JNC

#REDIRECT Joint_Negotiating_Committee

JNC

Hi, your username is likely to be confused with mine (User:Jnc - they differ only in case), so would you mind picking a different one? Wikipedia:Username#Inappropriate usernames indicates that names which may be confused with an existing user are to be avoided. Wikipedia:Changing username will give you information on how to change, although since you have so few edits it's probably not an issue for you. Thanks! User:Jnc User_talk:Jnc 04:23, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Jnc

Jnc

Old stuff moved to: * Ship names to User_talk:Jnc/Ships * Village Pump stuff to User_talk:Jnc/VP * Old stuff from 2003 in User_talk:Jnc/2003 * Old stuff from the first half of 2004 in User_talk:Jnc/2004A * Old stuff from the second half of 2004 in User_talk:Jnc/2004B =Inactive Stuff= Do come by again: Hi -- sorry if I'm putting this in the wrong place, but the site is so different from when I used to contribute regularly. Thanks for the kind words. I do pop in now and again to see how things are going, but try to limit my time because I tend to get emotionally invested in things I put a lot of work into, and would rather put that effort into working on the new classes I'm teaching and on new research for publication. Cheers! User:JHK 01:41, 1 Jan 2005 : Hi Again -- just thought I'd let you know that I did have a go at some editing, but the damned software crashed after I'd spent over an hour working on a drastic rewrite to Feudalism (for flow, mostly, but also to make it more coherent in including Zain's incomprehensible understanding of what Wikipedia is and isn't -- check out the talk page. It's having to deal with a tendency of the agenda-driven to break up articles into disjointed blocks so that their insertions make more sense that makes me despair and really lose all joy in an enterprise like this. User:JHK 23:31, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) ---- RfD help: Thanks Noel for the help with Bolivarian revolution... its undeleted now Happy New Year! 21.43 1st Jan 2005 (utc) user:max rspct ---- Re:Rfd: Oh thats fine, I don't care, I was more confused as to why it survived all this time. Thanks for taking care of it. User:K1Bond007 05:39, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC) ---- Reply notification: Hi! I've replied at User talk:Matt Crypto. User:Matt Crypto 00:10, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) ---- WP:AN: No complaint. I'm all for aggressive archiving. In the circumstances, though, with the issue apparently not dead, I figured it was best that I restore the prior discussion for context rather than start a new section. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 05:35, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC) ---- Humboldt: Thanks for fixing this. I have been changing quite a few of the links from Humboldt University to go directly to Humboldt University of Berlin. However, it may have been simpler just to retain Humboldt University as a redirect to Humboldt University of Berlin, with a disambiguation notice on top. There are probably very few references to Humboldt State University. Anyway, I noticed that there are many links to University of Berlin, which now redirects to Universities of Berlin. I disambiguated the only two pages linking directly to Universities of Berlin (Henry Bruce, 2nd Baron Aberdare and Rudolph Schoenheimer). Some of the post-WWII-references may refer to one of the other universities, but I'd bet most of the links to the University of Berlin also should go to the Friedrich Wilhelm/Humboldt University. Alas, I suppose these links will be fixed with time. BTW, I have noticed that the pages concerning the University of Paris are also a mess needing some merging and moving. / User:Tupsharru 13:52, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) ---- Bush vandal: Heya, could you have a look at Dick Cheney and consider reverting the Bush vandal's edit there? (Unless you want to stay out of this because you've already blocked him and want to remain impartial, but I don't think that's necessary here). --User:fvw*">User talk:Fvw 18:47, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC) ---- Thanks on TfD/CfD: Thanks for helping on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion. It's in a bit of a back log, just needing someone to perform the deletions. For :Template:DVD cover and :Template:D, consensus was to delete those ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion&diff=9001375&oldid=9001274] & [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion&diff=8978262&oldid=8978138]). The suggestion to redirect "DVD cover" was placed later, and "D" has too many alternate templates it could be used as a redirect for. The "Holding area" is what we use for marking those that came out of discussion in favor of straight-up deletion. Thanks again. -- User:Netoholic User talk:Netoholic 22:41, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC) :Hold on, Template:D '''isn't going to be linked to Template:Delete now? There was a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion&oldid=8978138#Template:D strong majority for that redirect] on TFD. --User:fvw*">User talk:Fvw 23:30, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC) There seems to be some recent concern over the bot (Special:Contributions/NetBot) that I use to help cleanup TFD/CFD and other maintenance things. Could I ask for you to comment on it at Wikipedia talk:Bots#New uses? It truly is a beneficial tool, and I doubt I could help with all the tasks I do without it. -- User:Netoholic User talk:Netoholic 15:49, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC) ---- CfD:''' Thanks for your help at CfD! Everything that you did was absolutely fine. (Actually, it was more than fine, it was great.) I'm the only one who seems to really clean up that page regularly (there are some administrators who help sporadically and some non-administrators who help with clean up but can't delete), and I've been out of town, so the backlog is getting excessive. My hope is to eventually get it caught up. Any further help would be much appreciated. -User:Aranel ("Sarah") 23:22, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC) : I'm one of the administrators that deletes empty categories. :) I tend to not clean up the article until I've deleted everything that needs it. Your cleanup was helpful, and today, pretty much followed behind my deletes by only minutes. :) Thanks. --User:Ssd 02:22, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) ---- Genghis Khan: Genghis Khan: : ''Around the age of 16, Genghis banged fifty five virgins and had many kids that were beheaded.'' BANGED??? User:206.53.17.162 00:27, 12 Jan 2005 ---- Thanx for your assistance on my botched RfD: --User:Silverback 13:14, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC) ---- Misplaced comment on WT:AN: Nope, it was a response to "inappropriate images (pedophilia, pornography, etc)"; My point was there's nothing inherently wrong with uploading pornography. --User:fvw*">User talk:Fvw 15:09, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC) : I didn't really intend to start a discussion, just trying to make sure examples used are clear... --User:fvw*">User talk:Fvw 15:38, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC) ---- WT:AN archiving: Re: the sections I dumped from the administrator's noticeboard, I wasn't planning on archiving them as they seemed to be everyday occurrences rather than notable happenings. I'm feeling a little deletionist at present. User:Silsor 00:47, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC) ---- WP:RfD: Oops, must have edit-conflicted myself and not payed attention. Thanks! --User:fvw*">User talk:Fvw 12:18, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC) ---- RfA: Thanks for your note regarding my last RfA request. I don't plan on self-nominating again too soon, I plan on waiting to see if someone else nominates me. In any case I think I should wait at least a month: while no real time limits seem to exist a month seems to be a reasonable minimum to me. 08:27, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC) ---- Suggested Reading re Ollieplatt: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Matters_currently_in_Arbitration Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Libertas/Evidence Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Libertas/Proposed_decision Note that User:Ollieplatt has been deemed likely to be User:Libertas and about a dozen other user IDs by several Wikipedia developers who have presented technical evidence. The evidence page cites numerous examples of Ollieplatt engaging in disruptive editing and violations of wikipedia policies. The proposed decisions range up to a one year ban. — User:Davenbelle 22:18, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC) ---- Open proxies: Heya, you took an interest in the open proxy discussion on WP:AN, could you perhaps give your opinion on Wikipedia talk:Bots#OpenProxyBlockerBot? Thanks. --User:fvw*">User talk:Fvw 23:37, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC) ---- Your comments on my talk page: I'm just dropping you a note to let you know that I'm removing your threatening and abusive comments from my talk page. Also, if you bothered to read the section in question, you will notice that I was not the one who "brought the matter to our attention." --User:Viriditas | User_talk:Viriditas 13:35, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC) :FYI...calmly discussing a policy issue is not "spamming" (feel free to read the link). I can't speak for OneGuy or his comments, but I'm not sure why you think polite discussion is flaming. In any case, the issue is being addressed by a number of users in a constructive fashion at this time (Jmabel in particular). --User:Viriditas | User_talk:Viriditas 13:57, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC) ---- GZPL: I see. Sorry, I may be out of my element here. And, I didn't make the connection between your statement on my talkpage, and on AN. I just thought your 'not being interested in fairness' was a bit harsh: I am interested in it ''as a means'' of building a (balanced, non-cabalistic) 'pedia. But I see you haven't done anything wrong. You just seem to be very annoyed at gzpl, and while he does seem rv-happy, he is only defending himself against pretty harsh accusations on AN, and I must say I still don't see why people seem to blame him more than his opponents. So, no offense to you, and I should probably just stay away from all this. User:Dbachmann User_talk:Dbachmann 15:10, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC) :sure. I apologize for accusing you of "taking action" after you said on my talk page that you did not. My bad. Concerning gzpl, I am just a bit disturbed that he ''may'' be a comparatively innocent victim of bullying. Of course he does get into revert wars regularly (while you and I don't), but as I said, judged from what I have seen, he is not any worse than his opponents (but that's just from a superficial scan of the dispute). User:Dbachmann User_talk:Dbachmann 07:49, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC) ---- Pronunciation (simple guide to markup, American): Hi Jnc. I received a comment on my talk page about an RfD tag on Pronunciation (simple guide to markup, American). I don't think I've added such a tag and couldn't find it in that page's history. I guess it's vaguely possible that I did it by accident or even forgot doing it. In any case, while I dislike the ad-hoc pronunciation "system" very much I don't have a reason to get rid of that page. — User:Hippietrail 12:08, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC) ---- Whoops: Sorry, didn't see the talk page discussion. I've reverted myself, thanks! -User:Frazzydee|User talk:Frazzydee 20:53, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC) ---- Talk:Historical revisionism: This is a heads up about your ID appearing on a page you may not know about, Talk:Historical revisionism. I sent user:Stbalbach an email in which I mentioned your contribution in the Dresden talk page about Evans's analysis on Irving. He choose to publish the Email. If I had thought he would publish it I would not have sent it, it was bad judgement on my side. I am sorry for any inconvenience I have inadvertently caused you. User:Philip Baird Shearer 09:37, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC) ---- Redirect problem: Thanks for the help on my redirect problem --User:Mikerussell 05:17, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC) ---- Spion Kop: Hi Noel, yes I understand where you coming from but Spion Kop is a bastardised spelling of the word and means nothing, where as Spioenkop is the correct name of the hill which is afrikaans for "spy hill". There is no such place as Spion Kop in South Africa. Sorry to put it this way but I feel that it should be re-directed. --User:Jcw69 15:05, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC) ---- Use English: But the current (anti-policy) way of doing things is completely counter-productive, and is hurting Wikipedia. When an English-speaker wants to learn about Zurich he or she types "Zurich" into Google, and us having our article on it somewhere else (using a character that no English-speaker ever uses) makes it far less likely for people to find it. That's the whole reason behind the "most common name in English" convention, which is one of the most central tenets of our naming policy. (And besides, my Oxford Manual of Style specifically says that "Zurich" is spelt in English without the umlaut.) User:Proteus User_talk:Proteus 22:20, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC) ---- IPs and ISPs: As the owner of my ISP,the only way I would be forced to get another IP address would be if I switched upstream providers. The 12.144.5.2 address belongs to only one server and that's the one I do my Wikipeding from 99.9% of the time.--L.E./le@put.com/User:12.144.5.2 23:24, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC) ---- umlauts: Here is another on: See history and talk of Battle of Hurtgen Forest. Sigh! User:Philip Baird Shearer 01:21, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC) A man of letters. Now that you have pointed it out, yes I can see a funny side, but it was unintentional my spelling is really bad. Thank goodness there are so many people who enjoy doing copy edits on the artices! I usually run most of it through a spelling checker but sometimes if I am in a hurry I'll edit what I have just written on the page one last time before saving it and bang spelling errors. In this case every one was umlout (including the title). After Yooden posted his reply I realized I had made a mistake and corrected them. But I missed that one. User:Philip Baird Shearer 09:28, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC) :I noticed that you nailed down "Battle of Hurtgen Forest". I did the same for Albert Forster half a day earlier. A case of "great minds think alike" or "fools seldem differ". --User:Philip Baird Shearer 17:54, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC) ---- WP:AN: It's cool. Archive away :) Actually, I'm thinking we need to split the page into two pages... - User:Ta bu shi da yu 06:08, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC) :Mate, just do it. You'll have my support, and I started that page. - User:Ta bu shi da yu 06:18, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::Sometimes you've just gotta do it :-) I'll put that bit back. - User:Ta bu shi da yu 06:53, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC) :::Hmm... I wouldn't do it on most pages, but the admin page is staffed by a reasonable bunch of users hand-picked from the community. Someone might get annoyed, but it's nothing that can't be resolved. Noone is going to keep battling with me. This had to get done, so I just had to do it! - User:Ta bu shi da yu 07:01, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::::Ya, I know that :-) But, I've found that after the heat has gone grudges haven't been kept. That's what I've found as a rule. - User:Ta bu shi da yu 07:32, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC) ---- WP:AN/3RR: Wow. That was fast. Thank you. --User:AllyUnion User talk:AllyUnion 08:54, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC) : Only one minor thing... I included a hidden template so that reports will look more uniform. Could you take a look at the page again? Thanks. --User:AllyUnion User talk:AllyUnion 08:56, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC) :: Up to you really. I didn't even know those actions existed. --User:AllyUnion User talk:AllyUnion 09:06, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::: Well, I can explain how localurl: works. It's quite simple. you already know, this reports back on this particular server. What localurl: does is tack on the /w/index.php? stuff. It also changes depending on the namespace, and whether your linking to an article or to a namespace. It allows one pipe, which is to allow someone to set an action, or something else. It basically does &(passed text). You can look at my User page for the same link you put up. --User:AllyUnion User talk:AllyUnion 09:29, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC) :::: For even more of the wacky use, look at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Log/Today --User:AllyUnion User talk:AllyUnion 09:30, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC) ---- Fiddling with WP:AN: Should I ever decide to "Fiddle" with WP:AN, I'll be sure to drop you a line. Please consider my most recent edit a "post." From the WP:AN page: : ''However, any user of Wikipedia may post here. We're not an elite club, just normal editors with some additional technical means and responsibilities. Anyone is free to use it to talk to admins as a group. Please feel free to leave a message.'' However, since you appear to be familiar with the page, can you tell me if the section in question was mis-archived, or simply lost in the shuffle during all the housecleaning over the past 24 hours? Thanks -Rob User:209.86.1.198 03:17, 3 Feb 2005 : You are correct, and the oversight was mine. I'm still getting used to the new locations of things. Thank you for such prompt replies, and I apologise if I caused any inconvenience. -Rob User:209.86.1.198 03:31, 3 Feb 2005 ---- Reversions on WP:AN/3RR: Hi. Emax was blocked for 24 hours for a 3RR violation. He continued to use different IP adresses to evade this block, so I reverted his contributions and also blocked the IP adresses. His block has now expired, and all related IP adresses are also unblocked. -- User:Chris 73 User talk:Chris 73 03:53, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC) ---- Autofellatio poll: Hi. There is a poll going on at Talk:Autofellatio#Poll: Should the image be shown inline, or as a link?. We'd appreciate your vote. —User:Cantus…User talk:Cantus 04:20, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC) ---- Argh! and Aargh!: There was a request to merge Argh! and Aargh! so I formed Argh! and aargh! copied the text from Argh! to it and redirected the original articles to the new one. In retrostpect I should have move Argh! to the new name and created a new Argh! to redirect. How do I fix it now? User:RJFJR 03:14, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC) : Argh! is a proper noun but I thought the policy was lower case words after the first in titles. I'll have to go look for the standard. Thank you. User:RJFJR 04:56, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC) :: Thank you for fixing this. It looks much nicer with the capitalization change (especially in category esoteric languages). I appreciate it. User:RJFJR 13:50, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC) ---- Revert/question: Hello. I just reverted your change to the admin notice board, due to an edit conflict. Unfortunately, the edit conflict screen doesn't show edit summaries, so I didn't see your reason and assumed that it was accidentally lost. Could you direct me to the correct subpage for reporting 3RR breaches? - User:Jakew 16:48, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC) ---- 3RR: Don't worry about it -- these things happen all the time, and are easy to fix. I appreciate your message, but really, it wasn't necessary, User:Slrubenstein 18:54, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC) ---- Template:NYCS Broadway-Seventh north express: Thanks for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARedirects_for_deletion&diff=9892519&oldid=9892357 deleting] Template:NYCS Broadway-Seventh north express.User:Msh210 —User:msh210 14:54, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) ---- Thanks for fixing my glitch: Hi - thanks for fixing my deletion of the template on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. I was trying ro figure out what I did wrong and how to get it back, and viola there it was :-) - sorry 'bout that. -User:Vsmith 01:08, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC) ---- WP:AN: apologies: (User:William M. Connolley 16:29, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)) You wrote: ''Please sign&date all postings on WP:AN''. Sorry. I forgot. : My change was a complete mistake, I didn't even realize the page was being transcluded :| -- User:Netoholic User talk:Netoholic 01:02, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC) ---- Category:BMT Fourth Avenue Line stations: Thanks for trying to fix :Category:BMT Fourth Avenue Line stations; unfortunately the category is now shown inside itself. As for the what links here error, I've seen that before - I moved New York Subway to New York City Subway a while ago, and the database was really lagged; when everything fixed itself, nothing was shown as linking to the old page. --User:SPUI (User talk:SPUI) 02:30, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC) ---- re: WP:AN: There is no need to use such a rude language to make your point. I have moved my message to, hopefully, the right section. —User:Cantus…User talk:Cantus 04:58, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC) ---- CheeseDreams and WP:AN: OK, will do. It just made it a lot easier to find all her material when it was under one section! - User:Ta bu shi da yu 12:15, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC) : Hmmm... good idea, but I'm done with it now :-) User:Ta bu shi da yu 12:44, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC) ---- Re: WT:AN: See my reply @ User_talk:Sam_Spade#WT:AN. Cheers, (User:Sam Spade | user_talk:Sam Spade | Special:contributions/Sam Spade) 15:18, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC) ---- Jewish ethnocentrism: I am not "recreating" the article. This is a new one, about an existing term. Please feel free to dispute my behavior at the appropriate conflict resolution place, following the policies. User:Mikkalai 19:44, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC) :Noel, I didn't realize Mikkalai was an admin. What can I do about him abusing his power in this way? There was a very clear consensus about Jewish ethnocentrism via two votes already (VfD and VfU) and now he's trying to engineer a third to deal with the title only (sigh). User:SlimVirgin 19:55, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC) ::I thought there was a special process, or special page, for admins abusing their power. Also, has he abused his powers? I'm totally confused as to what has happened here. I thought Andy L had deleted the page after the VfD. Did Mikkalai have to use a special admin power to recreate it, or can anyone recreate a deleted title? Sorry to trouble you with this, but I lack the knowledge to be able to work out what has happened and what should happen now. User:SlimVirgin 20:03, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC) ::Thanks for the explanation, Noel. User:SlimVirgin 20:09, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC) ---- Alert: About WP:AN/I#Vandalism alert: i'll keep an eye, archive it away to oblivion :). User:Muriel Gottrop 10:52, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) ---- Wikipedia:Deletion of useless stub templates and stub categories: Can you tell me how I can improve the policy so you'll change your mind? Or let me know behind your reasons for opposing it? Thanks. --User:AllyUnion User talk:AllyUnion 23:21, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) : The requirement was changed to strongly recommended, and changed to polite notification --User:AllyUnion User talk:AllyUnion 00:13, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC) :: Please look it over again. Thanks. --User:AllyUnion User talk:AllyUnion 06:01, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC) ---- Jewish ethnocentrism logs: It may interest you to view this: Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Jewish_ethnocentrism/Logs as your name appeared in the log. --User:AllyUnion User talk:AllyUnion 16:07, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC) ---- Rastafari: I don't understand why that proposal is "Language correctness run amok"; Squeakifox's appeal might have been based on a sense of fairness rather than a proper understanding of naming conventions, but looking at usage supports the view. I looked around, both at academic publications (theses and dissertations) and at Google and it seems that Rastafari ''is'' more widely used than ''Rastafarianism'', with ''Rastafarians'' as the people. (see Talk:Rastafarianism#Looking_at_the_data). Thanks User:Guettarda 01:30, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) ---- WP:AN/I: Yes, it was me - I hadn't realised I was logged out at the time - an easy mistake given that I was breaking into half a dozen different accounts at the time:) Kind regards, User:Jguk 18:49, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC) ---- Bombing of Dresden: SlimVrgin wrote in the section Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II#More questions :1) "There are reports that civilians fleeing the firestorm engulfing Dresden in February 1945 were strafed by American aircraft, but these claims are not supported by recent work by a German historian. 5" But (5) points to Richard Evans. So who is the German historian, and why not NAME HIM OR HER IN THE SENTENCE, instead of using these silly footnotes? I think you wrote the words she is highlighting here. Perhapse you would like to answer her or change them. User:Philip Baird Shearer 13:06, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC) ---- Bombing of 3RR Page: Not sure what's going on, but do assure that it's not deliberate! My setup is bogstandard XP Pro and IE6, so shouldn't have any problems. Wasn't game to apologise again in case it happened again. User:Skyring 13:26, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC) ---- '''Respecting other people's decisions:''' Feel free. If you check out the standard text I leave on the talk page of people I have blocked I ask them (if they disspute the block) to appeal to other admins or the mailing list. I've had quite a few of my blocks undone (every block I have applied to an admin for example).User:Geni 04:58, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC) ---- My comments on blocking wars: Hi, If you feel my comments may produce a constructive discussion, please feel free to cut and paste them someplace else. -Brian. (--User:BM 14:01, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)) : I'm sorry for messing up your Talk page. I don't remember now what I did, but I probably didn't hit "back", since I don't do that. However, what I might have done is this: the "save" was taking so long, I used the time to reread the text and tweak it, and save again, without waiting for the first save to return. I've done this before and usually it works out fine, although occasionally I get an edit-conflict with myself by doing this. This has to be resolved by doing the edits over again. I never noticed before that this resulted in any massive duplication such as you describe. I have seen the scenario you are describing, though, and perhaps there is some kind of glitch or bug. Again, my apologies for the inconvenience. --User:BM 22:41, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC) ---- Cut and Paste moves: The only reason I did cut and paste moves is because the wikimedia software is broken; the "Move" tab is broken. If admins don't want cut and paste moves, it would be best to make non cut-and-paste moves possible. That said, the only other cut and paste move I did was to move Ted to Ted (airline)--for the same reason. The move tab was broken. I think, when the move tab is broken, there should be a page explaining why the move tab is broken, and how to request a move in such a case. Take care, and thank you for your comments. User:Samboy 21:49, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC) : Thank you very much for updating the Ted page. I have updated the links to anything in the main encyclopedia that linked to Ted. The only things that point to Ted now are in User pages and talk pages. User:Samboy 08:46, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC) ---- WP:AN: Sorry, I just figured that if it were left on the noticeboard, we would end up with two parallel discussions, one on the noticeboard and one on the RfC, and it would be more productive to consolidate them. User:Rad Racer 17:46, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC) ---- Thank you:' You are quite right. I need to put my mouse where my mouth is. I will get to work. ;) User:Mark Richards 02:27, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC) ---- Battle of Spion Kop: Talk:Battle of Spion Kop this time the move is in as an WP:RM User:Philip Baird Shearer 13:54, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC) : The reason for moving your comment from WP:RM (even as I agree with it) was because there was a straw poll on where votes and discussions should take place when a move was posted to WP:RM. See Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 3#VOTING. Ironically this was primarily for articles like Calcutta which generate a lot of traffic, not for articles like this. I will not move your comment again, but someone else may. User:Philip Baird Shearer 00:55, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC) Just a head-up User talk:Philip Baird Shearer#Parochialism -> User talk:Elf-friend#Parochialism --User:Philip Baird Shearer 17:24, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC) ---- Spion Kop: This is already covered in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (not ''policies''), line two: ''It is important to note that these are conventions, not rules written in stone....'' We use our judgement and work towards consensus. Try to move on and apply your positive energy to other things on WP. There have been many consensus decisions I don't agree with, too. And you can cheerfully remind me to buck up when I get bitter about some other one. Cheers. ''User:Mzajac User talk:Mzajac 2005-03-10 19:15'' ---- Chinese and English compared: Well, I won't do it again, but this is a tempest in a teapot. I created both pages, both with the same content -- I probably created the wrong-cased one first, then the right one when I saw the link I wrote to it was still "broken". Somebody killed the ''right''-cased one and redirected it to the ''wrong'' one, and I just swapped everything around, including all the talk. There is no history worth mentioning. Plus, this is ''really'' a tempest in a teapot, since I'm starting to think the whole article is a Bad Idea and am getting ready to put it up for deletion myself -- instead, I think I'll add my comments to another article. Please tell me how to ''quickly'' mend this sort of trivial error. BTW, your talk-back-to-me-on-my-talk-page template is in error. It asks me to reply to you on your talk page "(above)", but there is no link. Nor did you sign your comment. I had to edit my talk page (or, I suppose, check its history) to find you. As a new guy here, I don't want you to think I'm trying to order around an Old Head, but I thought you might want to know. User:Xiong 22:48, 10 Mar 2005 : Thanks for tidying up, and I'm glad you think the topic has ''some'' merit. I am led to believe that WP does not encourage "comparison" articles, but I thought the ''contrast'' was so extreme that it deserved special attention -- discussion that takes it out of the context of the straight articles on either Chinese or English. I'm still not convinced, though. I want to hear more comment on it, but then, maybe I'm just being a wuss. User:Xiong 02:17, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC) ---- WP engine issues: To whom do i direct comments regarding the overall WP engine? For instance, I notice that about half the time when I load a page -- any page -- my browser never stops loading; even after the page is fully loaded, I see various "loading" indicators. I don't know if anyone will fix it just for me, but there must be a place for me to post the bug FYI. User:Xiong 02:17, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC) ---- Cleaning department: Thanks for pointing me to this page - I wasn't aware of its existence. 03:15, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC) ---- Solana: User:Cumbey has now engaged in an identical edit war at [http://www.global-elite.org/wiki/index.php/Javier%2C_Solana]. Any help would be much appreciated. --User:SqueakBox 17:12, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC) : User:Cumbey has made another personal attack against me at Talk:Javier Solana--User:SqueakBox 04:29, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC) ---- Cranky: I'll admit I was using Internet English -- Webster still has :Cranky: Addicted to crotchets and whims; unreasonable in opinions; crotchety. I'm sure it's the same word, with an original meaning of "twist". Probably the same as German ''krank'' "ill". A brief [http://www.google.com/search?q=cranky websearch] will convince you that more kooks than fidgeting children are online :o) User:Dbachmann User_talk:Dbachmann 07:06, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC) ---- AN Header / Footer: Eh, borrowed it from VFD. Maybe you should do it for your talk page too? --User:AllyUnion User talk:AllyUnion 22:13, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC) ---- Re: TfD janitors: Thanks for the message. I certainly don't mind anybody else helping, there is somewhat of a backlog, thanks for helping out :D It is very much appreciated. -User:Frazzydee|User talk:Frazzydee 15:31, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC) ---- Vote removal: Surely I am allowed to remove a vote from a page. Your readdition of my vote on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 16 is completely inappropriate. User:Anthony DiPierro User:Anthony_DiPierro/warning 15:57, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC) ---- RfD: Hi,
Sorry for the multifarious mistakes. This is what happens when you fall out of the loop for a few months. If you ask me, Wikipolicy is altogether too much to keep track of. --User:Smack (User talk:Smack) 21:57, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC) ---- RfD: No worries...I wasn't questioning the fact that it hadn't been deleted yet. I just meant that the fact that nobody had ''commented'' on the nomination yet made it unlikely that anybody would object to me just killing it then and there (since one of ''my'' ongoing projects is cleaning up the Canada-related stuff). Sorry if I wasn't clear. User:Bearcat 15:26, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC) ---- Zen-Master: Sorry, I wasn't mocking your praise of Zen-Master, we just coincided. I note you did detect some tongue in cheek, in my post re: KingOfAllPaperboys. --User:Silverback 13:36, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC) ---- Capitalism: I don't question your decision to protect Capitalism, but my policy is to unprotect whenever it looks quiet, and watch closely. Three days is often enough to get people thinking, and some of the guys editing that page are experienced and not the kind to panic. If you really think it needs to be protected longer, please do so and I'll leave the decision of when to unprotect entirely to you. --User:Tony Sidaway|User talk:Tony Sidaway 17:22, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) ---- Wikipedia:Protected page: I was under the possibly mistaken impression that the distinction between real pages and protected-from-re-creation pages on Wikipedia:Protected page wasn't really being observed anymore, and that people were just adding stuff at the end, in the re-creation section, even if it wasn't protected against re-creation. I agree it's a useful distinction if it's observed. -- User:Curps 22:12, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) ---- Sister project templates, protection thereof: May I ask for how long you intend to have the sister project templates protected? While I agree that they should be protected - although I would rather have them protected on my version, of course - do you honestly think that this will help? For my part, I intend to revert them to the correct version the moment they are unprotected (unless some progress towards resolving this is made). — User:Itai (User talk:Itai) 16:00, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC) : If you deprive me of such an amusing pastime, at the very least you can offer a solution. Leaving this protected until either Netoholic or I leave Wikipedia or are run over by a donkey carriage or any combination of the above is a solution, but not a very noble one. This has been discussed endlessly in the past - I can provide links if you like - and neither Netoholic nor I will change our opinions, nor can a compromise be reached (it's one way or the other). As for additional measures, I've got three surveys showing a community majority for using Template:Sisterproject, and Netoholic's got his I-am-right-and-you-are-wrong page. Seriously, as long as you took the time to protect this, it would be nice if you also said how you believed this should be decided. — User:Itai (User talk:Itai) 20:47, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC) :: I'm going to be away Sunday through Thursday, so I won't be able to reply to your (belated) reply. Basically, what I'm saying is this: it is very easy (for an admin) to protect a template. It is harder to find a lasting solution. I would be much obliged if, as long as you took the time to intervene, you would also aid in solving this once and for all. — User:Itai (User talk:Itai) 12:34, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC) ---- WP:AN/3RR: Hi. I have absolutely no idea what caused WP:AN/3RR to break like that. I merely clicked the edit link beside the section header, and made an edit to that specific section (as you can see from the automatically generated edit summary based off the section title). I'll file this bug to Bugzilla, because something equally weird happened today (everything on a page disappeared but the section I was editing). Sorry for the disturbance, and thanks for fixing the problem. - User:Mark 16:34, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC) ---- The Matrix: It looks like the guy who kept adding "Matrixism" references to The Matrix is gone (he's conspicuously absent on List of religions) and a consensus is developing on the talk page as to how to proceed with the editorial dispute. User:Philwelch 00:27, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC) ---- Z�rich to Zurich: Z�rich has been nominated on Wikipedia:Requested moves for a page move to Zurich. Being a contributor to the previous vote you might like to express your opinion about this proposed move in the new vote on talk:Z�rich. User:Philip Baird Shearer 09:32, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC) ---- Down the memory hole: This comment originally appeared in Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) 10:54, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC). It was not only removed from the Pump, but from the Pump's history itself -- pure Memory hole, and not by a common user, either. ~~If you think this is unacceptable, I hope you will work to preserve not only these remarks, but to discover the actor who obliterated them. — User:XiongUser talk:Xiong 03:14, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)~~ : I have struck my charge of Orwellian revisionism; ''just because they're out to get you doesn't mean you're not paranoid.'' At the time I posted several copies of this around the project, I actually did fear that someone would systematically go behind, deleting them without a trace. : If I posted this comment to your user Talk, you may wish to delete the box itself and replace with a link to User:Xiong/Minitrue. I will ''not'' consider that revisionism. — User:Xiong熊">:Image:Xiong2char.pngUser talk:Xiong 02:11, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

Following process on Templates for deletion Who are we? Why are we here? I'm not speaking of the entire project or our grand mission, only of the small group of regulars who work within TfD. What are we doing here? Each one of us will have a different answer to that question; so to guide us in our efforts, we have a written process. Process should not act as a straitjacket, but as a way for us to agree to respect each other's differing views. If all of us had the same exact opinion on each template, there would be no need for the Wikipedia:Templates for deletion page -- not in its present form, at any rate. We would each individually mow down templates we found insupportable, and log the deletions. ''No need'' for debate, ''no need'' for discussion. And since we would all be in perfect agreement, we would have strong justification for refusing to hear appeals from other members of WP. But it is not so. I think should stay and should go; User:El Supremo thinks {widget} should go and {blivet} stay. Sometimes, we can discuss these issues and find a meeting ground. Maybe I can accept some changes to {widget}, with which El Supremo can tolerate its continued presence. But what do we do when after a week of wrangling, I still say "Widgets forever!" and El Supremo grunts, "Blivets or death!" -- what then? Our process specifies that after seven days on TfD, if consensus is not reached, the nominated template is free to go -- the matter is over. We also say that a template should not be renominated for a month, if then. No good purpose is served by chewing old bones. Recently, the nominated template came to the end of its seven-day roasting. There was considerable controversy, a more or less even split of opinions (4 delete to 3 keep), and certainly nothing approaching consensus, or even overwhelming majority. Our process says {divbox} goes free, and that's the end of the matter -- at least, the end for this month. Those determined to keep a dog in the fight may do so on Template talk:Divbox. Shortly after I removed the offending listing and carefully began to archive all its debate -- not merely the debate within the TfD workflow, but wherever I could find a scrap of it -- a certain user, without discussion of any kind so far as I know, restored {divbox} to the TfD page and simultaneously juggled the entire contents of the page, including our written process guidelines. Am I the only one in this project who finds this a bit questionable? *[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion&oldid=11987572#Outcome_.28substage.29 TfD page, including process guidlines, prior to Orwellian reversions] -- here is an excerpt: :"It is also possible that no concensus has been reached. '''''Action: Remove template from this page entirely. Copy the entire discussion to template's Talk page. Remove tag from template's main page.'' (\"Disputed\" subsection deprecated.) Absent concensus, the disputed template is kept.\" : I have to disclose that it was I who wrote the text of this section, as part of a complete cleanup of the page, including explicit workflow process. The cleanup stood unchallenged througout the recent heated debate over {divbox} -- nobody found it offensive or even felt a need to correct my misspelling of \"consensus\" -- but now that it permits {divbox} release from jail, it must all''' be destroyed. (!?) : This process, too, is subject to change -- but have we come to the point where we are permitted to change our guidelines for how we work ''at the same time as'' we cite our changes to process as justification for what we do? If we have come to the point where everything is ''up for grabs'', please let me know, and I will start work on Jimbo's home page, VfD, CfD, RfC, RfA, and all the other pages which manage the way we manage the work we do. If I don't need to discuss any of my changes before making them, then why should I? And if someone disagrees with me, why should I not alter existing process to make his disagreement illegal? If we have not come to that point, and we still cling to shreds of social fabric, then I ask you to take whatever action you think necessary to hold those shreds together, and allow me to return to the work I do best -- making things that work for us all. Thank you. — User:XiongUser talk:Xiong 10:54, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

---- Locked France page: Hey, I was wondering why you locked the France page. The vandalism wasn't too severe at all if thats the reason you did it. It's not that I have anything to edit, I was just wondering. — ''oo64eva (AJ)'' ^{(User: oo64eva | User_talk:Oo64eva | Special:Contributions/Oo64eva)} @ 15:23, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC) ---- Response: I've responded to the question you posed at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#Article names for people with positions. Cheers. User:Noisy | User talk:Noisy 17:33, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC) ---- Xiong: As one of the people who's tried to encourage User:Xiong to act more appropriately, I thought I'd let you know I have opened an WP:RFC on him at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Xiong. In short, his actions have continued to be increasingly disruptive and his attitude dismissive, especially his recent nomination of Wikipedia:Templates for deletion for deletion (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Templates for deletion. If you'll consider either certifying or supporting the summary, that would be appreciated. -- User:Netoholic User talk:Netoholic 21:49, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC) : This user has been soapboxing around, pasting this identical, soothing text into user Talk after user Talk -- a far cry from his usual rude edit summaries. Can nothing be done? Must I campaign, too? Is there some limit to good taste? Am I permitted to indiscriminantly spam user Talk pages with mention of Netoholic's case before ArbCom? I need some direction here. — User:Xiong熊">Special:Emailuser/XiongUser talk:Xiong 07:34, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC) ---- Speedy delete of old redirects: Where is the policy to keep stale old subpage redirects? User:SchmuckyTheCat 19:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) ---- Thanks: Thanks for adding the user link to Admin noticeboard for . Still a little new here....should have thought of that myself, lot's to learn! Later :) User:Rx StrangeLove 14:20, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) ---- Ralph Wigram: No probs. I'd probably not have gotten around to putting my notes into any coherent article for ages yet. Pleased you found out a load of stuff I didn't. User:KayEss — User:KayEss | User talk:KayEss 05:22, 9 May 2005 (UTC) ---- Sorry: Didn't notice. In the middle of a pretty big maneuver myself. Just revert my stuff if you like, I'll pick it up later. --User:Tony Sidaway|User talk:Tony Sidaway 18:15, 10 May 2005 (UTC) : Yes indeed. I will be more careful. --User:Tony Sidaway|User talk:Tony Sidaway 18:25, 10 May 2005 (UTC) ---- WP: RFD: Thanks for the comments. I originally didn't know about WP:RFD, so when someone pointed it out, I copied them over there, but didn't want to mess with deleting the WP:VFD entries (there's too much work involved, and I didn't want to miss a step or something). Thanks also for the suggestion to save them to my hard drive until I can change them all at once; I'll do that from now on. User:Ral315 17:04, May 12, 2005 (UTC) =Active Stuff= == Akhenaten Aten == Hi Noel, you asked about my removal of "Aten's cult was the target of considerable official hostility after that." from the bottom of Akhenaten. I felt it was not only superfluous (covered by "the Aten cult he had founded almost immediately fell out of favor." earlier in the para) but rather weak given abandonment of Akhetaten, Tutankhaten's name change etc. And the sentence disrupted the flow of the paragraph about how Aten fell out of favour. And though there's more to be said about Smenkhare, Tutankhamun and Ay's attitudes to the Amun and Aten cults (eg Smenkhare may have intensified persecution of Amunism; Tutankhamun and Ay may have been Atenists who reverted to Amun only for public show), I didn't want to go into the (murky) details. User:Rd232 11:26, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC) == Protocol == Hello. I don't really have any ideas on the computer-related protocol pages. Apparently ''protocol'' comes from a Greek phrase meaning ''first leaf'' and refers to the first draft of a treaty. What I had thought of as the primary meaning was the ettiquete of diplomacy, but apparently that's not the ''original'' meaning. Maybe a protocol disambiguation page should have one line that points, not to ''protocol (treaty)'' but simply to ''treaty'', with an explanation that that's one of the meanings of the word. Treaties are of course products of dimplomacy, so maybe ''protocol (diplomacy)'' is ambiguous. But even so I suspect ''protocol (diplomacy)'' is far more likely to be construed as being about the ettiquette of formal diplomatic encounters than about treaties, so for now I'd go with that. If experts in that field join Wikipedia, then maybe we'll do better. How 'bout something like this: ---- ''Protocol'' is derived from the Greek language words προτο-, meaning ''first'', and κολλα, meaning ''glue'', and originally meant the first leaf of a bound volume. * A protocol is the orininal draft of a transaction, negotiation, or agreement, and by extension, a protocol is a treaty. See treaty. * A protocol is a detailed record of the procedure and results of a scientific experiment. In particular, see protocol (medicine). * Protocol comprises the ettiquette and rules of formal ceremonial state occasions involving heads of state, ambassadors, and the like. See protocol (diplomacy). * blah blah blah blah ..... protocol (computing) * Network protocol * Communications protocol * Protocol (cryptography) * etc., etc. User:Michael Hardy 01:17, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC) == Article Licensing == Hi, I've User:rambot#Free the Rambot Articles project to get users to Wikipedia:Multi-licensing all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (''CC-by-sa'') v1.0 and v2.0 Creative Commons Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The ''CC-by-sa'' license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at ''minimum'' those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information: *User talk:Ram-Man#Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered *Wikipedia:Multi-licensing *User:rambot#Free the Rambot Articles project To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "" template into their user page, but there are other options at Wikipedia:Template messages/User namespace#Licensing Templates. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page: :Option 1 :I agree to Wikipedia:Multi-licensing all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below: : OR :Option 2 :I agree to Wikipedia:Multi-licensing all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below: : Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "" with "". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. ''Please let me know'' what you think at my User talk:Ram-Man. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- User:Ram-Man ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Ram-Man&action=edit§ion=new comment]| User talk:Ram-Man == Two State Solution == Noel, thank you for working on this page. Your efforts are greatly appreciated. Unfortunately some inaccuracies remains. The Peel Commission and 1947 Partition Plan proposed "internationalized" zones to go with the Jewish and Muslim zones. The international zones would have accomplished two goals: side step the issue of who gets Jerusalem, and place Jerusalem and some quantity of territory under the control of European (Christian) countries. The Christians being the only Abrahamic religion without a significant population in the area. (A demographic situation that continues to develop as Muslim Arabs attack Christian Arabs (http://www.cathnews.com/news/404/37.php). These zones were strenously rejected by the Jews and Muslims. The internationalization of the zones is a key element that should be reflected in the article. The form of a two state solution is not clear, neither is it clear what land areas it will encompass. Jordan itself is 60%+ Palestinian and may find itself drawn in a "solution". This text: :Territories that Israel captured in the West Bank and Gaza during the Six-Day War would become a new Palestinian state. Their Palestinian Arab inhabitants, as well as Arabs in the world-wide Palestinian exodus, would be given citizenship by the new state. Arab citizens of present-day Israel would likely have the choice of staying with Israel, or becoming citizens of the new Palestine. Should be removed or augmented with other envisioned outcomes. It appears that President Bush will allow a two state solution that places significant Jewish population centers located in areas captured in the Six Day War to become part of Israel. The outcome is far from clear at this point. Depending upon the Palestinian Authority's decision and effectiveness in fighting terrorism, the fence may over time become a de facto and perhaps even a de jure border. It is not impossible that a three state solution could arise Gaza/Hamas, Israel, and some portion of the West Bank PLO. So much is unclear. The uncertainity should be reflected in the article rather than the current "a two state solution will look like this". User:Lance6Wins 22:33, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC) == Edit summaries == Here are your comments and my reply from my user page. :I'm afraid that is not realistic in my case. I am engaged in a huge project to make the United Kingdom menu a complete set of all relevant articles, or as near as I can get it. I have made thousands of edits in a month - largely doing other people's work for them. I consider this to be a very valuable project, but I am not prepared to make it even more time consuming. I note what my edits are when they are sensitive. User:Pcpcpc 23:50, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC) :: I usually tick the "minor edit" box for minor edits. I may have forgotten a few times because I am fallible like anyone else. I ''do'' provide good edit summaries where appropriate; in fact I have made 23 in the last 24 hours. On numerous occasions I have had to prune them to make them fit within the 30 word or so limit. I think I am actually well above average among Wikipedians in this regards. "Minor edit" really is enough of a description for a minor edit, and the page you linked to merely says that providing further details for minor edits would be, "nice even then". Well I agree, but I don't have infinite time, and I am hardly alone in not doing it - and I am making more edits than almost anyone at the moment, so I have more time to lose. :: I will try extra hard to make sure that I never omit to follow these practices, but I am not going to change them. User:Pcpcpc 03:18, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC) == African American == I usually prefer to respond as you do -- on the poster's talk page. But if someone doesn't yet have a page set up, then I respond on mine. Actually, I wasn't "sticking up" for RickK. I don't know him, have never (to my recollection) had an exchange w/him. Just thanking him for restoring the talk threads for AA. That other guy's a real jerk. "Some" isn't necessary, because you're speaking of African Americans as a collective. The same is true for the use of "and" instead of "or." What about in my case, as I can "claim" all three? The use of "or" would not be appropriate. You're speaking of the whole, them as a collective group, with members among them who belong to a particular subset. (Ever taken a logics class? Simple, finite math.) User:Deeceevoice 17:17, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC) Understood, but in an article devoted to African Americans, we are, indeed speaking of the group as a collective -- and not of individuals. When you say "or," that means one, but not two, or two, but not three. Yet, there are many African Americans who fit all three categories -- so, the more appropriate word is "and," speaking of the collective. Among African Americans collectively, there are all three heritages represented (no either/or implied -- just a whole characterizing a whole). An exercise in basic logic: "There are red, orange and purple balls in the boxes." Does that mean that every, single box has at least one of each color? One might assume that -- but no, not necessarily. But it does mean that in the boxes, regarded all together, there are balls of all three colors there? Yep. As I said, if one approaches the statement based simply on what it says (not what one might erroneously infer), it is completely correct. Well, enough of that! (I hated logics class.) User:Deeceevoice 19:34, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC) P.S. I went back and deleted "Many," because that confuses the issue; the sentence is more correct without it. Perhaps you see my point now? Anyway, I think you're probably as bored with this by now as I am! :-p User:Deeceevoice 19:46, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC) == How to comment on a specific contrib on a talk page == This is to explain my reformatting of two of your contribs on Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard.
(In progress. While it looks like you're probably off-line, i'm not going to rush this & make a mess of it; this prelim is to let you know i think you deserve an explanation & will provide it fairly promptly.)
--User:JerzyUser talk:Jerzy 00:04, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure i understand what you had in mind: each of the two times, you were commenting on contribs by A that B (and perhaps others) had already commented on, and not commenting on B's comment. So you put your comment directly under A's, and indented it further than B's in order to avoid the impression that B was commenting on your comment.
There's a lot of logic to that, but it's a bad idea for a number of reasons. # If others follow your logic, and in turn want to comment on the same contrib you did, the first of them should post above your comment, still further indented. The second should post above both of you, yet further indented. There are times when its hard to avoid indenting far enough that the column gets indecently narrow, but the situation we are discussing is not one of them: What is normal on WP is that the first person (B) to respond to A indents, and everyone else commenting on A's contrib indents to the same extent B did, following the last person who responded to A. And no matter how many multiple responses a single contrib gets, that doesn't push unnecessarily far to the right. # Those commenting on A's contrib usually have read all the earlier contribs before framing their own comment, lest they waste time being repetitive, and that's a good thing. It's also a good thing if the later readers read those responses in order: then when they read C's, D's, and your contribs, they've just read B's (as C, D, and you did), and don't have to waste time wondering why C, D, and you are so dullwitted as to bring up these minor points after having overlooked the major points that should be obvious to anyone whose contrib is worth reading. But if everyone formats it your way, later readers either read the comments in the reverse order of their occurrence, or go to extra trouble to go down to the end of the comments on A's contrib, and repeatedly read down and scroll back up to read the next one. (And then scroll back down over what they just read.) # If some do it your way and some not (nearly all in fact don't), the only way to read the comments on A's contrib in order is to search thru the datestamps to deduce the proper order. # In fact, in that mixed-method case, the effect of being the last to have used your method is the same as being the one rudest one forcing your way to the front of the line and yelling, "No, read ''mine'' first." So i trust you'll understand why i adjusted your formating & positioning.
Thanks,
--User:JerzyUser talk:Jerzy 02:58, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC) Thanks for response, J,
It doesn't seem to me these cases were like what you're talking abt, but let me comment on that anyway:
The case you stated, using normal WP style * Any fool can see X. : And Y follows from that. : So we all should Z : --User:A :* I've indented this to show i'm responding to what A said; specifically Z is an unsuitable response to the realities of X and Y. --User:B :* I'm indenting this to the same level that B did, to make it clear that like B, i'm responding to A (not to B). There's no reason to consider Z, because X just isn't true. -- Anon. The case you want to distinguish that from, using normal WP style * Any fool can see X. : And Y follows from that. : So we all should Z : --User:A :* I've indented this to show i'm responding to what A said; specifically Z is an unsuitable response to the realities of X and Y. --User:B :** I'm indenting this a level further that B did, to make it clear that unlike B, i'm not responding to A (but to B). B is right to some extent, but made an important mistake. -- Anon. '''More elaborate example of WP style: I nominate Bad article for deletion, on grounds of mopery and dopery. --A * Delete for reason 1. --B ** Reason 1 violates the Pauli exclusion principle. --C *** My art teacher says it doesn't. --B **** Art teachers rock! --D *** My gym teacher says it doesn't, and everyone knows that gym teachers rock. --D ** Reason 1 violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but there are better reasons than that for deleting. --E * Keep for reason 2. --C * Delete for reason 3. --D ** D is a fool -- C. *** I am not. --D *** Everyone knows he is, but he still gets to vote. --A This is always sufficient to distinguish the relationship among comments, subject to the restriction that every comment addresses at most one other comment. (Note above that D made two comments, rather than trying to make one that applied to both B's and C's comments.)
The rule sounds more complicated than it is: two comments apply to the same comment if they are both equally indented, and no comment that is less indented falls between them.
VfD debates tend to make good examples, because it's so clear that a vote is a comment on the nomination, and it's usually pretty clear that which vote or comment is being commented on; breakdowns are usually the reuslt of commetning on two comments simultaneously.
--User:JerzyUser talk:Jerzy 06:17, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC) == Templates == Thanks for the note, and for the help with templates. I wish I could help more. I tried to get bot approval to help with clearing templates agreed to be deleted, but one admin fairly aggressively combatted it (see Wikipedia talk:Bots#NetBot request). If you can add any comments, or perhaps approach that admin in someway, that would let me do more (hopefully so that all you need to do is hit the delete key :) ). -- User:Netoholic User talk:Netoholic 02:01, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC) : Admin oversight of template deletion is essential. No bots. — User:Xiong熊">Special:Emailuser/XiongUser talk:Xiong*">User:Xiong/Metatalk 04:33, 2005 May 13 (UTC) == Admin noticeboard == Thanks for all your archiving work, it's much appreciated. User:Silsor 15:33, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC) Thanks again for all the archiving work you do. User:Silsor 17:21, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC) And again! User:Silsor 04:49, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC) == New Mathematics Wikiportal == I noticed you've done some work on Mathematics articles. I wanted to point out to you the new Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Mathematics- more specifically, to the Wikipedia:Mathematics Collaboration of the Week page. I'm looking for any math-related stubs or non-existant articles that you would like to see on Wikipedia. Additionally, I wondered if you'd be willing to help out on some of the Collaboration of the Week pages. I encourage you to vote on the current Collaboration of the Week, because I'm very interested in which articles you think need to be written or added to, and because I understand that I cannot do the enormous amount of work required on some of the Math stubs alone. I'm asking for your help, and also your critiques on the way the portal is set up. Please direct all comments to User:Ral315 Wikipedia talk:Wikiportal/Mathematics, or Wikipedia talk:Mathematics Collaboration of the Week Thanks a lot for your support! User:Ral315 02:54, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC) == Subpage redirects == Hello Noel, could you point me to the discussion or voting where it was decided to keep the old subpage redirects? I would like to inspect the old arguments before proposing any policy changes. Since it was you who added the "keep 7" to the list [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_deletion&diff=8474240&oldid=8459215], I hope you could explain the rationale behind it. Any pros/cons I can think of: :''Pros'': # There may be major history that needs to be kept for copyright reasons # Some external websites may link to a subpage redirect :''Cons'': # Clutters search results # Clutters "What links here" # Takes up (little) space in database # Can encourage newbies to use subpages or create new subpage redirects # Can confuse editors who happen to find a web of bogus redirects with convoluted history :Now, my opposition to ''Pros'': # Obsolete histories can be merged or moved to talk # Enough time has passed since the conversion away from subpages, websites should have adapted already. Not our problem, if someone has not updated his site for years. # Because redirects are cheap, deletion of them should be cheap too, since they can be recreated with minimum fuss. I also find your interpretation of the various keep/delete rules way too rigid. The text says "avoid deletion", not "under no circumstances delete". Surely we can delete a subpage redirect, if there is a rough consensus to delete it. Policy is formulated that way in VfD every day. Problem is that there are not enough participants in RfD to override old questionable policies by voting for a new de-facto policy. Currently RfD is the backwater of Wikipedia deletion. I guess I'll be bold and update "keep 7" to allow deletion of historyless historical artifacts and obviously temporary subpages (like /Temp), if no objections are raised. I'd appreciate your thought on this before proposing this on talk of WP:RFD. About the CSD rules, I'm not sure I'm bold enough to tweak them just like that, it seems that even insignificant changes to them cause objections from the "keep everything" crowd. User:Jni 09:03, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC) == Military history naming conventions == See:Wikipedia_talk:Military_Collaboration_of_the_week#Naming_conventions. Perhapse there is a page which we could draw this subject up as a guide line. Any ideas? -- User:Philip Baird Shearer 10:29, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC) == Further reading/References == Hello and thanks for making me aware of your rationale for dividing the article reference section into two---Further reading and References. The only reason I collapsed them into one sec was my perceived notion of "std wkp format", and to keep the number of "auxiliary secs"* as low as possible (which leads to more concise articles, IMO making them more readable). However, I very much see your point, especially after reading your comment at my talk page. :) Perhaps a reasonable compromise would be to use a References sec only, but to list the references under separate italicised** subheadings (not subsecs---they also clutter up the TOC & article IMO; even worse than separate secs), my suggestions being ''Further reading'': and ''Academic sources'':. How about that? Anyway, I will certainly work through (some of) "my own" articles (those on my watchlist, that is) in order to split the refs into said categories. --User:Wernher 21:17, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC) (* By "auxiliary secs" I mean those "std" secs like See also, References, and External links.)
(** I have noticed that some other contributors use italics for non-subsec "subheadings".) == Minor edits == Regarding your post on my Talk Page. I have not read the link you provided and have no plans to: if you can't be bothered to do more than post a link and say "read this," then I can't be bothered to read it. It's the basic principle of proportionality in action. If you feel I'm in error on some point and you want me to acknowledge or correct it, it's up to you to tell me what you're talking about, not make me guess your intent. In any case, if you feel how and why I mark edits distorts, impedes, or abuses process, or is otherwise a roadblock in the path of improving Wikipedia, I invite you to file an RFC, where you can — and, indeed, are required to — describe in as much detail as you like where I've gone wrong. If it's not that important, then please stop bothering me. --User:Calton | User talk:Calton 07:31, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC) P.S.: I've taken the liberty of nowiki-ing a and fixing some DVD/D template tags on this page. == Three unrelated questions == On Wikipedia talk:Redirects for deletion#Automagically, you mention the little pop-up, but I couldn't find it. Where can I find it? I replied to your replies further down on that page. I'm curious to see a reason, but I can live without it. I'll just add VfD to such pages and won't care what happens afterwards. Regarding New Stuff: Are you aware of the template? User:SebastianHelm 08:50, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC) == RfC re: Wareware's blatant racism == Just stopping by to thank you for taking the time to weigh in on the above-referenced matter -- and also for stopping by my talk page: "He was so far over the line there that the curvature of the earth had removed it from view." That gave me a chuckle. I guess there's humor to be found in almost anything. Peace 2 u. User:Deeceevoice 21:32, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) Hi. Thanks for the note. Actually, I didn't reformat the RfC. SlimVirgin kindly took the time to do so (I'm having hardware and software issues that I must attend do) because, apparently, that's the format that is required in order to have one's RfC considered -- I suppose because it's a way of providing verifiable documentation for each offense. The last time I checked, there were, I think, four or five people who'd signed on and none endorsing Wareware's account. I note with interest, though, a user named Pharlap is going out of his way to make excuses for Wareware and has started his own campaign against me. And get this: he's a black man.