User talk:Cecropia

April 2005

Dessertion

Talk:Desertion -==SV 22:33, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

ABCD

I note that you haven't voted. Perhaps you should, since as you note the vote is close. It's a tough case because both the support and oppose votes seem to be well-founded. If there are no further votes by the deadline, I would be inclined to promote, because of the moderately large turnout, because one of the oppose votes has no reasoning, and because the overall reasoning of the opposition is based on volume of activity rather than any sort of track record of problems. My two cents. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:04, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BMT Eastern Division directions

I've been talking to someone recently who says that the Jamaica and Myrtle Avenue Lines now have south as towards Manhattan. Do you know anything about this? --SPUI (talk) 15:55, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Franklin map

Am I correct about the pre-reconstruction configuration there (with the westbound track merging with the eastbound, and one track to Franklin)? And if so, where was the platform?

I did include the non-revenue and removed tracks, but unfortunately chose a bad shade of gray. --SPUI (talk) 23:49, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, thanks. How far west does the current platform at Franklin Avenue extend? Is it as wide as the old eastern one? --SPUI (talk) 02:19, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've updated the map. --SPUI (talk) 02:39, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Culver Line

Would you object to covering the part south of the Culver Ramp in BMT Culver Line and only the IND-built part in IND Culver Line? Operationally it seems to be part of the BMT; it just happens to only have an IND service on it. --SPUI (talk) 22:48, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of course nycsubway.org calls the IND part the Crosstown Line. Anyway, I'll get working on the split in a bit. --SPUI (talk) 23:14, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for your welcome; I can see that I have a lot of quiet study to do before I start reading aloud from the admin spell-book. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:10, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

3rr

I recently stumbled across your comments re: 3rr on Jimbo's talk page, and wanted to voice my agreement with them. I've never been a fan of 3rr blocks, and while I'm willing to accept that they may have their place, I share your concern that they are being applied without thought. I also believe that editors are learning to game the system in various ways, and that 3rr is being used both for editorial leverage and as a means of settling scores. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:59, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Chamaeleon's RfA

Since he has withdrawn his request, should it be archived, or should it still stay the full week? Thanks. Guettarda 22:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your information

Hi Cecropia, thanks for the information and wishes. I'll definitely excercise care and caution in using the sysop powers. -- Sundar (talk • contribs) 04:07, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

Greetings Cecropia, and thank you for the note and link; I'll be reading it through shortly. Btw, enjoyed your commentary under "Cecropia Lite"; it's quite to the point. Best, Antandrus 04:18, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Adminship standards

I like the statement in your adminship standards about edit counts. That is true; I have written articles offline and then posted them in one edit before (for instance, Guarantee Security Life Insurance Company, which I wrote for my Accounting class). Rad Racer | Talk 19:10, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If people continue to remove information the public deserves to know, I will no longer post to Wikipedia.

Wingover

NYC Subway infobox

Yeah, that sounds good (assuming that was the first of the predecessors). Strangely, the oldest right-of-way on which subway trains run is the Staten Island Railway. --SPUI (talk) 14:33, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Chick Publications protection

Hi Jim, I've been watching this article from a distance now. Seems that the last edit on the talk page was nearly four days ago. Do you think it's a good idea to remove protection and see if editing will proceed smoothly now? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:54, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Question on Ruses of War

Hi Cecropia,

Thank you for your great articles! I'm currently developing a short curriculum on war crimes and laws of war for high school students, and found your article on Ruses of War especially helpful. Right now I'm working on a handout that will challenge students to think critically about what is and is not legal war conduct, based on the laws of war. The students will have to analyze a number of brief warfare scenarios and decide whether or not they are acceptable under the war laws. I was wondering if you have citations for your examples of "legitimate ruses", or if you could recommend me a book/publication I can use as a source for generating more scenarios of legitimate/illegitimate ruses of war. Any help you could give me would be most appreciated! Thank you much.

My primary source, and one I would highly recommend, is "Laws of Land Warfare" U.S. Army Field Manual FM 27-10. I think there are copies online, but I came up dry just now. If you have a little time, you can readily obtain a copy cheap on eBay.

A good discussion of Ruses of War can be found online in The Military Law Review at [1] (http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/Military_Law_Review/pdf-files/27707B~1.pdf). I especially point to the comment therein: "military necessity 'admits of deception, but disclaims acts of perfidy.' " This covers a lot in addition to the specifics. If the enemy is watching your movements, and you make believe you are going to attack "here," but instead attack "there," that is a perfectly legimitate ruse of war. You have no responsibility to allow the enemy to obtain an accurate report of your movements or intentions. OTOH, when you effectively ask the enemy to trust you (raise a white flag, then trap the opposite side in an ambush" that is perfidy and a war crime). The key element is betrayal of trust.

The central issue in much other of the Laws of Warfare is shockingly simple (and ignored in the modern media and among partisans worldwide): "I won't do it to you and you don't do it to me." Sad to say, multilateral organizations have greatly mudied this simple truth with bias toward one side or the other. Hope this helps. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 04:24, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Biekko's RfA

I think you cut short my nomination for adminship. It was supposed to end 18:45 UTC but you closed it at 06:20 UTC. --Bjarki 13:25, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

RFA

I wasn't the one who re-added Biekko's nomination, but thanks for the credit anyway. :-)

Anyway, wrt the broader issue, I don't have strong feelings one way or another. I too have promoted early in the past, but like you I tend to leave non-promotions and close calls for the full duration. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:26, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to thank you for admining me so quickly. Cheers. Burgundavia 08:42, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Tips for archiving a talk page

Hello. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and would like some tips on how to archive a talk page. The one for Burkhard Heim is over 112 kilobytes long! I wanted to put some effort to summarize the discussion, and split the talk page into different topics as appropriate. However, I would like to be able to preserve the history as well. Do you have any advice for this? Thanks for your help! HappyCamper 14:15, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Uberarticles

First off, the subway car articles were all there; I just organized them.

The problem here is that the common name varies in different places. There is a lot of overlap between streetcar and tram, for example, and creating a fork because of regional differences makes no sense. --SPUI (talk) 20:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your main argument attacks the name. You suggested rapid transit as an alternative. Would you have any objection if I had made what's at urban heavy rail at rapid transit instead? If so, please argue about that issue, rather than what should be a minor issue of what to name the article. --SPUI (talk) 20:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If light rail is a neologism with no specific meaning, then it should be a short page describing its use, AND should have very little linking there, as calling something light rail is meaningless. Would you like to fix the links?

Feel free to post the poll, but the wording could use a bit of work. First, tram and streetcar were both separate articles. There should be a separate option about merging those two and having light rail as a short article about usage (since many light rail lines are called trams, like the Midland Metro. And Polls are evil, especially since there was meaningful discussion before you came in and made your demands. --SPUI (talk) 20:42, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

By the way, note how I combined some subway services like the 1-9, F-V and J-Z. This is a similar case. --SPUI (talk) 20:44, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They do not have discrete meanings; in effect European tram+light rail is equivalent to U.S. streetcar+light rail, with the division between each being fuzzy. Thus there is very significant overlap between streetcar and tram, and keeping the two separate makes no sense. As for light rail, that's so ill-defined that it should either be a redirect to its most common meaning of whatever streetcar+tram becomes, or should be a short page explaining usage. --SPUI (talk) 20:53, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Metro et al.

Obviously I'm not the one to protect them, as I'm now involved myself. I do consider you an involved admin as *you* seem to be the one disagreeing with SPUI. This is fine, and it's not a big deal. Just go to IRC or the Admin Noticeboard and ask someone to protect, I'm sure they will. Also, if SPUI has violated the 3RR, report it in the appropriate location. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:20, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

No harm done, C. :) I'm glad to see people working together amicably. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:00, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Eh, I apologize for anything excessive I've done, though I do believe firmly in the merging of these articles. There seems to be a decent discussion now on Talk:Streetcar. --SPUI (talk) 22:55, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My adminship

Hi Cecropia. Thanks for dealing with this promptly. I promise to be prudent, wise, sagacious etc etc etc. Cheers, Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 20:48, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just to echo Smoddy's sentiments but re:my own adminship, of course. I will do my best to live up to the responsibility... now to start thanking everyone who voted for me... --khaosworks 07:04, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

re: JonGwynne

Hi - just noted your unblocking note re: JonGwynne on 3rr. I presume you looked at the other two 3rr complaints currently on that page regarding JonGwynne. Your comment was on the first which had had no action taken. Look on down the page for the other two. He has also been subject to another 3rr ban just recently (Apr 20 - although the archive doesn't seem to be there?[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2F3RR&diff=12849088&oldid=12839692)). JonGwynne has been gaming the system quite regularly and I wanted you to consider the whole story :-). Regards Vsmith 03:12, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think he's just complaining because his requests to have me blocked have been rejected as being without merit.--JonGwynne 04:59, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

my adminship

Thanks! Having that block-thing right next to all edits will take some geting used to, but I'm sure it'll come in handy sometimes. And the rollback-thing rocks. Already tried it. It doesn't allow me to insert further comments to the revert, so I'll only use it when that is blatently obvious. But that's most of the times, i guess. Thanks for doing this task! Shanes 02:48, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BB&CI

Yeah, my bad on that - I have noticed other errors in Poor's and Moody's manuals (the source of the database). I'll change it back. --SPUI (talk) 23:29, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! (my adminship)

Just in the case you might overlook my comment on my own talk page, Jim, I wish to personally thank you for the welcome. Incidentally, have admired your consistently high-quality contributions for quite some time now, and I am hopeful we will get a chance to colaborate on interesting articles in the future. All the best, El_C 05:15, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Confrontational

I really would like to offer an apology as I feel this has become too confrontational. I think you do a good job and I don't have anything against you. Really I just want to have a logical discussion about whether or not voting to "tip the scales" and then close is right or not. Hopefully this can be better defined for future cases. Cheers. CryptoDerk 00:10, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Apologies

Cecropia, after reading Kim Bruning and Raul654's comments, I feel I need to apologize. I didn't vote because I didn't know Minghong, and I consequently didn't have an opinion either way on the subject. Of course, I then preceeded to get involved in a discussion about that vote... I'm sure being a bureaucrat is a difficult job, and I'm sure you do an excellent job (I don't know much about you either, actually...argh). I resolve to only get caught up in things that I actually know stuff about from now on; keep up the good bureaucratic work, or whatever. Take care. --Whimemsz 00:26, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

"conspiracy theory" in titles

Hello, Cecropia, just to clarify you support the status quo of articles titled with "conspiracy theory"? Why exactly, you noted big differences between "conspiracy theory", "conspiracy"?

Also, in my opinion you can ignore the bottom most proposal that Willmcw created, he seems to be intentionally tangenticizing the issue to me. zen master T 07:18, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

The GM article is not included in the list of proposals, see the main page Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory for the best summary of the arguments. The issue primarily exists when "conspiracy" and "theory" are combined together. The combined phrase has multiple definitions, one of which has negative connotations and therefore is not neutral enough for use in a title. Why use such an ambiguous phrase when better and simply stated alternatives exist? zen master T 07:29, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia e-mail

Cecropia, the wiki e-mail feature is highly unreliable in my experience, so I have to ask: did you get my message a couple of days ago? Bishonen | talk 20:32, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

blocking a vandal

Can you help me with how to block a vandal who is on a roll? Of course, it's an IP address, and I realize it will only be temporay. Several other users who are not admins (which i am) haver requested help. I have routinely chased and reverted vandals, but never blocked one. Thanks, Mark in Richmond. Vaoverland 20:37, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

Thanks for the advice. Mark in Richmond, Vaoverland 13:40, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

why Exterminate?

Why did you exterminate my categories at WP:RfA/Bishonen? You noted: "Please DO NOT format RFAs like an article - it messes up the TOC. What is a TOC? :) --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 20:51, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Requests For Kitchen Appliances

Thanks, Cecropia! I wonder if I should have left a list at one of the major kitchen appliance stores? :-) --Bishonen | talk 14:35, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

rfa Apollomelos

Hi Cecropia - I see you just removed the rfa tally for Apollomelos. Sadly, it appears to be moot in any case... the debate became so heated that Apollomelos has apparently quit as a Wikipedian. Grutness...wha? 02:18, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Admins who voluntarily relinquish their admin powers

Hey Cecropia - I wanted your opinion. What's our policy w/ regard to people who have voluntarily given up their admin powers? If they want them back, do they need a full RFA, or can we expidite them? Apparently, we have precedents for both expiditing them (with PMA) or doing a full request for adminship (Evercat and Tabu). What are your thoughts? →Raul654 18:47, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for eavesdropping...jeeze, tell them to stop "relinguishing" their "powers" in the first place. It's not like they're on the clock, or anything. ;-) func(talk) 19:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Cecropia and Raul, may I request that, if you're going to change past practice, that you allow the votes that had started to proceed, and introduce this change for any new votes, and after a wider discussion? Raul wrote on Ugen's nomination page that, if memory serves him right, there's no need for Ugen's re-nomination, and yet there seems to be no current policy to that effect. I would like the vote for Ugen to go ahead, as I feel there are some legitimate concerns. I also feel that admins have the choice to simply be inactive for a time, and if they specifically choose to be desysopped for whatever reason (e.g. Evercat felt he'd abused his position), then it's only fair, in my view, to ask them to be re-elected if they change their minds. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:31, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Adminship

Thanks! Finally. I will take some time to learn all the new gadgets before I start with the chores.--Wiglaf 18:21, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

9

Thanks to the help of others, I think it's all been taken care of (along with the N returning to Coney Island). --SPUI (talk) 03:33, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Malbone Street Wreck

I would tend to consider the trains in the Amagasaki rail crash and the Yokohama rail crash to be commuter trains, since they are full-sized trains which run completely above ground (but however has stations quite close together in certain areas), with maximum typical speeds of around 100 km/h; however, commuter trains in Japan are also not that different from, for example, Tokyo Metro, which simply has a significant number of their stations below ground, and their trains are just as full-sized - and indeed, it has services that are extended into other companies' systems of above-ground stations and run along their lines. The distinction is quite blurred, I think. But whether or not Amagasaki rail crash is considered rapid transit or not, it is not the deadliest - if it is rapid transit, the Yokohama one should also be considered rapid transit and is deadlier; if it isn't, then this Malbone Street Wreck would still be deadliest. -- KittySaturn 00:46, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

Barnstar

You seem to be the most active bureaucrat , so I think you deserve a barnstar. If you accept, put with whatever caption you want on your page. Howabout1 02:34, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

thanks!

Thanks for handling my promotion to admin, and especially thanks for your good wishes. It's been a real morale boost to get such warm support from Wikipedia folks in the RFA process. All the best, FreplySpang (talk) 01:30, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Harro5

Hey Cecropia!

I just noticed that your edit statement said that Harro5 was promoted, but then I saw that there wasn't any concencus. Hehe, which was it? Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 03:48, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

All's well that ends ... -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 04:07, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you and Question

Hi, thank you for the congrats. I've been so busy writing articles that now I happen to notice that my User Page still doesn't have any of those wonderful administrator buttons. I'm not in a hurry, just curious. How long do you think it would be before my power buttons appear? Thank you and have a nice day Marine 69-71 06:29, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for answering but, I logged in and there's still no "buttons" on my page. Help! Marine 69-71 14:43, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for sysopping me, and also for your congratulations. JYolkowski // talk 18:51, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Cecropia, just thought I should drop by and thank you for promoting me. Cheers, →Ingoolemo← ^talk</font> 03:42, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)