| Revision as of 02:40, 16 August 2005 view sourceRaul654 (talk | contribs)70,896 edits →DualDisc Article FAC← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:55, 16 August 2005 view source 207.200.116.203 (talk) moronNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| A sock puppet hides his real identity you moron. ] is not hiding that he is DotSix. It's my sig you moron. For unilaterally preventing the arb commitee from hearing my request you are sentenced to get your user page blanked whenever I feel like it. --] 02:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| <div style="float:right;width:150px;margin:2em;padding:1em;"> | |||
| <center> | |||
| ] up-to-date, for doing the grunt work of cleaning up ], for mediating in disputes, for adding lots of really nice pictures, and for still finding the time to work on articles! In a few months you've already become a highly valued member of the community. Stay with us and don't burn out, please. --Eloquence Apr 10, 2004]] | |||
| <br/> | |||
| ], I hereby award you this ]. May you continue to be a valued contributor to Misplaced Pages for many years to come. ] 05:22, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)]] | |||
| </center> | |||
| </div> | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| == Red links at ] == | |||
| I note that there are red links for the Air Force band items uploaded by your bot. | |||
| Bot problems? Copyright problems? Attitude problems over at the commons? I thought I'd at least bring it to your attention and offer to help. | |||
| I believe that it is a matter of time before there is a policy collision between En: and Commons. If nothing else, there are few commons sysops who are also active on En:. As a result, prompt response vandalism of images that are prominent on En: may become a problem. ] Co., ] 06:08, 24 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Long story short -- the airforce claims they are all public domain, although some of them may not be. I uploaded them en-masse using Raulbot (I admit I should have been more suspicious about some, but I took their copyright page at face value). Brion deleted them en masse. So there are a lot of red links, with quite a few (roughly half, I'd guess) non-existant files linked to from articles. | |||
| :At some point, I'd like to try it again more conservatively. There are some file there which are quite obviously public domain (like Holst's the plants) but it's a case of once-bitten twice-shy. ] 04:34, July 25, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Today's featured article == | |||
| I left a note ] on the main page August 3, but have not recieved a reply. I need to know if it will be featured then, so I'll have time to clean up or create related articles. Please respond. Thanks. -] 06:40, July 24, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I've gone ahead and scheduled all the featured article through that date. Yes, Marshall Texas will be on the main page on August 3. ] 17:22, July 24, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Raul, Raul, Raul.... == | |||
| I admire your patience in dealing with the ongoing "sneakiness" at ].... but.... | |||
| "AIDS is the result of infection with ''Human immunodeficiency virus'' is correct, and 'AIDS is the result of an infection of ''Human immunodeficiency virus''' isn't. People are infected ''with'' a virus, or ''by'' a virus, but not ''of'' a virus. The second phrase implies that the virus is itself infected (and viruses sometimes are, by phages), and that's wrong for HIV. - ] 05:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I suppose you are correct that my construction is ambigious, but the original one sounded awkward. Is there a third option here? ] 05:32, July 25, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm sure there are lots of alternatives. "AIDS is caused by infection with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus". "AIDS is caused by the Human Immunodeficiency Virus". "AIDS is a disease caused by infection with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus". I'm not sure what you're finding lacking in "AIDS is the result of infection with ''Human immunodeficiency virus''." It seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable sentence, gramatically. Changing "cause" to "results from" was most likely one of the "sneaky" changes, though. "Cause" ought to be in the topic sentence! (e.g. <blockquote>'''AIDS''' ('''Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome''' or '''Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome''') is a disease caused by the ''Human immunodeficiency virus'' (]). HIV infection weakens the ], resulting in unusual infections and some rare cancers. Although treatments exist, there is no known cure for AIDS.</blockquote>Probably not worth worrying too much about until the interference with the article dies down, I just wanted to say that "of" really isn't idiomatic. - ] 05:43, 25 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| i appreciate your recent edits to this article. ] 21:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you :) ] 21:36, July 26, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Video icon== | |||
| ''(Regarding ] and ] and ])'' | |||
| I like the old icon better. This one is bumpy on the edges and the old one wasn't. --{{User:Brian0918/sig}} 21:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :The problem with the old one was that it was terribly ambigious. It was "sort of" a video cassette, but you wouldn't know that unless you thought about it for a while. The new one, while not as pretty and certainly not perfect, does the job better. ] 21:38, July 26, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :On the other hand, I'm totally open to someone coming along with a better icon. There are tons that would suffice - a picture of a TV, for example. ] 23:28, July 26, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::You might consider a public domain icon, such as . --{{User:Brian0918/sig}} 23:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :How's this? Old: ] ] New: ] ] —] 19:17, July 27, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::They look fine to me. ] 19:24, July 27, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Committed. —] 22:46, July 27, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You forgot ] (I got it) ] 22:48, July 27, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| =="Job order"== | |||
| I'm thinking about duplicating on the English Misplaced Pages a project from the German version, . Any objections? Also, any objections to users providing links on their user pages or on related article talk pages for such things as paypal donations, similar to "homework help" forums where answer-providers have links stating "if I have helped you, would you please consider saying thanks in the form of a paypal donation", only in this case, "if you feel my contributions have been useful, would you consider..." or on (for example) a featured article's talk page, "if you feel this article has been informative, would you consider..." (of course, inquiring minds would want to check the edit history to see if the user has contributed anything). This sounds like a good idea and it looks to be growing on the German site. It's sure to increase popularity and incentive for producing more and better content. --{{User:Brian0918/sig}} 21:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, I know the practice has been highly controversial on the German Misplaced Pages. I can see the benefits it offers, but I can also see several potential problems. | |||
| :I suspect it would stimulate incentive to produce more content on specific (bountied) subjects. Better content? Maybe, maybe not. I know that often times, requested articles are written more-or-less straight from a google search. So the quality of the requested-and-newly-created articles (depth, breadth, accuracy, and context) isn't very good. Often times, the requested item is so obscure that the requestor knows just as much (if not more) than the person fulfilling the request. Offering bouties may just encourage this less-than-stellar practice. | |||
| ::With respect to "better articles", I was referring to people who offer a bounty for "the next featured article related to _____" (based on examples on the German page). | |||
| :I'm also afraid that it's going to alter our biases to something unpredictable. What do I mean by that? Well, Misplaced Pages has an fairly well-documented geek and western systemic bias. I think we've all noticed and accepted this, and have adopted practices (both formally and informally) to counter this. Offering bounties opens us up to all other kinds of biases. | |||
| ::I see it as a way to counteract our current biases by offering incentive for people to research things with which they aren't familiar, such as.... all of Africa... --{{User:Brian0918/sig}} 22:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :On a less tangible note, offering bounties runs counter to the[REDACTED] altruistic spirit on which[REDACTED] thrives. Many people find the practice inherently distasteful. In the long run, it also opens the door to corporate sponsorship of writers here. (Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, or a PR platform) | |||
| :So basically, I would suggest that you wait it out, and see how it shapes up on the German Misplaced Pages. If it works well, we'll import the practice. If not, we can avoid a maelstrom. ] 21:58, July 26, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::On the German Misplaced Pages, the Misplaced Pages Community is directly involved with all of it. I'm working on getting a better German translation of the page, but the current machine translation seems to suggest that the Community can decide through consensus objections if a specific offer should be altered or removed. I think a version can be adapted to the English Misplaced Pages with the obligatory "checks and balances" which will prevent it from ever getting near your "in the long run" concerns. In any case, the content is always licensed under a free license; I consider it an interesting change to offer incentive to contribute to free media. Also in any case, the community can always change guidelines for the project. --{{User:Brian0918/sig}} 22:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| What about the other suggestion: users on their own pages or on article talk pages sticking a message with a link to paypal? I'd like to test it out to see what kind of response there would be :) {{User:Brian0918/sig}} 22:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Oh lord. No, no, no! (basically pan-handling on the talk page) is not acceptable. It's one thing to offer a bounty if someone will write what you want; it's *very* different to use the talk pages to ask for it. The former is a controversial practice; the latter us utterly unacceptable. ] 00:32, July 27, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Why is it unacceptable, though? (in other words, give me some arguments that I can attack :) ) --{{User:Brian0918/sig}} 00:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Uh, Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a beggar's forum. ] 00:36, July 27, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Alright, how about this for the project: we start out with the same setup, except that the only forms of reimbursement have no monetary value, so these could include requesting a featured article on topic X in exchange for a featured article on topic Y (this form of payment is popular on the German project), if not featured then of a quality that is examined after-the-fact by the requestor/community, or requesting a translation of article X from/to language A in exchange for a translation of article Y from/to language B (also popular on the German project), or giving various Wikithanks/Barnstars for the work. In the meantime, we can discuss the expansion to monetary trades on the talk page. --{{User:Brian0918/sig}} 03:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :What you are describing is basically ] (and I had to search for several minutes to find it because it's very, very old) ] 03:54, July 27, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::That was WikiMoney, this initial version would be WikiBarter. Consider it a "new beginning / revival", and if/when it eventually extends to monetary incentives, then see it take off. If you can give specific situations where you can see this (monetary incentive) being bad/abused, please do, it'll help in policy-shaping. If you can suggest some checks/balances, also please do. --{{User:Brian0918/sig}} 04:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Quite frankly, it sounds like what you are describing could be best implimented using a closed-form of wiki-money, where the central supply of "currency" is controlled by a third party - e.g, you cannot arbitrarily give yourself 100-million wiki-whatevers. Instead, someone (let's call him the banker) doles out the currency in some way and executes transactions when requested. ] 04:06, July 27, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think this would work better as a barter system, eliminating the middle man. (a barter system in the sense that you do one service in exchange for another, but don't pass their request onto another person in exchange for another service). --{{User:Brian0918/sig}} 04:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::True, but as our ] article so clearly puts it - ''The disadvantage of using bilateral barter in the past was that it depended on the mutual coincidence of wants. Before any transaction could be undertaken, the needs of one person must mirror the needs of another person. That is, if you have a surplus of goats and need more wheat, you must find someone who has a surplus of wheat and needs more goats. To overcome this mutual coincidence problem, intermediaries developed that would store, trade, and warehouse commodities.'' In short, if you don't find someone who is capable of doing exactly what you want and whose needs you are capable of meeting, then the system fails, whereas the problem would be half as complex with wikimoney. ] 04:16, July 27, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Commons:Administrators RFA== | |||
| Hi Raul654, | |||
| Can you take a look at ]. The voting there appears to be almost inactive, and given that the window for nominations is 7 days, it could probably benefit from a little more attention. -- ] 06:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, I supported you, but beyond that, there's not a whole lot I can do -- I'm not a bureacrat on Commons. (from the french wikipedia) is, and he's apparently inactive. His user page says to ask ] 06:34, July 27, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Sorry to walk into the middle of your conversation, but I've been blathering about the admin situation on commons for some time now to anyone who will listen. There is a potential vandalism problem brewing: | |||
| # There are few admins on commons, around 100 as I recall. | |||
| # Perhaps half of these are familiar names from en:. | |||
| # Commons does not grant adminship merely because someone is an admin on en: and is active on commons. One must meet certain standards of activity in commons-specific areas. | |||
| # It is a goal for images from commons to be used in en:, and ultimately this will end up happening with featured articles, the front page, and various other vandal magnets. | |||
| # The usual means of dealing with vandalism to prominent articles, such as page protection, rollbacks, and blocks, are unavailable for commons images to the vast majority of en: admins. | |||
| ] Co., ] 14:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Hrmmmm..... ] 17:49, July 27, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks Mark - looks like the ball is rolling now. My guess is that Commons hasn't quite got the critical mass for a spontaneous response. Unfortunately Villy appears to be away at the moment, otherwise I would have dropped him a note too - in fact Villy nominated my first FeaturedPicture on Commons shortly after the project was set up. Andre Engels appears to be handling the bureaucrat chores in the meantime. -- ] 19:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Uninvited - I think I see what you mean. Its probably more of an issue on the smaller language wikis. It might be a good idea to check that at least one admin from each of the mediawiki projects is also be an admin on Commons. -- ] 19:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Help== | |||
| '''Hello Raul654 please help me in wikipedia. i am not new to[REDACTED] but need help in editing that article.'''--] 14:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Erm, you're going to have to be specific. What article are you having problems on? What is your problem? ] 17:51, July 27, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Tags== | |||
| I see that you removed a tag from ]. I fear that Ultramarine can be a disruptive user, and articles near him tend to acquire tags. You should see ], on which he has put three. :) ] 20:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :<nowiki>{{Toomanytags}}</nowiki> | |||
| :They are becoming a blight to articles, especially when they are (ab)used like that. ] 07:55, July 31, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Daily-article-l == | |||
| Hi Raul. ] phoned me a little while ago to say that his router is broken and that he'll be on vacation until August 1, so he needs someone to send out the daily article until that date. Could you possibly run it? Today's article is pending, as his router broke before he could send it out today. Thanks, ] 01:48, July 28, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Done. ] 07:55, July 31, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Solved == | |||
| In order to save everyone time and so that AI can focus on the real world, AI has proposed a solution in ] :D --] 01:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Plautus returns== | |||
| Hi, Raul654! I'm so glad go be back! I'm so glad to see you're still here! I hope we can have a lot of fun helping each other out, buddy! ] 03:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Raul654, I have not even been back 1 day and already you're threatening me on my talk page! I am in schock! I thought you were better than that! Shame on you, Raul654, I wish you hadn't threatened me on my talk page on my first day back! ] 03:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Think of it not as a threat, but as an opportunity. I am giving you the opportunity not to ] why you were banned for a year, by giving you plenty of notice that we've gotten much better at removing people who make such edits. ] 04:02, July 28, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Stop threatening me, Raul654, why are you so mean to me! I've had about enough threats from you, I'm asking you one last time to stop threatening me! If you have a problem with my editions then let's collaborate, buddy, that's the way to do things, don't you know that!? Work together, pal, I just want to be friendly! ] 04:15, 28 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Let's here it for collaboration! Yay! We can all work together! Woo hoo! Let's go, Raul654! No slackers! ] 04:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, editing articles to improve them is a great thing. In fact, if I recall correctly from your last stay here, you did make (exactly) 3 beneficial edits (out of some 1300 edits). Perhaps it is time to increase that. 5, even 6 beneficial edits is not out of the question. ] 04:28, July 28, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is patently absurd, Raul654, I made hundreds of beneficial editions! Thanks for your concern, have a nice day, ta-ta! ] 04:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Raul654, there's no reason to lie to get attention! {{unsigned2|04:47, 28 July 2005|Plautus satire}} | |||
| :::Ah, ok, then this is clearly a misunderstanding. When counting beneficial edits, I omitted the ones I did not consider beneficial (like ones calling Hubble an orbiting death ray laser). '']]'' Once you take those away, you only made 3 useful edits. Your count is higher beause you're including those. ] 04:51, July 28, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Beneficial, no. Hilarious? Yes. - ] (] | ]) 07:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Sorry if I came off as laughing at you or as trying to make a bad situation worse. I meant no offense, just noticing the lighter side of things. - ] (] | ]) 10:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Oh, no, I know exactly what you meant. Plautus's scribblings have definite comedy value, if you're not the one who has to pick up the pieces :P ] 16:04, July 29, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| And now, the show we've all been waiting for... '''Plautus Satire 2: Special Edition'''! I probably won't be around much for this one, as I seem to have acquired a job and some new hobbies since he last graced us with his presence. ] 04:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Hi, Raul654! I'm so glad to be back! I can't wait to start correcting mistakes! Let's work together, buddy! ] 15:36, 29 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes Plautus, we're all waiting with baited breath for you to make good contributions. ] 15:56, July 29, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I already have, buddy! Check the mask article! Woo-hoo! My count is almost doubled by your reckoning! ] 16:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::...... ] 16:06, July 29, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == ] as a featured article == | |||
| Before getting to the substance of my comment, let me just thank you for all the work you've done for Misplaced Pages; users like you are such an asset to the project. I do have one minor critique to make, though... I noticed that you promoted ] to featured status, but at the time, I had an actionable (and in my view appropriate) objection. (]) I objected to elevation to featured status on the grounds that there are stylistic issues in the article, missing commas, etc. I went through the first half, but haven't had time to fix the second half. At any rate, you probably just didn't see my objection; I'll do more to address it myself, but the style isn't up to par for our (rightly) high standards for featured articles. --] <font color=darkgreen size=1>]</font> 17:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I saw your objection (particularly the last one you made) and the problems didn't sound so serious so as to derail the nomination. That's why I promoted it. Unanimously approved nominations are great, but expecting unanimity is an unrealistic (if laudable) goal. ] 07:53, July 31, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree with your comments on the process -- unanamity is a laudable goal, but it cannot always be attained. Thus, I agree that it is ok if I object, I'm the only one, and my objection is overruled. However, I believe that my objection should be discussed, rebutted, etc, or at least commented upon before being overruled. I don't demand that I win; I only demand ]. As concerns the substance of my objection, take a look at this paragraph (glaring errors highlighted), and my corrections below: | |||
| :::The Renaissance style developed to its fullest ''at'' around 1500 in ]. ] is the most notable building of the era. Originally planned by ]'','' who was one of most prominent architects of the time, the building was influenced by almost all notable Renaissance artists, including ] and ]. The beginning of the late Renaissance in 1550 was marked by the development of a new column order by ]. Colossal columns that were two or more stories tall decorated the ]s. | |||
| :::The Renaissance style reached its height around ] in ], with ] representing perhaps the best well-known example of this particular school. Originally planned by ], one of most prominent architects of the time, the building was influenced by nearly all notable Renaissance artists, including ] and ]. Furthermore, the late Renaissance (1550) saw the development of a new column order -- that of ]. St. Peter's Basilica's façade itself was decorated in colossal Paladian columns, some two stories tall. | |||
| Also, | |||
| '''this''' | |||
| :::As the Greek works were acquired, manuscripts found, libraries and museums formed, the age of the printing press was dawning. The works were translated from Greek and Latin into the contemporary modern languages throughout Europe ''finding a receptive audience.'' (especially that part) | |||
| should become '''this''' | |||
| :::While scholars and collectors rediscovered many Greek classics, Northern Italy was entering into a period a intellectual ferment: libraries and museums were founded, and the age of the press was dawning. This knowledge was spread in part by new translations of classical Greek and Latin works into modern European languages, enlarging the audience for these works (though this audience remained small, given the cost of books and widespread illiteracy) | |||
| ::I know you're very busy, but I just think that objections need to be addressed (even if later overruled, which is ok!), and that we need to maintain very high standards for the prose that hits our front page. Brilliant prose, after all, was the old name for featured article. Thank you for your time and for your work on Misplaced Pages. --] <font color=darkgreen size=1>]</font> 22:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Would you please weigh in on my "Latest attempt" at ending this edit war and unprotecting the page. Even ], who has been the most opposed to all previous versions, seems to like it. --{{User:Brian0918/sig}} 14:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :It looks good to me. I've unprotected the page. ] 16:09, July 29, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| I just got this Misplaced Pages email from this person. He probably sent it to countless others as well: | |||
| :''Please see:'' | |||
| :http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Plautus_satire&oldid=19863722#Troll_Mafia | |||
| :''Raul654 has unfairly had me banned from wikipedia. He has a personal agenda, and has banned me motivated purely by malice. If you are able to, please help reverse this ban and/or help me get Raul654 punished for his damaging and childish actions.'' | |||
| ::I also received this same email, probably since I voted to keep his photo in Misplaced Pages. I will print my response below. ] ] 08:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Dear Plautus, | |||
| ::I checked the list of blocked users, and sure enough, you have been blocked forever. However, it was not Raul654 who performed this block. The list said User:Smoddy did so at 11:24, 29 July 2005. His reasoning was "ongoing disruption -- conflicting blocks -- this is actually Snowspinner's block." I am not sure what recourse you can do, but I would try to email Jimbo Wales himself. Smoddy also blocked two IP's of yours when you tried to edit. The whole block list can be seen at http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Ipblocklist. | |||
| ::Regards, | |||
| ::Zachary Harden, Eagle Scout (BSA) | |||
| ::Vista, California | |||
| :::I received the same email, although I've had no interaction whatever with PS. It seems everything is in order and all is right with the world. Cheers, ] 20:02, 30 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Ditto. And I wager that, more than anyone else here, I have no idea what this is all about! ] 20:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I got no response so far, but it does not help I de-bunked all of his claims in my response. ] ] 07:59, 31 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Don't expect much. He tried a similiar stunt last February (he was blocked so he email many, many admins with the same form letter). ] documents what happened to Bcorr when he replied (Bcorr, whom I've met in real life, is actually a very sweet person). ] 08:02, July 31, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :FYI: I also recieved the email, having had no previous involvment (only been an admin for a week). Seemed genuine but edit histories don't lie. My only comment is that edits like this (IMHO) are only going to fuel the fire. I know we all like a laugh and joke but in matters of banning I prefer a more formal tone. No offence meant of course, I don't know the full history of the dealings with user. ] 21:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I also received one: | |||
| :Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 18:28:46 GMT | |||
| :''Forgive me if this seems like spam, this is the only method I have available to seek redress in this situation. Raul654 has gotten my talk page protected so that I can not edit it, and no notice is put on the page to indicate that.'' | |||
| : | |||
| :''Please see:'' | |||
| : | |||
| :''http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Plautus_satire&oldid=19863722#Troll_Mafia'' | |||
| : | |||
| :''Raul654 has unfairly had me banned from wikipedia. He has a personal agenda, and has banned me motivated purely by malice. If you are able to, please help reverse this ban and/or help me get Raul654 punished for his damaging and childish actions.'' | |||
| --] 21:46, 30 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| To all those above who have no idea what is going on, Plautus is a crackpot and troll who was forcefully thrown out of[REDACTED] about a year ago. This is not the first time that he got banned and emailed large numbers of people begging to be unbanned. I've catalogued the whole sordid affair of Plautus's existance at ]. This was the primary evidence against him when the arbcom banned him for a year. ] 00:28, July 31, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :From what I gathered from the evidence, Raul broke into Platypuse's car, somehow. Not a good sign. ] 00:37, 31 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am now wondering if he was really banned or just blocked after returning from his one year ban. The evidence seems to support that he is habitually disruptive. ] 05:19, 31 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| He served out his ban in its entirety; no one is disputing that. But he started misbehaving almost the second he arrived back. I've updated ] to include his recent misdeeds. ] 05:21, July 31, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :He seems confrontational, to be sure. My question is, was he banned ''again'' by another committee's decision two days ago? Or did Smoddy just block him indefinitely when he started disrupting? ] 05:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Plautus was re-blocked without any formal committee decision. The reason is (as snowspinner said in his block message) "Because we don't need this". In other words, it's crystal clear from his actions that Plautus has not reformed one iota and there is no sense in prolonging his stay here any more than necessary. ] a bureacracy. Admins are expected to use good judgement, and Smoddy's judgement in this case was most solid. ] 05:58, July 31, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Agreed. Thanks for clearing that up for me. ] 06:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Everyking 3 RFArb == | |||
| Hi Raul—did you mean to place your reply to Everyking's statement at the bottom of ], or would it be better off right under his ultimatum? I didn't want to move the comment for you, since it's on an arbitration page. ](]) 20:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I replied at the bottom because he had just asked if the arbitrators were watching. If you want to move it up, I am fine with that too. ] 20:48, July 29, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Suburbs of Johannesburg == | |||
| Hey there, I'm wondering why you listed ] as a former featured article candidate. When I looked at the page, there were four supports, one neutral, and one object that is inactionable and he never responded to my questions. I fixed the problems with the image, I just wasn't near a computer to reply to his comments. So as far as I can see, it should have passed without a problem. Would you mind explaining? Thanks! ]</font> <sup><font color="ff66cc">]</font></sup> 04:22, 30 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == From RA == | |||
| I don't know if you will care, but ] made an addition to ] intended to demean you: . It has been removed. The only other edits from the account are to ], where he also made a personal attack against you, and which I see you already removed. ] 15:12, July 30, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :It saw it, reverted his only unreverted edit, and because it's quite obviously a sockpuppet of his. ] 04:47, July 31, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Idiots abound== | |||
| This is really starting to piss me off, so I'm sure you would like to hear about it :) We start out with ] and ]. The latter was VFD'd from Misplaced Pages, where they said to move it to Wikisource or Commons (since Commons does accept text). So, the former was moved to Wikisource as well. Now they are currently up for deletion at Wikisource, where people say to move it to Misplaced Pages or Commons. So, in the interim, they've been copied over to Commons. Now they are currently up for deletion at Commons, where people say it should be on Wikisource or Misplaced Pages. Now, they clearly shouldn't be on Wikisource, since they are user-compiled lists. Where do you think they should be? --{{User:Brian0918/sig}} 16:05, 30 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :] - ''It's often sad when people die, but Misplaced Pages is not the place to honor them. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered by their friends and relatives.'' | |||
| :If anywhere, I believe that lists of victims of disasters belong on Wikisource. On the other hand, I'm not even convinced it belongs there. ] 04:46, July 31, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == {{tl|TOCright}} == | |||
| I have removed your nomination of TOCright from TFD on the grounds that it was kept with a 31 to 14 vote concluded just earlier this month: ]. Further, unless something has changed, the MOS discussion also seems to have concluded that right-aligned TOCs were acceptable, albeit under limited circumstances: ]. ] 09:24, July 31, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Article Tony Blair TOC== | |||
| Hi, I see you have reverted the TOC to non floating, being left below the intro. In general I think this is a sound layout principle, but I floated left in this case for 2 reasons. Firstly, someone had positioned it floated right, which placed it below the opening image and (to my POV) made the article completely inaccessible for the casual reader, particularly those browsing with low screen resolutions: there is no indication of the depth of content. Secondly, the intro for the Tony Blair article is much too long to have the TOC below it, again for the same reasons. | |||
| I think that either the intro needs to be shortened or the TOC floated left to bring it into effective view. | |||
| What are your thoughts? --] 10:50, 31 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :We should not be using either TOC left or TOC right -- mediawiki scripting forces a standard, which all articles should abide by. When I viewed the article (using Firefox in the classic Skin) it looked quite bad, and it looks fine now in either skin. ] 19:42, July 31, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::You should have seen it with TOCright !! I still think the intro is too long for the present TOC position to be effective. I run Firefox, classic skin, at 1280x1024 and float left looks fine to me, but the standard TOC is way too low to be effective. I agree the standard is best followed by most articles, but most have a suitably succinct intro. The Blair one is over bloated IMHO. --] 19:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == louisville promotion == | |||
| You had promoted Louisville just a few hours after I'd made some additional critique. I think you should have allowed the nominators to reply to them and only promote after a day's lull. There were some pending issues that needed to be sorted out such as non-encyclopedic tone and ill chosen words. {{User:Nichalp/sg}} 18:55, July 31, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Wales has no fixed office? == | |||
| Wales has no fixed office? I can understand if his primary phone is mobile, but he does not have an office and desk at the Foundation assigned to him? Most executives need a desk to keep important papers in and stuff. And they have a phone handset. If Jimbo sits in a chair in an office, like President Bush does, and does not rearrange the furniture every week or something, then he _does_ have a fixed Lat/Long, just like Bush. If you do not want to talk about it, I can understand. Normally, you should just say "Let's not talk about that". | |||
| :Giving an exact lattitude and longitude makes sense for fixed structures -- the ], for example. On the other hand, for things that can move around (Jimbo obviously being one of them) is more than a little absurd, IMO. ] 06:04, August 2, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Oh, come on. It's not Jimbo we are talking about anyway. It is the chair that he sits in. Think about it: The President sits in a chair. Maybe the chair has been replaced. But the location has probably not changed in many decades. Yes, decades ago, we did not know the Lat/Long/Alt so precisely. The point is that Technology has progressed and now we do know those values more precisely. It is an entertaining and tangible symbol of Technological progress. If they have real meaning, then the extra digits are only a problem if they make you feel bad. | |||
| Think about it this way: Why did I hunt down and document ]? On the face it, it was simply because it was on this list. ]. But that is not the REAL reason, is it? What was my motivation? I found her, I emailed her and let her know of the page existed and asked for corrections. She replied. It was lovely, but why? It was because she represents progress. One person. Progress. There was some quote that I cannot find right now to the effect that Chemistry, at the start of the 20th century had a great ambition: extend the knowlege in the chemical Tables to the fourth decimal place. Not a great, creative breakthrough, but a tangible and ambitious goal that reverberated with some workers. | |||
| :I'm sorry, but your comments still make no sense to me. "It's not Jimbo we are talking about anyway." - erm, yes it is. The article name quite clearly says ]. Setting aside the absurdity of giving longitude/latitude coordinates in someone's biography, the information itself is inherently inaccurate because Jimbo is not always at that location (he actually travels quite a bit - I know he's been to England, Germany, Israel, and India the last year alone). ] 08:02, August 2, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :(Also, please sign your comments by putting <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> at the end of them) | |||
| I was not clear: it is not about Jimbo. It is about the Office. Someday he will leave it and he will move on. The chair will stay there, unless the next guy does not want his cooties or something. They will get a new one, but but it will go that that office. It is a symbol of the whole Foundation and he currently occupies the Office. Am I turning the whole building into a Museum or a shrine? Maybe. Why not? We have the techonology. Maybe Wikipeida is important and historical. We are part of it. Again, we have the techonology. Use it. Enjoy it. It did not come cheap. If you get the chance travel to here: ]. I liked it when I was a kid. It's cool. It's fun. That is why it is there. ] 08:44, 2 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==]: ]== | |||
| Hi - I see you have just done your regular clear out of successful and failed ], and ] didn't make the cut. Now for the ] :) As I see it, there was one unactionable objection, three supports, and a list of objections that ] is working on (see his discussion with the objector on his ]: indeed, he has been ). Can this nomination be put back for a few days more, or speedily re-nominated? I think it is pretty good (but then I supported it already). -- ] ] 17:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *The article has only been on FAC for a week. ] took over 2 weeks to sort out the FAC objections. I think this one should definitely have more time, especially since the 2nd objection was only posted 3 days ago and is so easily fixed, and the nominator ''is'' actively working to resolve objections. --{{User:Brian0918/sig}} 17:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Brian makes a valid point, so I've gone ahead and restored the nom. ] 17:58, August 2, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Excellent - thanks. I don't usually second-guess your decisions, since you do such a good job, but for such a deserving candidate... :) -- ] ] 18:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I predict GNAA will take at least a month on FAC before it's accepted/rejected :) {{User:Brian0918/sig}} 18:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Please give Karada a chance == | |||
| I have asked ] to undo an unwise action he took in the past few hours. I do not know his schedule, but I would think that if he undoes what he did in, say, the next 24 hours, then no further action is required. What he did was to rename the page ] to ]. It is clear that Ms. Boreman would never have wanted that. That was not the correct thing to do. Use your judgement, and I think that you will see my point. Please visit: ] | |||
| On second thought, give him 48 hours. One cannot expect adults to fix their own NPOV problems so quickly. I should know. ] 18:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : On third thought, since what he did is completely in line with Misplaced Pages naming policy, lets just thank him for fixing a problem. ] 20:19, August 2, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :: Please read this page: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~lcall/children.html and the next time you are in Japan, could you please stop by the Bank and clean up that messy old smudge? Just get a rag and some Lysol and keeping rubbing it until it is all gone. It will be so much cleaner and prettier then. Then that silly man can be just what we all want him to be: a nip that we nuked. It's got a catchy ring to it, huh? ] 09:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == GNAA FAC == | |||
| First, I like to apologize for Brain and Ta bu for causing headaches for the nomination process. Second, I think their nomination of the article is causing problems, since Ta bu was the one who did the last VFD vote, which also caused problems. And since they are objecting to every objection with inactionable, it is really hard for me to even the article. If this article comes up for FAC again, I will let you know days in advance. I also wish to know how long do I have to wait to renominate articles? ] ] 20:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *I would suggest simply tackling resolving the objections one at a time to the best of your abilities and let Raul make his final decision as to whether you've resolved them, since I highly doubt some of these objections will ever be lifted. --{{User:Brian0918/sig}} 20:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| **I also tried to contact everyone in question, but some of the main objections, like Ambi, is leaving the project. The references have been pruned, images been copyright-ok'ed, added more sections (though my section about famous members have been removed). Of course, we need time to fix everything and that is why I created the To do list. ] ] 20:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ***You can probably take some of the contents of the Famous Members section and stick them in elsewhere. --{{User:Brian0918/sig}} 20:52, 2 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == What the HELL is going on with that CUPS article? == | |||
| What's this stupidity about not allowing a logo on the main page? The image chosen is totally inappropriate so I've removed it. - ] 23:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Re Plautus satire message to Dieter Simon == | |||
| Hi, Plautus, re your message to me, I would just like to put something into perspective here. Your statement in ]: "Masks are also frequently used in snuff films, to protect identities and prevent prosecution", is rather a matter-of-fact statement, as if it were an accomplished fact. "Are also frequently used in snuff films"...? Can you really point to any facts, that is, verifiable facts here. If you have such evidence, you must be able to cite the sources of such facts. You cannot just make a bald statement such as this. Perhaps it might be beneficial to take a real look at ]. There are many websites referring to "snuff film" phenomenon, but as for real evidential substantiation, not really. Don't forget Internet downloads, often from news programs of videos depicting murders, are not "films in which people are allegedly killed on screen for the sole purpose of creating a saleable screen artifact", see . Controversial statements need to be backed up by references. | |||
| Having said this, I would however also mention to Raul654 and others, that it is easy to call someone a troll or vandal, revert or ban them, when in fact some good advice such as above to the person concerned wouldn't have come amiss in first place. Was this advice ever given to him? I am also posting this to Raul's talk page. ] 23:58, 2 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :With respect, before giving me advice about how to handle Plautus, I suggest you familiarize yourself with his past wrongdoings. His edit to mask, inserting a fringe conspiracy theory and presenting it as an accepted fact, was the sine qua non in his arbitration case after which he was banned from[REDACTED] for a year. ] 00:11, August 3, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, Raul, I see your point, and I appreciate what you're saying, as well as that you have unblocked him in the meantime. He had asked me by email, whether I could do anything about the blocking, and it was precisely with the point you are making in mind, that I was trying to put the above points to him that one of the important things we as Wikipedians should consider seriously, is that we should substantiate what we write. It would take the sting out of making what appears to be pretty blunt statements which would of course cause problems for all of us, if we were taken to task by critical readers. I have posted yesterday's advice on his user talk page. Many thanks. ] 01:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == John Philip Sousa media == | |||
| I'm not sure if you were the original uploader or not. If not, please ignore this. The sound files that were previously available have vanished (see ]). I wonder if you know where they went? To the commons maybe? ] 02:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Look at the first thread on this page. Long story short - they got wiped out en masse along with some non-PD recordings. ] 02:09, August 3, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ah, I see. Air Force recordings are PD, no doubt about that. However, the underlying composition (which is a separate copyright) may not be, if it was composed after 1920 or so. It looks like some of the files you uploaded were pure PD, and some were PD as to recording but not composition. Sousa is definitely PD and should not have been deleted. ] 02:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, indeed. It was quite clearly a case of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. ] 02:26, August 3, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Wow! == | |||
| I have my own team of TBSDY explainers :-) Thanks! ] 04:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Thank you for your advice... == | |||
| But you just prompted my response. Go look. Think about that the next time you chomp into a hot dog from 7-11. I had one this evening and it was very yummy. ] 06:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==IRC== | |||
| I'll do that then. 6:30-7:30 would probably be the best time. ] 08:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :That time works for me. ] 08:33, August 3, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::I apologize; I went in at 5:30 but didn't see you around. After that I was too busy. ] 00:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Must have been on #Misplaced Pages ] 00:41, August 4, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That's what I meant, I went into #wikipedia at around 5:30...was I supposed to go somewhere else? ] 01:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No, you went to the right place. Once you went there, I would have invited you into the arbcom channel. ] 01:22, August 4, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Well, we can always set up another time, although I understand if nobody wants to bother taking the chance again with someone who now has a reputation for neglecting his appointments...I should be able to talk pretty much any time tonight through to early tomorrow morning (I may take a nap, but if so it'll probably be a short one), and then I have work so it'll be some time before I can talk again. ] 02:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Ok, I'm on IRC right now. Come on when you get this message. ] 02:53, August 4, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == DuPont hall == | |||
| Yep, I go to UD as well. DuPont, (assuming you don't mean Lamont DuPont) is where ] is working now with Ahmad in the Envronmental/Civil engineering lab tracking groundwater movements of something. I don't know if you're there in the summer but I might check when I go to see my friend. It'd be interesting to meet a Arbitrator -- they must have special powers. You went to summer college too. I didn't know PhD students got offices... wow. ] ] 12:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :No, I'm in the other Dupont (the one facing Gore hall) - 323 '''West''' Dupont. I say west with emphasis because if you go to East Dupont (the older part of the building) you'll never find me - the building is an architecture disaster. I'm there about 2-4 times per week in the summer (although my advisor is out of the country right now; there's an unofficial rule that when that happens, the graduate students can take a mini-vacation). If you plan to drop by, just let me know the day before or I may not be there. ] 17:02, August 3, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == FPC promoted == | |||
| {{PromotedFPC|Image:Hippo skull dark.jpg}} -- ] 20:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == I recommend a book to you == | |||
| Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era by ] (Ballantine Books, Reissue 1989) ISBN 0345359429 | |||
| I sent a note to Prof. McPherson, explaining to him how important this book of his became in my life, but he did not reply. I may yet try again. If you have the time, and you have not already done so, please read it. It will increase your understanding of 19th Century military history. McPherson looks down, like a god, upon the battlefield, and some event catches his attention, and the next moment, you are down there with them in the struggle. The ease with which he browses over time and space is breathtaking, as is his profound mastery of the subject. Of course, you already know the ending, so the pleasure comes in vistas that are opened up while you are getting there. | |||
| :I'm actually in the middle of a (particularly bad) book about the history of Islam right now (rather than a cogent narrative, it's mostly a collection of first person sources). After that, I have one on the battle of Okinawa to read :) ] 00:12, August 4, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Lend me your ears please== | |||
| please read http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Update | |||
| and see if it might hlep ,my cause. | |||
| ] 03:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == EK? == | |||
| While I'm happy that this RFAr is going to be solved amicably and sensibly, I was wondering how it pertains to the snide remarks made towards people other than Snowy. ]]] 12:47, August 4, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :In point of fact, it doesn't -- I asked Snowspinner point blank if he thought EK had a tendancy to abuse other people on the AN, and Snowspinner said no. ] 14:01, August 4, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Debate at ] with another admin== | |||
| In this article there is currently a huge debate going on about whether this person "is a scientist", which an anonymous user and an administrator, ], are in favor of stating, whereas myself and at least two other users are against it. I think we've thoroughly laid out our arguments, but this administrator is starting to piss me off, because he is simply calling our edits vandalism, and he is very closed to discussion: "Please do not delete data concerning his qualifications. I consider that to be vandalism, and will revert it." I'm in favor of saying he "is a former chemist", since he got his PhD in chemistry and did work in that field, but hasn't in 10+ years and is now a creation "scientist", which according to ] and ], means he is not a scientist. My version is much less ambiguous, but the anon and admin are in favor of ambiguity. '''''Heeeeeeelp!''''' --{{User:Brian0918/sig}} 13:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == DualDisc Article == | |||
| Hello! In regards to your FAC objection, I expanded the introduction quite a bit. I also made note of the changes on the FAC discussion page. If there's more you think the intro should have, please let me know. Cheers! --] (]) 14:09, August 4, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : As noted on the FAC discussion page, I have now added an inline reference for the legal section as well as a list under the references section. --] (]) 19:30, August 4, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| For one thing, I'm fairly certain that the use of LEGO pieces in prosthetic hands is highly discouraged by any surgeons. Secondly, the anonymous IP creator of the article (]) has removed my speedy delete tags from the article two or three times by now, and made comments on the talk page that say, verbatim, "I wrote this article not you, so I should decide if it stays or goes." Can you speedy the article and ban the IP for disruptive behaviour? ] | ] | ] 16:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *Also, want to get together some time before I leave for school? I'll be gone by the weekend preceding the 21st, so within the next few weeks would be good. Leave me one on my talk page. ] | ] | ] 16:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| **Are you in the area? I thought you were still at Yale. ] 16:39, August 4, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Thanks for your help in reorganizing this article! --] 17:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :You're welcome. You don't, by any chance, happen to go there, do you? ] 21:29, August 4, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| FYI: ] is about to break 3RR. I don't even understand why he keeps reverting, since we were making progress on the talk page (well, I've been trying to make progress and he has been avoiding it). --{{User:Brian0918/sig}} 20:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Chicago, IL FAC Nomination == | |||
| Hi, | |||
| I was wondering why you moved Chicago to the archived section of the FAC list. The discussion on the page is still live, as there have been 2 more support votes since it was moved and work is being done to address to the objections, I had even responded to one of them today before realizing you had ended the voting. If we could have more time to work out the further objections it would be very much appreciated. | |||
| Thanks, | |||
| --''']''' <sup>'']''</sup> 21:08, 4 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Erm, that page is already too big - waiting for every discussion to die down is unfeasable. I typically give each nom about 5-6 days on the page. If there's no consensus after that (and with the chicago nom, there wasn't) then I will fail the nom. ] 21:27, August 4, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Thanks ;-) == | |||
| Tehe, thanks Raul. I'm glad to be back, and I hope to get back to work as well. ] | ] | ] 21:49, August 4, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Done with article disputes== | |||
| Alright, I'm done with article disputes. We spent weeks crafting that lead section for ], and now dumbasses are coming along and shitting out their mouths, refusing to listen to any discussion (as well as on ]), so I'm just letting you know (because I'm sure you care) I'm unwatching these various articles and letting them go down the crapper. I've got more important things to do at this time. --{{User:Brian0918/sig}} 03:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Thanks, appreciated== | |||
| Re: ] ] 05:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :You're welcome :) ] 05:12, August 5, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| <s> + Hi, I have a guy who's trying to add real estate spam and pov into this article. He's threatening to violate the 3rr rule. Would appreciate help and 3rd party mediation/arbitration. I may be in the wrong here. Thanks.--] 20:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)</s> | |||
| :Disregard my message. dispute attended to by another admin--] 21:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::If you have any more problems, you know where to find me; or, you could try the ], which is a page for reporting such problems. ] 21:25, August 5, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == User:Raul654/Portraits/ == | |||
| An anon created ] - I thought it best to let you deal with it as you see fit. ] ] 23:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Interesting. I've deleted it. ] 00:13, August 6, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Atomic bombing and Operation Downfall == | |||
| I am not so sure how to put this but will try. I know that I upset you by reverting your new changes to atomic bombing article and making new ones on operation downfall one. Apparently, we have disagreements, which is not a problem. But my problem is that I just wanted you to be reasonable. (I know you think I am the one who is not.) Please understand that I reverted repeatedly your new edit not because I disagree but because it was a kind of final wording we had reached after some discussion. We need to see what others have to say about your changes and I also think it would be unfair for the past contributors if we leave a new version. Put in another way, we can take some time and I don't think there is a pressing need to rush into a major (I think major) change. The poll at this point doesn't count; I don't know why it is so hard for you to wait to see if you can convince me or not (that yours is better). If not, we can have a poll or whatever. This is why I am not reinserting my edit at operation downfall. I think we can agree to stick to the old versions at least for a while. I want to be reasonable so I need you to be so too. -- ] 04:05, August 6, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I do not want to fight, but your edits are (with respect) flagarantly wrong. On the Atomic Bombings article, for example, you've been reverted by 3 editors besides myself. | |||
| :The connection between the atomic bombings and the cancellation of the invasion is a rather straightforward one. I've already cited one source on the talk page which illustrates that the Atomic bomb was used in the hopes that it would cause Japan to surrender, and negate the need for an invasion. | |||
| :Regarding Operation Downfall - I've replied to your comments on the talk page. You are removing what basically amounts to an undisputed historical fact on the basis that "some people disagree". The source you cited does not address the point in dispute ("why did japan surrender?") - it merely offers speculation on what would have happened if the atomic bomb had never been used and the soviets did not declare war. You need to supply a reputable source which says Japan *did* surrender for some reason other than the atomic bomb and the soviet declaration of war. I contend that such a source does not exist. ] 05:27, August 6, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Did you read my above comment at all? -- ] 00:00, August 7, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I wanted you to know that I reinserted my edit in ]. -- ] 04:00, August 11, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Barnstar time! == | |||
| [[Image:AABarnstar.png|thumb|Raul, frankly, you're deserving of this award, seeing you're always getting whined at by trolls who think you're a mean, unloving, self-centered abusive administrator. Well, let's face it: you're not. | |||
| You're a mean, unloving, self-centered abusive ''bureaucrat!'' Good work, comrade. For your troll-dominating and vandal-exploiting deeds to promote the better good of the people of Misplaced Pages, I hereby award you the '''Abusive Admin Barnstar'''. Wear it with pride! -] ]] | |||
| == Congratulations! == | |||
| Mark, I am so pleased that you are helping Misplaced Pages so. I congratulate you for your latest Barnstar. Display it proudly! ] 06:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Hurray! The War has FINALLY started!!!! == | |||
| Come on down to ]! We are having it out there! Fun! Oh my! ] 06:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Grant would be proud of me == | |||
| I am sure that they never saw it coming. | |||
| * http://home.earthlink.net/~amorrow/morgan.html | |||
| * ] | |||
| I am BEGGING you! tell me what to do! I do not wanna be mean to anyone. Almost anyone. | |||
| ] 10:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == The Three Soldiers == | |||
| Hello. I have uploaded your photo on commons.wikipedia with name Image:The Three Soldiers.jpg --] 12:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == I am having so much FUN! == | |||
| Superm40, Tregoweth, and Nunh-huh. You should give them each a Barnstar or somethin'. ] 06:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Thanks, Mark== | |||
| I'm sure I'll need assistance. :) ] 06:26, August 8, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Big Bang theory == | |||
| "In 1929, Edwin Hubble provided an observational basis for Lemaître's theory. Hubble proved that the spiral nebulae were galaxies and measured their distances by observing Cepheid variable stars. He discovered that the galaxies are receding in every direction at speeds (relative to the Earth) directly proportional to their distance. This fact is now known as Hubble's law (see Edwin Hubble: Mariner of the Nebulae by Edward Christianson)." | |||
| :OK, I'm confused. I think you understand this... galaxies are receding in every direction at speeds (relative to the earth - what do this mean?) directly proportional to their distance (distance from what?) Do you have any ideas? - ] 08:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Speed measurements are relative. If I'm driving down I-95 at 80 miles per hour, and the guy in the next lane over is driving at 75 miles per hour in the same direction, I would measure his speed as 5 miles per hour, whereas a guy on the ground would measure it as 75 miles per hour. His speed relative to me is 5 miles per hour, and his speed relative to the ground is 75 miles per hour. | |||
| :The second point you are confused about is that the speeds are proportional to the distance from earth. Galaxies close to us are moving rather slowly, while the galaxies farthest from us (those at the edge of the observable universe) are traveling almost at the speed of light (relative to earth). ] 16:19, August 8, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ah! I have rephrase it as "He discovered that, relative to the speed of the Earth, the galaxies are receding in every direction at speeds directly proportional to their distance from the earth." Feel free to revert if you feel that this is incorrect or less clear. - ] 03:56, 9 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::The fact remains, Hubble discovered only a relation between Luminosity and Redshift. This was interpretted by others as a relation between 'distance' and 'velocity', solely because at the time there was no other known mechanisms for Redshift besides the 'Doppler' effect. Hubble fought against this poor interpretation of his data all his life, publishing books and papers about what he really discovered and explaining how others used his data wrongly, changing the relation into what is commonly know today as Hubbles law. If you go back to the foundations and compare what he actually discovered with current research in the field of plasma based redshifting mechanisms, his discovery is evidence for an entirely different interpretation of the universe. There is a big difference between a Luminosity/Redshift relation and a Distance/Velocity relation, as the latter is a biased interpretation of what Luminosity and Redshift mean, whereas the former is the actual empirical observation that Hubble discovered, completely independent of bias. At one time, the Big Bang article indeed was worded correctly, portraying what Hubble really discovered and the history behind how his discovery was only later wrongly used by others as 'evidence' for the BB. The removal and rewording of the entire Hubble history is just one reason out of many that the BB article should be removed from Featured status. --] 19:12, August 10, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Why the revert with no comments? == | |||
| There was a great deal of work undone with a simple unexplained revert on ]. I have been attempting to provide a reasonable depiction of a position with which I vehemently disagree (''writing for the enemy'') because that position was unfairly characterized, IMO, and unsourced. In addition, there is language which states as indisputable fact that CS is pseudoscience, when even ''ID'' at least states it as the position of the scientific community. I believe that good science is best defended when it stands in open dialogue. The article, as it stands, presents a strawman depiction of the CS position, and that strikes me as exceedingly bad faith. Would you please at least explain your revert on the talk page? ] 01:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Mark -- I feel that I was on the receiving end of a rather rude and heedless unexplained revert by you on the ] page. One of the editors with whom I was debating agreed that the action you took was inexplicable. I posted the above note soon after that occurred, and there has still been no comment. I believe, respectfully, that this deserves a timely response. --] 15:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I reverted because your edits significantly degraded the quality of the article. In addition to wiping out Brian's introduction (which he spent about a week writing and rewrtiing to get others to agree to), you removed the most important problem with creationism (which is that basically *all* evidence presented by creationists is an attempt to bootstrap flaws in our understanding of evolution into evidence supporting creationism). And, by the way, unlike your version, the one I reverted to was not NPOV tagged. ] 16:37, August 9, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for responding. I was well aware of the work that Brian put into the article. In spite of that, his statements remained a gross mischaracterization of the arguments as actually put forth by creation scientists. I have provided appropriate sources for my argument, namely that creation science does not argue that refuting evolution constitutes a logical support for creationism. Instead, CS claims (however wrongheadedly) that since neither the naturalist nor the creationist position can be falsified, it is perfectly legitimate to conduct "science" under the assumption that the bible is a literal depiction of historical events. As yet, there have been no citations disputing my point. In addition to that, I thought that it might be a reasonable compromise merely to concisely state in the intro (with all appropriate qualifiers) what creation science was about, and allow the remainder of the article to represent the details of the controversy. As I argued, the position of science is extremely well represented in the article. Since then, FuelWagon and I reached a compromise where the scientific critique was reinserted into the introduction, according to the "write for the enemy" principle of fairness, as well as the point that the scientific consensus is the majority point of view. Brian was representing it as absolute fact, and that, as I read the NPOV policy, is not appropriate NPOV. Allow me to quote a message left by ]|] on ] talk page: | |||
| :<blockquote>I too feel that to follow NPOV policy, POVs must be attributed. In this case, that's fine. "Christian fundamentalists think it's science, the ] thinks it's ] because of its violation of basic rules of ]" is quite fair, in fact it allows a nice little ] to slip in. That said, I don't really want to get into an argument with someone who is attempting to represent the mainstream POV, because it just encourages the cretinists. ]|] 16:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| ::When I made my edits, I made my position clear: fairness and accuracy with the minority position, solid representation of majority position. Few editors seem to have taken my attempts at face value. Instead, they seem to be arguing around the points I'm making, perhaps under the assumption that I am not operating in good faith. It's understandable on their part -- it's a heated argument where cooler heads rarely prevail. | |||
| ::I'm operating in good faith here, attempting to correct a flawed, strawman representation of CS. I've provided a good defense of my argument, and have seen no evidence disputing my point; only veiled insinuations that I'm pretending. That's an unfair, ad hominem attack. All I ask is that my points be treated with fairness and dignity, and argued directly on their merits (or lack thereof), with adequate support. | |||
| ::Respectfully, ] 18:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Flag of India == | |||
| Since the flag of India clashes with the anniversary, how about Aug 14th instead of 13th? {{User:Nichalp/sg}} 15:04, August 9, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks {{User:Nichalp/sg}} 13:26, August 10, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::You're welcome. ] 17:39, August 10, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Hi Raul,<BR>I dont think there is any anniversary on August 14.Though, we have our Independnce Day on August 15.From the article ''The flag was unfurled for the first time as that of an independent country on 1947-08-15.'' I would really be grateful if you could make this the featured article for 15th of August. I believe that it would be tough to entertain so many requests but please do it if its possible.TIA ] 15:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The featured article is not supposed to conflict with selected anniversaries, which is why the 15th is not an option. In lieu of this, the 14th was the next best option. ] 19:24, August 12, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Vandalism == | |||
| You have been blocked for . Er, OK, not really. ;-) ]( ], ] ) 16:58, 9 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * Ah, Func, go easy on him! I've forgiven him, can't you? ;) Interesting thing is that there's no way I could "revert" it, because if I revert it to 2, that means the counter has to go up... to 3! Ah, the conundrum! If a tree claps one hand, is it half full? ] 11:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| **Haha! You have fallen into my trap! ] 04:50, August 11, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Update == | |||
| "I have just lodged an RFA(r) against Alex, and wanted to give you the heads up, given our history together. Oh, and with regards to those rather insensitive comments left on your talk page... totally unacceptable. I've spoken to Lir about it, and I'm sure it won't happen again. Anyway, toodles." | |||
| - Marmot | |||
| ==Lucky6.9's adminship vote== | |||
| Ed Poor has just removed Lucky's adminship application, stating that he didn't think Lucky made it. I don't really know Lucky all that well, though I did vote in his favour, but when I look at the vote itself, 71 votes in favour, and 78% approval, it looks to me like he made it, or if nothing else, that the vote should have been left open. Thoughts? ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 00:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| <s>I have a few, beginning with "I quit." This is gotten to the point of utter futility. Thanks to everyone who voted.</s> - ] 00:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Looks like the nomination has been reposted. Just got an e-mail. Mark, can ya help a brudder? - ] 00:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Never mind. Another bureaucrat has pulled it. - ] 01:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, I would have promoted. Sorry I'm a bit late getting back (family emergency) ] 02:39, August 10, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Nothing serious, I hope? Nevertheless, I thank you. You have been a pillar of strength for me throughout these last eighteen months or so from the time you welcomed me here. Your support is more important to me than I can express and I won't let you down. I do hope the emergency is under control. All the best, ] 04:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :No, nothing serious. His water heater broke and flooded the 1st floor of his apartment. He discovered it quickly and nothing was damaged, though, so it's all good. It's just a bit of an inconvience. ] 04:57, August 10, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Arbitration == | |||
| Hey there. I just added my statement to -Ril-'s arbitration and I was wondering if you could see if I did it correctly. Never done one of these before. For instance, I wasn't sure if I should make myself an "involved party" or just a third party, and also whether it was okay to add a complaint unrelated to the initiating request. Okay, sorry for sounding stupid, and thanks for your help. ]·] 05:06, August 10, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Looks fine to me. ] 17:41, August 10, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Pic of the day == | |||
| Hi Mark, | |||
| Just to let you know that your photo ] will be up for Pic of the Day tomorrow. You can check the associated caption at ] — although there wasn't much to go on, so it somewhat pre-empts the article ;-) | |||
| Also ] will be up on Saturday and, being a weekend, is likely to appear on the MainPage. The caption is at ]. -- ] 20:12, 10 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Sweet :) - I've been hoping to see one on the weekend. ] 21:55, August 10, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| <!-- Please note that if it says "Editing Template:Idw (section)" at the top then you are editing the master copy of this template. You might want to cancel this edit and use the "edit this page" tab on you user talk page instead. --> | |||
| {| align=center border=0 cellpadding=4 cellspacing=4 style="border: 2px solid #FF0000; background-color: #F1F1DE" | |||
| |- | |||
| | '''Image deletion warning''' | |||
| | style="font-size: 80%" | ] has been listed at ]. If you feel that this image should not be deleted, please go there to voice your opinion. | |||
| |} | |||
| == Ass kissing not weclomed == | |||
| Don't kiss my ass, you allready have made your opinion of me well known, . --] | ]]] 22:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I stand by both statements. While I don't agree with your comments on RFA, I think you've done a bang-up job in your article editing. ] 22:33, August 10, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Ralph Woodrow == | |||
| This is up for deletion. I would like to have it kept as he is a significant critic of '']'', which if you remember was cited as a respectable source by ]. Would you care to vote on the ]? - ] 04:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Please have a look at this proposal and comment on its talk page. Thanks.--] 04:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Request for nicer version of an image. == | |||
| ] is a nice picture, but it tilts a bit. I was trying to use Hugin to straighten out the projection, but the image is kind of small for that sort of manipulation. Do you have an larger, original version that I can futz around with? You can send it to me at my username at gmail.com. Thanks! ]|] 20:55, August 11, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :(Replied by email) ] 22:11, August 11, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::That was '''fast'''. Damn, you're good. I'll see if I can return that favor... ]|] 23:06, August 11, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's been updated. ]|] 15:52, August 12, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == AI prohibited from CoS articles == | |||
| And what is the reason for this based on what? --] 21:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Sorry, but arbitrators generally do not comment on on-going cases. We allow people to view the proposed decision as a courtesy. ] 22:03, August 11, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == proposal for FPC == | |||
| Raul, just wanted to let you know that I put up a little proposal on ] regarding making it more like ] in that giving instructions on the page so that regular users can take part in upkeep on nominations that have passed the voting time, as well as listing a concrete time (barring extension for lack of votes etc...) that articles should be listed. As I see it there isn't really a reason why a person would need admin access or anything to do this but I may be wrong and if that's the case please comment on that and/or why it wouldn't be feasible and/or any reasons why it would or wouldn't work. Thanks. <small>] <sup>] | ] | ]</sup> </small> ----- 00:16, August 12, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I've commented there. I think it's a really, really bad idea. ] 00:20, August 12, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Keetoowah RFA== | |||
| Hi Mark: Since you rejected ] on the grounds that it was a one time incident, I apologise for wasting your time with my oversimplification (in a misplaced attempt at brevity). I have now expanded my statement to make the continuing and various nature of the problem more apparent. —] ] 23:38, 12 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Edit Warring == | |||
| hello and thanks for your message. I have explained to the user ] that i do not wish my real name to be shown on here. However, he kept posting my name on his talk page, so i was changing it back. He is the reason that i asked my user name to be changed and i thank you very much for this. I do not have any reason to go to any meaningless edit war with that user but everytime he will be writing my real name on his talk page or anywhere else, i will simply keep changing it. --] 00:05, 13 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Featured article Main page date== | |||
| Hi Mark. I have made a proposal at ] that we document the date of publication to the ''Main page'' of featured articles. This would allow a user to easily view the evolution of these articles since their date of ''Main page'' publication. Also, I added the ''Main page'' date to the talk page of the last four MP/FA's. I'd appreciate your comments about this. Thank you, ] ] 04:04, 13 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Erm, I don't really think that this is necessary. Almost all the featured articles that have appeared on the main page can we found at ] (the bolded ones). I mean, if someone else wants to do it, that's fine, but I don't really see a pressing need for it. ] 04:20, August 13, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree that there not a ''need'' but rather a strong ''want''. When I read a FA the question of ''when'' enters my mind and I often search the history to get some idea of the vintage. If others share this curiosity well then it may be a worthy addition. If I'm the only one well then ... ] ] 04:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, just an observation - if you see a burst of 50+ edits in a single day from a whole bunch of different people, 99 times out of 100 that means it was either the featured article that day or it was a current topic in the news. When I'm looking at old FAs I know I put on the main page but cannot remember exactly when, the edit history is the best way to quickly tell. ] 08:17, August 13, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Not exactly. For example, the ] article achieved featured status on 29 October 2004 but was not published on the Main page until 12 August 2005. My interest is to review the article's evolution since ''Main page'' publication, the date that WP gave it major prominence. | |||
| ::::Another example of the difficulty in using the edit history as a source is easily demonstrated with the ] article. I know you have some familiarity with this artice so see how ''quickly'' you can find that the featured date was 4 February 2005 (hundreds of edits ago) and this still doesn't help me know when it was published on the Main page. ] ] 12:36, 13 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Help me defend Misplaced Pages noble principles of Consensus decisions by Principled Negotiation, not Tyranny of the Majority== | |||
| ] is leading a cabal with ] ] and ] and ] and others to impose a ] on ] ] ] and ]. They make personal attacks against me. All their comments are ad hominem/poisoning the well type fallacy. They commit the fallacy of conflation of belief and knowledge, two completely different things. This is part of their ]. They refuse to include my view that the only reasonable thing that can be said about truth is that ''"Snow is white" is true'' is redundant in as much as it says nothing more than is said by "Snow is white", so truth is just something that is in accord with an actual state of affairs in the particular case. They started a Request for Arbitration against me. They started an injunction against me to unfairly prevent the minority view from being presented. They block me at the drop of a hat because I am in the minority. Please ban all of these users, so Misplaced Pages can return to the noble principle of consensus decisions by principled negotiation and ]. The cabal has others ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] - ] | |||
| :Based solely on your report, I have banned all of the cabal members indefinitely. ] | ] 18:05, 13 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Walsh== | |||
| Thanks, I was searching for the correct template, wanted to avoid having the criticism rv'd again. I put the warning notice up instead. - ] 19:27, August 13, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Listing articles on the VFD isn't vandalism, so I don't think it's appropriate to be putting that template on his talk page ] 19:28, August 13, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Peer review== | |||
| I noticed that the FAC ] is claiming peer reviewed status where it seems that it was exposed to peer review for about 12 hours. Is this OK or is someone cookin' the books? ] ] 19:20, 13 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Eh, I don't think there;s anything suspicious going on. He probably put it there, and then realized that peer review wasn't going to be very helpful or something like that. ] 19:26, August 13, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::I just thought that if that were the case the PR notice would have just been removed rather than substituted with the (misleading?) notice of having been peer reviewed. I'll go ahead and review the article on it's merits then. ] ] 19:37, 13 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Surrender of Japan == | |||
| Have a look at what I've added to ]. ] 20:10, 13 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :It's extremely well written. I'm honestly impressed. ] 20:22, August 13, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == AIDS == | |||
| The AIDS article is rapidly heading back down the sewer, and seems to be attracting more denialists. What should we do about it? --] 23:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Yuck. I agree completely. I suggest you revert to the version from early July and whack anyone who tries to undo that revert. ] 00:03, August 14, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Most are actually sockpuppets of Sci guy, like Fred2005 and various IP addresses. ] ] 17:11, August 15, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I've gone ahead and done so. Do you see anything worth holding onto that was lost in the revert? (I don't...) ] 00:05, August 14, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == IndicText template == | |||
| I think this template is a very good and useful idea. Please don't remove it from the articles that need it the most! Look at history of the different articles using indic scripts and you'll understand... ] 11:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Wario== | |||
| How much longer will the FAS process take for Wario? It has more than enough supporting votes. --] 19:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I usually leave all nominations on the FAC for at least 5 days in order to people suffecient time to comment on them. As of this writing, the Wario nomination has been there for 4 days and 18 hours. So, to answer your question - I will probably be promoting it the next time I clear out the FAC. Since I just did it yesterday, it probably won't be for another day or two. ] 20:17, August 15, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == DualDisc Article FAC == | |||
| Hi. I noticed that ] fell off the featured article candidates list but still has the template on its talk page. I was just wondering if you were going to promote it or not and when that will happen? Thanks! Cheers. --] (]) 02:09, August 16, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :The nomination failed. VioletRiga usually handles the failed-nom tagging. Sorry about the mixup. You can always check ] for the successful nominations and ] for the failed ones. ] 02:31, August 16, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::No problem. Thanks. Just out of curiosity, what caused it to fail? All the objections were addressed to people's satisfaction... Cheers! --] (]) 02:38, August 16, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Unfortunately, it's not simply enough to address objections. It failed because no one supported it. ] 02:40, August 16, 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:55, 16 August 2005
A sock puppet hides his real identity you moron. user:Donald R. Alford is not hiding that he is DotSix. It's my sig you moron. For unilaterally preventing the arb commitee from hearing my request you are sentenced to get your user page blanked whenever I feel like it. --207.200.116.203 02:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)