User talk:OldakQuill

Hi Oldak, do you know anything about copyrights on this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Leiopelma_hochstetteri.jpg) pic you uploaded? I'm trying to collect GNU amrep pics for the Dutch Wiki articles, thanks. B kimmel 15:03, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It was a PD pic. I can try and find the source - but would need time. --Oldak Quill 15:26, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

country infoboxes

Hi, there's a new Solution E that's been proposed for the country infoboxes; I've changed my vote from the Solution D that I proposed, earlier. The new option, proposed by User:Zocky, transcludes a subpage instead of using the template mechanism for this.

See: Nepal's infobox is implemented at Nepal/infobox using Template:Infobox_Country; Tuvalu's is implemented at Tuvalu/infobox as a wiki table.

Discussion is at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries

Thanks. — Davenbelle 02:09, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Frog pix

I was looking over some images tagged as "unverified" since April. I found Image:Leiopelma hochstetteri.jpg and Image:Alytes obstetricans.jpg which you'd uploaded. If you can retag &/or give source info, it would be appreciated. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 00:56, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Though I got permission from http://www.frogsonice.com/ for use of the images - I cannot find said written permission, and note that non-commercial use is granted. I have therefore simply removed the offending images for legal security. --Oldak Quill 10:23, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles requested for more than two years

First off I would like to commend the work you have been doing fulfilling aged requests. As to your question, some of the red links are not listed as they have since been removed from the main request page, presumably because they were not valid topics for articles. I also choose not to list all of the math requests. There was a huge dump of these math topics added to the requests page in August 2003 and if the current system of listing the dozen or so oldest requests was followed without exception it would mean many months of only math related articles. - SimonP 03:28, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Commons Uploads

Thanks for your message about uploading Bristol pictures to Commons. I can't decide if I want to do the uploads myself without seeing how the end result looks. So would you do me a favour. Please upload just one pic, let me know when you've done it and then I'll go and have a look and let you know what I want to do. Thanks - Adrian Pingstone 12:39, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

PS I know you can't upload a hi res version but just uploading the 750px version will be fine for this trial - Adrian Pingstone 12:46, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Moldovan

Yo Quailman, what up???

Anyhow, I think perhaps a better solution is this: conversion from the Romanian Wikipedia into the Moldovan official style, which uses î instead of â and uses many more Russian loanwords and native words instead of French/Italian loanwords. A Moldovan Wikipedia, to be practical, would need to be in both Latin and Cyrillic, perhaps with a tab device to change the preference (similar to on the Chinese Wikipedia). Another option is to simply use mo.wikipedia as a portal for viewing the Romanian-Moldovan Wikipedia (at ro:) in Cyrillic, which is what I advocate primarily but anti-slavic, anti-Moldovan Romanian nationalists such as Danutz believe that they should get both ro: and mo: and that Cyrillic should be relegated to mo-cy:. I'm really not sure what to say there except "Uhh..." 10% of the population of Moldova /prefers/ Cyrillic, most of the rest don't have an express preference, and those educated since 1990, with the exception of some ethnic Russians and Ukrainians, prefer Latin. Thus it would be no problem to have a Moldovan Wikipedia entirely in Cyrillic with a prominently-placed link directing those wishing to view content in the Latin alphabet to the "Romanian Wikipedia" (currently, as it allows content written in both the Romanian and Moldovan varieties of the language, it should be the "Romanian / Moldovan Wikipedia").

But yes, the issue should probably be raised. The conversion software already exists in MediaWiki (the Chinese conversion software is actually, I think, just generic conversion software with individual conversions inputted on the separate subdomains that use it although at the moment only one uses it), so it would be very easy to implement and could be implemented for other Wikipedias with a script problem (Serbian, perhaps others... I don't know) and save everybody a lot of time and hassle (heck, it could even be implemented to convert terms and vocabulary in en.wikipedia between international and us english). --Node 01:03, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, wow. Look at the talkpage of the mainpage, Danutz just let fly his inhibitions and revealed his TRUE opinions on Cyrillic. --Node 06:44, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Displayed formulae

What do you use to create these? I am looking for some good software on which to make good displayed/strucural formulae. --Oldak Quill 19:54, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've been using ChemDraw and Photoshop, but that's overkill. The trick is to increase the size to 300% or so, to export as an image, and to sample the image size down again, at least as long as the molecule editor does not give acceptable results alone. See also molecule editors and Mykhal's page for his technique. Cacycle 21:18, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Pronunciation files for Hrafnkels saga

Is ogg-format the only accepted sound format? I've been trying to upload a wav-file and don't seem to get anywhere. I ended up using on external link on Hrafnkels_saga. It is hereby released under the GFDL. You're welcome to upload it properly. -- Haukurth 18:47, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

John 20:16

Thank you for your rigourous defence of my article. Almost everything is based on the two sources in the article with a couple factoids from elsewhere. None of these sources are secular if detailed secular Bible commentaries exist I could not find one online. - SimonP 15:58, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Kalevi Aho

Hi OldakQuill,

Thanks for the note! I've never heard any of the music by this composer but now I'm intensely curious, to put it mildly. I'll try to look up some info when I get home from work. Best wishes, Antandrus 14:56, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Response to rollback of Gerald Ford

I was preparing to move the Cabinet box as it was causing formatting problems with the text PMA 22:59, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Then I sincerely apologise - there was no edit summary, I assumed it was a simple removal and did not see and discussion on the talk page supporting this. Keep up the good work. --Oldak Quill 23:01, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Could you go through and fix it - someone's mis use of the improper < br > tag has also caused large gaps in the text. PMA 23:05, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Weimar Timeline

Your recent change [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Weimar_Timeline&diff=next&oldid=10079946) has reintroduced vandalism.--Audiovideo 00:22, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Canada First Nations

Tansi! Where did you source your list of Manitoba First Nations communities for the page List_of_aboriginal_communities_in_Canada? I've compiled a list of Manitoba Band Operated Schools and was wondering how we can deal with any discrepancies in spellings and "Official" band names? For example, Nelson House, Manitoba re-directs to Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation. Any particular way you would like to deal with this? I sourced my names and spellings from the Manitoba First Nations Education Resource Centre, and by the Federal Reservation number 170 behind your listing of Nelson House, I'm assuming you sourced yours from Stats Canada or Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC). Let me know how you'd like to proceed. Weaponofmassinstruction 06:03, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I sourced mine from here (http://www.aboriginalcanada.gc.ca/) - a site called Aboriginal Canada. THe site not only provides lists of aboriginal communities in each of the provinces but gives a brief page on every single community - including type, co-ordinates, ammenities, etc. In terms of what is "correct", I am not sure. I'd go for the names dedicated by Canadian aboriginals themselves. You decide. --Oldak Quill 08:57, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Locally chosen it is. As far as Manitoba goes, a fairly complete list can be found at MFNERC (http://www.mfnerc.org). There may also be links to other Provincial First Nations Agencies. Weaponofmassinstruction 18:47, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Page move

Hi,
I commend your move of Ion from its original location at Ion (physics). However, in the process, you created nearly a dozen Wikipedia:double redirects. I'm going to try to fix them all tonight, but due to some circumstances within my control and some beyond it, I may not finish. --Smack (talk) 04:51, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Icel

Hi, there. There was a similar discussion about these claims at Talk:Angeltheow. The source for the claims on both Icel and Angeltheow is an independent source, and, as User:JoaoRicardo pointed out, may not be accurate. I will revise the article on Icel to match this possibility. Please contact me if you would like any more clarification. --Ryan! | Talk 18:52, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Request

Oldak - you uploaded the contents of one of the sites I put on the Common VP. Can you list the files you uploaded on Wikipedia:Sound/list? →Raul654 12:22, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Sure --Oldak Quill 12:32, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bath

Thanks for the message, I will write something, but I'm a little short of time at the moment (day job intruding on my editing and demanding attention) what time I have is spent nursing Buckingham Palace through FA. Will have a look later today or tomorrow if I can. Regards Giano 13:39, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wills Memorial Building

I am simply curious as to why there are two versions of the image:

It dates back to before the auto-resizing feature - originally the small (250px) version was on the University of Bristol article [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_Bristol&oldid=986695) along with a link to the large (600px) version; the small version should have been deleted but never was. I'll dig around for the original and upload it. Should I just upload it over the Commons version? I know nothing about the Commons; I suppose I'll have to learn now... --rbrwr ^± 20:09, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Stats

Oldakquill, see post at wikitech (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2005-February/027688.html) for full answer. Erik Zachte 04:03, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Cantos

Thank you for your vote on WP:FAC, praise is always welcome. Filiocht 08:55, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Sitenotice

Good idea adding a link to Wikipedia:Articles requested for more than a year to the sitenotice. It is pretty impressive what being linked to on every single page in Wikipedia can accomplish. - SimonP 01:01, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Heh, yes - it is just what we need hey ;). And mav, de facto co-ordinator of site notice, has agreed to keep it until the notice is taken down (Thursday midnight UTC). Hopefully, we will pretty much clear it out. --Oldak Quill 01:04, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Secularisation of dates

Just wondered what your motivation for doing this is? [3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Weight_training&diff=0&oldid=10897850) Not religious myself (far from) but I still refer to dates using BC, so do most people I think. Never herd BCE being used before. Google search for "1000 BC" = 'about 174,000' Google search for "1000 BCE" about 20,100. BC seems to win. (True they might not all be dates). What is Wikipedia policy? --JK the unwise 20:33, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please don't convert BC/AD to BCE/CE. First, in the interests of greater understanding (everyone understands BC/AD, far fewer understand BCE/CE). Second, it causes great offence. You may be interested in our article on Common Era, which notes that BCE/CE is only really used in museums and academic circles, is not generally understood, and which has caused surprise and some outrage both in the UK and Australia (to the extent that the New South Wales education secretary had to concede that an exam paper should not have preferred BCE notation). You will also note that Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) clearly authorises the use of BC/AD notation. Thanks, jguk 21:10, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have been doing it for a year here and there - it is extremely appropriate. To the first point - Google is not always the best judge of what is appropriate - what is widespread is not the same as what is correct. There may be more results for "American Indians" than for "Native Americans" - but this does not mean the former is appropriate to use on Wikipedia. Secondly, I do not think the idea that BCE/CE is not understood is patronising nonesense - I just asked a couple of friends and they all know what is meant by BCE/CE. In a worst case scenario the individual will have to either deduce from "3000 BCE" what it means or, worse yet, click a link! Third point, offence - please tell me who find this use offensive? I live in the UK and it certainly does not cause offense or "outrage" here - not at all. I consider it offensive that 2005 be marked the "year of our lord" (Anno Domini) by Wikipedia, an NPOV organisation. It certainly defies my secular sensibilities in regards to encyclopaedia writing: we should not show pro-Christian bias. I think this brings me back to the point of "understanding" - when something becomes POV but it is better understood, it is not more appropriate. To use another race comparison: Eskimo is better understoon, Inuit is vastly preferred. Just as many Inuits do not "eat blood", many encyclopaedic topics are nothing to do with Jesus Christ. This is not to say that BC/AD is sometimes permissable: it should be allowed to pass in Christian articles which directly relate to the subject - but no where else. Weight training is not religious. I will continue to persue NPOV and non-religiousness in Wikipedia content: religious interference will not be tolerated. You will also notice that the Manual of Style clearly authorises the use of BCE/CE notation - thus, do not repeatedly revert my work. --Oldak Quill 23:24, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... Still not sure. Things can loose their religious conotations and BC is widely used and understood. Most people don't even know that AD means 'year of our lord'. But you seem to have some good points. Would it not be better, however, to find somewere to debate this, so we can have an agreed Wikipedia policy insteed of your one person crusade?--JK the unwise 11:25, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Losing the religious connotation is the point - BCE/CE are both easily understood. People may not know that "Eskimo" means "blood eater" - does not make this acceptable. I think no policy is preferable - we can get on together and an equilibrium will develop, one side will eventually prevail. We just need to obey common courtesy and not chase each other around reverting each other. --Oldak Quill 18:18, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

CE is also quite POV. Why is our calendar the common one? Calling ones own calendar common is ego-centric. There are other cultures with other calendars. I would say that CE is more offencive than AD. I agree on that this should be debated first. Jeltz talk 14:32, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

CE does not stand for "Common calendar", but for "Common Era" - so not "ego-centric". The era may be deemed "common" because it is the age in which the world's cultures have been united and have become commonly understood. --Oldak Quill 18:18, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Common era isn't used in all calendars. The choice of the stqart of the era is of Christian origin nothing remarakable happened around that time other that Christianity was born. Common era is the era of chrisitanity so why not admit what it actually is? I see your points but I think that it gets more POV if you call the era of Christiany "common". Jeltz talk 18:51, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is about Christianity now? Christianity was not organised until the fourth century (going by the establishment of the papacy and the canonisation of the New Testament). If you are speaking in purer terms: Christ himself - he was certainly not born at the beginning of CE - about a decade before. Thus, if we are to do as you say we should totally usurp the calendar. The Common era is not simply the era of Christianity (established 400 years later, not popular for a further several centuries) but the coming together of mankind: the development of science, technology. It is POV for Wikipedia to continue suggesting Common era dates are "year[s] of our lord", they are not. --Oldak Quill 19:01, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think that I was getting a little offtopic. I disagree with you about your view of the history, not the Christian one but this part: "the coming together of mankind: the development of science, technology". But this isn't what the discussion was about. My oppinion about the actual subject is that CE is no more or less POV than AD. It's quite pointless to go aorund and change them. And also AD might be common in the UK but wikipedia is international and I'm quite sure of that the most widly used and understood system is BC/AD. Not that it's hard to understand BCE/CE, but why bother. It's a too small thing to get offended by so I think that we should use the most common one. In Sweden which is one of the more secular countries we still use "Before Christ" and "After Christ" and I don't think I ever have heard someone suggesting that this should be changed. Jeltz talk 12:51, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

AD is POV in that it asserts that all CE dates are "of the Lord" - this is unacceptable for a supposedly NPOV, no bias encyclopedia. This discussion is not about "[going] around and chang[ing] them", it is simply about my right to change individual articles without being persued and reverted. I would not object to monitored bots continuing and extending this - I imagine that one day all non-Christian articles will be appropriately adorned with BCE/CE. People internationally understand BCE/CE, and if they do not it is fairly obvious what they allude to when seen in situ. For example, if our character (he who does not know of BCE/CE) sees the following sentence I am fairly sure he would understand what is being said: "The Romans finally conquered England in 43 CE" or "Homer wrote his epic poems in roughly the 8th century BCE". I bother to change this as, as I have already stated, we cannot continue a pro-Christian bias. I would accept the Swedish "After Christ" but this is not what we currently have - we currently use "Anno Domini", year of our lord. The point is that "After Christ" could be taken to be secular, "Year of our Lord" cannot. --Oldak Quill 17:18, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I apologise for the length of this response, but I feel we are not going to dispense with this issue without covering much ground. Before replying to your specific points, let me step back a bit. Let me start with three points we can, I presume, all agree on. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. A good encyclopaedia is one which a reader who wishes to be better informed about a subject will consult to get better informed. We would like Wikipedia to be recognised as a good encyclopaedia.
Readers generally prefer writing that is in a style and form they are familiar with (and this is true even if the underlying concepts are shocking or thought-provoking). And a good writer appreciates this. Put another way, the basic principle of good writing is to always think of the reader. Let me give you an example that’s probably relevant to where you are in life now: when you prepare for exams, you will adopt an “exam style”. You will, will you not, seek out how an examiner wishes answers to be given? And then you will adopt that style - regardless of whether it is one that you prefer. For me, too many years out of school, I ask myself what style a reader wants. If I’m writing instructions to a QC, I adopt a formal style. If I’m writing to a client who wants technical reasoning, I provide technical reasoning. If I’m writing to a client who just wants a straightforward answer, that is what I do.
“Think of the reader” means more than this though. Readers are fickle, and if you want to keep them interested, you have to write in a way they like - which normally means a style with which they are familiar. Compare the book you pick up and never want to put down because it’s a great read to the book that you put down after half a dozen pages never to pick up again.
Similarly, a good writer will avoid challenging his reader with unnecessary jargon.
In short, good writers defer to their readers preferred language and style if they want to be read.
So turning to the matter in hand. We have one usage that everybody understands and is familiar with, and which is overwhelmingly the more popular usage. And we have another usage that many do not understand, that fewer actually use, and that, whether rationally or not, irks a great deal many too. Is it not the former usage that should be preferred?
Finally, let me briefly deal with each of the points you raise.
You say google is not the best judge of what is appropriate. “Appropriate” in the context of an international encyclopaedia that reports, rather than tries to change, and is proud of its NPOV policy, means that it is widely understood and preferred internationally. Before searching for BCE/CE/AD or BC, it’s worth thinking, what bias is there is the result. I’d suggest (for almost all google searches) there is an American bias. I’d also suggest, for the terms under consideration, there is a bias towards academic writings. And that both these biases will exaggerate how widely the “BCE/CE” is used and preferred. Yet google shows a clear 9:1 preference in favour of BC/AD over BCE/CE. The conclusion is that, if we are to think of the reader, we should prefer BC/AD.
You say BCE/CE is widely understood. Since we’re both in the UK, let’s take that as an example. To be widely understood, people have to have come across a term. So, maybe they could come across it at school - only the National Curriculum did not even teach what BCE/CE meant till 2002, so that discounts anyone who has not had school history lessons before 2002. Maybe they saw it at the British Museum, or the Ashmolean, or they prefer the Natural History Museum? Only they all use BC/AD notation. Alternatively, maybe they prefer to get their history from the BBC? Only the BBC (except for a very small number of articles on Judaism) uses BC/AD. And, of course, even if people understand the notation, and there’s no reason to think that most Britons do, far fewer actually would use it themselves.
You say the worst case scenario is that a reader only has to click a link to find out what BCE means. I disagree. The worst case scenario is that a reader, not liking the style of an article, gives up and goes somewhere else. Of course, there will be many readers who do not care, and some who do get annoyed but will click - but, just as you give up early on a book you do not like, so a reader will leave Wikipedia if they do not like the style.
It is changing BC/AD terminology to BCE/CE that causes offence (see the links at the bottom of the article on Common Era for examples). The natural response to many on first seeing the change is the same as Kenneth Williams’ last words: “What’s the bloody point?”
Getting offended because AD stands for In the Year of Our Lord is as silly as getting offended because CE means Common Era.
Following accepted usage is a principal tenet of a NPOV policy. We use words, terms, etc. because others’ do - not because we like or prefer them, or because we wish to make a political or religious point with them. Going against accepted usage (and in this case there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever what the accepted usage is) itself becomes POV. Now, of course, over time, practices change. Maybe in 30 years’ time, if Wikipedia is still going, almost everyone will agree with you and use BCE/CE instead of BC/AD - in which case Wikipedia’s approach should change. But for now, we use what most people use now - not what a select few Wikipedians would like us all to use.
Lastly, this is nothing to do with religion. It’s to do with a date marker. It’s to do with using the most common term. It’s to do with intelligibility, and it’s to do with thinking of the reader.
So, bearing this in mind, and considering the comments already made by other users, I would ask you not to continue converting BC/AD notation to a less understood, less used, less familiar notation.

Kind regards, and thank you for your time, jguk 20:11, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your second point deals with styles of writing, not the preference of one acronym over another for the NPOV ideal. The third point pursues style and not the point of discussion: though a reader may stop reading due to awkward style they will not because of an acronym they do not understand. However, I doubt there are VERY few who both don't know what BCE/CE are or can deduce from the context what they are. This covers the fourth point, BCE/CE are no more "unnecessary jargon" than BC/AD - they simply NPOV and secularise the text. The Romans did not conquer England in the 43rd year of our lord, they did so in the 43rd year of the Common era (essentially the 43rd year since the traditional birth of Jesus of Nazareth). I believe that most users would object to the NPOV encyclopedia declaring Common era years "of the Lord" - thus preferring BCE/CE. I do not accept your suggestion that BCE/CE irks more people than BC/AD irks others: we should assume the NPOV. I also do not accept that a user would give up on an article because of BCE/CE. I have already covered the points of "offence" (I think the converse causes greater offense) - but you may notice that sites linked at Common era such as "Religious Tolerance" prefer BCE/CE. You further claim that "[g]etting offended because AD stands for In the Year of Our Lord is as silly as getting offended because CE means Common Era" yet you have used this as an arguement? How does going against the accepted usage render it POV?

Sorry I appear repetative and clunky, I have been going through each of your points and responding. In conclusion, I believe users understand what CE/BCE mean, that none (comparatively) are offended by it. Further, I think the continued Christian bias is completely unacceptable and should be shrugged off in pursuit of the NPOV ideal. --Oldak Quill 17:36, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Still Hmmmm... Not quite sure were I stand on this Oldak has some good arguments. The best seems to be the Eskimo one. I.E That though Eskimo is better understoon, Inuit is vastly preferred as it is a more acurate. This is true even though Google gives 2,450,000 for Eskimo and only 1,660,000 for Inuit. So accuracy and nuetral presentation can go against common usage, we do not have to wait for common usage to become acturate and nuetral. Thus Common usage is not the be all and end all. Also, I dont agree with jguk's point that the change in useage will put people off or confuse them as they are quite similar. However I do agree with jguk that maby it doesn't matter that much (The natural response to many on first seeing the change is the same as Kenneth Williams’ last words: “What’s the bloody point?”--jguk). Common usage should be the natraul stating point. Moving from it should require strong argument. Conversly, Is the case really analogous with the Eskimo/Inuit one? Who would read AD say in an article say on body building and think oo that article is primoting a view of this time as the time of our lord? Any one apart from Oldak???

Where to go from here?

Anyway all this aside, I do not belive it is constructive to have one user (Oldak) running around doing one thing and others running around reverting it. Wikipedia is not a anarchy (if it were the strongist/most active would win). Rather it is a proper democracy were (almost) everything is up for discusion but it must be democratically agreed. And the looser should stick to that agrement. The point is, their needs to be Wikipedia pollicy one way or the other. We should debate it but stick to it. Other then this talk page were should this debate take place + Do you agree with that Oldak (if not why not?) --JK the unwise 10:51, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Every user has his or her idiocincracies: some prefer British spelling, other prefer American. There is no reason why the two cannot coexist. Also, I am not the only user promoting BCE/CE - there are many others (just take a look at the number of articles featuring this spelling). No: Wikipedia is not truly anarchic in that it has a form of power structure (administrators drawn from the general usership for goodwork, surefootedness etc. and the GodKing) however, in terms of content Wikipedia is fairly free in its accepted styles. I do not believe we should allow a mob rule where the simple majority opinion is the be all and end all: I reiterate that the two systems can exist in equilibrium. Further, I believe the more minimal the policy the better: we should remain as free as possible in every sense of the word. This freedom should only be restricted when the alternatives are harmful and counterproductive. --Oldak Quill 14:16, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Where we go from here should be to recognise that users should not take it upon themselves to change articles that adopt one style consistently into another style. OldakQuill needs to reconcile himself to the fact that there are comparatively very few articles that adopt the BCE/CE style, and most of these are connected with Buddhism (where WP practice is to use BCE/CE almost exclusively) or Judaism (where some articles use BCE/CE and others use BC/AD). And also that neither he nor any other user should use WP to "promote" the BCE/CE notation, jguk 19:00, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am not simply taking it upon myself, I am part of a wider change. There is no policy which limits the "promotion of BCE/CE" - similarly there should be no promotion of BC/AD. They are able to coexist between the secular and non-Christian and the Christian articles. --Oldak Quill 23:25, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary - per the MoS you should not change the style adopted by an article (this works both ways here, of course). Also, you are welcome to your political views, but on WP, you should not impose them on others. (Not to say, quite frankly, you'll only get beaten down, as in this case, and just end up wasting everybody's time in pointless revert wars - and very long pointless discussions like this one:) . ) jguk 23:35, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

All articles are fluid: they should be changed as appropriate to the content. The use of AD is fundamentally political and religious: it asserts that CE years are "of the lord". I have been doing BCE/CE conversions with many passively for months and have not been reverted until you. --Oldak Quill 23:37, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You did somewhat highlight it by doing a number of high profile moves. Anyway, you have moved your argument on to what you think "should be" the case (ie that people should prefer BCE/CE) rather than what "is" the case (which is that the overwhelming majority of people actually prefer BC/AD). Now you have been found out, you should stop. Personally, I see BC/AD as nothing more than notation - after all, it's hard to find too many cases where "BC" can be used in a Christian context anyway! I read it as a convention. Nothing more. And that, to my mind, is the way to read it. Also on a personal level, I find it to be an outrageous arrogance to presume that non-Christians would wish to consider the Christian era to be the "Common era". Common to whom? Well, only Christians, quite frankly. After all, the term "Common era" was one coined by Christians in the first place.

So where are we? We're in a world where the overwhelming majority of people prefer to use BC/AD notation. And so, that is what WP should use. Now, language is changing constantly, and maybe, in 20 or 30 years time this will be different, in which case WP should change with the times. As they say, tempora mutant et nos mutantur in illis. Maybe in 20 years time, BC/AD will remain dominant. Maybe BCE/CE. Or maybe the English Wikipedia will adopt an approach similiar to the French Wikipeida, where BC dates are represented as negative numbers, thereby obviating the need for any notation at all. Or maybe it will be something completely different.

But where we are (whether you like it or not, and I can tell you do not) is in a world where BC/AD is the preferred notation. Articles starting off in BCE/CE notation get added to - generating inconsitency, which is bad. So, please stop your personal project to promote BCE/CE notation - WP is not a soapbox, and you will only get reverted (and God knows we've both wasted too much time on this discussion as much as He knows you won't like this phrasing in brackets! :) ) jguk 23:56, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have not claimed that anyone "should" prefer BCE/CE - I have only stated that it is less POV. I would also like you to back up your claim that "the overwhelming majority of people actually prefer BC/AD" or I shall simply put it aside. I see absolutely no reason to stop these conversions, and you have not yet provided any convincing arguements. You have so far claimed that it should be used because of convenion, despite POV; you have claimed people "like it" (I doubt many care either way). It is not simply convention, it is a continuing assertion by Christianity that the messiah has visited this world to redeem our souls - hence "year of our Lord". You may have CE stand for "Common era" or "Christian era" as you will - I do not care either way; they are both largely NPOV. I simply opt for it to mean "Common era" myself. The idea that Wikipedia should do something because of simply majority preference, especially something with so little impact, is quite new and outrageous. Wikipedia has never done things before because of simply majority preference, despite POV - see my above example of Inuits. Preferred notation to whom? To scholars, academics, and the East? No. To Joe Average Westerner, perhaps - this does not validate its continuing use, nor does it entirely refute it. The fact still remains on the issue of POV. I believe BCE/CE and BC/AD in coexistance is an acceptable inconsistancy for the time being: the latter is suited to Christian articles (it is largely unrealistic to expect otherwise). This is nothing to do with my own person political or religious views: I do it because I believe it is the only path to NPOV. I do it for Wikipedia. I do it to make Wikipedia a viable source of non-biased information. I suggest we cease this discussion and get on with more productive work for the project. I won't give up minor conversions but then, I also won't step up my pace. We are not talking more than several a week. I have enjoyed our discussion and hope that you, like I, keep doing good work for Wikipedia. --Oldak Quill 10:17, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I can see the merits of both sides of the debate. However, I think it is detrimental to have unnessisary inconsistancy between articles. If their is no consens this is what will happen. Rule by the 'mob' if it is willing to lisen and debate (and change remains a possiblity) is proper democracy and is how wikipedia appears (to me) to work. Would you rather have rule by the most active editors? In all honesty Oldak you want all articles (save a few exceptions) to use BCE/CE. jguk whants them all to use BC/AC. I want all articles (excluding particular exceptions) to be the same (as does wikipedia pollicy on format). Is it right that the result should be determined by who edits/reverts most? Would it not be better to deside democratically? I don't see how you can avoid this conclution unless you advocate inconsistancy? (prehaps when you say the two systems can exist in equilibrium you mean you are happy with inconsitany but I took you to just mean that there could be exceptions). Conclution: We need a set policy.--JK the unwise 12:59, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think it's better to leave as is - but with a note that it is not helpful for OldakQuill to go round imposing his views on articles that already are consistent. It's time for us all to get back to improving articles, and I think a wider discussion would not resolve anything - after all, this discussion between 3 users that's hidden on OldakQuill's talk page has been lengthy and timeconsuming - and probably won't change a thing. I see no point in having a similar, but even more lengthy discussion with 20 or 40 other WPians also chipping in, jguk 13:05, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fine if Oldak and yourself agree not to edit war over it.--JK the unwise 13:14, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If OldakQuill does not change articles that consistently use BC/AD notation to BCE/CE notation (which started this whole discussion off), then there will be no edit war from me, jguk 13:21, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OldakQuill you obviously didn't want this deleted from your talk page. Thus I apologise for doing it. Nevertheless I think it would be more constructive to have this debate is continued in a more public place. I.E. at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/proposed revision. --JK the unwise 10:21, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree. I did not restore the item so as to continue the discussion, I did so for my own personal records - there is absolutely no reason to apologise. --Oldak Quill 10:40, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

IfD Vote

Hi OldakQuill, I recall that you voted in favor of keeping the photograph inline at autofellatio. Well, its subsequent linkage has emboldened the anti-photo people to put it up for deletion on WP:IFD. I'd appreciate your views on the subject. Thanks, TIMBO (T A L K) 22:04, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't need another more explicit photo at all. Simply because my reading the article can be largely sufficient to have an opinion on the topic.
If you absolutely want to have a photo with this article, I suggest to put an external link targetting another image, with a message for minor people.

First, external links can lead to copyrighted staff.
Second, since there is no thumbnail for the moment, it would be the same kind of article.
Third, this image would no longer be a recurrent problem.
Fourth, redirections will not be possible

Waiting for your answer. You can answer on my French talk page, either in English or in French. Pabix ܀ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_Talk:Pabix). 21:42, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

First of all there is no photo in the article - there is one linked by the article. Do not mistake your own wants and needs for others' - if you find reading the article is well enough, that is perfectly alright - don't follow the link. Others may want to and may want to see said photograph. Why must it be external - this seems like a nonsense suggestion which would only serve to detract from Wikipedia itself. If I may refer you to the discussion page, the image is not copyrighted. Redirections won't occur when its infamy declines - removing anything from Wikipedia is detracting from the completeness of the project. Again, we must not bow to prudes and vandals - we and our content are stronger than this. --Oldak Quill 21:48, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've not written photo in the article but photo with the article.

Why must it be external? Would it really detract Wikipedia? Is it copyrighted or not?

I didn't see in the Discussion Page any proof that it is not copyrighted, but I reckon it's long and I didn't read it carefully. Can you give me a quote?
Since Internet is a maravellous paradise for all who are searching for pornographic images, I think that a simple external link does no harm to Wikipedia and solves many problems. It's like having a bibliography. An online encyclopedia must absolutely have external links, and that enriches the encyclopedia.
I agree that vandalism can always be repaired. But it's better if it's avoided. You're a sysop, you must know that.
Maybe it's in the limelight and vandalism with this image will disappear, but that's no argument for keeping it.

Late in France, I'm going to sleep, but you may answer me. As soon as I wake up tomorrow I will check your answer.

Have a good evening,

Pabix ܀ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_Talk:Pabix). 22:12, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To answer your questions: I stated it should be internal. Wikimedia should attempt to become self-sufficient and frankly, there is no need for this particular image to be external if others aren't. The issue is conceding to prudes and vandals - allowing our content to be influenced by those with points of view. The internet is also a wonderful place to search for images of mountains - this does not mean we shouldn't have an approved, copyright-free, illustrative one. I agree, of course, that external links enhance Wikipedia - but we should not extend this to single images which are encyclopædic, useful and informative. We do not preemptively avoid vandalism but deal with it when it occurs and put in place coping mechanisms. The reason this image is being used to vandalise so much is because it is, in one way or another, appearing on Recent Changes so oft. Well, if the fact it is used for vandalism is used as an arguement for deletion, then the decline as its use for vandalism is an arguement for keeping it.

We should make these discussions public, open and transparent. They are relevent to many users who share our views, thus we shouldn't continue here in our niche. Please reply in future at WP:IFD. Keep up your good work for Wikipedia, and have a wonderful day in France. --Oldak Quill 12:24, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Naming conventions

Hello. I would appreciate it if you took a look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (country-specific topics). You seem to be an authority on the subject. Also, I feel that, if I am going to quote you, I might as well let you know about it. *grin* - Pioneer-12 12:32, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wicipedia

Someone seems to be using your username to vandalise the Welsh language wikipedia. I assume it's not really you. Deb 17:08, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, sadly it isn't me. I am rather disgruntled that someone has stolen my name but I suppose it shows I have "made it big" on Wikipedia ;). Good look with them, hopefully it won't present a problem with single login. --Oldak Quill 17:20, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Donatello's David

I'm pleased and lattered that you'd like to see more of my photos of Donatello's David. Just to reiterate, I don't have any pics of the original work - like the one I used in the article, they're all of the Victorian plaster cast at the Victoria and Albert Museum. It's a perfectly accurate reproduction apart from the fact that it's lost its sword and has a matte finish because the paint can't reproduce the original bronze patina. The reason I used the image I did was that I coldn't find any good public domain or GFDL images which showed the statue from the back or sides rater than the ubiquitous front view.

Anyway, I've had a rummage through my non-digital photos and found the best shots that I took of the replica and I'll be happy to upload them at high resolution once I've scanned them and removed all the millions of bits of dust.... Lee M 14:07, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I understand it is not the original but, as you said it is quite accurate. Please upload it in the highest quality you feasably can - I may use some cropped zoom-ins of David and Goliath's head if the picture permits. --Oldak Quill 16:19, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't currently have a close-up of Goliath's head - some of the angles were limited by the use of time-exposure without a tripod - but there's nothing to stop me revisiting the V&A soon and attempting a few more shots. In the meantime I've begun uploading the pictures I do have to the commons - see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Donatello . If you need higher resolution, or have any comments about the images, please let me know. Lee M 13:13, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Susej

Just to let you know, I've removed this article from WP:DYK. Personally, I don't find the fact to be particularly interesting as the rules require (see link). Nevertheless, if you still want to see it featured, please visit the queue at Template talk:Did you know and nominate it (under the April 1st header), so people who did so earlier can have their articles featured as well. The queue is to organize the updates and to make sure everyone gets their 6 hours of fame before their entries become too stale. Happy editing! Mgm|^(talk) 11:59, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

I apologise, a user requested I do it - part of this April Fool's stuff. Why isn't the turn-around shorter than 6 hours? --Oldak Quill 12:09, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

German "Kardinäle"

Hi - i spoke them immediately, and here they are ;)

greets. --APPER 16:42, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bath

I went ahead and promoted Bath to featured article status. Good work on the Business and Education sections. Thanks, Rad Racer | Talk 01:50, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Featured

Please don't use the rollback feature, a tool to fight vandalism, to revert someones change. I changed Template:Featured along with many other talk templates and you reverted without any explanation – I've undone your revert. Thanks, violet/riga (t) 06:02, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Aesthetic" differences is hardly an actionable critique, and not really a good approach at resolving the decision. I think the current one is ugly, so why can't we just leave the new approach? The template should be change considering it is now one of the only talk templates that does not use the new style. violet/riga (t) 14:38, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of course it is actionable, an ugly template does not reflect well on the project - it being large, right-aligned, purple and square. You may action this criticism by making it pretty. I agree, the colour of the old template was not the best, perhaps beige would be better. --Oldak Quill 15:26, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hey Oldak, she just keeps at it. Obviously it's going to take some energy to get her to desist until there's a design contest. Maybe you can go to her talk area for this and register your opinion so we can keep this thing off the live site until the contest can be formed. It's at User_talk:Violetriga/statusdevelopment. Alert: Template:Featured JDG 09:00, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template redesign comments

Hiya, thanks for your comments. I've replied on the talk page, in case you aren't keeping track of developments. :) Talrias (t | e | c) 00:00, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Venus

Why was the Venus (planet) page moved to Venus? Nobody seem to remember any discussion about this. Please, revert that change and discuss your reasons for this change on the talk page. Awolf002 13:45, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have little interest in discussing this further. Wikipedia does not require discussion for many things, if you object to the move raise your concerns on the talk page and see if you have any support in moving it back. Of course, the majority of users accessing venus will be seeking the planet - the goddess is directly disambiguated on that page (thus the godess is no further than before, a single click - the planet is less far than before). Any other uses may be found at Venus (disambiguation). --Oldak Quill 17:57, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Jacques-Louis David - Pope Pius VII.jpg

Hello, OldakQuill. You've recently uploaded (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Jacques-Louis_David_-_Pope_Pius_VII.jpg) Missing image
Jacques-Louis_David_-_Pope_Pius_VII.jpg

, which is the same image as Missing image
Jacques-louis-david--pius-vii-1805.jpg

. Which pic shall we keep ? How should one fix this duplication at Wikimedia Commons ? Thanks. -- PFHLai 08:49, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)

Ah, I do apologise. I would say my version has more authentic colouration and is of a larger size (50% larger). I say we keep this? Further, I think someone is developing a bot to fix this kind of duplication. --Oldak Quill 11:56, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Monty Hall problem

You deleted the spoiler warning from this article. Why? -- Smjg 11:54, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Spoiler warnings are puerile and silly when used in articles which involve plots. In articles about mathematical and logical problems they exceed stupidity, completely rediculous. --Oldak Quill 15:18, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In your opinion. But how many people share your opinion? As I see it, many people read articles about films, novels or whatever wanting to know some basic information about the work, and not to deprive themselves of the enjoyment/suspense of watching/reading it. That's the basic point of spoiler warnings. In the same way, there are people reading articles about puzzles to see the puzzle and/or some basic information about it, and not to deprive themselves of the challenge of solving it. -- Smjg 15:52, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tolkien and racism

You put the POV tag on this, but the talk page is empty. I have been trying to improve the article. Any input? Charles Matthews 13:08, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article has been much changed since I put on the tag, I believe it was someone to do with claiming his work was allegorical. It should now be removed. --Oldak Quill 13:19, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

CSB open tasks

To tell you the truth, I was just copying the request from the main open tasks listing, and didn't even think about that. That's one of those naming conventions, though that I've never understood and it could never be adequately explained to me. For example, during their COTW's, people tried to say that Music history and history of music exist as separate articles about serapate things, but semantically shouldn't they be the same? And for art history, I was told that it was the same as history of art and redirected there. But the field, I'm sure, is more often referred to by classes and experts as art history. Just as I think it is more common for people to say "women's history" than "history of women". So why can't the common name win out? And why is "Women's studies" not Studies of women? I just don't understand it. Oh yeah, you had a question... The change is fine if it's the convention of course. As to your question of its scope, since women's history is a common term, it should cover the common scope of the term, which may be largely social, but don't think there aren't economic, religious, constitutional, and even military aspects to the history. --Dmcdevit 18:35, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pronunciation request

Original request

Dmitri Mendeleev now has a pronunciation file. Enjoy. Peter Isotalo 13:20, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Naming conventions

What do you think of the proposed guideline, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (country-specific topics)? It was inspired by comments you made at Category talk:Political parties by country. Some have suggested that it is not even "new" policy, but simply the codification of what many already consider to be a de facto guideline.

Is this ready to be moved from the thinktank to "official"? - Pioneer-12 16:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am not a big fan of codified rules for this project, but while we have them this should certainly be one. The arguements are eloquently discussed on the talk page. --Oldak Quill 22:59, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jesus

Care to check out the brewing revert war on Jesus concerning BC/AD -- and the stubborn comments by Arcturus and Rangerdude on Talk:Jesus? I think your input would be valuable. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:42, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Culture of ancient Rome

Thanks for reminding me - I was also keeping a watch. I shall surely contribute. bye.--Bhadani 01:55, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Donatello's David Redux

I've now taken some more images of the V&A replica which I'll be uploading to the Commons as and when time permits. These include a couple of nice close-ups of David's and Goliath's faces. Also more than a few back views. What can I say? Arse longa vita brevis... Lee M 02:12, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I didn't realise it had been so long since I uploaded the last batch of photos. Hopefully I'll get the rest of them done by the end of June. It's not scanning that's the problem, it's cloning out all those millions of bits of dust that aren't visible on the original prints. Lee M 02:42, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

FAC

I would like to thank you for your comments and opinion on the Military history of Puerto Rico article. I will work on your recomendations and resumit it in the future. Thank you Tony the Marine

Commonplace categories

IlyaHaykinson suggests you contact him via gmail, haykinson @, with any questions you might have. - Amgine/^talk

Wikipedia:Deletion policy/names and surnames

Hi there! This discussion has drawn to a close, so I've archived it and put up conclusions. Could you please look at them and indicate on the talk page if you find them acceptable by consensus? Thanks. R adiant _* 12:29, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Picture

The picture on The Seventies is quite appropriate. It's not a SHOW, it was a MINISERIES, meaning it only lasted two nights, and it was on The Seventies, so I don't see how it's not appropriate. If you have a better picture, I suggest uploading it or putting the old one back. Mike H 22:10, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

It is highly inappropriate because it is an image of a poster of a US show made in the 2000s about the global decade. Such shows are highly glamourised and romanticised representations made for commercial purposes. Perhaps not a good representation of the decade of hippies, of the reformation of Spain, of the Iranian revolution... --Oldak Quill 22:20, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I hope you will counter the systemic bias and contribute about the reformation of Spain in the article. Mike H 23:13, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/User_talk:OldakQuill"

User talk:OldakQuill

Amrep pictures

country infoboxes

Frog pix

Commons Uploads

Moldovan

Displayed formulae

Pronunciation files for Hrafnkels saga

John 20:16

Kalevi Aho

Response to rollback of Gerald Ford

Weimar Timeline

Canada First Nations

Page move

Icel

Request

Wills Memorial Building

Stats

Sitenotice

Secularisation of dates

Where to go from here?

IfD Vote

Wicipedia

German "Kardinäle"

Template:Featured

Template redesign comments

Venus

Image:Jacques-Louis David - Pope Pius VII.jpg

CSB open tasks

Pronunciation request

Naming conventions

Jesus

Donatello's David Redux

FAC

Commonplace categories

Picture

Navigation

Search

Toolbox

Personal tools