally. zen master T 18:12, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If there is concern over article size then why add 3k to the article by basically over wikilinking everything in the reference section? Reference sections really should be moved to the talk page or something. Is someone trying to pad google relevance perchance? We should be reducing verbosity, not moving it around. And given the historical controversy over that article my interpretation is that it is reasonable to consider the possibility morning star's needlessly commingled changes were subtly duplicitous for the purpose of POV. I've seen it done previously. But I will assume good faith going forward. So can we work towards reducing the size of the Ward Churchill article now (by reducing verbosity)? zen master T 19:38, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
morning star claimed a sub article should be created because of size concerns, my point is if that is the case then we should work towards reducing verbosity first (prior to the arguably unnecessary reference section fill out the article was below 32k). Seems like google ranking games at the very least, to me. zen master T 07:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am only barely aware of what a Google ranking game is, and am a bit puzzled as to what purpose would be served by its playing. I agree that having so many red links is unattractive, but I made them with the hope of seeing them turn blue. As for size concerns: perhaps the article could profit from some pruning for concision, but I'd actually like to see it grow in scope and detail. —Morning star19:33, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In this case I was making a general point, mostly to point out that the user's objection was invalid. I have not yet read the article, but the editor's later comments seem valid on the face of them. I will try to comment more when I get to read the article. - Taxman 18:09, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
I held off voting until you had time to make any changes, but did want to make a point earlier on the validity of the content objection, much like Taxman did. I'm sorry not to have responded usefully to your earlier request for comments on the article, but have been quite busy getting Imagism ready for WP:FAC over the last few weks. Good luck woth the process; the article looks really good now. Filiocht | Blarneyman 12:26, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Two reasons why I'd want to keep the Imagism/Cubism thing: Pound was consciously trying to create a literary movement on the Cubist model, and, as I read it, the Imagists were rebelling against a view of poetry as "verbal painting" (Pound wrote somewhare that painters and portray the world but poets present it through the use of luminous details). This seems to me to be very close to what the Cubists were after. Filiocht | Blarneyman 13:44, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
I've made an edit incorporating some of your wording on my talk page. Hope that's OK. Filiocht | Blarneyman 15:02, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your FAC vote, for making me rethink the Cubism reference, and kind comments. Filiocht | Blarneyman 08:05, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
Hi Theo. I would like to work together to push for Star Trek to be a featured article. However, I feel that the article as it stands is a mess and requires a complete rewrite. The information presented is fine, but there seems to be certain details which are missing here and there. Please help by contributing your opinions to Talk:Star Trek. Thanks. -- AllyUnion(talk)22:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this change, please avoid doing this. The {{PAGENAME}} variable correctly sorts the page in the category. This is especially useful if the page is moved to a new name. -- Netoholic@ 20:17, 2005 May 20 (UTC)
Well, it's not because we're doing anything wrong. There are some bugs in the in the category sorting mechanism. I'll point out that even after you made your change, the page still didn't sort properly. Let's stay consistent, and wait for the sorting bugs to be fixed. -- Netoholic@ 20:53, 2005 May 20 (UTC)
Thanks, for the heads up. I mean to support for now, I will keep a close watch what users have to say, I have been known to switch sides. Again thanks. -JCarriker 10:14, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the note about this. I certainly didn't mean to revert any spelling corrections, most probably what happened was that when I went through reverting all their unsourced additions through the series of articles and just didn't spot that other edits had been made to one of them.
There was discussion about the contribs to this series by this user (or a different anon who acted in exactly the same way - inserting unsourced material on cartoon articles, getting reverted, reinserting the same content, several times and never discussing on talk pages) on ViP a month or so back. I also remember seeing somethign about it on one of the talk pages (I don't remember which one though) and I don't think that I was the first or only one to revert him.
If I have gone overboard I appologise. Thryduulf14:44, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! You flagged this as a proposal, but in fact it is already in active use and has been so for over three months. Therefore it is a de facto guideline. HTH! Radiant_* 07:34, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
Starting to look really good. The obvious areas for expansion are the schools of poetry and critism subsections. I'll have a think about them. Filiocht | Blarneyman 12:56, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
The problem is, of course, that people are voting on the subject and not the article, displaying the fact that they do not quite understand the process. I was glad to see that Meelar picked up on this, too.
Don't talk to me about being a fragile flower! I tend to put my FACs up on a Friday, knowing I'll be away from this place for the weekend, just so I don't spend the first few hours looking for the first votes. Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:41, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
All I can suggest is to fiddlewith it a bit and bring it back to FAC in a few weeks. I'll support again. Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:21, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
Maybe WP:FAC should have a rule that if two objections directly contradict each other, they should be discounted? Filiocht | Blarneyman 10:04, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
Dear Theo, I read your comment and I would like to thank you for not objecting to my nonination. You have made a valid point. I've been so busy working on articles that researching and other things have really taken alot of my time. However, I'm almost done with the articles which I think would be of educational benefit. I plan in working on a couple of more, espeacially the immigration of Corcicans to Puerto Rico (my ancesters ancesters were from there), before I can dedicate my full energy to fighting vandalism, copyvios, janitorial tasks and especially to helping solve disputes. The latter principally because I believe that most disputes come about because of the lack of understanding how Wiki works or the Wiki policies from one of the parts. I know becuase I talk from experience. I just wanted to share this with you, Take care my friend Tony the Marine
Thanks. In my standard skin and font, it doesn't look any smaller than the rest, but then I'm never sure from one minute to the next what Mozilla is really up to, it's not a very obedient monster. (On its way to destroy Tokyo, more like, and also I upgraded my OS a couple of days ago, so all is gingerly.) If I embiggen the text, the small stuffdoes show smaller than the rest. These are mysteries, but I will persevere, thanks for your help. Bishonen | talk18:56, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Theo, thanks for the very nice compliment! I'm keeping it quiet for now as I'm scared most people won't like it, although I've gotten 3 positive responses so far on the first day. Any help improving it would be much appreciated. Regards, --SilversmithHewwo19:45, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If I'd just had positive comments I would, but an admin I have a lot of respect for doesn't like it at all, and thinks it's a very bad idea. That's made me doubt whether others will like it. I'd rather not move it until it has more people on it, and has quite a few more editors saying it is good. I hope it happens soon. Thanks, --SilversmithHewwo20:29, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The changes I made I thought were somewhat reasonable. Here's my opinion:
You're right on this one. I've never seen a centaur on the show and assumed that the definition was identical to that of a "classic" centaur.
The deletion of the Huntsclan was nessisiary. You listed them as magical creatures, but they are not, they are normal (yet incredably trained) people with extreme gadgets. If you wanted to mention th Huntsclan, do it someplace else ni this artical.
Sorry for the misspelling of "oracles," but they are nto refered to as seers on the show, so mentioning that they are also called seers is the piontless thing. --Wack'd About WikiMy Talk17:30, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for makeing the changes. Also, Rose/Huntsgirl's birthmark is most likely just a coincidence. We don't know if the Huntsman has one or not. --Wack'd About Wiki09:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
hi. sorry about that, I was away from my computer and didn't have the chance to check messages for a little while. I'll try to put those comments in as requested. I'm not sure I'm the best person to do it, you probably can see which are the important / difficult parts more easily than I can. Mozzerati 05:51, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
some comments now added. Mozzerati 06:39, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
Thank you Theo, Its been quite a year, my first year in Wiki, a featured article and now adminship. I hope you realize that I'm going to looking up to you among other people, for advice and guidance in this new venture. Take care Tony the Marine (UTC)
Hi Theo, just to let you know, I removed the troublesome statement on List of Popes that you didn't understand and that I didn't either. Let me know if that's an acceptable change. --Spangineer∞ 17:46, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
Hi there! I apologise if I did not observe the rules for article changing. By the way, new ammendments to the Maradona item were done by me early today before I received your kind message. I respect and undertake to comply with the 'neutral point of view' rules of Wikipedia and hope to be of good help in whenever subject I can.
I do, however, feel that the Maradona article does go against the commonsensical worldwide oppinion that Pelé (among a handful of other football stars) were indeed much more successful and, hence, better players than Maradona.
Best regards,
See why I'm so jealous of Bish's triumphal march. The list hospital is open, but we have a big operation on at the moment. Let me know if I can help with anything. Filiocht | Blarneyman 10:19, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
It's a very small baby, right enough, but I'm going reading the old Temple Classics edition this weekend, so watch out. Filiocht | Blarneyman 13:58, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
I've gone through the Rook article making corrections, clarifications and general tidying. Your faith in me is touching, but I'm really only interested in the ornithology. I have no idea where the folklore bits come from, and I would happily leave them out if I thought i could get away with it, sorry, jimfbleak 17:02, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It is, actually, quite appropreate. The Professor is overly obsessed with descovering that Jake is a dragon, and Mr. Crocker is overly obsessed with descovering Timmy has fairies. Seriously, how much do you actually watch the show, or even bother to see if what you post is true? I'm a Disney Channel/Cartoon Network/Nickelodeon 'expert'. Leave the editing of this page to me, because I know lots about this show.
PS: Sorry if anything I said offended you. --Wack'd About Wiki 18:21, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hold up, something you said on my talk page confused me. You mean you didn't delete the Rotwood/Crocker comparison? I didn't! Then who did? Oh, never mind, that's not important. I'll go make the changes. --Wack'd About Wiki 12:45, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thank you! How do you add to a watchlist?... --Wack'd About Wiki 20:57, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hello, any chance I could prevail on you to rethink your position on inclusion of the Eichmann photo in the Ward Churchill article? Early in the discussion, you made what I thought were eloquent arguments against it, yet you then rather suddenly changed your mind. I strongly oppose it; I feel it is a powerful subliminal cue.
As for the text, partly for stylistic reasons I don't feel a whole paragraph should be devoted to Eichmann in the middle of that article; it breaks up the narrative. I have just reduced it to one line. Personally, I don't have a great deal of sympathy for Churchill's ideas in that essay, but at the same time I feel we need to be vigilant against people trying to distort it with their own agendas, something that has happened time and time again over the past few months. -- Viajero | Talk 00:32, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Heh, thanks. I just wanted to read the article, in order to be able to edit the letters ruthlessly (and uselessly, as you saw), but I can never resist fiddling a little. Bishonen | talk 01:04, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I just wanted to thank you for your support, and comments, on the Isaac Brock article. Regrettably, the majority of the work was done by me and resulted in a fairly one-dimensional perspective (although peer review helped solve this). I changed the text to reflect your (very accurate) concerns. Thanks again. --Scimitar 23:03, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Update- I answered where Brock's first combat occured (it was during Abercromby's landing in the Netherlands). It seemed obvious when I wrote the article because I was looking at my references, but I sort of forgot to include it in my actual writing! --Scimitar 17:55, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hi could you take a look at Island Fox, I've done some work on it beacuse I like foxes (and also because it really wasn't at featured standard when it was listed,and the nominator doens't seem to be watching the page). I think it's as good as other featured animals now, could you take another look, thanks --nixie 04:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The references are fixed.--nixie 23:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I didn't quite catch what you meant about the footnotes. Could you please elaborate? I've made some changes in the reference sections. Thanks, =Nichalp (Talk)= 08:39, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
Are you interested? I hope to get info on Microsoft related topics up2date, accurate and presented neutrally. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:44, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I told Usther I did it - or at least I told her why I would. And (I hope this doesn't make me sound self-obsessed), I have a piont, even if I do say so myself. --Wack'd About Wiki 20:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I know everyone always says this, but until I got your page move mail, I just kind of assumed you were part of the cabal ;). Filiocht | Blarneyman 09:50, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
Hi! thank you for supporting my successful admin candidacy. I hope that you will always feel that I am a responsible administrator. JeremyA 05:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hey, no problem. I don't think of myself as being really strict about it. If you're a good, hard-working editor, and don't look like the type to get into fights or do anything very high-handed, I'll support. My vociferous opposition to some noms is mainly because I feel certain people have "crossed lines" that indicate to me that, as an admin, they might not be entirely fair in using their admin powers. Everyking 08:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In case you are wondering I am completely indifferent to you becoming an admin, (I'm sure you will be a very good one) but I totally detest people being made to answer for their personal feelings in public. It smacks of something very unpleasant. You have allowed yourself to be put up for public auction, you cannot question those who do not wish to buy you. Regards Giano | talk 21:51, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Nichalp has expressed his approval of a compromise solution that I proposed that is similar to a suggestion made by Piotrus. Please comment if you have the chance. Thanks. --Spangineer(háblame) 18:25, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
Hi Theo, Can you give line numbers for the four saints you added to the Dante list. Thanks. Paul August ☎ 01:32, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Refering to the original Italian text lines, please. Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:23, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
I will get around to this just as soon as I get an appropriate copy of the Divine Comedy. I have copies of the Hollander translations on order.—Theo (Talk) 16:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This section has been linked from my RFA. You may find it useful to read [3], which contains my contributions to this conversation.—Theo
I have not misunderstood you at all, I am sure you are very well meaning. I just think it can be safely assumed that Boothy is aware that the community is displeased that he has decided not to give a reason! Just consider this, all these people (exept me) asking the same question in a short space of time.
Golbez 08:01, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
Chameleon 09:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hoary 10:15, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
Trilobite (Talk) 16:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Knowledge Seeker ? 08:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Radiant 11:02, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
Kbdank71 13:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 13:23, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
Theo (Talk) 17:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC
Giano | talk 18:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) .
(Boothy 443 had made his views quite clear, obviously tired of the constant questioning he archived his page at 19:36, 16 Jun 2005.
Then along comes (Flcelloguy Give me a note! Desk 21:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)) asking him to give a reason or withdraw. [4]
Finally: "My apologies, Boothy443, I see you've already expressed your opinions regarding this matter in your archived talk pages". Flcelloguy Give me a note! Desk 22:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) .
Eureka the penny drops! This had been posted here [5] at 09:17, 16 Jun 2005 "Boothy has opposed all the nominations which exist, giving no reason. - Sjakkalle" This had in effect negated any serious consideration of his views - all further comment was needles.
I think any further attempts to make this user explain himself could be construed as undue pressure. He has not been obscene, a vandal or racist, he merely wishes to keep his opinions to himself. I am sure you are very caring, but mass interrogation is hardly likely to assuage the distress/rage/hostility is it? Giano | talk 07:21, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's clear to me that Boothy443's votes are an objection to the process by which we select administrators. His behavior borders on disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, but it's not disruptive enough to justify sanctions. Kelly Martin 07:24, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps a little overstated? I see no disruption, just disgrumtlement, and Boothy443's actions are ultimately self-defeating, I fear. Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:44, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
The shame of it is that the editor's actions are almost bound to be counter-productive, from their POV. Unfortunately, there's not a lot to be done about it. Filiocht | Blarneyman 08:22, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
I just wanted to make clear that in no way was I bullying or intimidating Boothy. When I posted my first comment, I was unaware that other people had already asked the same question- I simply did not think that a relatively current issue would be in the archives (stupid me!). However, I have already apologized to Boothy for re-asking this question, and want to make clear that I simply wanted to help Boothy by making him aware of (what we consider) an RfA standard. However, now that I have read his archive page, I completely understand his views. I have always respected everyone's opinions; after all, a plethora of diverse opinions is integral for Wikipedia! Sorry for any misunderstandings I might have caused, and thank you all for your dedication to Wikipedia. I hope this matter is now closed. FlcelloguyGive me a note! Desk 14:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No need to thank me - I vote as I see them. I refrained from voting on the previous Helvarg nomination because I don't know the topic well enough to comment (and others were doing well enough), but the refactored page is clearly much better.
Like Giano, I seldom vote on RfA, mainly because I don't know the candidates well enough to comment (with rare exceptions: Bish and Worldtraveller, recently), but also because my little vote would rarely make a difference and I don't like the rather confontational process very much.
Btw - something is broken on your page - the "edit" link leads me to the previous section. I think it was the {{KND}} in a header above, and have tried to fix it. Also time to archive :) -- ALoan(Talk) 11:32, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes, the "edit" link works properly now. -- ALoan(Talk) 11:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No, it looks good to me, probably featured quality now. Everyking 13:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No need to butter me up now; I've already voted! ;-) It looks like you're a shoo-in as deserved (on second thought, maybe telling someone they *deserve* adminship isn't so much of a compliment; congratulations in advance anyhow). Mindspillage(spill yours?) 18:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You're welcome, while I choose to be somewhat demanding on featured articles, it doesn't mean I can't recognize that you generally do good work and are committed to supporting Wikipedia's ideals. --Michael Snow 06:40, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
While surfing the net, I've found references to the BAPA in 1890, 1945/46 and 1972. Is it possible that the BAPA has been founded or refounded several times? Mpntod 10:00, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Hi Theo, I didn't realise there was that kind of situation on the RfA voting. I was following the trend on FP voting as you can see here and here. Aparently the template comes from WPCommons. But in respect for your opinion I won't use it on RfA unless it becomes the new system or something. Cheers, --SilversmithHewwo 15:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, Theo. Not sure I accomplished it correctly, but it's a start. I'm a relative newbie to Wiki -- some parts of it are amazing, some parts of it (such as these "talk pages" are non-intuitive). Either way, your feedback and help are appreciated.
To answer your question -- yes, I was anonymous on the Karla Homolka page long before I registered. Rrandolph (Talk) 16:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
. JRM 21:33, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
Give me a note! 
Desk 14:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
.gif){kind=small}
![[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3A300px-Montacute.jpg&diff=0&oldid=13504309){kind=link}