User talk:Angela/Archive5

>>User talk:Angela/Archive6

Miscellaneous thankyous

Thanks, Angela, just hadn't picked up on that 4 tilde trick. Knew about doing 3... Jmabel 05:46, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting Mecca. RickK 07:23, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Yes thanks. I wouldn't leave it too long but I think a little while is fine. - Hephaestos 07:27, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for moving that. Alexandros 19:10, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Kaliningrad

An edit war seems to have flared up at Kaliningrad (the usual suspects), although no activity last couple of hours. Perhaps you could keep an eye on it... Viajero 22:02, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Welcome

Thank you, Angela, for my welcome. I will read what tips you sent now. jo

Date redirects

Yup, check it out: List of Alberta premiers. I'll take care of these, and fix the broken links afterwards. --Minesweeper 04:04, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)

The basis of the truce was that I agreed to refrain from adding more, as long as you (or whoever) stopped deleting. I stopped (at the end of January) until the deletions started again. The VfD process means nothing to me since it is necessarily biased towards the deletionists. ☮ Eclecticology 07:15, 2003 Nov 17 (UTC)

The reference to January was for the entries relating to dates in the month of January. I'm not making any work for anybody; if you didn't enjoy deleting articles you wouldn't be doing it. There is no ambiguity involved when nobody else has adopted the format that I am using. ☮ Eclecticology 07:27, 2003 Nov 17 (UTC)

Respect is a two way street. Imposing the tyranny of the majority that comes out of VfD is totally disrespectful. Everybody accepts that there are things that need to be deleted, but that is not the way do go about it without irritating people. My primary position in the matter of deletions is that the benefit of the doubt should favour keeping, and that anything to be deleted must fall within strictly defined categories. To me there is more to this argument than just the narrow issue of the dates. Alternative ways of doing things should be perfectly acceptable, and my inclination is to seek solutions that accomodate alternatives, whether I am on the majority side or not. Had my approach to the dates entailed a genuine and immediate ambiguity I would have been most willing to seek accomodation. My immediate interest in the matter of dates is to restore the ones which were already written. (All of January plus scattered dates in the rest of the year) I have no present intention to add any significant number of new dates.

Please be advised that there are other areas where our mutual co-operation might be more easily forthcoming, notably regarding transfers to Wiktionary. ☮ Eclecticology 08:02, 2003 Nov 17 (UTC)

I will be content to leave the matter in stasis while Tim does his work. See also emoticon ;-[ ☮ Eclecticology 08:58, 2003 Nov 17 (UTC)

You should not get angry at this :-) Anthère

I must have missed the end of the discussion/fight over the ambiguous date redirects. Why are 01-01 etc still around? They were voted to be deleted. Maximus Rex 09:48, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Fr.

It is absolutely not obvious whether it is cpvio. It is clearly mentionned pictures and images are. Nothing about text. The content is collaborative work. These people should rather be contacted for possible exchange ihmo. Cheer up Anthère 12:01, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Thanks for your message about moving pages. I can only plead that it was late at night and I forgot the "move this page" feature existed.

You also asked why I'm making these moves. They are all disambiguation pages. My thinking was that it would aid the reader's understanding (and my own) if an article like English were even more explicitly titled as English (disambiguation). The footnote is nice but a title is hard to miss. I was also thinking that it would help creators of links to more easily discover that they were linking to a disambiguation page when they probably want to link directly to one of the sub-pages. However, I've since found out that the query that populates the "Disambiguation pages with links" page won't find those links so it will make the maintenance harder, not easier. Looks like I'll be reverting those pages. I guess we live and learn. Thanks for keeping me honest. Rossami 15:23, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Ban disputes

Thanks for the advice, Angela. I am reassured. Trontonian 16:02, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

But now the entry I made on the ban page has disappeared. But I'm not getting Wikinoid, honest. Even I am not perfect, so we can scarcely expect technology to be (when i say it's vanished, I mean there's not even a mention of it in the page history). I'm just mentioning it in case you might know why that could have happened.Trontonian 18:00, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The answer was simple--I was referred to two different pages. So my original post is still where it always was. Luckily I have work to do, so I won;t be wasting your time any more for a few hours. Trontonian

Advice

Keep cool, scream in the sand box ! :-) Anthère

Transwiki

I'm glad that our edit war has calmed. I too must apologize if any of my comments seemed personally offensive.

My thoughts about transfers to Wiktionary do link to my ideas about deletion. I want to approach that problem constructively. As I said before, before something is deleted it should fall into a clearly defined category. The two most evident categories are nonsense written without any glimmer of good faith such as infantile comments, alphabet soup and insults, and obvious typos in an article title. There are other classes possible, but they require more thought.

One general class of articles to be considered is articles that belong in another member project of the Wikimedia family. These will likely have valuable information, but the contributor has just put it in the wrong place. That group has a number of number of possible sub-classes:

1. dictionary type entries; (they belong in Wiktionary)
2. foreign language entries: )they belong in the Wiktionary for the relevant language)
3. entire quoted books; (they belong in Wikibooks)
4. memorials; (they belong in what is now the 9/11 Memorial, which could be expanded to cover forgetable victims of other disasters)

One observation that I have about the current listing of things to be transferred to Wiktionary is that it is somewhat useless where it is. A person that devotes his entire Wiki time to work on Wiktionary may not see it and may not even know that it's there. To solve this I would propose a Transwiki: namespace on all projects. I first thought of using the word "Transfer" for this, but decided that a coined word would avoid any possible ambiguities. Currently Thou is the first entry on Wikipedia:Things to be moved to Wiktionary. To deal with this I would create an article in Wiktionary called [[Transwiki:Thou]] to which everything that is now in Thou could be copied as is. A Wiktionarian who is looking for something to do could then work at co-ordinating that article with what really should be on Wiktionary according to Wiktionary rules. Once that is done the Transwiki article could be deleted.

Any thoughts on this? ☮ Eclecticology 20:09, 2003 Nov 17 (UTC)

I don't think that the Transwiki idea has to go to the mailing list, but it should. The main reason for that is publicity. I see it as a concept with broad application, not just for moving material from Wikipedia to Wiktionary but between any two projects. For this to work well the same namespace name should be used in all projects. It's always good to get other opinions anyway. ☮ Eclecticology 21:47, 2003 Nov 17 (UTC)

will look Angela. Later. Thanks ant

I've commented abot the Transwiki logging process at the meta page. ☮ Eclecticology 03:03, 2003 Nov 21 (UTC)

Anon stats

Thanks for shifting the anon edit stats stuff from the VP to my talk page! --snoyes 20:22, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Image deletions

Please delete Image:Retineye.png and leave Image:Human eye cross-sectional view grayscale.png around. I was being lesss bold than usual and trying to avoid upsetting Magnus Manske, so I listed both and passed the decision on to the person doing the deleting. Just me being too cautious for a change... Jamesday 00:10, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Just delete the Bournemouth images. I could write a fair use argument for them but I don't think that it is worth doing. Trudeau I'd trather leave around as an example of how to indicate restricted copying and how to do a fair use justification, though if you feel more than slightly keen on deleting it, let me know and I'll file it for use in another case which is more interesting. Like you, I'm not really keen on the picture. Jamesday 00:25, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Main page

Thanks for advising me on necessary qualifications for the Intel 4004 article to be included in Anniversaries on the Main Page! The article got a lot of attention, as intended and expected, and got better and more informative than it was at the outset. More work on it will follow, to get it in really great shape in time for next year's anniversary :-) --Wernher 07:30, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the tip. Bmills 15:05, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Eslios

Angel...Eslios...I think he will make me mad...I feel like putting him on the list of problematic non editors :-(((((

Don't you sometimes have that feeling you are just loosing your time for irrelevant things ? Anyway, I asked Jimbo to take care of that banning issue. I hope he answers. ant

I have spent the whole evening on that, and a spanish trying to set a new wikipedia on meta, with whom I share no common language than google. Basically. That is not what I find the most interesting on wikipedia :-) Sigh... Anthère

Sandbox question

I'm writing and article on United Food and Commercial Workers should I start it there, or write it in User:Noldoaran/sandbox then transfer it when ready??

Thanks again, --Noldoaran 04:52, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)

Dead link

The Vandal link on your user page is dead. --Noldoaran 06:21, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)

Hi, you said "The Vandal link on your user page is dead." - it in't actually dead, it's just that it is a sysop-only link, which is probably a bit out of order really. It links to a deleted page, which only sysops can see. The entire content of the page was "Se also: Frognerparken, the famous park in this district. User:Angela is vandalising the page, so I cannot link myself." I shall try to find a different link; I've been accused of being a vandal more than once! :) Angela 06:43, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Why were you accused of being a vandal? You don't seem like the type. ;-)

--Noldoaran 07:10, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)

Where should my user page go?

Sorry to bother you again, but I have another question. I have an account on Wikipedia, Meta-Wikipedia and Wikibooks. Should I have my user page at meta-wikipedia and have the others be redirects? Or should I have them redirect here(Where I will be most active)?

Thank you so much for your patience! You rock! --Noldoaran 07:36, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks.. I think I'll just say "see Wikipedia:User:Noldoaran" on the others.

--Noldoaran 07:53, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)

That didn't work right.. how do I link to my wikipedia user page?

-Noldoaran 07:56, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)

Umm... hello.

Thanks for the friendly welcome. I hope it was not my editing style that left you thinking that I needed all the links! :)

Haven't checked them all out, but I feel pretty used to wikis, just not wikipedia. Well.. seeya around. Sverdrup 14.00 20 nov 2003

Table of Contents

Why do some pages have Table of Contents and some don't? How do I put a table of contents in?

Noldoaran 19:07, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)

Santorum

According to my reading of the undeletion policy, any sysop has the right to restore any article listed there, provided that the article is relisted on VfD. Cunc didn't do that, but I'm not going to make a fuss... someone's bound to be offended by the article sometime, and we'll do it all again. Whee! -- Cyan 00:45, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Uh oh. Wikipedia:Deletion policy is out of step with the policy stated on Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion:

"If you wish to undelete an article, list it here with a brief reason. A sysop will then undelete the article, and list the article on wikipedia:votes for deletion. Further discussion can take place on the votes for deletion page, and after about a week the undeleted page will either be deleted again, or left undeleted. (But see the talk page for discussion on whether this will happen for all users)."

-- Cyan 01:02, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the intro!

Thanks for the intro you put on my talk page! I wasn't planning to do anything but saw something I had recently encountered in real life and had to contribute. Nice to have a friendly word from someone like you on my first day. I hope to talk to see you again! - Texture

Adminship

I dunno, I might reapply for adminship eventually. :-) Evercat 13:17, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

GH

Someone other than User:GH has squatted on the user name, forcing the anonymous IP formerly known as GH to claim the name AM. This becomes clear if one looks at the history of User:GH, User:GH's contributions, and User:AM. -- Cyan 03:05, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Angela - have posted my reply at Wikipedia:Conflicts between users. [User:PMelvilleAustin|PMA]] 03:58, Nov 22, 2003 (UTC)

Boilerplate welcome

Yeah, well, you know, I did that on purpose, 'cause, um, I wanted the noobs to bug you, not me... <sigh> I'm an idiot. I did catch it the first time I copied your boilerplate, but I missed it thereafter. Thanks for the heads-up. Cheers, Cyan 04:15, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Oy! Thank you for the help/tips/reply on my talk page!

Jdstroy 22:22, 2003 Nov 22 (UTC)

Ah, thank you, then, for correcting my mistake (talk page), Angela-san!

Jdstroy 04:26, 2003 Nov 23 (UTC)

Sigh<G>

Thanks for implementing the "Angela plan" on the "AKFD". My interpretation on the other titles with the expanded AKFD in them, now all redirects, is that there were two people who had a serious desire to retain them (Martin and Olivier), and the rest wanted them gone. I'd do it myself, but ...I nominated them. It would be good to have them all behind us, but I leave it to your judgment. == Someone else 14:46, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I believe all content has now been moved to Anti-gay slogan. I think the AKFD titled redirects can go. They seem to be:

   * Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead' (redirect page)
   * AIDS Kills Fags Dead (slogan) (redirect page)
   * AIDS Kills Fags Dead (redirect page)
   * AIDS kills fags dead (redirect page)
   * AIDS Kills Fags Dead slogan (redirect page)

Can "Talk:Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead'" become "Talk:Slogan 'AKFD'"? That would remove the ill-conceived thing from titles entirely. -- Someone else 16:48, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts, I do recognize that it's a lot of trouble. The idea that an "old" vote somehow supercedes a "new" one is unprecedented. I'll put a note on VfD that Martin refuses to accept the vote as valid and we'll vote again if he wants to. -- Someone else 17:49, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Orphaned articles

If you are referring to my note to Brion VIBBER, he made a post to Wikipedia:Orphaned articles yesterday. That page had not been updated since March 22. If you look at the older versions [1] and compare them to Brion's update, something is wrong. Kingturtle 23:56, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Deletion policy

Please don't start creating articles to prove a point, particularly not a point about the deletion policy. Why not? If everybody and their brother can create garbage articles and they are kept around for no particularly good reason, why can't I? RickK 03:03, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pages needing attention

I recently purged Wikipedia:Pages needing attention of some old posts because they looked relatively fixed. There are a few of your posts there that are over a month old. If you have some time, could you take a look and remove the ones you feel have been fixed? thanks, Kingturtle 05:32, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Earthworm

Hi Angela, Could you look at what has happened with the Earthworm entry? The entire contents have been replaced. Some of it looks ok, though there are factual errors, but it also looks like copyvio. I would just revert it and start over, but am reluctant to get in an edit war. Thanks WormRunner 19:58, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for the recommendation. I notice BTW, that ALL of User:Vincentle's edits are complete replacements and have all been reverted already. Ain't life grand? WormRunner 22:57, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Arabic auto-translation into an article about the USA

I used an auto-translator at Aljeeb.com to "translate" several sentences into the Arabic language to make an article about the USA. It is: http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/الولايات المتّحدة

Yea, I know its a screwy auto-translation, but its better than nothing, IMHO

I believe this article was created on the 24th, yet the New pages list only goes to Nov 23... WhisperToMe 20:09, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

England

Angela, did you think that I was vandalising the England page? Do you really believe that England is ranked 1st, by area? I found the wiki link eventually (maybe I should be learning how to fix that rather than being pedantic about this) to the page that gives relative area by nation, to find… guess what? That England is the 76th largest nation by area.

While I was fixing the other tad of an anomaly, that England is not ranked 1st by population, but 21st (same hallowed source, so must be true) you had done a revert on the first edit. 82.133.114.121

VfD Thanks

It's really helpful that you clean up after VfD and elsewhere as diligently as you do. It keeps WP in shape. Just wanna say thanks on behalf of Wikipedia for your recognizable effort. To be honest, I can't imagine not having a person with your exceptional organizational skill here. Sure, maybe there'd pop up another Angelita or Angelito, but I doubt it'll be the same! (Just picture the mess on VfD that'd develop in no time! Nightmarish!) --Menchi 09:37, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Virtues

Thanks for deleting sub-pages. Concerning removal of content from Obedience etc to Forty-nine charismatic virtues - I have added links in all the relevant talk pages. Peter Manchester 16:02, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Graphic

Hi Angela, thanks for my graphic. Renato Caniatti 25 Nov 2003

Eric Vloeimans

Inclusion justification for Eric Vloeimans has been added - Vloeimans is more famous than an average college professor but his international collaborations are a bit more objective than my observation of his outfaming a college prof. :) So I added some of those. 146.50.173.228

Informative

Do you think wikipedia:informative will be satisfactory to the deletionist tendency, perhaps edited for seriousness? Martin

Postal codes indexes

It looks as though you [someone] misjudged the keep in Wikipedia majority for the lists of postal codes and deleted them by moving them to ps: instead of leaving them as indexes as the VfD process concluded should be done Talk:Lists of postal and zip codes of the world/Delete. Please revert these articles to reflect what was decided, even if you do not personally see the value of geograhic indexes to other Wikipedia content in the same region:

• List of Belgian postal codes
• List of postal codes in Canada
• List of zip codes in the United States
• List of British postal codes
• Lists of postal and zip codes of the world
• List of zip codes in New York
• List of zip codes in Illinois
• List of zip codes in California

Jamesday 08:46, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Trillium.jpg

Hi Angela. I was wondering if we could rename that image to something like "Sagittaria.jpg" so it would not be confusing to anyone again. I agree it's a nice picture. The genus is clearly Sagittaria, though I cannot tell the species from the picture. (see http://www.ct-botanical-society.org/galleries/sagittarialati.html) regards. WormRunner 20:28, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Protest of Zofia Kossak-Szczucka

Angela my recollection is that the Polish comrades produced the text of the Protest. I don't know where they got it from, and since most of them are not registered Users it is hard to ask them. You could perhaps ask Szopen. Adam 23:20, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I shall ask Szopen. Angela 23:43, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The Polish version is IMHO public domain, since it ws publicised anyway to reach as many people as possible.

The first version of the English translation was done probably by GH (145.xxx...., but this version has many differences from that translation. He should be the one asked about legal statusszopen

---

Wikisource

Can I apply for sysop rights at Project Sourceberg? --Samuel 18:41, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

Yip, looks fine. To be honest, I deleted it without actually comparing it because the user didn't respond to questions about whether the content was his. --snoyes 19:45, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

interresting point about containing the copyvio text in the history. While it makes sense for an article such as this one, there is a problem when someone posts some copyrighted content to an already existing page. I think that in the future wikipedia'll have to decide whether it wants the ability to delete specific edits from the article history (of course only for this purpose), or whether the copyvio in the history is acceptable. --snoyes 20:06, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the link. I hadn't stumbled upon it yet. --snoyes 20:11, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

I presume that your reference to abuse of sysop powers on my talk page was to Sunset High School. You will note that in my previous comments I did not mention any names at all except Cunc, but was aware of the blocking and unblocking even before your effort in that list. Your admission of guilt is interesting. The fiction that you were blocking solely to maintain the peace is not tenable. By reverting the article to reflect your POV before blocking you were in fact participating in the edit war. ☮ Eclecticology 23:59, 2003 Nov 27 (UTC)

Fair Use -- Posting my own stuff

fair use doctrine in copyright allows a certain small amount of text to be copied from an original source. I'm interested in the automatic google based algorithm for detecting that a page may already be on the net.

Also, if I'm copying stuff from my own site (say www.acoin.com) to Wikipedia, how do I keep the copyright police off my back?

How much is enough?

Angela,

I have a great deal of information that I could put into the Wikipedia about coins (and other topics as well, I suppose) but I'm wondering just how much detail Wikipedia wants. Do they want details about every US Coin? About every computer algorithm? Where is the line drawn? When is it too much detail, and when is it just right? What's the goal is the question, I suppose.

KellyCoinGuy 05:17, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Deleting images

Thanks for pointing that out. (And so nicely illustrated with colours and all ;-)) --snoyes 02:09, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

AIDS kills fags dead

I noticed you just deleted this link to the article. I am dissapointed that it has been deleted, and I would certainly have voted against it having been. There was a discussion of why it might have been left at Talk:Anti-gay slogan. Is this something that can yet be reconsidered? Sam Spade 03:29, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

yes, I've just been to Talk:AKFD/redirect, read the page, and posted my opinions. I did not understand that you had kept an all caps version. I think thats OK, but I think its very important to keep the more typical AIDS kills fags dead link, if nothing else.Sam Spade 03:54, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

two things. One, I have been not only conversing with you, as the person who made the deletions, and as the only person thus far who has engaged me on the Talk:AKFD/redirect page, but anybody else who might be reading, or might read later, and might have any variety of different opinions. So please don't misinterpret me as suspecting you as the archtype of whatever opposition there might be to what I've been saying. While I may have been engaging (the subject is of some small import to me) I am perfectly happy with what you have said and done regarding the subject. I wish the link wern't deleted, but hey, only one guy voted against it. I'm only hoping that I can complain enough after the fact to have a positive impact on the powers that be (I'm not 100% on how such things work, being new here). Second, (and fairly unrelated) why is the search not working tonight? That kinda sucks. Is there as area you can direct me to the pertains to wiki resouce problems, improvements, needs etc? Thanks, and I hope I havn't annoyed you over much w all the convo on an awkward subject. Sam Spade 07:01, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

sure does, thanks Angela Sam Spade 03:21, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Crediting other work

What is the proper way for Wikipedia to credit the original source of an article? There is an article that began as a verbatim copy of another Internet source (a public domain text based on a book out of copyright), and even though there is no legal infringement, out of fairness it should be credited.

My first cut at giving credit is at Philipp_Melanchthon#References.

OK, the 2nd problem (detailed explanation lost in a merge) is that Martin Luther is almost verbatim ripped off from a copyright source [2]. It's more obvious in the original but still evident today.

You mention the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica as an out-of-copyright possible source for both articles. Is there an easy way for me to check this in the future? I did a Google search (my typical plagiarism detector) and didn't find that source. Also, the version I found at 1911 [3] didn't match at all. (PS I am not convinced by Camembert's claim that there's no plagiarism). Joelwest 05:46, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Mother Teresa yet again

Hi Angela, I'm afraid I accidentially reverted Mother Teresa before I realised it had been protected. I think however it would have been better to have protected it to the version before Eloquence deleted the disputed tag and re-inserted stuff that had been removed with agreement by everyone else weeks ago. It is rather unfair to everyone else that Eloquence's highjacked version, with text deleted weeks ago which he reinserted, and with images that there was over 90% agreement to delete but which he inserted, and minus the agreed disputed tag, should be the one left on the page. An earlier one should have been the one reverted to. Best wishes. FearÉIREANN 22:47, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Again, Angela, sincere apologies on the protected reversion. But I do think it is wrong that weeks of work by various people, a vote on what to keep in and take out, a rewrite by User:Adam Carr and a 99.9% agreed disputed tag are all effectively binned as yet again Eloquence's highly POV version is now left as the official wikipedia version, unable to be corrected by anyone. I had no interest in fighting with Erik but when I found him trying to intimidate a non-sysop so much that the non-sysop contacted me to say that he didn't want to stay on the page for fear of what Erik as a sysop might do to him (Erik having already driven away another utterly honourable and genuine user from the MT page) and finding that Erik was, again, bulldozing his way through many people's hard work to force his POV stuff back on the page again, I had had enough. As to the three reversion rule, having abused his powers Erik showed no interest in following that power too, which to be honest I didn't know about. But I am not criticising you and am glad that you protected the page. I just think a better solution would have been to go back to the point before the edit war, to the version that reflected what the community wanted, not just one sysop forcing his views and frightening those who disagree with him away. FearÉIREANN 23:59, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Request for help moving pages

Good evening, Angela. I am trying to clean up the Brunswick/Braunschweig pages. The content of Brunswick, Germany properly should be moved to either Braunschweig or (my preference) Braunschweig, Germany. Unfortunately, both those pages are redirects to Brunswick and the redirects themselves have been edited. I'm running up against the inability to move pages because of an irrelevant edit history at the destination. I was hoping you could advise me how to get around this problem. Thanks. Rossami 03:10, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response. I reviewed the discussion at VfD and on the several talk pages, but I came to a strong conclusion that "Brunswick" has fallen out of use when referring to the city (or region) in Germany. Delirium argues that Brunswick is the more common name but offers no evidence. Sandman used the results of a google search to make the same point, but his search pulled many irrelevant hits. The correct count for an exact-phrase google search is only 3,640 for "Brunswick Germany", many of which are in genealogical records dating back to the 11th century and many more of which are putting the phrase in brackets or parentheses as a secondary usage. An exact-phrase google search on "Braunschweig Germany" finds 208,000 hits. (I deliberately used Germany rather than Deutschland to filter the hits to english-language sites. Further evidence: While the Rand McNally World Atlas includes "Brunswick, Germany" in its index, the entry is see Braunschweig. I also rely on my personal experience. In 3 years living in Germany, I never heard it referred to as Brunswick, even by the other expatriates. In the 13 years since, I've never heard it referred to as Brunswick. Even the Wall Street Journal uses "Braunschweig". Several others (Wik, Robert MerkelI don't know what else it will take to make the case.
Or are you just suggesting that I should allow them some time to rebut my findings before making the change? If so, is the discussion on Talk:Brunswick sufficient or, now that it's a VfD topic, does the discussion have to be duplicated at VfD? Rossami 03:50, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Things which aren't encyclopedic at all

I thought a listing on Wikipedia:Lists for deletion was what you had in mind with your suggestion to start a new vote on the issue, made over at Talk:Lists of postal and zip codes of the world/Delete, so that's what I did. Wikipedia:Current disputes over articles seems like a fair enough alternative starting point, though this seems more about deletion policy and lists than about disputes over an individual article. If you see any votes from me over at VfD and I don't say otherwise, please regard them as meaning "keep in the Wikipedia, even if it's also copied to another project". That's always what they mean. Jamesday 08:33, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Porn freak

Dear Angela, i protected my page because we had a porn freak yesterday and i lost the patience for reverting. Very amusing. Its unprotected now but if the same thing happens (God, i hope not!) i'll follow your advice. Thanks for the pointer about the Village Pump question, i confess i had forgotten all about it. By the way, i have to tell you that i enjoyed immensely your user page and the deletion quotes. Since i'm not involved in this things its always good to catch up. Your user page is, i believe, the right place to do it :) Cheers, Muriel Victoria 10:54, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment on my user page. It's going to be replaced with quotes on stubs soon once I find a few more. Angela 19:39, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Supreme Court of India

Did you get any response regarding Supreme Court of India? -- JeLuF 13:26, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hurlante Nova

Personally, I think that Hurlante Nova doesn't merit an entry. However, I don't know French culture and prefer to defer to the judgement of the French Wikipedia about its significance. So, I go with keep if they keep, delete if they delete. Jamesday 01:46, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

And I see that Anthère has deleted it. Makes sense to me. Jamesday 01:50, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

So I gathered...:) There's a redirect to it at Hurlante nova which looks like a candidate for immediate deletion. Want to take care of it? Assuming you haven't done it before you read this, that is...:) Jamesday 01:53, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Redirect also deleted. Thanks for pointing it out. Angela 19:39, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Somalia Map

I have copied a present map (so-map-en.png) and modified it to change the english topography in italian topography. Renato Caniatti

Thanks for letting me know and for updating the image desciption page. I've removed it from the copyvio's list now. Angela 19:39, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Another list for your collection

List of People by Known IQ (need I say more???) -- Viajero 15:33, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

What can I say? Angela 19:39, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

How do I delete a redirect?

Angela, how do I go about getting deleted a page I created by mistake? I created the page StanisÅ?aw Skrowaczewski when I was trying to include the Polish slashed L in the URL of the page. No pages link to it and it is now a redirect page to Stanislaw Skrowaczewski. -- Del_arte

Thanks for your help. Del_arte

Nice tip

Thanks for the tip about duplicate articles. Boy, am I learning a lot about the culture of this website. Denelson83 05:04, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Questions

Hi Angela,

I never noticed you had left a message (or is it computer generated). Anyway your user page is nice - your talk page is better. I am learning to use Wikipedia (sadly I learn from using rather then reading.) I have started to love this place. I wish the world worked the wiki way (share.)

Since Christmas breaks are around corner I will be doing my workout on wikipedia. I already have a list of books I will borrow from the Library. But exams first.

Yes, I have a few questions and it is very frustrating to go about without answers.

First, there always is content I just can not go about without thinking of deleting. Arrrgh... people are so dim witted (like me). What do I do? - I have a sort of idea about this. I post my disapproval at talk:article and wait for someone to respond OR I find out who did the last stupid edit, and tell that person (politely) I am considering removing your part.

This is an Edit: I just read your user page. I think you are as confused about deletion as me.

Second, how do I tell myself it is OK not working for wikipedia full time. I feel bad about not being able to do much (in part cause I do not know much).

Third, I submit an article to Wikipedia. Next minute I go to a website xyz and submit the article to them. xyz says, the content you submit will be property of xyz (I do not care.) So what happens to the content? Is it copyleft cause I submitted it to Wikipedia first or is it Copyright?!!!

Fourth, Someone removed a change I made. Now I do not know what to do. If I make that change again what guarantees the change will not be undone. In my view it was important. Now what?

This too is an Edit: I just read your user page. I think you are as confused about deletion as me.

Finally English is not my mother tongue so I invariably make mistakes. I leave it to others to find mistakes and make corrections. Is there some way I can collaborate with someone who would review an article only for the grammar and spellings just after I post it. -I have a stupid Idea. Just after writing an article in the comments line I write 'Kindly check for Grammar'. Someone might be tempted to make amends. Problem is, I will always have this image of 'I make errors'.

Thanks for letting me know there is someone I can ask. I will read the articles you suggested. My idea of following wikipedia convention is trying to follow the layout of some other good related article. I will read the conventions page pretty soon.

Thank you,

Ankur

Thieves?

Angela, could you look at Talk:Green Mountain Boys, someone is using our stuff and claiming copyright, and I'm not sure what to do about it. Thanks, Gentgeen 13:26, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Just a note that I've responded. --snoyes 16:56, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thanks Snoyes. Angela

Alan Dershowitz

Re: your question on my talk page: I'm pleased with the compromise, though the article on the Dershowitz-Finkelstein affair seems to have spawned a new conflict of its own :-/. But yeah, I think the article can be unprotected now. --Mirv

Leumi seems intent on putting the same Norman Finkelstein accusation in every article related to him. 81.130.175.55

Great. Take it to Wikipedia:Current disputes over articles please. Angela. 01:06, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

More Junk Pages

Mario Savio. Junk. Denelson83 01:02, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Purging Page Discussions

Angela, your guidance has been succinct and valuable. If I see a page discussion that is a) long and b) not referring to the current text of the page in question, what is the appropriate action? Hawstom 22:21, 3 Dec 2003

Delete it, unless it might serves some purpose. Martin (not Angela)

Thank you Martin not Angela. See also User talk:Hawstom. --AngelanotMartin :)

Silesia, Kaliningrad et al

Hi! Would you like to block 24.2.152.139 ? He is vandalizing several articles including Kaliningrad (removing formatting and changing the name to "Konigsberg" instead of Königsberg). -- Nico 17:32, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

He has also removed the bold formatting of Danzig from Gdansk again (You have discussed that with him before: User talk:24.2.152.139 -- Nico 18:02, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Great. Take it to Wikipedia:Current disputes over articles please. Angela. 01:06, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I do not bellive it is a conflict between user. If you see the talk pages and Nicos edit wars. Its vandalisim and should be listed as that. He deleted calius2ga comments from gdansk and silesia and insits on adding a german name to evry town in poland see nico in warsaw :)

24.2.152.139 04:19, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Re:

In that case have the page needs to be moved. Because many of those conflicts are in between users and do not need imediate looking into. However, please look at the talk:Gdansk page and [[[talk:Silesia]]. It is very recent. I wont revert that page but please look into that. 24.2.152.139 04:25, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

PS: IP 24.2.152.139 (at client.comcast.net) is a known vandal. You should consider blocking him. Nico 03:50, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hi. Wik is trying to start a new edit war on Silesia after I've introduced the new version of the intro by John Kenney, which is accepted by the majority of the participants in the discussion (John Kenney, Szopen and me). Would you like to protect the page on my last version until Wik starts to discuss the issue? Nico 04:35, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I second the request. Wik isn't trying to start an edit war, he's been in one with Nico for the past half hour and about 15 edits between them. -- Pakaran 04:47, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, User:cc was vandalizing Nico's user page, so I protected it. I didn't realize that I was supposed to mark it on the main page (sorry). john 05:57, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well, just look how he totally vandalized the Kaliningrad article: http://en2.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Kaliningrad&diff=0&oldid=1872609 Even other Polish contributors considered his actions ridiculous, and the page was protected. All his edits are like this one, and his main activity is attacking my person (don't now why, as I didn't know him before) Nico 04:05, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Consensus Decision-Making

Angela: Perhaps you can help me. I thought I had a fairly simple query about an article. It was suggested that I ask the question at the Village Pump. This I did, with no response. My question was about the root article for "Consensus Decision Making." I'm looking for sources. I want to edit the article, but I can't find out where some of the material came from or who wrote it. The page history only goes back to January 2003. Suggestions? Sunray 18:12, 2003 Dec 4 (UTC)

Thanks for your help in querying the last known author of Consensus Decision-Making. I had thought that anything prior to January might have been in an archive somewhere. If 147.177etc. is banned, doesn't that mean he is beyond the pale and thus unreachable? Sunray 06:21, 2003 Dec 5 (UTC)

He's replied here. Angela. 19:40, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I've responded to him. Perhaps he will let me know the source for that U1... stuff. I'm going to work on the article later this week. Thanks again for helping me make contact. Sunray 21:28, 2003 Dec 8 (UTC)

Calm down a little!

You are everywhere ;)

You do all the work? Who are the other sysops, and how long is the queueline? Best, --- Sverdrup 22:19, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Blackout

Ok sorry didn't realize there was a consensus on the blackout, I thought it was due to Lir (who admittedly has a history). I think my first edit war in my time here accomplished little or nothing. -- Pakaran

Wik just moved it right back. Should I stay out of this? I almost feel like Wik and Lir are disagreeing on general principles here. -- Pakaran 04:24, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

There is no consensus. Lir is trying to capitalize "blackout" in the title, although it is no proper name. --Wik 04:25, Dec 5, 2003 (UTC)

The discussion over this is now split between about 3 pages. I'm watching all of them, and I'm still getting confused. I should have been more tactful with my edit summaries, but I thought it was just Lir who was blanking the page for no particular reason. -- Pakaran 04:36, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Are we keeping the debate here, or at current disputes? I hate to spam you with that stupid link every 5 minutes. -- Pakaran 04:41, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I've called a vote at Talk:2003 Canada-U.S. blackout so it's probably best to keep the discussion there. Angela 04:36, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

New message link

I find that if I click on the "you have new messages" link, it persists, whereas if I click on the link to my talk page in the upper right hand corner (standard skin), the "you have new messages" link disappears. Maybe this will work for you. Cheers, Cyan 05:00, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Or you can watch and unwatch any page, as I think was mentioned on Sourceforge. -- Pakaran 05:02, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Smoking ban

Not sure where the query should have been posted, so can you pls look at Talk:Smokefree Environments Amendment Bill. Cheers. Moriori 06:03, Dec 5, 2003 (UTC)

Copyvio

If someone uploaded an image from a site that claims "we believe everthing on our site is in the public domain...", but they appear to be lying ('please lawyers, don't hurt us'), should I list it as a copy vio? (this) (from this site) Maximus Rex 07:03, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

For women who do too much

To Her Majesty the Queen of Ubiquity:

When you start thinking like this or feel like doing that, maybe it's time for a break, eh? --Uncle Ed 15:46, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

MediaWiki namespace

The Template:All_messages page seems to show the change (the first two letters of "Unprotect" bold), but no other pages show the change... Not sure why, but it seems to be enabled for that particular page, but none of the other 6,818,402 pages, suppose that counts as being disabled, anyway... That's why I thought it was enabled. Κσυπ Cyp   00:10, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the info on Meta-Wikimedia:MediaWiki namespace. RickK 19:41, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Pakaran v. The Cunctator

Vijayashanker Paramsothy seems a bit marginal on VFD, there's a few to keep, but it IS a sep11 victim, and probably belongs there, so I'd like your opinion, thanks. I'm thinking move to sep11? Still nervous as heck, Pakaran 01:38, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Not getting in a fight sounds good to me, thanks. With 200 of us, someone should handle it. -- Pakaran 01:43, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia:User page

Hope you don't mind the revert on the above. Just thought it'd be nice to keep the vfdnote until it was removed from VfD :) Dysprosia 04:05, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Free energy

Thanks for your suggestion regaring the free energy project page.

That sounds like the rout to go with this. I figured there was probably something like this, but I just didn't know where or what.

Sterling Sterlingda 10:28, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Cast

It was John Power (the bassist in The La's) who formed Cast, not Mavers. I'll go sort things out a bit. Onebyone 00:49, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Mother Teresa (again!)

I know you decided to avoid the Mother Teresa article. However there remains a dispute, at this stage one user versus every one else who has commented. I am seeking independent opinions on whether

1. the article deserves a disputed tag
2. whether the article fulfils NPOV criteria in terms of (i) content, (ii) layout, and (iii) picture usage.

I respect your independence totally. I have in the last few days asked Daniel, Ed Poor and others to comment. Your views as a totally dispassionate obversver would be most welcomed. A review of Silsor's edits, where he has removed what he, I and others viewed as POV content, might set the context. Your views, as a totally independent observer, would be most welcome. FearÉIREANN 03:56, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It is hardly fair to assume that I would attack anyone who provides constructive criticism of the Mother Teresa article. The problem is that no constructive criticism has come forth ever since Adam stopped contributing to the article because of rabid MT apologists. I've tried being nice, I've tried peace offers and compromises. If you have any suggestions on how to work with people who offer no logical arguments but only insulting rhetoric and who call for blanket removal of valuable information, then please make them. Otherwise people should be grateful that I'm willing to deal with this kind of crap in order to preserve NPOV. —Eloquence 02:29, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)

Ariddia

Hi, Angela. Ariddia is nonsense. The only place it exists is at http://www.nationstates.net, which is a game playing site. I have a nation at NationStates, it's just something for fun and has nothing to do with any "real" micronations". RickK 07:44, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Those dates

Now that the new date format has been implemented (2003-12-07 coded as [[2003-12-07]]) is it safe to delete all those redirects? --Minesweeper 10:09, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Olavo Bilac

Angela, thanks for your message :-0 Have you seen my Olavo Bilac article? Do you think it´s brilliant prose? User:Doidimais Brasil 12:11, 7 dec 2003

Angela, how can I make a link that links to http://sources.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilac%C2%B4s_poems but only reads as the underlined word "here"?

Also, how I do link to Olavo Bilac on the above page? Doidimais Brasil 18:48, 7 Dec 2003

Angela, thank you so much for all your help. I love you! Doidimais Brasil 19:15, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)

Political History of Quebec

At first, I wanted to write of all election results, list all laws passed by all Parliaments (London, Quebec, Ottawa) and explain in which historical and social context these were passed. This is quite and undertaking, so I started by making a structure. I didn't see other Political History of $State$, so now I think maybe it is not the way to do it. There is now a Timeline of Quebec history, so I believe it is no longer necessary to have Political History of Quebec. You can remove it. Thanks. -- Mathieugp 17:43, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Age of Heroic Medicine

Thanks for the tips. My concern with Age of Heroic Medicine is that it was being used as a location for one variant of heroic medicine. Would I have been better to leave both pages unprotected? Note that I did not protect heroic medicine.

Ok that makes sense, thanks. I was in the wrong, and I think I'm beginning to get very annoyed with Mr. NH emotionally. I'll leave him and his articles alone for a day or so, and see what happens. -- Pakaran 18:55, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The Beast

There's already an article at The Beast (comic books). RickK 22:53, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The Beast (comic books) wasn't the one I undeleted by the way. I know. This user is creating multiple copies of the same article all over the place. The one you undeleted should be redeleted. RickK 23:05, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Edit conflicts edit war

Angela, I jumped before I looked when it came to Wikipedia talk:Edit conflicts. I looked again & reverted my action. (One reason I rarely use my sysop powers.) -- llywrch 00:39, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your detailed answers to my questions. - Sterlingda 07:55, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Stubs

Angela; thanks for welcoming me to Wikipedia.

Excuse my newbie naivety, but after looking around I’ve got a 'Thoughts about stubs' you may like to add to your page:

• Stubs in Wikipedia are like leaves on trees. Stuck at the extremities they only hinder the logger; but without them, the growth of logs would be laboriously slow!

Just a thought.

Tell 12:14, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Serbian Language

What is the problem with Description of Serbian Language?

- Millosh

Mediation committee

see my responce on User talk:Mediator. Noldoaran (Talk) 19:02, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)

Deletion of Soviet

At [4] is the Google cache of a short article that i am a major author of. The new Soviet is a redirect to Soviet Union with no history except a creation line with no summary. Hence, i infer it was created by hand de novo; this implies Soviet was deleted, or moved with the automatic redirect then being deleted. Could you check my reasoning at the least?

I may have missed a VfD on it, but even if so, should not the article be undeleted, and at worst replaced by a redirect that would still carry the history? (It has disappeared from the user contribs of User:203.5.110.252 and (i think) of myself.)

It was not a great article, and may duplicate others as to content, but IMO Soviet deserves the disamb that it provided w/o using the term disamb.

And (i assume obviously) it's a little hard for me to ignore it as a rudely delivered personal defeat. [blush]

I assume the labor of fixing the many links written Soviet instead of Soviet are not an issue here in any sense; isn't that an easy Rambot task? --Jerzy 20:01, 2003 Dec 8 (UTC)

Ah! Well, i'm less mystified. Tnx. I guess we'd agree that every disamb needs to be somewhat dictionaric, but i'm surprised anyone would ignore the non-dictionaric portions. Maybe it needs disamb b-plate? I'm not sure. [shrug] --Jerzy 20:33, 2003 Dec 8 (UTC)

Boilerplate error

In your new user boilerplate text, you have a semicolon(;) where you should have a colon(:). I would fix it but I don't like editing other users' (sub)pages without permission. Noldoaran (Talk) 21:04, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC) Oh, I forgot to mention, I've noticed alot of other users using that text.. Noldoaran (Talk) 21:06, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)

No problem. Noldoaran (Talk) 21:17, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)

What do they say: "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery"? ;-) --snoyes 21:28, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

heh, snoyes. Noldoaran (Talk) 22:35, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)

Brunswick naming dispute

Several days ago you joined the discussion of whether Brunswick or Braunschweig should be the home of the article on the German city. After a brief discussion, you rightly moved the question from the Votes for deletion page to Talk:Brunswick. Quite a bit of fact-finding has occurred since then, but the decision appears to have reached an impasse. Could I ask you to take a few minutes to review the facts presented on Talk:Brunswick and share your current thoughts? Thanks. Rossami 22:32, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

= Two user pages

Thanks for helping out with my double-user problem. That was fast help! I was reading up on requesting deletes, and tried to make my way back to the page... The redirect is a nice solution. I also requested that the "bad" Joek be deleted. If for some reason deleting a user is messy or not worth the effort, I think the redirect should keep others from getting confused. -- User:JoeK

Angela, please go ahead and delete User:Joek. You make a good point about having aliases to avoid confusion. It makes me wonder whether it's a good idea to even have case-sensitive names, given the opportunities for spoofing, mischief, and collisions (e.g. I really had no idea whether there was already a 'joek' user when I created my own id). Anyhow, as long as I'm a newbie user I don't see any point in cluttering up the user name space. Thanks again for all your help! -- JoeK 03:39, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

My singular doubt

It is some days ago i wrote some lines asking wikipedia for a doubt and, as i can see, you have not noticed. It is writen in the page of "PROTON", where is written "Discuss this page". Please read it and, if it is possible, give an answer to me, i will be really pleased. I logged in a few minutes ago. I'm Hiperion.

I'm away for a couple of days. I'll have a look on Thursday. Angela. 20:05, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

History of Quebec

We have a problem. User:Angelique has copied and pasted the History of Quebec article into Timeline of Quebec History which she created. In doing this, she did not use the move function. She was not aware of its existence (me neither) but now we agree on moving what is now in Timeline of Quebec History to Timeline of Quebec history. My question is, should we properly move History of Quebec to Timeline of Quebec history, ignoring Timeline of Quebec History which includes some new stuff (very little)? I think that's how we should do it, as we can reintegrate the newer edits manually and then delete Timeline of Quebec History after which doesn't follow the naming convention. -- Mathieugp 04:18, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thanks Angela, I wasn't sure how to move the edit history to Timeline of Quebec history, so I just ignored it :) Adam Bishop 00:03, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

No problem :) --Angela.

Thank you. -- Mathieugp 05:17, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Q. how hard is it to set up Wikipedia software for similar project?

Hi Angela,

Do you have an idea as to how hard or easy it is to use the Wikipedia open source software to create a related project? Can you refer me to others who have done as much so I can consult with them?

Which of Wikipedia's devolopers might be inclined to help us along on this project?

It looks like Wikipedia general body is going to reject my proposed Free Energy Project at Wikipedia.

After reviewing the various reasons given, I can see why it would probably be best to form a separate location to host this project.

1. We need to far more specific content (more comprehensive than Wikipedia seems to allow)
2. We need to be able to post some speculation (identifying it as such) for the sake of spurring productive brainstorming and inventing
3. We can't afford to have people not familiar with the field sabotaging our hard work by indiscriminate deleting and harrassing such as I've experienced at Wikipedia.

I would also like to have an editorial review process built in prior to changes going live, though people could have access to the proposed changes if they are curious. It would remove some of the anarchy that is found at Wikipedia.

The thought that some nincompoop could indiscriminately wipe out something I've written with great effort of time and concentration is a bit much for me. I don't have the time to watch over my work like a hawk to ensure it is not warped and twisted beyond recognition. I'm sure others will feel the same way.

I see a hybrid of the open editing at Wikipedia, along with the editorial review of open-site.org as being the best combination.

Your assistance in directing me to the proper resources and people would be most appreciated.

Thanks,

Sterlingda 05:36, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC) PureEnergySystems.com/encyclopedia

Industrial Waste

May I unprotect The Holocaust Industry? --Uncle Ed 19:30, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Creationism

At the time that I added creationism to Wikipedia:Current disputes over articles, I was attempting to force a cease fire in an edit war. The crisis has passed, but the dispute continues to smoulder. In any event, feel free to remove creationism from the list if you are so inclined; if the dispute flares up again, I can always re-list it. -- NetEsq 21:01, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

E-text project

What is the relationship between our Wiki text project and Michael Hart's Project Gutenberg? Are we cooperating, ignoring each other, or what? --Uncle Ed 21:54, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Logos, subpages and press releases

hi

No I did not see the question. I looked at the log, but you all talked so much that it already was wiped from the memory (usually, the night holds in the log :-)). The logo was made by Guillaume. Yeah, it is quite colorful to say the least :-). I wonder how long it will last :-). As for your question, well, I think that if he did it, it was precisely for it to be kept, protected from deletion, as sort of a proof. I think it was for fairness. I think he perhaps also did it with the feeling that the page would be protected in his subpage, because I don't think it is usual that a user sub page is deleted with the user asking or at least agreement. I believe the page should be blanked definitly, but not deleted unless he agrees with. When I go away, I will expect my subpages not to be deleted, because what I put in them is important to me. It is especially as he is, afaik, not a sysop, so can't retrieve deleted pages. If it is deleted, and he comes back and put it in votes for undeletion, it will perhaps also again make undesirable noise. Just my opinion. Anthère

Hi again Angel

I tried to explain again why it is troubling me that we delete user sub pages. I understand very well that you may consider bad, that people move questionnable pages to their user page, but why did not you say it then, rather than now that Louis won't speak up ? Either it is acceptable or it is not. But I do not think it should be yes for some people and no for others. It should be globally decided, not judge on a case by case basis. Why do you say it is not "really" part of his space ? Technically it is. It is also hidden and no one can see it. It can even be blanked.

On the other hand, if it becomes common practice to delete other people subpages, in particular when they can't speak for them, then there is no more user space, and we could quietly occupy other people space. Do you want that ?

Ultimately, that is fine by me, but it is policy on user page you are changing here.

I put you in my press release dear Angel ! Did you read it ? Do you like it ? :-) Anthère

---

very pretty Christmas flowers Angel :-) Anthère

---

you are most welcome :-) I am glad I made you laugh !

You may not even believe how much I needed a laugh myself :-) I dearly hope it made laugh other people as well. Since I can't take care of serious things it seems, I can be a pompom girl :-)))

PomPom

Outing

I fail to understand your preoccupation with the article that is currently a subpage of my user page. You and several others have on an ongoing basis disregarded process and insisted upon removing this content, first from the encyclopedia, and now from user: space where we are supposed to be able to keep material relevant to the project. And while I will concede that the subject is only marginally encyclopedic (though it is more encyclopedic than many other articles that we have chosen to keep in the main namespace), it is certainly relevant to the *project*.

There are plenty of more controversial and less relevant topics that are present on user subpages. In the entire history of the project, I know of none that have been deleted other than those removed at the behest of their creator.

I am disappointed that there has been no substantive discussion of Mav's outing of the user in question, the veracity of his statements, and the fairness of his making them. That there has instead been nothing but discussions of procedural matters regarding deletion and undeletion of my article is deeply troubling to me. These events, and the actions of you and those who throng to your side, have reduced my sense of pride in the project more than you can know.

I would like an explaination from you as to why you think Mav's actions were appropriate, and what exactly it is about my article that makes you want to censor it.

Louis Kyu Won Ryu 23:36, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

If I have issues with the page, then surely I will have those same issues wherever it is placed ? whether in the main namespace or in your user space. It makes no difference. I still think it is wrong for it to be here.

I don't doubt it is more relevant, more encyclopedic, or less controversial than a lot of pages here but that is not the point. The point is that I do think it was unfair for mav to have outed Craig and it was more wrong for you to try to insert this information into Wikipedia.

If you want a discussion of the outing, why didn't you try to bring that up in a normal way rather than adding to the problem by creating this page? Are you actually against the outing? I see this page as being in absolute support of it. You seem to think that my desired deletion is in some way against you, rather than against the outing, which you assume everyone supports. This is not the case. If mav's comments could be removed, I would request that, but they can't ? they are on the mailing list. This article, however, could be removed, and I can't understand why you are averse to that if, as you claim, you believe the outing was wrong.

I think mav's actions were wrong, and I think this article is supporting those actions, which is why I would rather it were deleted. Can you offer any explanation of why you want it kept? Angela. 23:48, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Angela, it's over. Once someone is outed, they're outed. It's done. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. Mav outed him and that's that. He can't take it back or undo the damage. The mailing list posts get indexed on Google just like everything else, c.f. http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-November/008050.html. It's in google. It's in google's cache. There is nothing anyone can do to out him more than he already is outed, and so my actions did him no further harm.

Yes, but this page, in my mind, makes it worse. A

That said, if either Hubley or EofT had asked me to remove the material, I would have obliged. He/they haven't, and I think it would take a rather large stretch of the imagination to believe that he hasn't seen it.

I think it's quite likely he hasn?t seen it. A

Where was your condemnation of Mav when this broke in the first place? There was never any censure by anyone. You didn't say a thing! Nothing! You just obliquely supported deletion of the article (once it was created) without stating a single genuine reason, just bromides about process and procedure.

Nowhere. There was no point. It was too late. I couldn't do anything about that, whereas I can attempt to do something about this. A

Why did I create the article rather than some carefully worded mailing list post? First of all, the mailing list is not the community. It is supposed to be, mainly, a forum for involving Jimbo in discussions. This is not a matter for Jimbo, IMO, it is a matter for the community. I believe the mailing list is vastly overused (witness the recent posts to it about trivialities like whether to include "Halloween" on the 2002 year article) and try to move discussions away from it whenever possible. Participation in the mailing list is not representative of the community as a whole. Discussions there become circular and are poorly indexed once complete.

You could have made a discussion without adding to the outing and bringing to that outing to a new audience (ie- those who do not read the mailing lists). A

I think Mav's actions are wrong, and it absolutely boggles my mind that there has been zero discussion about the wrongness of those actions nor the policy we should have to guide us in the future. How could you have missed the point of the article? I specifically referred to Mav's outing in it and had a link to fair outing. It's hardly a subtle piece of prose. The rest was just biographical boilerplate. Louis Kyu Won Ryu 00:14, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I agree it was wrong. I just don't think keeping this page on view expresses that. I feel it supports it because it adds to that outing. Why can the page not be deleted and replaced with a discussion on the rights or wrongs of outings of users? Would that not be more useful now that you have got people's attention through VfD and VfU? Angela. 00:28, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Then for heaven's sake, Angela, fix it! It's a Wiki page, remember? Go on, edit it! It's OK, you have my permission, if that's what you need. Make a fair outing article. Remove the 142 reference from the Hubley article so it's just about him. If you disagree with what Mav did, tell him on his talk page. Start a policy discussion on the meta or the pump or the talk page. Anywhere. No one besides me has said anything thus far and I'm not here to talk to myself. I took the first step. The next step is up to others.Louis Kyu Won Ryu 00:36, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

oh, hello Louis ! Anthère

Hi, Ant. Louis Kyu Won Ryu 00:14, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I have a difficult time finding words in this discussion about "outting". I am against it and have much sympathy for your opinion. However, I see problems being an unbiased information source and ignoring facts. If George W. Bush is a cross-dresser and he is "outted" by a close confidant or distant photographer, it needs to be reported. No one has suggested hiding Roosevelt's disability, Kennedy's womanizing, or Hoover's inclinations despite the fact that all chose not to reveal them to the general public. The "outting" is wrong, but the "out" and the how is a fact to be reported. That said... I have a strong interest in privacy and can see what you are trying to support and strengthen. I will most times support you, I just don't on this. Texture 00:44, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yes, but this isn't about someone famous is it? It is about a Wikipedia user. What is wrong about wanting to protect others within the Wikipedia community? If someone "outed" me and created an article on who I was in real life, I would hope that in my absence people would vote to delete that. Perhaps people feel differently because the person concerned is supposedly banned, but I feel this makes it worse as he can not come here to defend himself as any edits he makes are reverted on sight by many people. Also, this does not need to reported, as you claim. If that were the case, wouldn't it be necessary to report the real name of every Wikipedia user? There is no benefit to doing this, only harm. Angela. 00:53, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I am split over this topic. I am strongly for individual privacy and anonymity. I would not want to be "outted" for simply privacy reasons. However, I am split because I support both privacy and free press. I want privacy but not at the cost of a controlled media that cannot report known facts. I even have issues with not reporting adult rape victims whose claims may be false and intending harm, although I support that one since the alternative is unacceptable. I see nothing wrong with wanting to protect others in the community and I commend you for it. This is not an issue of revealing the real name of each user. I don't agree that this specific user is not "famous". This person is a celebrity in their postings, contributions, and banning. The very definition is in significant public actions done, revealed, and consequences paid. Celebrity is as celebrity does. Had this person not created public interest and conflict of note, the page would not exist. Even the anonymity is in question. The article indicated that the person admitted to authorship of that user's postings. I would provide more but I cannot access the subpage at this time.

If I provide conflict or notable contribution and am both "outted" and banned then do the following: 1)take action against the one who "outted" me for the misdeed 2)build me a page and provide a neutral accounting of all facts to the same level as any celebrity listed in this encyclopedia. If you take both actions I will feel protected and justifiably served. Texture 01:36, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Angela

If the matter of Mav's outing of Hubley is adequately addressed, and the appropriate policy discussions occur, then once everything is all settled, and the ongoing discussion placed in some accessible location, then I'll request the deletion of the subpage myself.

My current thinking is that if the subpage is deleted against my wishes, I will rehost it off the wiki and place a link to it from my user page. I have a web server that is crawled pretty regularly by google where I can put it where it will remain regardless of what anyone here decides. That is my current thinking, and I'll freely admit that I have arrived at that point out of anger. I may change my mind. Unfortunately, your listing on VfD has polarized my thinking and I am at present just as upset about what I see as censorship of my ideas as I am about Mav's initial actions that started this whole thing.

Louis Kyu Won Ryu 16:12, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hello, the decision you took over the sub page is a good one imho :-). I am not sure if that will make much of a difference, but small steps by small steps is good :-) Anthère

Moved to/ continued at User talk:Louis Kyu Won Ryu/Craig Hubley#From User talk:Angela

EagleAndChild

Angela, could you please remove one of the EagleAndChild.jpg images I uploaded a little while ago. Uploaded two by mistake. Keep the last one loaded pls. TIA. Moriori 00:06, Dec 11, 2003 (UTC)

Subpage

I note that your user page links to your subpage on wikistress. Should you be linking to the meta page instead? Do you mind other folks editing the subpage? I think I'd have a few things to say after dealing with Michael's (clears throat) contributions from 5 different IPs tonight. -- Pakaran 03:47, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Warnings etc

It's one of those judgement calls we all make in different ways. As long as you're not emotionally involved, it's not an issue of right or wrong IMHO. -- Pakaran 06:03, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Social control

Angela, You added the following sentence to social control: "These are usually enforced more regularly than informal social control and those that do not abide by these guidelines are usually punished directly". This does not strike me intuitively as a true statement and I wonder what authority you might find for it. It is a commonplace that formal rules are often ignored while informal rules are defined by their inforcement, i.e. an uninforced formal rule simply doesn't exist. I also question the redirects you made from formal and informal social control, both of which could easily support well written articles. Fred Bauder 11:29, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)