User talk:Lowellian
|
|
Old comments (in alphabetical order by topic)
Adminship
I found myself looking at some of your work, and wanted to nominate you for adminship. Is there any reason you would object? Please reply on my talk page. Yours, Meelar 19:52, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
See also User:Lowellian/Nomination for adminship. —Lowellian
Congratulations! You are now an administrator after getting 100% support on RfA. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. Good luck. Angela. 00:55, May 25, 2004 (UTC)
Article licensing
Hi, I've started the Free the Rambot Articles Project which has the goals of getting users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to...
- ...all U.S. state, county, and city articles...
- ...all articles...
using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) version 1.0 and 2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to the GFDL (which every contribution made to Wikipedia is licensed under), but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles (See the Multi-licensing Guide for more information). Since you are among the top 1000 most active Wikipedians, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles.
- Nutshell: Wikipedia articles can be shared with any other GFDL project but open/free projects using the incompatible Creative Commons Licenses (e.g. WikiTravel) can't use our stuff and we can't use theirs. It is important to us that other free projects can use our stuff. So we use their licenses too.
To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} template (or {{MultiLicensePD}} for public domain) into their user page, but there are other templates for 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 at my talk page what you think. -- Ram-Man 18:06, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
Big Ten
66.167.139.24 05:56, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC): See Talk:Big Ten where I discuss your recent changes w.r.t. that article...
66.167.139.24 08:52, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC): Thanks for following up. My replies and suggestion resolution are posted in Talk:Big Ten...
Buckingham Palace
Hi - I noticed you have changed 'The Queen' - to 'the Queen', before rewriting the page I consulted Proteus the Wiki expert on such matters, and various other etiquette gurus who all advised when referring to HM she is 'The Queen', as oppose to 'the Queen' who would be any old queen, so to speak.
Proteus actually wrote:(It's "Royal Family" (as in British Royal Family) and "Parliament". Proteus (Talk) 17:29, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC) Technically and properly it's "The Queen", but "the Queen" is also common. Proteus (Talk) 18:06, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Personally I am only interested in the architecture etc., and not particularly etiquette so you may wish to revert your edits - but if you don't I won't - so its up to you. Giano 12:06, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Categories and interlanguage links
You changed the above page on 23rd September 2004 to update a sentence about the positioning of the interlanguage links and the categories. Can you recall any discussion leading up to this change, because a robot has been launched (see User talk: Robbot) which has switched thousands of articles to the opposite setting. [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 17:22, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I will gladly change my ways, since it was a nuisance to program this in to begin with, and I too find the order more logical with the categories going before the interwiki links. However, I feel very much insulted by the tone Noisy is making towards me when all I did was trying to accomodate another user. - Andre Engels 23:32, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks for your remark. Happy editing to you too! - Andre Engels 08:09, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
China Collaboration of the Week
You showed interest in taking part in a China Collaboration of the Week - I have finally gotten around to setting it up. Please add one, or several, nomination(s) and tell others about it. You may access it via the notice board Wikipedia:China-related topics notice board/ZHCOTW or through the shortcut WP:ZHCOTW. --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 11:04, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Chinese festivals
Thanks for helping me out with the Lantern Festival. I just created Ghost Festival. Hope you can take a look. I'm currently working on creating/expanding articles for Chinese festivals. Do we need a List of Chinese festivals? User:Mistikal 00:37, 11 Feb 2004
Coase theorem
Hello - about Coase theorem. Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (theorems) seemed to end up with lower-case theorem as default; certainly this is generally used (see for example list of theorems).
Charles Matthews 11:16, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
Comic book images
The archivist and creators' rights activist in me wishes that every comic-book illustration we put on Wikipedia could have the artist and source credited. I greatly appreciate your work adding images, but could you provide this information in the future? Thanks. -leigh (φθόγγος) 01:24, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
- I take care to identify the precise issue whenever I add images and add a copyright template tag of some sort; precisely identifying the book cover is sufficient for copyright issues (I have never, thus far, uploaded any image from internal panels of a comic book, which involve more complicated copyright issues than comic book covers). Having said that, I have no objection to you adding more information about artists if you want to do so. —Lowellian (talk) 02:27, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
- My interest is not so much in copyright issues as in giving credit where credit's due: for ideological reasons, for the sake of a better encyclopedia, and so that "what links here" of, say, Mark Bagley will also yield Image:UltimateSpidey65Cover.jpg. Dig? -leigh (φθόγγος) 17:13, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
Disgaea
Discussion moved to Talk:Disgaea. —Lowellian
Earth Summit
Sorry for any problem with marking the edits as minor and I will review the guidelines. Part of the problem was that I had made a series of edits, each of which perhaps could have been considered as minor, however the cumulative effect was not.
I expect to continue to work on this and related pages, as the UNCED process had been my life for almost three years leading into the conference, with a focus on information, communications & participation - a role that continued through the series of UN conferences of the past decade.
Btw, I am planning to share information about Wikipedia and the Earth Summit, Agenda 21, etc. at the current session of the Commission on Sustainable Development in the hopes both of spreading the word about Wikipedia within the NGO community, and of eliciting wiki contributions to topics relating to sustainable development, so you may want to keep an eye on Earth Summit over the next couple of weeks. User:Information Habitat 14 Apr 2004
Edit summaries
I would prefer if you could avoid arcane abbreviations (e.g., cpt) in edit summaries. P0M 05:37, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Great Game
Discussion moved to Talk:Great Game. —Lowellian
- You put the page on Rfc and virtually everyone who has commented on the subject since then has disagreed with you. Please stop moving the page and move on. Jooler 12:20, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I object to the way that you are now trying to swing the majority opinion on talk:The Great Game by deliberately targeting users who have a history of voting against the inclusion of the definite article in titles - This is gerrymandering. I haven't tried to garner the opinion of people who support me. Jooler 12:29, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Harvard
Hi. I was under the impression that you're not supposed to follow a verb by a colon. Also, it was an em-dash, not an en-dash! :) Doops 22:15, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Greetings, Lowellian. So, are you from lowell? like mr. lowell? want to live in lowell hall? +sj+ 07:54, 2004 May 18 (UTC)
A fine question. Are you a Harvard Stud? I'm from Dunster, the Red Lowell. Perhaps later I'll move to Cotton Mather's place. --Erik Garrison 19:08, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
Hock page move
I'm not quite sure what's happened. Does it look right now? The page history is caching a bit strangely, so it's hard to tell. Angela. 21:52, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
Sorry about the munged creating the Hock disambiguation page - My brain must have been full of mush. I'll be more careful next time. I have a question about preserving edit history in merges - when two pages are merged, is there no other way of marking the source of the merge other than by referring to it in the edit comment? I would be feeling safer if there were a special "Merge" operation just like there is one for "Move"... Schnolle 12:04, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)
HYP
Apologies for some stuff I said re HYP article: It suddenly occurred to me that I'd never voted, so I jumped in, glanced at the article, and voted. Then I glanced at part of the discussion, added some random thoughts of my own. I hadn't taken the time to catch up on what others had said. Some of what I said was on the rude side, and some of it was repetitive of things you and others had already pointed out.
So, first of all, I don't think you were intending the article to be boosterism. And I think some of the things I said were overly harsh.
Second, (while still not agreeing that HYP deserves its own article), I believe that it is encyclopedically factual to say that these universities are frequently mentioned as a trio and are very widely considered to have some kind of special cachet, status, or prestige that separates them from others. And that is a fact about U. S. society that is signficant enough that Wikipedia should mention it somewhere.
Third, I agree with you when you said (on RBellin's talk page) that "removing 'among most prestigious' or something along those lines is bad, because a large part of the notability of these elite universities lies in their prestige; it is a fundamental part of their identity, when defined as the perception of them within society at large."
I think that the proper way to NPOV a statement about "prestige" is not to cite U. S. News and World Report rankings and the like, but to cite statements in literature, magazine articles, etc. that show that the universities in question are regarded as prestigious
I think you're right about the dynamics by which peacock plumage grows. Challenges to simple statements about prestige generate statements about how the university ranked. Then challenges to that interpretation generate refinements to the statement, which keeps growing...
I also think that if people will buy it, the main article should just say that the university is prestigious and put the documentation of that fact in the Talk page. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 02:22, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
International relations
I was aiming on merging them but then got distracted as a result of having too many windows open. :) Looking at it now, what I was doing makes no sense anyway, so I haven't saved it. I think I'm going to revert the redirect and put it back on duplicate articles although I'm not sure it is really a duplicate. Is there a reason the theory shouldn't be in a separate article? Anyway, I'll leave it for now as it's all a bit of a mess. Angela. 17:10, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)
La disparition
I have redirected the "La Disparition" page to "A Void" - no matter how many English translations there are of a work, one uses a single English title (consistently using English for titles is a Wikipedia policy, I believe) and redirects all other titles to there - see, for example, what links to Lady Macbeth of the Mtensk District, here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Lady_Macbeth_of_the_Mtsensk_District) and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Lady_Macbeth_of_the_Mtsensk_District_%28story%29); it would be absurd to try and link, for instance, to the Chinese title of "The Story of The Stone", because more than one translation exists, no matter how much more accurate and less time-consuming it would be. -- Simonides 01:53, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
List of Jewish Americans
Thank you for your point regarding subpages. Clearly that was a mistake (sorry!). However, I think both your alternative suggestions are still problematic:
- The article is currently less than half finished (see recent history), and will probably grow to over 64KB.
- Lists and categories serve different functions. For example, in a list, each item can be annotated, items can be grouped or sorted by relevant criteria, and relevant items without a wiki entry can be included. Categories are great, but I don't think they're the answer here.
I therefore suggest a solution similar to List of Swedes — move the article into separate pages (not subpages), which can both stand alone and be browsed collectively. E.g. List of Jewish American Writers could link to an article on Jewish American Literature, and both would be grouped with various writer write-ups in Category:Jewish American Literature.
Make sense? -Udzu 12:06, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks! The pages to delete are List of American Jews/Historical, List of American Jews/Showbusiness, List of American Jews/Music, List of American Jews/Writing, List of American Jews/Arts, List of American Jews/Business and List of American Jews/Sport. -Udzu 13:56, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Lunar and solar deities
Moon goddess: Neither did I - but I thought 'shouldn't there be an article about this already' and then noticed the capitals. Always worth hunting around, especially changing capitalisation, to see if there's an article. Morwen 20:10, Dec 24, 2003 (UTC)
Moved Solar Deity to solar deity, though you could have done it. Solar deity did not have to be deleted because there was nothing in its history except a redirect. If there had ever been more than that, you would have needed a sysop to delete the page, do the move and undelete it to restore the history, but anybody can do it without deleting anything if the history is nothing but a redirect. Not sure if I explained that well... Let me know if you don't understand why you could have done that yourself. Tuf-Kat 04:18, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)
Madhappyfaceblob.gif
Sadly, no, I did not create it. It's an illustration from a Salon.com article. I really need to make a note about that on the image page. I get a lot of Q's about it. jengod 21:25, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
Marvel Comics
When you move a page, it is considered neighbourly to update the links that point to the page's old location. At minimum, one should update any redirect pages - normal links will be automatically redirected, but redirects can't themselves be redirected.
For instance, consider http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Professor_X.
Here we see that links to Professor Xavier and Professor Charles Xavier are redirected to Charles Xavier - this worked when the article was located at Charles Xavier, but is unhelpful now that the article is at Professor X. The solution is to update Professor Xavier and Professor Charles Xavier to point directly to Professor X.
(Which I'm going to do now, because I don't want to leave links broken just for the sake of an example. You'll just have to imagine what I mean.)
If you have any questions, drop me a line on my talk page.
—Paul A 08:06, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
And, on the other hand, if you're going to go around changing every link from Wolverine (superhero) to Wolverine (comics), wouldn't it be an idea to make sure there was something at Wolverine (comics) to be linked to first?
—Paul A 08:55, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Lowellian - nice hidden text on the list of Marvel characters. Thanks! I started a new thread on that article's talk page. UtherSRG 19:23, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Leave? You just got here! *grins* UtherSRG
I'm glad ya ain't going yet. But I too will also be working a little less often... my real job has picked up its workload a bit.... UtherSRG 19:03, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
We're having a neat conversation on Talk:Strength level (comics) that you might want to be in. - UtherSRG 04:49, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Matsu
Why are you changing goddess Matsu and Matsu (goddess) to Matsu, which is just a dismabiguation page? --Menchi (Talk)â 03:37, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Wait, except for Makung (where you did the plain Matsu and which was the 1st article I checked only to be perplexed), you seem to be doing the piped Matsu everywhere else. I guess Makung was just a slip? If so, correct Makung if you can, and never mind my comment above. Carry on. :-) --Menchi (Talk)â 03:41, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Mountains of Tibet
Please see Talk:Mount Kailash. Your opinion would be appreciated. Regards, Kosebamse 18:22, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Periodic table (Chinese)
The emphasis there was on Chinese characters, not on the periodic table. Periodic table was used only as an easy template, copied from the Chinese wikipedia. It is possible that in the future I will remake the article completely, so that there will be no periodic table, but instead a linear list of elements. — Monedula 00:11, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
There's some error in Periodic table (Chinese).
Simplified Chinese:
- 104 Rf is not "炉"(火户), should be (钅户).
- 105 Db should be "��"(钅杜).
- 106 Sg should be (钅喜).
- 107 Bh should be (钅波).
- 108 Hs should be (钅黑).
- 109 Mt should be (钅麦).
- 110 Ds== Periodic table (Chinese) ==
There's some error in Periodic table (Chinese).
Simplified Chinese:
- 104 Rf is not "炉"(火户), should be (钅户).
- 105 Db should be "��"(钅杜).
- 106 Sg should be (钅喜).
- 107 Bh should be (钅波).
- 108 Hs should be (钅黑).
- 109 Mt should be (钅麦).
- 110 Ds should be (钅达).
104, 106-110 are not been established. 105 is not in every fonts.
Traditional Chinese:
- 105 Db should be (金杜).
- 106 Sg should be (金喜).
- 107 Bh should be (金波).
- 108 Hs should be (金黑).
- 109 Mt should be (金麥).
- 110 Ds should be "鐽" (金達).
105-109 are not been established. 110 become a double-meaning word.
--Zy26
- The characters for 106-110 are not found in any fonts...--[[User:Zy26|zy26 (Talk)]] 00:27, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)
104号元素和110号元素在简体中文中都没有相应的计算机编码，不过在繁体中文，它们恰巧和以前的两个不常用汉字相同，这样。那两个汉字有了新的一种的含义，但不表明，它们原来的含义所对应的简化字有着同样的功能。我们不能把104“鑪”和“爐”作为炉子含义的共同对应的简化字“炉”作为简体中文的元素符号（104钅户）。 (Sorry for poor English)--[[User:Zy26|zy26 (Talk)]] 00:39, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)
我認識的外教基本上都是看簡體字比較容易……
104號元素和110號元素在簡體中文中都沒有相應的電腦編碼，不過在繁體中文，它們恰巧和以前的兩個不常用漢字相同，這樣。那兩個漢字有了新的一種的含義，但不表明，它們原來的含義所對應的簡化字有著同樣的功能。我們不能把104“鑪”和“爐”作為爐子含義的共同對應的簡化字“炉”作為簡體中文的元素符號（104钅户）。--[[User:Zy26|zy26 (Talk)]] 01:26, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)
Well done. It looks no error now. We can just wait for the fonts now... --[[User:Zy26|zy26 (Talk)]] 07:13, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)
Pinyin
Thanks for the tone mark algorithm in the Pinyin article.
That's the kind of tip that I have a difficult time finding out about.
The training textbooks and software I've purchased only get me so far, so I really appreciate all the extra info supplied by the authors of the articles about learning Chinese here on Wikipedia.
Thanks in part to these articles, Tai Tai is slowly losing her opinion that it is impossible for me to learn how to read, write, and speak Chinese! :)
Cheers,
--DV 10:47, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Ramanujan
- Since you seem to be Wikipedia's resident mathematical articles expert,
Actually, I'm just one of (apparently) several dozen mathematicians who work on Wikipedia articles. Michael Hardy 21:45, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- ... to your other question: I may get to it at some point, but just now I can't give it the highest priority. Thanks. Michael Hardy 22:03, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Hi, I saw your question on Michael's talk page, and I was just thinking of significantly expanding Ramanujan's page. I found some good sources and links to pdf copies of discussion of Ramanujan's notebooks. However, I don't know how to do the Tex, nor am I a mathemetician, so I will just add what I can in <math>...</math> form. - Taxman 16:42, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
ROC presidential election, 2004: Coloring scheme of table
I replied on my talk page regarding the coloring scheme. Please let me know your objections to the current colors. --Jiang 07:09, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome
Why did you move Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)? I moved it back, of course, because diseases are only to be capitalised when they are eponymous. JFW | T@lk 23:44, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
S.H.E
Discussion moved to Talk:S.H.E. —Lowellian
Superpower
Discussion moved to Talk:Superpower. —Lowellian
Taiwan
Hello Lowellian,
I have noticed that you put the following text in article, Taiwan.
Records from ancient China indicate that the Chinese were aware of the existence of Taiwan since at least the Three Kingdoms period (third century A.D.)
I would not bother to make an argument if there is any clear evidence that the ancient Chinese were aware of Taiwan's existence. The fact is that there is not a single proof to support this statement. [1] (http://www.taiwanus.net/history/1/01.htm) I would like to suggest we remove this unsupported description in accordance to the NPOV policy. Or, we can also put statements that this statement was not supported in order to make the article fair and balanced.Mababa 06:20, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Greetings, Lowellian,
Could you at least participate in the discussion related to the Taiwan page instead of embedding your comments in the Edit summary? If you're going to include Chinese recognizance of the Island, then you should also include recognizance of the island for other nations around that time if you're going to try to retain an NPOV. As it stands at this point there's a very heavy bias in that one particular sentence. Buoren 22:06, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- My mistake. Lowellian did not put the line into the article. I think I have mistaken someone else for him. Anyway, I think we should go back to the article discussion page for further conversation.Mababa 23:27, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I didn't put in that text. I restored that text when someone removed it from the article; I don't know who originally wrote that text. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 21:36, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
Having said that, the text is accurate. The Romans were more than aware of the British Isles by the time of several centuries BC. It's not possible that the Chinese weren't aware of Taiwan by the third century AD. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 21:39, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
Hello Lowellian,
I apologize mistake you as the person puting the line. I am sorry about that. This aside, the text is NOT accurate at all. You are suggesting a possiblity, not an evidence supported fact.
Through out centuries, Chinese dynasties have noted islands out side the coast, and they have different names. None of these names can be linked to a same single island. They could be single one island or multiple different islands. Some of them could even be Japan or Hawaii. No one knows if any one of them was Taiwan, or perhaps you can provide some references to convince people otherwise. I highly suggest we take away the line or note this is merely a hypothesis. Again I feel bad to have you dragged into this discussion since you were not the one put the description into the article. :) If you do not feel like to participate the discussion and do not have strong position on this topic, please simply ignore my messages. Thank you. I would suggest we carry on the conversation on the discussion page of Taiwan.Mababa 23:27, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thefacebook
I noticed your edits and the VfD discussion on the topic. Are you on facebook? Mike H 10:33, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
- "please do not ask me about my personal life, which I keep separate from Wikipedia".
- Um...ouch. Sorry. Mike H 21:54, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
Tulsa, Oklahoma
Discussion moved to Talk:Tulsa, Oklahoma. —Lowellian
User talk page new comment notification
I've just realized I'm not always getting talk page notifications either. I've reported it at Mediazilla:760. Angela. 04:26, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
U.S. presidential election controversy, 2004
You'll note that the NPOV tag you'd added to 2004 U.S. Election controversies and irregularities says, "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please view its talk page." There's either a requirement or a widely accepted standard (I'm not sure which) that the tag not be used unless the specific objections have been raised on the article's talk page. You haven't done so. I suggest that you remove the tag and present your concerns on the talk page. If discussion fails to resolve the matter to your satisfaction, you'd then be on much less shaky ground in restoring the tag. JamesMLane 07:08, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
User:172
Your personal attack: It is a lie that I refuse to discuss my edits and back them up with evidence. I am a professional historian and I would never make any changes to articles that I could not back up with utmost confidence. (There have been just some occasions where discussions with trolls and cranks were useless. And if you want to challenge any of my edits, bring it on. 172 09:07, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- The above is in reference to my comment on Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Candidate statements/Endorsements/172. —Lowellian
Do I get a reference to my comment? Show me where I refuse to provide evidence backing up my changes? 172 22:02, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
User:Acegikmo1
Hello,
Thank you for your note on my talk page. I knew the page was getting long, I couldn't figure out how it got so long so quickly. I have corrected the problem and I appreciate your pointing it out to me.
Regarding administrator status, I gave your offer some thought, but frankly I'm not too sure becoming an administrator would be worthwhile. Although I've come to participate more outside the main namespace in my time here, I like contributing to articles and writing new ones more than anything else. And I usually aviod getting into disputes with other users or editing controversial articles. As such, I don't think there would be much of a point in my becoming an administrator. Regardless, I think you for the offer.
Sincerely,
Acegikmo1 17:32, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
User:Animated Cascade
Please remove Category:Harry Potter characters from your user page. It is not appropriate that a user should appear within that category. Thanks. —Lowellian (talk) 08:10, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Mighty sorry. The colon-before-the-category thing trips me up every time, and I never catch it. Thanks for letting me know. Animated Cascade talk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Animated_Cascade) 20:08, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
User:ClockworkSoul
A quick note to say thanks
I just wanted to drop you a quick note to thank you for your support in my request for adminship. It was certainly a wild ride, and I really appreciate you taking some time out to contribute. ClockworkSoul 16:12, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
User:Davejenk1ns
Lowellian
Thank you for the support on the Superpower page. It's getting better...
About blanking comments on my own talk page-- I treat that page as I would an email inbox. Once an issue is resolved or I no longer need it, I erase it. To be blunt, it's my page-- and I can do anything I (damn well) want with it :-P If someone wants to read past stuff, the record is right there in the history. Please don't try to school me on Wikipedia ethics-- I've been here a pretty long time. Regards, Davejenk1ns 22:43, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I`ve re-read my comment above, and hope you do not take this the wrong way. My point is that, I`ve looked around, and really cannot find any page on ethics regarding user talk pages. If there is such a page, please post a link here. My suspicion that there is no such page would fit in with the overall "feel" of Wiki: everything is open, and the one rule understood by everyone is "don`t be a jerk". Revert wars, vandalism, and non-NPOV go against this one basic rule. However, editing my own talk page to how I like it would seem to be my perogative-- if you would like to keep display of your comments to me, list them here on your own comment page. Moreover, please feel free to blank this comment after reading-- I don`t care (it`s your talk page ,afterall). The Wikipedia (IMHO) is the greatest collaborative effort I have seen on the Internet, and I sincerely hope for its success. From what I can see, as a part of that collaborative effort, everyone actually needs their personal soapbox to voice opinion, declare backgrounds, or simply stand up and say their name. The personal page is that personal soapbox-- the talk page is a message conduit to that personal soapbox. To some, this is a permanent conduit, to others, it is a transitory conduit. I am in the latter category, that`s all. Thanks, Davejenk1ns
User:Eequor
I'm surprised to see it suggested that Eequor should be an administrator. What little experience I've had with her suggests she just wants to pick fights. Michael Hardy 01:41, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I agree totally, 100% with Michael. →Raul654 02:07, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
- Could you cite specific pages? I mainly thought about nominating her for adminship because I personally have not had problems in interactions with her, and I noticed she seems to make a lot of edits, many of them detailed.
In empty product, she had some objections to a section, that she could have fixed by editing it. Instead she deleted the section, erroneously calling its argument fallacious. I've given the same argument in several classes I taught at MIT, where at least some of the students are brilliant, and none of them complained. So I reinstated the section and asked her what her objections were. She outlined them, and I replied that her objections were too literal-minded and nitpicking; those among them that had any merit could be dealt with by tweaking a few things in the section rather than by deleting it. She became belligerent. She's deleted the discussion from her talk page, but it should be in the history. Some of it may also have been deleted from Talk:Empty product, but it should also be in the history. I've also noticed that some others have become angry at her. I'm not sure what that's about, but maybe you could look into it. The history of her talk page should have some of that. Michael Hardy 21:17, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I first noticed Eequor in middle september, when she posted to talk:main page saying that she thought the featured article of the day (holy prepuce) was disgusting, offensive, etc etc. It was a transparent attempt to pick a fight (for the record, she was the *only* person who complained, even though it got 5x more hits than average). And the few people who defended her basically said that she was wrong, but should be allowed to express her opinion, even it if was obvious trolling. Next, I noticed her after she made several weak FAC nominations, and did not lift a finger to fix or reply to objections. I asked her about it (see her talk page, under "FAC nominations") and she become beligerant. She seems to be of the opinion that rules do not apply to her (Clearly strict adherence to the "rules" is a naďve and insular position...). Her final response, to question my motives (Do you have Wikipedia's best interests in mind? Stop interfering.) pissed me off a great deal, but quite frankly, I don't want to feed the trolls, so I didn't respond. While she does have a great number of edits, many of them are mechanical (as opposed to actually creating content). On the other hand, she seems to create controversy and anger wherever she goes. She's immature, unpleasant, and definitely not suited to be an administrator. →Raul654 01:31, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
And she's linked from her user page to a special page devoted to gloating over the alleged fact that she's defeated the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in an argument. I mentioned that I had taught there for the purpose of indicating that none of the sharp students there had said an argument I presented in class while teaching there, and that I later posted on Wikipedia, was wrong, as Eequor had claimed. Her belief that she won that argument is based, apparently only on the fact that she expressed her disagreement with me. That page shows that she's a big fan of out-of-context quoting. I do not gloat over having won arguments and neither should anyone who is a Wikipedia administrator, especially when the mere fact that they've quoted out of context is their only evidence of having won an argument. Michael Hardy 02:39, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
By the way, is it still your inclination to not put forth a nomination for my adminship? Please note that my sixth month on Wikipedia was September. --[[User:Eequor|η
υωρ (https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/User_talk:Eequor)]] 21:34, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
User:Lizard King
Care to weigh in on Talk:Yeti or on the conflict? - UtherSRG 18:51, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
User:Norm
Thanks for your vote on my adminship stating your concerns. Yes, I was a vandal, I was warned and have not done such edits since then. In fact, I viewed Wikipedia with greater respect when I found out how quickly vandalism was dealt with.
I am now a masssive fighter of vandalism, I constantly check my watchlist for vandalism and check new pages for nonsense and speedy deletion. The primary reason I want admin rights is to deal with vandalism, so the last thing I'd want to do these days is to vandalize pages. I have matured in my editing and have worked hard. I would like to put my early days behind me and work on improving Wikipedia, which I have.
With all my massive work (almost 4000 edits) on a large amount of topics that includes expanding substubs, categorizing articles, translating articles from other Wikipedias, uploading a large amount of pictures, creating navigational aids such as Wikipedia:Quick index and Wikipedia:Browse by category as well as reverting vandalism I feel that I am confident enough to handle the responsibilities of adminship, which is why I have self nominated myself.
If you still want to oppose, thats fine, but I deeply regret past vandalisms and I am commited to fighting further vandalism on Wikipedia. [[User:Norm|Norm]] 12:21, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
User:SirAglet
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. That user is blocked indefinitely. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:06, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Cheers mate :-) I forgot to do this! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:58, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Regrettably, I'm getting numerous emails via Wikipedia email with AOL users who are getting autoblocked because their IP addresses were used by SirAglet. The collatoral damage is too great, so I'm unblocking. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:09, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- There's a "feature" called autoblock that comes into effect when blocks are made. Any IP address that the user has used seems to be recorded and if a user used it at all, then this IP address gets blocked automatically for the duration of the block. In this case, the duration was infinite, and I got about 8 people yelling at me via wikipedia email. I've logged in to the account as the password used to be "battleaxe" (still worked!) and changed the password, and put a notice up on the account. That's as good (in fact better) than permanently blocking the account. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:57, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Regrettably, I'm getting numerous emails via Wikipedia email with AOL users who are getting autoblocked because their IP addresses were used by SirAglet. The collatoral damage is too great, so I'm unblocking. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:09, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
User:Spencer195
Hi Lowellian,
Just wanted to say thanks for the vote of support at RfA. It looks like I've been promoted, and I look forward to helping you out with admin tasks. –spencer195 17:40, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
User:Ta bu shi da yu
G'day mate, thanks for your support of my nomination for admin! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:08, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
User:Wifki
Yeah well i actually reckon its a pretty damn funny way of getting back at ppl who are posting articles that are obvious vanity, thinking they're so cool because they've "hacked" in dude! how 1337, to modify the wiki with an up themselves article about how good they are. HA HA when they come back to check it its like: category - gay, les or bi ppl!!!! how funny! Yeah, so just thought i'd clear up the reason for doing that. a good example of where its worked is David Zack - you may want to check that one out for a bit of an example ;-) Cheers, Wifki 13:14, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Welcome
Welcome Lowellian,
You have done a good job so far in Wikipedia (a.k.a. 'Pedia or WP). I can see that you're a serious Wikipedian interested in improving our project. If you stay for a while, you'll discovered that collectively, we're a cooperative and friendly community. We are all here to learn, and hopefully can give something back. If you have questions or doubts of any sort, do not hesitate to post them on the Village Pump, somebody will respond ASAP. Other helpful pages include:
Just keep in mind that while relevant discussions and constructive criticisms and are welcome, unproductive and/or destructive insults are not (see Wikiquette & Wikipedia:Neutral point of view).
Who knows? Perhaps you'll soon become a Wikipediholic! :-) --Menchi 10:30, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)
p.s. Simply type four tildes (~~~~), then you can sign you name and date like I just did with mine. And please always do so after your post in Talk/discussion pages and Village Pump.
Western culture
I have ended the redirect of Western culture to Western world and have been giving substance to Western culture. I was thinking of melding the section "Western thought" into Western culture. Please notify me. Thanks.WHEELER 00:23, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I am gun-shy as you say. In the beginning many of my posts and additions were reverted. Many of my posts are reverted because I am a classicist which makes me by nature a reactionary. I am now very gun-shy. I checked the page history of Western World to find people to make a consensus or feedback before I did anything so a revert war did not start.
I got some feed back to leave as is...so I leave as is. Sorry for disturbing you.WHEELER 13:44, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
William Lowell Putnam Mathematical Competition
Putnam page minor edit: Sorry about that. I didn't remove any text, and I figured the few lines I put in were relatively minor. I do thank you for your work maintaining that page. Jonpin 20:05, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia Main Page
Did You Know vs. In the News
You expressed interest in the front page layout on Talk:Main page. Could you please vote in the poll there? Thanks, silsor 07:25, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)
Featured article typo
Any chance you could fix the "tlevision" error on the Hitchcock section of the main page? --[[User:TheGrza|TheGrza]] 01:01, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia:China-related topics notice board
Come and join us at Wikipedia:China-related topics notice board? --Jiang 02:06, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/High schools
User:Dpbsmith
1) It says it's "high schools," but I'm sure you've noticed that it includes middle schools and elementary schools... so, shouldn't it just be "Schools?"
2) I've been checking status... it occurred to me that it would be easier simply to make the entries in a form like this:
- Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ars Nova School of the Arts Ars Nova School of the Arts
- Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Brookfield High School (Ottawa) Brookfield High School (Ottawa)
and let the red-links tell the story... the automatically-updated story. But I wanted to follow your instructions. (I'm afraid I did succumb to the temptation of using the words "kept" and "deleted" rather than "keep" and "delete," however).
It's interesting. The proportion of schools for which the final outcome was "delete" was higher than I expected. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 18:16, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
User:Geogre
Thanks for the note. I'm working out my position in a long form on my user page. If you haven't seen it lately, take a look. I find it difficult, in the constraints of a VfD vote or, worse, an IRC conversation, to express my opinions properly. For nearly a year now, we've really been on the cusp of needing a policy debate on schools, and yet everyone fears such. I'm just as reluctant as the next person to see a can of worms that large opened, but it looks to me like, with SimonP's actions on schools, the worms have already spilled out, so there may be no alternative. Nothing for it, then, but to work out our arguments on both sides as well as we can and present them.
I have a weird idea for this. What if we set a kind of debate? Two groups work out a single document for each explaining point of view, both then presented side by side in name space, and a vote? I'm not advocating it, but if we collectively decide that we've got to have the policy argument, it might be a way of curtailing the 100 kb of interlaced comments and vitriol that would result. Geogre 02:14, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Agreed, of course, that there are multiple points of view. It seems to me that we have, more or less, two challenge positions. One is "all should be included." This radical inclusionism is one position with a pro/con. The other is "all should be deleted." That, too, affords a parallel argument. What's not stated is status quo, which is "judge according to the same standards as any other institution." The status quo needs no argument, since it is the default. At least that's how it seems to me. Geogre 01:33, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics
Invitation: Hi! I've gotten the impression that you're interested in articles related to comics and sequential art. I've just created a project called WikiProject on Comics in order to establish consensus on the organization and content of such articles, and I hope you'll join in. See the main project page and please leave comments on the Talk page. Thanks! -leigh (φθόγγος) 22:38, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities
Alumni lists: Please note that I have copied the discussion on lists/categories for university people from the Categories for deletion page to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities and added a few notes and questions. / Tupsharru 08:15, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- There is now a new such category (University of Exeter) and an old but lightly populated one has resurfaced. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities. / Tupsharru 06:08, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Current comments (in chronological order from least to most recent)
Please leave new comments below this Current comments section. I will generally post my responses on your Talk page. If you want me to respond quickly, it is best to post your responses on my Talk page. If you wish to communicate with me privately, please use Wikipedia email, and also leave a note here on this Talk page to let me know that I should check my email. Also, please do not ask me about my personal life, which I keep separate from Wikipedia. Thanks. —Lowellian
A fellow Spiderman (and Mary Jane Watson) fan I see!
I'm reading through every single Amazing Spiderman from the start to the end of 2003 at the moment, and I have several years of the Web of Spiderman, Spectactular Spiderman, Amazing Spiderman and Tales of Spiderman (from when I was a kid). I'm interested in seeing some more references go onto those articles and expanding them somewhat. Interested? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:46, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Cool :-) What issues do you have? And what series? Those are good points, btw. I'll add the info to the talk page! - Ta bu shi da yu 11:28, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
University people categories
Please note that I reopened this discussion on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. / Tupsharru 06:34, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Mainland China, PRC, ROC, Taiwan, etc.
Hello. Thanks for joining the discussion. You mentioned your simple rule of thumb at WP:RM. In my opinion the situation could be more complex. To name a few, a geography article about a country will deal with territorial claims and land borders (if there's any), but Geography of Taiwan would only be an article about Taiwan as an island. Culture of Taiwan has its own article, for the culture has been other some influences of other sources other than China. List of metropolitan areas in Taiwan involves the definitions of the ROC government, although all the metropolitan areas are found on the island of Taiwan. The situation is complicated and could hardly be simplifed.
Having both the ROC and Taiwan in a title could be clumsy. But we have to understand how the name the "Republic of China" is unheard in many parts of the world. If I'm the one to make a decision I wouldn't have added the word Taiwan with hyphen or brackets, although I can compromise on having either one of them.
As I have mentioned elsewhere, I prefer titling a page according to the scope of its content. You may be interested to take a look at Talk:Geography of Taiwan, Talk:Geography of China, Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese), Wikipedia talk:Taiwan-related topics notice board and Wikipedia talk:HK wikipedians' notice board. — Instantnood 10:12 Feb 23 2005 (UTC)
If you have contributed to discussion on this page you may want to comment here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Instantnood
Horse's movement in Xiangqi
Hey
Well, after thinking about it, movement of the horse according to the rule you provided does make more sense. If a piece on the first point blocks the way, then why shouldn't the second block the way as well.
However, I grew up playing with the rule stated earlier by me, and when i was young i was back in a country where xiangqi is the favorite passtime for elementary students to adults alike.
Maybe i'll look into that matter more later. LG-犬夜叉 03:09, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
Mormonism naming conventions
Thanks for your contribution to the page-move discussion on History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As I see you're an admin, I'm wondering if I can ask you to expand somewhat on your understanding of the relevant policy issues. Specifically, do you see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Mormonism) as being unsatisfactory here? Personally I just want a consistent usage, whatever that happens to be, but that's going to be difficult to achieve unless either the naming conventions are changed, or practice comes more consistently into line with the convention. Alai 20:54, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Adminship
I've added a user page and changed my sig. If there are no other problems, please retract your objection and possibly support. Thanks. --brian0918™ 02:11, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Wonders of the World
Category: Wonders of the World (discussion) is listed on CfD again. You voted for its deletion the last time it was listed there so you may want to vote so again. See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Wonders of the World. – Kpalion (talk) 09:14, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
RfC
Hello there. I am recently being listed on RfC. Feel free to comment as you wish to. I regard it as a way out and to have the matter settled. Thanks. — Instantnood 20:39 Mar 1 2005 (UTC)
Harvard University Organization
Hi Lowellian,
I'm posting here because I'm sure you'll see this faster than you see my posts at the talk:Harvard University page. Anyway, I think that the article as is rather a jumble, with far too much packed into the "The institution" section. Also, it strikes me that the article isn't really about Harvard University at all, but rather almost exclusively deals with Harvard College. I think it would make more sense to have a (longish) summary of the info about the college at the Harvard University page, but move the rest to the Harvard College page. Then summaries could also be added about the law school, medical school, GSAS, etc. (as is those get barely a nod at the Harvard University page). If the navigation template that I made is tweaked (and maybe stuck at the right side of the page), I think that this could be an effective way of organizing the pages, and would be both more consistent across the various school articles, and allow for easier additions to Wikipedia. Some pictures that are there now could be left at the Harvard University page, and more could be added from the law school, ed school, med school, etc. I'd be willing to go take some of those pictures (though maybe the spring or fall would be a better time for it). --Jacobolus 13:41, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Calcutta -> Kolkata name change
Hi there. I noticed you voted in the Wikipedia:Naming policy poll to keep the Wikipedia policy of naming an article with the most familiar English name. You may not be aware that another attempt has begun to rename the Calcutta article to Kolkata, which is blatantly not the most common name of the city, whether it's official or not. If you want to vote on the issue you can do so at Talk:Calcutta. Cheers. -- Necrothesp 14:02, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Re: Minor edits
Sorry about that. I forgot to uncheck the minor edits option, which I used to leave as "checked" by default, since I edited a lot of articles, and plenty of these were relatively minor. No harm intended. --DF08 09:19, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Please use "What links here" before redirecting :)
I came across your redirect of the name Eric Larson. You redirected that name on February 26th to the comic book artist, Erik Larson. Why am I bringing this up? There is a notable person named Eric Larson that worked for the Disney Animation studios in the early 20th century. They're two different people. See Disney's Nine Old Men. --Anonymous Cow 18:10, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Currency
Thanks for your note. I didn't realize there was already a "Currencies" category. I'm moving everything there from "Currency." Maurreen 03:41, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The Netherlands
Why did you move The Netherlands to the wrong location (Netherlands) without first checking the article's talk page? The form with the article is the only correct one. User:Anárion/sig 08:03, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I did check the talk page, and if you checked it, you'd have seen that I left a comment explaining. The point is that it was originally at Netherlands and did not properly go through Wikipedia:Requested moves. —Lowellian (talk) 17:59, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps. If you want to move it to the wrong location, I suggest you place it at WP:RM then. User:Anárion/sig 20:10, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Will you stop moving the page and follow the correct procedure? Place it on WP:RM and let discussion decide. User:Anárion/sig 09:59, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- What? You're the one who's not following procedure, by removing it from WP:RM before there could be discussion. —Lowellian (talk) 10:17, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
I placed the matter of the article location and country name on WP:RFC. User:Anárion/sig 10:05, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Please come and vote!
Following the long discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese) regarding proper titling of ROC-/Taiwan-related topics, polls for each single case has now been started here. Please come and join the discussion, and cast your vote. Thanks. — Instantnood 06:25, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
On the Importance of Edit Summaries
I almost reverted your edit to Phase (matter) as vandalism (i.e. section blanking) until I noticed that you'd split the section out into its own article. A suitable edit summary would have prevented this problem. --Carnildo 06:31, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Zürich to Zurich
Zürich has been nominated on Wikipedia:Requested moves for a page move to Zurich. Perhapse you might like to express your opinion about this proposed move on talk:Zürich. Philip Baird Shearer 10:05, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"China"/"PRC" vs. "mainland China" for page titles
Following the long discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese) regarding proper titling of Mainland China-related topics, polls for each single case has now been started here. Please come and join the discussion, and cast your vote. Thank you. — Instantnood 15:11, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
Req. for your work on Sony v Universal
I think Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios could make a great featured article. It doesn't quite meet the requirements yet, but it could with a little work. In light of the debates and cases about digital piracy and the obligations of hardware/software creators, the affirmation/modification/elimination of the Sony precedent is a key issue for the future of information technology.
Since you've worked on the article in the past, feel free to take another look to bring it "up to code" for a nomination. Feco 21:06, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hello from India, the land of Mythology, and so many more things
It is a chance meeting with you. I found "The" corrected to "the" in Mongol Empire (some portion of which, I had eidited/expanded), and out of curiosity, I moved to your page and found that Mythology interests you. In case, you want to discuss anything about Indian Mythology, you are most welcome ... We will discuss and try to understand the particular point together. --Bhadani 06:22, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
japense textbook controversy
Since the controversy is over an abstract subject (the contents of the textbooks) shouldn't textbook be singular? e.g. Japanese history textbook controversy and protests? We can set the record for most non vandalism name changes in one day. Why did you take out "protests", you don't think it's relevant? I am ok with that change but I still think texbook should be singular. zen master T 02:32, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
32 Demands
Would you please share me your vision for the article 32 Demands? I thought it is fine for the time being.... Or perhaps you can leave your comment in the talk page of that article so that people knows how it should be improved?--Mababa 02:14, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you for your prompt response!! Yes, it does help. After reading my note again, I realize that I was indeed unclear about what I meant. I was just wondering if that cleanup tag should indefinitely stay there and if there is anything people can work on in order to remove it. Many thanks for your reply. :) --Mababa 02:48, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Agnatic and cognatic
I agree with you that in Japan, the direction to change the succession order is FROM agnatic TO cognatic as you wrote at Naruhito of Japan. The person saying the contrary, Ashley Y,is one I have realized knows very little, if anything, about those topics and of genealogical issues (apparently she even has counterproductive opinions), and yet she wants to make edits and reverts to reflect her own opinions. 62.78.121.232 20:11, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Minor edits
It might help if you tell me which minor edit I made, that in your view is not minor. Thanks, Arcturus 10:20, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I see what you're getting at with that one - a controversial topic. There is a short debate at Talk:20th century. Here you will see a possible explanation for the large number of Google hits. The term American century is quite insulting to non-Americans when it is used to imply ownership of the time period. It's not, of course, insulting when used in the context of the name of a book, TV programme etc. I would suggest an edit to American century stating that the term is primarily used in the USA; it is far from being in common usage elsewhere. Arcturus 11:58, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Earth 616
Discussion moved to Talk:Earth-616. —Lowellian
Response posted there too.
Thanks
Thanking for stepping in and halting User:Mrfixter's reverts to Noam. — Chameleon 13:11, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
First name dab pages
What you are saying makes perfect sense. I don't see where you've raised the discussion. SchmuckyTheCat 14:02, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- and didn't radiant start a discussion about the notability of names where it was clear that everyone thought dab pages were perfectly reasonable for names, even if the person thought names themselves weren't notable?
- You aked me to let you know so I am. Of course I would like to support this movement. Celestianpower 14:40, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think it's safe to say now that your proposal to modify Wikipedia:Disambiguation isn't going to garner consensus, so I'm planning to archive it. However, I don't think it was totally agreed whether Michael (and similar pages) are in fact disambiguation pages if they have more than just links. I do sense, however, that most people there would be satisfied if the list got moved to a List of famous Michaels (or whatever). Would you be willing to go along with that? —Wahoofive (talk) 23:30, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thanks for writing and revising the xiangqi article and for your dedication to Wiki, Lowellian! Flcelloguy 20:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Re: Quesada
- My bad; yes, I have it bookmarked at home (at work currently). When I get back, I'll try to cite my sources. Sorry, it slipped my mind at the time. jglc | t | c 13:07, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Googling briefly, I found one reference (unsure as to whether or not it's the original one I read back at home). I cited, changed some wording, and updated with a further explanation of the policy. Let me know how you feel about it, and I can help grow the article in a proper direction. jglc | t | c 13:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Vicki Vale
You made the following edit to to Vicki Vale: [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vicki_Vale&diff=11222887&oldid=11088656). A question: where exactly in Batman #45 does she appear? Please reply on my talk page. —Lowellian (talk) 12:15, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
- This was my error. My comic notes say this, and I've been defending this claim for many years. But after your note to me I dug up my Batman # 45 and read it cover-to-cover and Vicki Vale is certainly not in there.
- I fixed the error. And while I was at it, updated the Vicki Vale page with some new stuff (checking it more carefully this time)! Lawrence King 07:40, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)