User talk:Naryathegreat

Previous talk at Archive 1

Causes of World War II - Polish Silesia

I put an item to the discussion page talk:Causes of World War II Please discuss the issue. Cautious 09:22, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Could you please explain if portion is smaller then part?

Cautious 12:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For somebody who is not native speaker the most difficult is spectrum of meanings. If you are native speaker please advice the proper word. However part seems to big for one fiftinth of the area. Cautious 18:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Civic religion

I was surprised to read some of the things at civic religion: that it occurs only in dictatorships, that it disallows dissent, etc. I would have thought that the phrase refers to ritual expressions of patriotism of the sort practiced in all countries, such as singing the national anthem at public gatherings, displaying the flag on patriotic holidays, retelling exaggerated, one-sided, and oversimplified mythologized tales of great leaders or great battles in the past, and in the USA, reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, presidential inauguration ceremonies, and the like. Since you use the term civic religion only to refer to dogmatic forms practiced only in dictatorships, what name would you use instead of civic religion to refer to the sort of thing I thought was meant? Michael Hardy 01:57, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why I redirected this page

I think there was valuable material on this page, but it was very misleading to title the article civic religion. It was actually about only the most extreme form of civic religion. I have moved some of the material about personality cults and veneration of a Great Leader, and adherence to the Leader's dogmas to the exclusion of all other religion, into the article titled civil religion, to which I have redirected this page. If you click on "history" on this page you will find all of the material that was formerly on this page, so it can be copied and pasted into some appropriately titled page. Maybe some of it could go into cult of personality. Michael Hardy 21:12, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(Response to your comments on my talk page.) I didn't think it was quick and rash; it was after several days of discussion in which it seemed that various interested parties gave their views. Michael Hardy 21:24, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(more such response) Hyperbole at its most hyperbolic. No, it's just an argument about one article. For every article that's argued about like this, a thousand others are being built steadily. Michael Hardy 21:34, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

... and how much input is enough? It doesn't seem as if the number of people interested in this article is huge. Michael Hardy 21:36, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Titles of two articles

Civic religion is a good article, even if it needs a lot more work, but it still bugs me that two articles that are so different from each other have names so similar that people are likely to forget which is which. I think civil religion is a very fitting name for that article, so this one ought to be changed. This one seems to be about just one kind of civil religion. A crude suggestion would be to call this one extremist civil religion. But there must be a better word than "extremist". So my tentative position is: figure out what word that should be, and move this article there. Michael Hardy 02:13, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

i am also trying to figure out which concepts belong in which article (and perhaps which concepts belong in the bit bucket). this thing where are kids are expected to say the Pledge Allegience at public schools, where they are expected to sing the national anthem at basketball games, where the U.S. Constitution is "proof texted" like scripture, where the Founding Fathers are elevated in status to that of Old Testament prophets, what is that thing called? is it "civil religion" or "civic religion". it is a form of religion. it does seem to coexist with other religions but seems to co-opt loyalty from them. i'll vote on that delete thing if someone can convince me which is which. one thing i'll agree with Michael Hardy is that the two terms are so similar that there should not be articles for both. one should redirect to the other. r b-j 06:17, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

personal insults and removal of dispute notices

I would be grateful if you could have a look at the following pages Talk:William C. Rogers III, Talk:Iran Air Flight 655, Talk:Iran, Talk:Religious minorities in Iran, Talk:Christians in Iran and the related articles and article histories. User:K1 is currently using in highly offensive personally abusive language all over the place to several users, deleted a "dispute" notice on the Rogers article, despite clearly not having resolved the accuracy dispute.

I am still fairly new to Wikipedia and would benefit both from your advice and help in this matter Thank you very much Refdoc 11:43, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have raised the matter at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/--K1 Refdoc 15:07, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Refdoc 14:49, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Guanaco

Ah my old friend, perhaps you should direct yourself to my other messages. The game is on.

This person is upset because I deleted his copyvio images. He's even sent me a nasty email.

Guanaco, you, the crafty scorpion and the malicious snake, the crown of infidelity and all that is impure, the editor and policeman, apostate servent of your corrupt masters, in the comming minutes I would like an estimate of whether this is acceptable. Give me your direct e-mail address so I can send you something important.

His email address appears to be myafgha@myafghan.com, but if I try to send a reply, it is returned by the ISP. It's possible he may begin a vandalism spree, because he has resorted to vandalizing Wikipedia:Votes for deletion to try to prevent a vanity page he created from being deleted. Guan aco 03:45, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't know. He's done this kind of thing before. I blocked him for vandalizing VfD, and he started emailing other users and making threats. See the section User talk:Guanaco#Danny Rosenblatt. Guan aco 03:54, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have blocked his IP address and all three of his known accounts. His message at User talk:24.228.82.146 and the emails received by various users have led me to believe that he was going to vandalize Wikipedia. Guan aco 04:07, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm trying to stamp out the dispute, rather than fuel it

... by showing that it is a non-issue. I have worked in the US, but I was not a long term resident. My point is that the issue between the use of theater and theatre in a military context is not as clear cut as your personal experience may lead you to think. Here is a simple google test, limiting the sites to .gov (no possibility of links outside of the United States)

war "european theater" site:gov [1] (http://www.google.com/search?q=+war+%22european+theater%22+site%3Agov) = 865 hits
war "european theatre" site:gov [2] (http://www.google.com/search?q=+war+%22european+theatre%22+site%3Agov) = 91 hits
war "pacific theater" site:gov [3] (http://www.google.com/search?q=+war+%22pacific+theater%22+site%3Agov) = 936 hits
war "pacific theatre" site:gov [4] (http://www.google.com/search?q=+war+%22pacific+theatre%22+site%3Agov) = 98 hits

Thus there should be no argument that this spelling has some usage in a military context in the US. Mintguy (T) 08:11, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Good work on the Windows XP page

The only thing is... it's probably better to not touch the UI page (it's a bit of a hot topic for debate around here!) any more than we should. But otherwise, congrats on making the page more valuable! - Ta bu shi da yu 23:22, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

German army in WW II

Ummm...all of this information was available elsewhere and there is a European Theatre of World War II page. Therefore I am redirecting there.--naryathegreat 01:44, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

Where was the info specific to the German army available? AlainV 03:15, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

History of the PRC

Regarding the Great Leap, this is quite a complicated issue, and the estimates you're bringing up are within a huge, mind-blowing range of variation. This matter is better addressed here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward#The_outcome), which is a page directly linked to the article. As for your removal of content on the forth page, I don't see how it isn't a straightforward, factual summation of the content on the post-Tiananmen years (e.g., the ability of the PRC to chart an effective course through the aftermath of Tiananmen, the '98 East Asian financial crisis, the world economic slowdown in 2000, the Falun Gong controversy, the devastating flooding, the leadership change of 2002-2003, and finally the SARs epidemic). That concluding sentence has stood in the article for over a year-and-a-half with no objections, so your insistence on removing it strikes me as POV. 172 19:18, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand this objection. Look up the meaning of the word "preponderance" in a dictionary. All the definitions this word denotes are value-neutral. If anything, what the word connotes can gravitate toward the positive side (e.g., being synonymous with "preeminence"). 172 21:10, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't know who you are, what your native tough is, or who you've been talking to, but "preponderance" isn't by any stretch of the imagination a negative, POV term. 172 21:26, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

English is my native tongue as well and I am a professional historian; I am still puzzled as to how "preponderance" can be considered a negative, POV term. 172 21:35, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Speaking of competence, have you looked up the definition of that word yet? If it bothers you so much (for what reason, I fail to grasp), just go ahead and change it to, say, "preeminence." 172 21:43, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The wording you're suggesting now will be POV. That seems to be suggesting that China is seeking hegemony. 172 21:49, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I changed the wording a bit. Now hopefully you can clam down. You seem to be making a big deal about nothing. 172 22:01, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This conversation is getting a bit tedious. We can wait for the input of other users. Place a note on the talk page. About half-a-dozen other users have been actively editing the History of the PRC article. We can wait to find out if they agree that this sentence somehow makes Western culture "look bad." 172 22:10, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Recent speedy deletion requests

Hi. I have been responding to your speedy deletion requests. However, some of them do not meet the qualifications to be candidates for speedy deletion. Are there any that were not deleted that you can make a reason for speedy deletion? - Tεx τ urε 19:14, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Windows XP

I don't know what you're talking about removing stuff--I haven't removed a single thing, I promise. As a matter of fact, I created the spyware sections. I also like the fact that the similarites to Mac OS X is gone, but I kind of started to like it, it seemed to bring a little friendship into the mix between the two, which have a history of enmity.--naryathegreat 03:33, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

Honestly I don't know what I was talking about either. For some reason I thought you made those edits today removing the sections, but I should have checked the history. My fault. Rhobite 03:53, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

Redirects

Please don't redirect pages without consulting other users in talk. GeneralPatton 21:02, 27 Aug 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 2000 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:

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:

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&section=new)| talk)

Your additions to USAD

Your additions to USAD are in many cases irrelevant (Demidec being quicker than Acalon is a bit too fine grain for an article on USAD) or they remove correct information and replace it with incorrect info (replacing "science" with "super quiz" is just wrong). Also the concept of a central theme hasn't always been around, and Super Quiz hasn't always thus been tied to a theme. Some of your additions both focus on and offer POV relating to the 2004 events. Your statement that math doesn't change from year to year is also incorrect. CryptoDerk 06:03, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

Just so you know, I did Acadec while I was in high school, won over 30 medals at state, went to nationals 3 times and won 2 medals there. I've been the coach of a team that went to nationals, and I have semi-detailed knowledge of USAD competitions from 1992 to 2004. Anyway, I didn't comment on Demidec being error prone, although it IS too specific in an article on USAD. Plus that information changes year to year -- you may notice that there are some errors this year, but next year there may not be. In 1998 and 1999 my teams found that Demidec materials weren't error-prone so much as much of the information was irrelevant since USAD writes questions from their own materials. Additionally, it goes without saying that materials are error-prone. I can recall when USAD had pages of errata for their own materials.

Looking at your new edits to the article, I want to make sure that I specifically point out things that are wrong:

Science IS an event. Super Quiz changes from year to year. Unless Science was permanently made the Super Quiz event (in which case I'd like to see some reference). Just one year ago social science was the Super Quiz. Although tangential to the subject, I think that science has been the Super Quiz more often than other subjects.
Historically most events haven't been tied into the theme. The addition of a close-knit theme has evolved over time.
Mathematics most definitely DOES change from year to year. Probably the most notable change from year to year is the number of questions. Aside from that, though, the % of certain questions changes, as does the subtopics covered. Sometimes geometry isn't covered, sometimes it is; sometimes calculus is 5%, sometimes calculus is 15%, etc.
Saying that astrology is a better topic than astronomy is your opinion. This is POV, period.
I want numbers regarding your statement that "most teams" rely on third party materials. There are thousands of teams out there. It is a fact that most top scoring teams in large competition states do order these, but I want hard numbers saying that most order the third party materials.

Additionally removing my general statements on the competition and replacing them with specifics for 2004 is bad. I'll rework these into a list. Take a look at the article in a bit and hopefully it will satisfy both of us. If you have statements regarding what should be in the article we should probably take this to the article's talk page and hopefully other people will get involved as well. For instance, I know very little of the competition prior to 1992.

Also, although I did state that it was too fine grain, I have lots of knowledge about Demidec's creation, process, etc. I was at the first nationals when Demidec was starting up and trying to be pals with USAD, and I've spent several hours in the company of Dan Berdichevsky. I've also briefly met the guy that runs Acalon.

Finally, on a tangent, what years have you done Acadec? I've found a few editors on WP that have some Acadec history, and it's always interesting to meet new ones. CryptoDerk 17:51, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

In response to your statements:

"even if the tied into theme thing did evolve over time, what it's like now is a revolution about the theme. So we should say that in the article." - Done
"yes the official USAD material does have errata, but it is important to note that almost all tested info comes from it now, so no sane person doesn't buy it" - I was saying that a lot of teams don't buy the third-party stuff, not the USAD stuff. I'd wager that 99.9% of the teams get the USAD stuff, but I'd say if Demidec is lucky then upwards of 30% of teams get their stuff. You could email Dan about this and see if he has the numbers — it may also give you a good inroad to becoming a Demidec intern, if you are/were interested in that.
The math really is a lot more dynamic than you may think. I've not seen national results or the % breakdown since 2000, but in the period of time from 95-99 they tinkered with it quite a bit. If memory serves me correctly there were, because of ties, upwards of 90 medalists in math at the 1998 national finals with dozens of perfect scores. So next year they increased the difficulty. The result: everyone's scores went down. My score dropped 120 points from 98 to 99 and yet the medal went from silver to gold. So, after that year being too hard, the next year they made it easier again. I think they're still messing around with it because I heard about some changes in the past couple of years about calculator usage, number of questions, and time limit.

Anyway, I guess you've had time to look over the article and I trust you feel it's satisfactory. CryptoDerk 03:24, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Box

Sorry, I shouldn't have called it an "ugly box". I was more reacting to the fact that it made the top of the page look really bad, and used a poor choice of words. To be sure, the box could probably be prettified a bit, but it's certainly serviceable as is. Very Verily 03:15, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

History of France

Why does "France in modern times" equal "Fifth Republic"? - SimonP 01:06, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

There isn't really a gap. The Second Empire turns into France under the Third Republic, which turns into "France in modern times" covering everything after WWII. I do agree completely that these pages are much too short. - SimonP 01:15, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Anaconda

Hi Narya, do you know anything about copyrights on this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Anaconda.jpg) pic you posted? Nice one btw, I'm gonna use it for the Dutch anaconda. Greetings B kimmel 16:09, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC).

Ok thanks a lot, but maybe you should alter the descriptionpage of the picture as well greetings, B kimmel 21:51, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Education in the United States NPOV dispute

Great job! I also made a few additions and changes to wordings about community colleges. I'd be glad if you looked them over. Thunderbolt16 01:10, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

rings and things

While checking what links here for ringbearer I noticed that your user page links to it. Of course I would never tamper with a user page without the author's permission, so I'm leaving this note to let you know that the Tolkien character is now at ring-bearer. Quill 08:22, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The size of Wales

You've nominated this article for speedy deletion. Could you say which of the categories it fits under? Dbiv 22:10, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not clear which of the criteria for speedy deletion you though that this article met. For the moment I've removed the 'delete' tag, and done some tidying and wikifying. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:11, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's fairly clear that it's not a speedy candidate. If you want to argue for its deletion, do so through the Votes for Deletion process. Dbiv 22:52, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Re: Votes for Deletion

Alright, thanks for the tip, just wasn't sure if that was speedy or not... the guidelines seem fairly vague to me and didn't want to offend anyone, thanks anyways. [[User:Sasquatch|Sasquatch]]Template:Unicode Talk Template:Unicode Contributions

Sensitive fern

Hello there. Why did you move Onoclea sensibilis to Sensitive fern? Isn't it better to refer to the plant articles by the scientific binomial so there is no confusion among common names? I'm just curious as to if there is some policy I should know about regarding name conventions. --DanielCD 21:46, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This depends a lot on the situation. In many plant pages the scientific name is better for the page title. In some cases, common names are confusing or misleading; in others, the scientific name is more widely used than the so-called 'common' name (99% of plants have no common name at all); in yet others there may be different common names used in different areas for the same species, and using one over another can be a POV unacceptable in wiki etiquette. Scientific names also make for much better indexing in Categories, as they index related species in the same genus together when common names might not. The matter has been discussed several times on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life (look through the archives as well!), usually with a majority in favour of using scientific names for all plant pages (though not for animals), with only the size of the task preventing much greater conversion to scientific name page titles - MPF 23:46, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I'll have to give it some more thought. Thing is, there are so many common names, and the sci. binomial is universal. We can always have redirects for the common names. I don't wanna big controversy though. I'll have to do some more reading in the Wikitalk:Tree of Life. But wow, there's so much there. Hard to know where people are at in the debate. Anyway, thanks. --DanielCD 01:06, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

HI again! I didn't think you were assulting my name choice; sorry if I ever sounded that way. Sometimes my writing can seem a little more vehement than it really is. In the end all that matters to me is a consensus or at least a rule of thumb we can all agree on. We should get the pros and cons of both together somewhere. But the comment/talk and especially archive pages are so labrynthine, it's often hard to find out where the discussion is at. But really, thanks for the comments and the discussion. --DanielCD 18:49, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Languages

Thanks for closing the ridiculous peer review on American English. But I disagree that Scottish English, Welsh English, Hiberno-English, Canadian English, Australian English, New Zealand English, South African English, and Indian English should have "language" attached to them. They're not languages, they're dialects (some of them arguably only accents) of the English language. Swiss German language and Austrian language already are called that, but IMO it's only justified for the former. I would prefer the latter to be called Austrian German. --Angr/ 22:10, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image:Bassclarinet.jpg

Hi, I see this image is marked as public domain, but it doesn't state the source. Did you make it? --Gmaxwell 19:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The picture was received from a friend, who made it, and transferred it into my posession. He no longer has the picture and I have released it into the public domain.--naryathegreat | (talk) 00:58, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Well what I was looking for is a specific detailed keywork picture, could I talk to your friend? --Gmaxwell 12:30, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well not really, because he's not a Wikipedian and never was. He was a friend in my high school band who was good with photoshop. I don't really know if I could get in touch with him any more. He graduated before me.--naryathegreat | (talk) 15:07, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, Okay. Thanks then... I'll probably just replace it when I shoot the keywork pictures myself after I finish illustrating Bassoon. --Gmaxwell 16:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In response to your comment on my username

I picked my name because it has been my longstanding internet pen-name. I'm not as concerned with the possible offensiveness of the name - to me it was a play on words, not a condonement of Pol Pot's actions. But, recognizing that it could very well hurt my standing in the Wikipedia community to have that name, I've changed my signature nickname to display my real name. Please let me know if you feel that is enough.

--JackReeves 03:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

List of high schools

Sorry, but I just basically cut-and-paste (line by line, usually). There should be an easier way to do it, but I've never found it. For all the counties Texas has, it would take me several hours, probably. Good luck. Flyers13 00:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

- Well, you could jump on List of school districts in Texas instead. It's a little more manageable (and then I could link to the district articles when the high school page is populated. I'm sure a bot could be created to import the data from SchoolTree, but I don't know how to do it (and there could be copyright issues); there are enough errors in the data that require research/fixing that I'd be a little leery about it anyway. At least most of the populated states are already done ... with the notable exceptions of Texas and California ... which should be great fun.

Image:Hitlerandchamberlain.jpg

You uploaded this image under the tag Template:Tl. Unfortuantely the wording of this tag was inaccurate, and the image is not yet PD. However it may be usable under fair use. Could you consider changing the copyright tag to Template:Tl. Thanks, and keep up the good work. Physchim62 13:22, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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