User talk:Angela/Archive1 - Wikipedia
195.56.187.125 is doing slightly strange things to VfD. I can mention these when I see them, but if he creates a user account I can no longer identify the IP address. I understand that sysops can see IP addresses - can I ask you to keep an eye out, assuming it doesn't take much time? Failing that, nominate someone else I can ask? Onebyone 18:05, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thanks for writing such a grand article about harvey ball! Kingturtle 00:18, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- thanks for the help. I appreciate it. :-) Greenmountainboy 00:41, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Re Kevin Rudd and the photo thereat: I now have an email from AUSPIC, the Australian Parliamentary photo agency, advising me that photos at the Australian Parliament website are not copyright and may be freely used for non-commercial purposes. I have therefore restored the photo. Adam 01:13, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
feel free to remove my Brenden Matthews page. I got a little carried away, what can i say.
Where do you get the idea that splitting an article that is less than 20KB is bad? --The Cunctator 07:08, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I was wondering if there are any specific rules in terms of providing links, because i like to provide links to data information i have. I've noticed on some pages the links are included into the article, and on others they are listed at the bottom. What would you say is appropriate? Thanks. --bdiddy 08:10, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Hello,
It would be very useful if you (or someone who is responsable for that) move English pages move to UTF-8 encoding. In this moment I have to write non Latin-1 characters into some other editor, and then to submit it to Wikipedia.
Also, my intention with Description of Serbian Language was to invite other people to write this document with me. It is a long term work and I don't think that it would be done in the near future. But, I thought it is possible to develope it on Wikipedia openly.
I think that the best idea is to write several pages in my user space and then to publish and to keep on with developing. Is it OK? Millosh
about Nico. He posted few revisionists sentences on the different talk pages. Examples: Even the migrants must be considered expellees, since their homeland was under occupation and Germans generally was discriminated and threatened in these areas. Source User talk:Nico I thought it would be correct to name them expellees, as that is what they name themselves. When they emigrated, Germany had not recognised the current borders. But do as you want. And in any event, what is wrong with considering East Prussia rightfully German, in accordance with international law (the Geneva protocols states: "It is illegal to permanently keep land militarily taken over and to expell and to replace the inhabitants") -- Nico 01:43, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC) Source Talk:Landsmannschaft Ostpreussen He claims in Wikipedia, that some Polish or Russian areas, are rightfully German and are under occupation. Do we want to start again border disputes in Europe?? WolfgangPeters
- I actually don't see what is "revisionistic" with these sentences. I just stated a fact: The (West-)German government actually considered these areas "occupied" when the people we are talking about emigrated. And it's not just "revionists" who thinks East Prussia should return to Germany. There are even Russians who thinks that. And after all, this is also just my private opinions, not what I write in any articles. Nico 13:14, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Based on, what you stated yourself, it seems to be irresponsible to give you the rights to edit articles in Wikipedia. Attempt to violate existing borders is a crime in every state. WolfgangPeters
Why have he moved these comments to you, Angela? Is it a campaign? Btw, User:Maximus Rex just told me that "WolfgangPeters" is the user GH/AM, or 145.254.xxx, a "Polish nationalist" [1] & [2], currently even listed on Vandalism in progress -- Nico 15:47, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I am sorry for putting that page on VfD. It was a mistake. I believed that the band was obscure, but now I realize that I have seen at least one of its members quite frequently on the television. Thank you for notifying about the VfD. Happy hunting, Greenmountainboy 21:12, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Good idea about renaming the page. Hmm. Maybe it could be called Book of Mormon Origin or Book of Mormon Studies. I don't know. Hawstom 21:38, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Angela, maybe Eloquence is right. Book of Mormon Studies could use the NPOV forum of Wikipedia to mature. But maybe Wikipedia really isn't the place for a BofM Controversies page. Maybe both camps need to just stick to the agreed upon facts. If it is disputed too much to go on the main page, maybe it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Hawstom 16:02, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Angela, thanks for your comments on my reform proposals. Might I suggest we try and promote some sort of discussion forum on these problems among experienced users of WP, in a place where it will be seen? Such proposals will have more weight coming from you than from me, since some people here seem to find me antagonistic (I can't imagine why). Adam 11:16, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Any chance of getting the WML (WikiMarkupLanguage) autosignature updated to include the "full stop" used by you and User:Dori. Could it not save a fair amount of pasting/extra clicks - as well as bandwidth? - unkamunka 11:30, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Thanks for sorting out my problem the other day, I'm not sure that the topic in question (university libraries) is completely needing a page so I'll pass on making it one just for now. Thanks again ;-) - Al b 21:38, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Angela,
A couple of months ago, I created a Mozilla sidebar tab that enables a user to search Wikipedia. Is there a way I can upload the code here? I tried, but it uses JavaScript, and I don't think the Wiki software supports it.
As for the Simple Wiki, I hope to come back to it sometime, but I tied up im the main EN wiki right now.
Happy X-Mas! I hope Father Christmas is good to you!
iHoshie 01:53, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll contact the person you refered me to. iHoshie 07:02, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
An IP user and User:Bobjoejill have each edited twice today on Mercury (element) (but never before or since, there or elsewhere), each pair within a minute or two. The earlier, logged-in pair, were adding one unsuitable word that could be honestly argued for, and adding some keyboard garbage; i reverted both. The later (IP) pair were adding "doodie" (a mild copralalia) and the other removing it; no revert needed.
I'm continuing to watch it for a couple hours, but at this point don't intend to put it on ViP. I'll leave another note if i see more of those users or on Mercury (element). I'm glad to see you stopped editing at a decent hour tonite, but if you could check in the AM, you should be up before me.
And please say so if i let them off easy, or if you look in detail & think i over-reacted.
Thanks. [smile] --Jerzy 02:24, 2003 Dec 17 (UTC)
- Tsk, re yr hrs. Tnx, re yr reassuring answers. --Jerzy 03:31, 2003 Dec 17 (UTC)
Oops, I deleted 2 pages that were edited only by EoT, and one was a fairly lengthy talk page. Pakaran 03:22, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I think you'll want to take a look at this article. Blah..... UtherSRG 03:45, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Thanks. I seem to be finding a lot of junk today.... here's another: Edgar Ojeda. UtherSRG
Where are all those Template:Msgs coming from, and why don't I know about them? RickK 04:02, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
How did you make that connection? Other than the use of the term 'little tin gods' I would have only been suspicious. --mav 04:09, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Angela. To me it wasn't anon users or new users who were the problem. My problem was the failure of most users to write for the enemy and to stand up for the integrity of articles that were not in their own "personal political space". I took pride in the fact that I, a conservative Republican, defended the integrity of the Wesley Clark article and was very vocal in confronting the conservative troll JoeM. Unfortunately, I did not see my philosophy working the same way on the other end. I, as a conservative Republican felt very UN-comfortable defending the George Bush article and Santorum article. I felt that a liberal Democrat should defend the NPOV on those but did not see it occur. Behavior that was seen as "trollish" on Hillary Clinton was seen as "informative" on George Bush. Thats why some started the "list war". Similarly, I felt uncomfortable trying to take anti-Bush material out of J. William Fulbright. I felt that a responsible liberal should have taken the lead on it. I asked for help and only got one person willing to assist me defend that article. So I don't think that Adam's proposal would help that. The only thing that would help that would be a change of heart by the political partisans or a change in NPOV philosophy. But I think very highly of the project and will keep watching in hopes of seeing it mature. -- Ark30inf
On Sep 21, you removed the image link on Alexander Fleming. The image is still there, though. Any specific reason? Shouldn't that be restored? --Magnus Manske 11:40, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
That is a good question. I admit I didn't spend alot of time thinking before I made that vote. My best idea is to merge it into palestine, but... I would prefer if I wasn't the primary decision maker on this :). It really seems to be a section of an article, rather than an article itself. While it isn't good enough to stand on its own, or without editing, the article doesn't seem completely worthless, and I am generally really opposed to things which have any redeemable value being deleted. I am one of those wiki is not paper people, or a medium-rare inclusionist, and whatever you want to call me, my instinct is to only delete complete garbage, and tinker/fix on the rest. JackLynch
- I was under the impression that merging was something only a sysop could do? I seem to remember some sort of problem on Wikipedia:Conflicts between users about something like that, between Jiang and pigsonthewing? Jack 21:25, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Any way you can check to see if User:What most surprised me was the arrogance of the administration is a previous user returned from the grave? RickK 04:59, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I don't think its anarchy in regard to who edits and how soon, but anarchy in regard to NPOV policy.
You are correct about political partisans changing their beliefs, but I think they can change their behavior. IF that is what is expected by the majority and that expectation is insisted on. The problem is that the NPOV policy as stated and accepted in practice is not really NPOV, its dueling POV. You can't blame users for being good at dueling POV when dueling POV is the standard operating procedure and is accepted by the community.
The idea seems to be to "get as much of my point of view in there" and "grudgingly accept the minimum opposing POV after a long fight". In reality, Wikipedia's policy is very similar to Fred Bauder's policy only the sympathetic and critical views have to fight for the same article space here whereas they are physically separated on his site.
Dueling POV works in a way, but you better be ready for a head-butting contest in addition to being ready to write an encyclopedia article.
Jimbo said on the mailing list during the RK thing (paraphrased) that it is his view that the best articles come from such partisans engaging in mortal combat with other partisans. I respectfully don't see that and instead see the best articles occurring where partisans from both sides write for the enemy, police their own kind, and treat seriously any and every criticism of their work rather than circling the wagons and defending it in a kneejerk fashion.
I've always tried to avoid being a utopian. But I feel that most of the regulars here regardless of political stripe could deal with that concept if that were the standard accepted here and insisted on. I'm figuring that either Wikipedia will mature and move that direction or someone will fork and try that philosophy. I'll keep watching because the project (ignoring methodology) is intriguing and useful. --Ark30inf
Angela, if my Wikipedia:Wikipedia: is redundant, feel free to get rid of it, but I urge that something be done to make whatever page it is redundant to (whether that is Wikipedia:Utilities or something else) more easily found. I've been working on Wikipedia for 6 weeks now and (as you can easily see if you track me) have been rather plunged in. This is the first I've heard of Wikipedia:Utilities. Is there some obvious way of finding it that I have missed? Also, now that you point me to that page, it seems rather painfully daunting and deserves a digest / overview somewhere (I don't really care where, as long as it is -- once again -- sane to find.) -- Jmabel 09:13, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Apologies if I violated protocol in my first 2 days on the wikipedia. At the time, I had no idea what user talk pages were even for. I blanked your message after reading it. I did not understand that it was customary to retain content on one's talk page after reading it; I viewed it as more like email.
- Nonetheless, the term "utilities" is nothing like self-explanatory in this context: mnemonic once you know it, but non-obvious if you don't. It is, indeed, linked from the Help page, but there is nothing to make it stand out, and it seems to be the only link-based (as against search-based) route into a vast array of pages. If nothing else, I think it deserves a more verbose entry on the Help page. If you have no objection to that, I'd like to write a sentence or so there. Jmabel 11:13, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)