User talk:Arno
|
|
"If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it." It pays to remember this at times, it really does. However, it does not excuse the actions of some 'locusts' on this site, eg the Cabramatta article.
Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need any questions answered about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. BTW, thanks for contributing the U.S. Attack on Afghanistan article. However please keep in mind that we are building an encyclopedia here and much of the detail you introduced is more like news reporting. Another important thing to keep in mind is our strong policy of neutrality. Cheers! --maveric149
Maveric - the detail goes back. Otherwise, to keep this wkipedia neutral, I am going to have to start deleting all the details of the September 11 victims.
Is that NPOV enough?
Those pages are already scheduled for a major overhaul after the anniversary. My main objection was internal imbalance - there is far more info on those two incidents than there is on the entire operation Anaconda. And the material I tried to condense into somewhat encyclopedic prose did (and now does again) read like a news summary. That level of detail is not needed or wanted in encyclopedia articles. Two wrongs do not make a right and any comparison with those events with those of Sept. 11, 2001 are not useful. See What Wikipedia is not number 14. --mav
What "two incidents" do you mean?
Also, an answer to a deficiency of information on Operation Anaconda is surely to expand on that - though details of it remain a bit of a muddle - due, I assume, to "operations secret even in success" and that kind of thing.
The events of Operation Anaconda, the July 1 wedding bombing foulup and other such events are all consequences of the appalling events of September 11, 2001 -which has been covered in great detail indeed in this wikipedia (some of it placed there by me). For instance, how many pages long is that timeline?
If you feel there is too much detail on this event and its aftermath , then well and fine, let's chop it down. But let's keep it balanced and not keep in the US stuff and keep out the non-US stuff.
- Hi Arno, I agree with you that the 9/11 pages need to be cut down severly, and I have discussed this with maveric before. He agreed that we would do the cutting down, but only after the 1 year "anniversary", and would try to make it a real enyclopedia article. We only agreed because to leave it for now because it is one of the most popular Wikipedia pages and some people (mostly Americans, I presume) feel strongly about the page . However, we should try to stick to encyclopedic work for the other topics right away if possible. Jeronimo 00:53 Aug 12, 2002 (PDT)
- As a footnote to all this, I have in fact since edited down the Del Rawad tragedy details. I'm still curious as to how and when the Sept 11 stuff gets reduced. I suspect that it will be an emotional affair if it does ever get underway. Arno 08:18 17 May 2003 (UTC)
| Contents |
Netesq
I have been under sustained attack by netesq (http://web.archive.org/web/20000816190529/http%3A//www.netesqsucks.com/) (aka David P Prenatt Jnr) since October 2002 and feel an additional response deserves merit.
"Arno, have sent this around. I think Netesq's attitude and method stinks:
I wonder if you have been keeping an eye on the Aria Giovanni talk webpage. The situation there is out of control.
Matters have deteriorated to a highly abusive level over a website link. Of special concern is the general conduct and attitude of someone called NetEsq, who claims in his details to be a lawyer.
He has repeatedly abused anyone who opposed the idea of the website link with such tactics as net misettiquete ( eg the use of the word 'you' in capitals and bold to emphasise shouting), a poor grasp of history, the unrepentant use of such provocative terms as 'Nazi' (which I hope is an example of his poor grasp of history) , out of context quotes and attempted alienation ("only YOU opppose it"). He writes of defending freedom of expression, yet cannot tolerate it from others when they give an opinion he does not like.
Regardless of the rights and wrongs of his beliefs, it is very advisable to bring this most unruly and arrogant person into line.
Given that your name is on the list of persons who can ban users, I thought it highly advisable to bring this to your attention, before it leads to persons leaving the wikipedia - something likely to stroke Netesq's already aggressive ego."
To which I'll add that Prenatt is a bully and needed to be curbed. He has largely left, it seems, on his own initiative. But there is unique hypocrisy in the following words, after he unacceptably called me a Nazi (and insists on keeping the words there), in which he most movingly advised another user that:
"I am particularly blown away by your tendency to call your adversaries "Nazis"".
Ha ha ha! What hyprocrisy!
I'll also add that I have received numerous e-mails about netesq from other people that he's given a hard time to. I'm hardly an exception, then , though he has given me more venomous attention than most.
That he can get away for so long with having such venom on his user talk page and allowing it to be copied to other websites is, I firmly feel, an indictment of wikipedia and its limited regard for users' rights and feelings.
Wikipedia does seem to be, ever so slowly, adopting a no personal attacks policy. It is one that netesq has, not surprisingly, opposed. Yet it is users like him that present a very persuasive case for the policy to be adopted (and enforced) post-haste.
News Flash
In late July, 2004, someone tried to have netesq's page erased by marking it for deletion in accordance to wikipedia's page deletion procedures. I was not that person and indeed had no involvement with it. However, I think it very reasonable to assume that it was someone else that netesq has 'flamed' or wronged. Alternately, it may have an attempted straightforward application of What Wikipedia is not number 18. I'm not sure if AmbivalentHysteria considered either of these things when she handled the matter and quietly quashed everything. Arno 10:13, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Erm, I'd appreciate if you informed me before making allegations behind my back. I like Netesq, but he's simply not notable. Anthony DiPierro, who created the article, knew full well it'd end up getting deleted, and that was subsequently reflected in the by-the-book, almost unanimous (if not unanimous, I can't remember) vote to delete, that even Netesq himself didn't oppose. And finally, I'm a she. Ambi 08:58, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This has got nothing to do with Anthony DiPierro and this current situation with him. It's to do with an attempt to wipe out netesq's user page in July this year. I've corrected my false assumption about your gender and noted your opinion about him. Arno 07:56, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I have just belatedly learnt that there was an article on David F.Prenatt Jnr that was up for deletion in Sep 2004 (and which has since been deleted). Anthiony Dipierro was involved in this matter. This explains Ambi's remarks above. However, the article that I was referring to above was netesq's user page, not that ill-advised Prenatt article. Arno 08:46, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Some appreciated feedback
Happy birthday!! --AN 11:49 Sep 26, 2002 (UTC)
Hi there. Great stuff on the Romana article. It's when three-line stubs become a full-page article in a matter of hours that wikipedia really seems to be achieving something! :-) -- Tarquin 11:25 Sep 27, 2002 (UTC)
- What Tarquin said. Glad you accepted my NPOVing (I like Adams and think his Who stuff is good [it's Nation's bits of Destiny that are the problem if you ask me, but this probably isn't the place to debate such things]); I'd never heard the Mary Tamm pregnancy rumour, by the way - do you know enough to write a bio page for her? I'd be interested to read it. --Bth
You might want to look at the bottom on the most active Wikipedians page. I'm sure you would be much higher if your anon edits were counted. --mav
Excellent comment on Jimbo's page. Gave me a laugh. JtdIrL 05:37 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)
- Glad you liked it! Arno!
Thank you, Arno. Of all the articles I've contributed to, Emu is probably my favourite. :) Extraordinary creatures! As for "tweaking", I have no idea where I picked it up from. Tannin
Come on back when you can, Arno, you'll always be welcome. Tannin
I'm glad to see that you are at least kinda back. :) I hope your wikivacation re-energized you - I just got back from a week-long trip to Yellowstone and that re-energized me. --mav
I don't suppose you'd be interested in taking a trawl through September 11, 2001 attacks timeline for the day of the attacks to see if it needs tightening up? PMA 11:38, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)
- No thanks, I guess not. Sorry I have not replied until now. Arno 07:54, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- A change of mind occurred tonight. Sep 11's timeline went through a major tidyup. Arno 10:06, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the pick-up on the year for Ethos. I checked several sources that all said 1962! Go figure!?! Peter Ellis 03:49, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Maybe it was erected in 1962. I must say that the statue itself is rather unimposing. I had not really noticed it at all until I was walking past the thing recently and took a closer look at it. Arno 08:32, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Territory representation
The Northern Territory had one non-voting member of the House of Representatives from 1922 to 1968. The member acquired voting rights in 1968. The ACT had a non-voting member from 1949 to 1968, and a voting member thereafter. Neither territory had Senate representation until 1975, when they were given two Senators each. Adam 09:01, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
Hmm, I have not been able to verify this, though it does sound correct. I won't be modifying anything in this regard until after I do some checking/verifying. Arno 03:00, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
Hi, Arno/Arnaud. Thanks for expressing what I am sure many people were thinking. It's had a good outcome, though. Cheers. JackofOz 13:46, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- You're welcome.... Arno 08:36, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
User page protection=
I am sending this message to a group of seasoned users whose opinions I respect. My aim is not to draw you into a dispute, but to canvass opinion on a contentious area of policy. If you have a few minutes to spare, please see the debate currently under way at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy, with particular reference to user page protection. For some reason, I seem to have fallen foul of a group of sysops who have made it their business to stamp out the practice of protecting one’s own user page. A sensible (in my opinion) proposal has been made to amend the policy, and I would be grateful if you would add your view, assuming you have one. Cheers. Deb 13:17, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
- Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
- Multi-Licensing Guide
- Free the Rambot Articles Project
To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:
- Option 1
- I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
- {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}
OR
- Option 2
- I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
- {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}
Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Ram-Man&action=edit§ion=new)| talk)
Sorry, Ran-Man, this went largely over my head. How, for instance, are you going to determine what in this website are my contributions, and what if someone overrides them? As it seems to apply to US Citizens anyway, I find it hard to even care about it. Sorry, but the answer to your offer is no. Arno 08:42, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The word "Bye"
Thanks for the kind words! But I never threatened to leave – I think I wasn't clear enough on the 9/11 talk page. At Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks#WOW, a user named Gavin Palone said he was so unhappy about the debate that he was signing off Wikipedia for good. I replied "Bye" to him, wishing him off. (I'm actually of the opinion that the word "terrorist" should not be used in the article.) So it wasn't me that was leaving, and if I ever do, I'm sure it won't be because I don't like a particular discussion. :) – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 14:38, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
Bring back quickpolls
I think it's time that quickpolls be re-evaluated as a solution to short term disputes between users. What say you? --Ryan! | Talk 05:16, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)