User talk:Derek Ross
|
|
| Contents |
Archive
Wikipedia and admins (for Derek)
Hi Derek, I am new to Wikipedia so please forgive me for any common etiquette errors. The problem I end up with in Wikipedia is really just one. It seems all pages are subserviant to some degree with the Wikipedia page. And the Wikipedia page is run by an Admin. I'm not sure if the 19 year old Admin realizes it, but in a strange way he seems to be a global power.
Here is my reasoning... If many users results come from Google (90% of the search market), and the greatest number on encyclopedia rankings are from Wikipedia (and viewed likely as facts), and article contributers reference the Wikipedia page as whether something belongs in Wikipedia.
Comments on this matter? I tried a little experiment by creating a little passage on the wikipedia page (That's how I learned about Fredrik... the Admin). I mentioned I was not atttempting vandalism and also that all other pages seem subservient to this page.
I have yet to receive a reply from Fredrik but I think this brings up a very deep issue... fundamental to describing to users what Wikipedia (and its' information) represents. I noticed you mentioned the Admin issue so i though you might be able to direct me somewhere that there is a debate about this.
Thanks Potroast
Potroast, I think that I understand what you mean but I also don't think that it's as bad as first appears. Although it may appear that a lot of encyclopedia pages are subservient to Wikipedia, this is just because a lot of people have copied our pages to make their own encyclopedias. Their pages are not really subservient to ours but they don't generally let users edit the entries in the way that we do so the result is that their pages appear to be subservient. This produces the "global power" effect that you have noticed.
But the good news is that anyone can have that "global power", not just 19 year old Admins. All that they need to do is to make good edits to our pages which improve the articles contained in them. The only pages which cannot be edited by ordinary web users are those where we have found that we get a lot of bad edits (sometimes vandalism, sometimes not). These are reserved for editing by Admins only. However they are few and far between. Most pages really are editable by anyone who is polite and wants to improve the article, so please have at it.
On the subject of Admins: firstly Admin is a bad name for the position. These people are really just users who have been editing Wikipedia for long enough to have built up a good reputation. As a result they are trusted (rightly or wrongly) not to make bad edits. To become an Admin all that you need to do is to make mostly good edits to Wikipedia over a few months (and basically behave as if you already were an Admin). However it's not really necessary to become one. I edited Wikipedia for three years without being an Admin and never had a problem editing the pages that I wanted to edit.
My comments on Admins in the Wikipedia discussion page just reflect the fact that I don't believe that Admins are fundamentally necessary to the Wikipedia. With the correct changes to the software, I believe that the separate Admin (and Bureaucrat and Steward) status could be (and should be) done away with. I base this on my first year's experience with Wikipedia where we managed pretty well without a separate Admin status. However I would say that Admins are a necessary evil with the software in its current version, owing to the large numbers of edits which are currently done to the database and the small number of tools for self-policing at the moment.
I hope that this answers your questions. As a new user you will probably find it a good idea to read some of our policy pages so that you know what sort of writing Wikipedia is looking for. There are a lot of policies but the only ones that I would say are essential are the ones on NPOV and on spelling. The rest of the policies are mostly common sense for anyone with good manners.
In summary, I would say that our articles are better than would be produced by 19 year olds only, because there are people of all ages (and a wide variety of expertise) editing and checking our articles. But don't take my word for it, please check for yourself.
Cheers -- Derek Ross | Talk 09:17, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
By the way, I have just checked your edit to the Wikipedia article. I think that the reason that it was removed is that it was not clear what it meant. Having read it I still don't understand what you were trying to say so I guess that other people found the same thing. Perhaps if you explained in more detail on the Wikipedia discussion page, we might understand what you are trying to say. Cheers -- Derek Ross | Talk 09:38, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
Kilts again..
As a lowlander who's not worn a kilt for many years I don't feel well qualified to comment, but in my limited experience everyone wears underpants (or shorts) while feeling vaguely that they're letting down a brave manly tradition. The original seemed a little tongue in cheek, the revision is a wee bit harsh in debunking the "myth". I'd be inclined to rephrase it a little and add references to Napoleonic era saucy pics of seated ladies looking up to braw highland sodgers and to the Scotts porage oats ad where the lassie gets the kilted shopkeeper to fetch something from the top shelf using a stepladder. However the tradition appears be real in some places judging by your comments in kilt talk, so will wait for feedback before having a go. And here we are just coming into the haggis shooting season..dave souza 19:24, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Kilts indeed. Trust me, I do have a life, but the continued imperfect nature of the kilt article with respect to underpants is like a dripping tap to me. Please check the discussion page and give me a shout on how we can resolve this, because I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and I've not been involved in the resolving of such an issue before.--Gantlord 23:15, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Gantlord, I've been working on Wikipedia since 2001 and I still think that it's best to change the article to the way that you think it should be and then let others work with that in the first place. We need to describe the actual situation rather than prescribe it and its best to try to put it in sduch a way that its difficult or impossible to argue with what's been written. If you want we can thrash out a few alternatives on the talk page before putting a final paragraph on the article page. For further discussion, see the Talk:Kilt page. Cheers -- Derek Ross | Talk 01:40, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
The Portuguese Succession
Dear Derek, i requested protection of the Hilda Toledano article, i'm getting sick of this guy. By the way, the distinction may be subtle but is there. My daughter was not a result of adultery and i'm not oficially married :) Cheers, muriel@pt 20:55, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
That's good, Muriel. I think that protection is probably the most straightforward option for the moment although I was quite prepared to go on reverting for as long as necessary. As for the "subtle distinction", I can easily see the difference, and I apologise for my original edit on the matter which was the result of my lack of knowledge of the Portuguese rules of succession. The reason that I later commented on it was that I was favourably impressed that Portuguese law sees the distinction as well. That was why I used the adjective "enlightened". Cheers. -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:16, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)
Warning!!!
Derek, you were kind enough to express some mild amusement at my warning to the squeamish in the Scots law article that "This case was particularly gruesome and those of a delicate disposition are advised not to read the following paragraph." It's no great surprise that this has been removed twice, once anonymously and once by User:Lucifer(sc) with the comment] "(Warning removed. This case is quite tame.)" It's hardly worth an edit war, but if you think I should persevere with this frivolity do let me know..dave souza 00:44, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I'm a great fan of a little frivolity and love it when people lighten an article with a little gentle humour. So I'm sorry to hear that it's been removed, Dave. Some people seem determined to remove any trace of life from Wikipedia's articles and turn it into a po-faced institution. I agree that it's not worth an edit war though. What I suggest is that we do nothing for a week or so, then I'll put the phrase back. In the meantime, there's no policy saying that all fun must be removed from Wikipedia articles and I for one hope that you'll continue to add it where appropriate. Cheers -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:46, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
- Ta, will take your advice. When the time comes may add to the talk page the "legalese" under the picture comparing the iPod Shuffle size with a packet of chewing gum ""iPod Shuffle: Smaller than a pack of gum and much more fun.*"....*"Do not eat iPod shuffle."....dave souza 00:15, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Marriage strike
Hi Derek,
Marriage striker entry was updated because it lacked the proper description of the person's cause. It was weak by a lack of focus on the people and issues. The purpose of the through update is to disseminate to a broader audience timely and accurate legal and social information about a new movement.
I may be qualified to re-author this entry as I was a fatherless child and am childless father; had $90k of my money spent on divorce litigation in about 65 court appearances; self-represented litigant for 24 months; have two graduate degrees from Northwestern University and DePaul University and a psychology degree; and am a marriage striker. I would be pleased to hold responsibility of challenges and changes of its development, if appropriate.
Mark Ruffolo
I'm sorry to hear that you've been through that trouble, Mark. I hope that things improve for you in 2005. As for the article, by all means develop it if you wish. I only ask that you provide the normal references and citations that you would for any academic literature research so that people who read the article can be sure that it is based on more than your own personal experience (valuable though that is) and can follow up the Wikipedia article with further reading elsewhere if they wish.
Also be aware that the article as written doesn't quite match the Wikipedia style of writing (which we call the Neutral Point of View or (NPOV for short). As a result people will probably change the way that some of the facts have been written, hopefully without changing the facts themselves. This is not a bad thing, it is just the way that the Wikipedia works and some people find it hard to get used to. So I would recommend that you read the Wikipedia style pages on NPOV and then make appropriate changes yourself. If you have any questions, I would be delighted to answer them for you. Cheers -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:33, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
You say tomato
FWIW, propellent and propellant are both listed in dictionaries as valid spellings...
-Wolfkeeper
- I didn't realise. Thanks for letting me know. Cheers. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:38, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
Requested Moves
When completing the move (or denying it) please remove the discussion from WP:RM. If there is significant discussion, archive it on the destination's talk page. Otherwise just trash it. Also, when removing the discussion, indicate "moved" or "not moved" and "archived" or "not archived" in the edit summary. Thanks! - UtherSRG 23:37, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
There has been a change in the way that WP:RM works. All votes and comments are now done on the talk page of the item to be moved. I have moved you posting into Talk:Honour. Philip Baird Shearer 09:19, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I am well aware of that, Philip. You misunderstand my reason for putting a comment on WP:RM. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:46, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
When making edits
Please take the time to cite your sources. Avoid using loose phraseology "some people say".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cite_your_sources
India 14:01, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I assume that you are referring to the unsupported and questionable statement "Please note however, that the use of the term Celt to refer to people in Ireland and Britain arose in the 18th Century" which you added to the article. I am afraid that it is up to you to cite a source for that statement, since I don't know where you got it from. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:58, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
1) My initial point related to the statement "(They are said to have descended from tribes or nations from mainland Celtic regions, such as Gaul and Belgium, and are known to have moved into Great Britain and Ireland, such as the Atrebates, Menapii, and Parisii.)". The phrase "They are said" needs a source. Who said it?
2) This is well known amongst historians and indeed is referred to in the same article more than once. Amongst others Simon James book "The Atlantic Celts - Ancient People Or Modern Invention?" makes the point that the Romans never used the term 'Celtic' in reference to the peoples of the Atlantic archipelago, the term was coined as a useful umbrella term in the early 18th century. In particular, there is no record of the term "Celt" being used in connection with the inhabitants of Ireland and Britain prior to the 18th century. Many people are under the same misapprehension that you have reflected in your reply. It is worth making the point in the header.
India 15:23, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I see. Okay, let's move this discussion to the relevant talk page. Cheers -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:27, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
Re : speedy deletion
Hi Derek,
Thanks for your message. As far as I know I do not blank pages when adding CSD tags. (I was told the only exception is for Copyvios) It could be possibly that someone else has blanked it before me and what I all see is a blank page. I'll do try and check the history of blank pages next time, though. :)
- Cheers, Mailer Diablo 06:36, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Sorry if I was doing you a disservice. I really do appreciate the fact that you are doing the work! -- Cheers Derek Ross | Talk 06:38, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
- No problem, it's "all in a day's work" I guess! ;) - Mailer Diablo 06:47, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Adminship
Many thanks for your message. I know it probably sounds as though I'm protesting too much, but I think that I'd like to wait a bit longer before being proposed; there are reasonably ordinary things on Wikipedia that I still haven't done (and when I try them, as recently with creating my first stub, I almost inevitably put my foot in it in one way or another — not disastrously, perhaps, but embarrassingly), and I'd feel odd being an admin while feeling so ignorant. As I said to dab, though, when I feel more confident, I'd be greateful if I could get back to you on this. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:16, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I believe that character is more important than knowledge when it comes to adminship -- I've been doing this for 3 years and I still don't know every policy -- but I take your point. And I wouldn't want you to feel uncomfortable, so we'll just have to wait. Keep up the good work! Cheers -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:29, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
"Scots"
No offence D.R. but why is it okay to call Lallans the Scots (i.e. Scottish) language, but not anything else? -- Anon from MelbourneIT
- None taken, Anon. It seems wrong to me. As far as I'm concerned Lallans is just the dialect they used to speak around Edinburgh. You'd be better to ask someone who thinks that it is okay. I'm frae Aiberdeen ma sel. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:44, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, are you contrasting Scots and Gaelic ? I thought you were talking about Lallans and Doric. Right. The answer to your question is that Scots is the Scottish language because it is spoken by 1,500,000 or so of the population in the Highlands and in the Lowlands. Gaelic is a Scottish language because it is spoken by about 55,000 of the population in the Highlands and the Western Isles. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:35, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Gaelic is three languages, as some Irish and Manx will tell you. Lowland Scots is certainly NOT "the Scottish language", that's political relabelling. Both of them are "the Scottish languages", but Lowland Scots is not "the Scottish language", it's "A Scottish language". It is a recent arrival in the Highlands, usually to the fringes and occasionally after or at the same time as English. Calling Lowland Scots the "Scottish language" is like calling Chinese the "world language". As for the 1,500,000 figure, there are no good figures for no. of speakers because there is a huge grey area between English and Lowland Scots, and a lot of folk seem to think they can speak it that cannae. (They put one word in and that's them a "speaker" - you don't get that with Scottish Gaelic much). -- Anon from MelbourneIT
- p.s. Check out the book "Aberdeenshire Gaelic" - interesting read like.
- I'm not denying any of that except for the political relabelling bit. Personally I don't care that much about the difference between "the Scottish language" and "a Scottish language". As far as I'm concerned both languages are uniquely Scottish and both are under threat, needing my support and yours. If you want to be pedantic about their names, be my guest. But I'd rather you did something more constructive like contributing to the Gaelic Wikipedia (http://gd.wikipedia.org) (Ah, you already do. Thanks!) or supporting the creation of a Scots Wikipedia. Re Aberdeenshire Gaelic -- sounds interesting. I know it was spoken in Strathdee and Strathdon up until the 19th century but not much more than that. What's the ISBN ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 09:21, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
-icle
I noticed you transwikied and deleted it. What about -phobia an the dozen of the likes? Mikkalai 17:15, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Don't tempt me, Mikkalai. "Phobia" is a slightly different case because it is used as a word on its own and refers to an encyclopaedic topic which I could write if I had to. If "icle" refers to an encyclopadic topic, I can't think what it might be. However the current phobia article doesn't say much about phobia in general. It is really just a dictionary list of phobias some of which are real and some of which are not. I have tidied the list up once or twice by deleting the obvious jokes but I must admit that I'd really like to shove the whole thing over to Wiktionary and replace it with a decent article on phobia in general. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:05, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Helga
I followed the story from far away, never really understood what was going on. Would you shortly summarize for us what it was all about Derek ? Thanks Anthere 05:07, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I'll try to put something together tonight, Anthere. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:49, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_Helga_Jonat_saga for my first draft. Please add to it if you were there during the events it describes, or even took part in them. -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:31, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
Transfers to Wiktionary
- Per the transwiki process, the articles are being moved to the transwiki psuedo namespace on wiktionary for the wikitionarians to sort out on their end. You can see the log and a description of the approved method at Wikipedia:Transwiki log. For backhander look at Wiktionary:Transwiki:Backhander. So if you have reverted the bot's changes manually, please change them back.
(As an aside, Backhander has been added to the main namespace of Wiktionary now.) Kevin Rector 14:06, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
- I have modified the Transwikied to Wiktionary template on the talk page to provide a link to article in both the main and transwiki namespace on wiktionary. Kevin Rector 15:02, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
- I have also modifed the bot's edit summary to include a link to the talk page. Kevin Rector 16:28, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
Adminship
You left a message for me a little while ago suggesting that I allow myself to be nominated as an admin. I'm still slightly nervous about it, but I've come to the conclusion that it might be a good idea, especially as I could ease myself in to it very cautiously if my nomination were successful. If you're still willing to support me, I've just contacted Dbachmann and take him up on his offer to nominate me — I'd be very grateful for your support. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:35, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- No problem. You are definitely doing the right thing. I don't generally need to use the admin functions but it's nice knowing that they are there, particularly when you have to delete a bunch of pages as the result of a vandal moving articles to silly titles. As you suggest caution is the best policy. I'll give dbachmann a day to nominate you and if he hasn't done so by then, I'll do it myself. Cheers -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:14, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Bad maps
Your help and common sense is needed. User:Kelisi, has been producing some maps and trying to replace the CIA maps for several Caribbean and South American countries. In my opinion these new maps (which have more detail than the CIA maps) are vastly inferior. They use garish colours, terrible decorative fonts, use a horribly large pixel size and are generally ugly and crowded, and look terribly amateurish and like they were produced on a Commodore 64 or something. Here is a list of maps he has produced . http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=Kelisi&hideminor=0&namespace=6. Perhaps the worst example is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Brazilmap.gif . Bizarrly these maps seems to have support from a few people who have been trying to push through their inclusion on several pages. Please see talk:Panama and talk:Honduras. Jooler 09:06, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Rockall
You might have some interest in the debate on talk:Rockall Jooler 15:33, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Image:Luss view.JPG
Sorry, but here I completely disagree with you. This image could have come from anywhere. There is nothing on the image to indicate that he took it, even a "I took this image". If there was something, I would have tagged at PUI and not PUI and no source. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 10:54, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
Calgary Wikipedian Meet Invite
I'm inviting all the Wikipedians who are listed as Calgarians to get together for a casual, in-person, chat about Wikipedia and whatever else strikes our fancy.
I've got a Meetup.com group (http://wikipedia.meetup.com/48/) set up that we can use to organize local meets. (the fees are covered for a while by my Meetup+ membership carrying over into the new fee regime.) Please sign up for that group, or post a message to my talk letting me know if/when you might be available for a Wikipedian meet. --GrantNeufeld 02:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)