[Another]

tk
Me too (except my talk page) :) anthony (see warning) 00:45, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[This Heading Subject to Change and/or Repositioning]

Collaboration of the week

AndyL tk
Wonder if you'd consider voting for Indian reservation as Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week? Without ONE more vote it will be eliminated only days away from winningAndyL 23:55, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[Restored in ed conflict w/ the author, who was reverting himself. --Jerzy(t) 00:32, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)]

Not even a link to the article, just a spam sent to, looks like, 10 users? Not a chance in hell under these circumstances, despite the self-reversions that followed while i was trying to count the spams. --Jerzy(t) 00:32, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)

Category talk:Lists of people

RB tk
Hi - I started a discussion on this page that you may find of interest. -- Rick Block 14:53, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:Protestant denominations

GD tk
This newly-created category substantially overlaps or duplicates the existing Category:Protestantism. What might be the plan on this? Your thoughts appreciated. --Gary D 07:42, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Your comments on LoPbN Index-only pages

SP tk
Sorry about the mistakes. When I have some time I'll redo the messages for the index pages. I actually did not use a bot, just simple copy and pasting. - SimonP 15:38, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for going through and changing the comments on the LoPbN pages. I can understand how it looked like I was using a bot as I tend to open a dozen or so separate tabs and then save them all in quick succession.

I don't understand your question about list of born-again Christian laypeople. All I did was move the page from List of Born-again Christian Laypeople using the standard move function. It had nothing with categories. - SimonP 21:59, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Alumni lists

Ts tk
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 11:51, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Vaughn Meader

I understand what you mean about excerpts always being incomplete, but there are different levels of completeness. In this case, what I meant is that the album consists of many skits. The excerpts are incomplete bits of those skits, so you hear the beginning of some but don't always get the gist or the point of it. If you can think of a better way of phrasing that, be my guest. :-) Elf | Talk 01:26, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Elf | Talk 19:30, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

User:259

Wikipedia:No legal threats provides that Wikipedia may not be used as a means to communicate legal threats. Users who genuinely intend to carry out legal action are likely to use means other than a wiki to make their intentions known. In dealing with MC's sockpuppets/sympathizers/co-conspirators/whatever, I believe it is best to revert and move on rather than try to integrate or organize the material they supply. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:17, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Tnx, UC.

I'm not sure i find this application of that policy wise, whether it is explicit or accepted as being implicit there, or is just your personal inference from it. I doubt that suppression of their apparent threats is as good as, say, striking it thru and tagging it with a fleshed out version of

WP policy precludes discussion here of the following threat of litigation.

And it provides some ammunition to, let's say [wink] just for the sake of argument, someone claiming something is libel and wanting to suppress part of the record to eliminate it -- even though we probably ameliorate that in saying re libel something much more sensible than what 259 is implying.

But i intended no reply to it in any case, and this is not the time or place to work out that policy issue.

I hope you will find no problem in my keeping here a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Category%3AClimbing&diff=8050970&oldid=8041305

clear link] to the suppressed material. If this is also problematic, i invite you to break the lk, replacing it with a signed note along the lines of

[Troublesome lk removed here by ~~~~]

--Jerzy(t) 19:51, 2004 Dec 2 (UTC)

Jerzy, you may certainly include the link as you wish, and for that matter you can re-add the offending material if you feel strongly.

You should be aware that of those troublesome users who make an effort to "work the process" at Wikipedia, nearly all make libel accusations at some point. RK, EofT, Irismeister, Reithy, and many others have done so. They are reverted, they cry censorship, they are reverted again. No legal action has ever resulted. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:55, 3 Dec 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...

1. ...all U.S. state, county, and city articles...
2. ...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 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. So far over 90% of people who have responded have done this.

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. It's important to know, even if you choose to do anything so I don't keep asking. -- Ram-Man (comment (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Ram-Man&action=edit&section=new)| talk) 14:18, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Blocking

Thanks for your efforts to clarify things for me. I'm still very much at a loss as to how Wikipedia works. For example, I initially contacted 259, but the response came from you . . . does that mean you're one and the same? The only thing I can figure out is that your IP number is not necessarily yours alone, although I don't understand why. TOM 15:24, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

VfD

JW tk
You said "I rv-ed yr removals from VfD mainly bcz of cases i have seen where an admin responds with "this doesn't belong here, it's a Speedy", deletes the nominee but leaves the entry, and another admin undeletes it, saying it's not a CSD. Your measure would make handling these misjudgements about what "everyone would agree is a speedy" much more work to take care of. And a few red links are no big deal; anyone who prefers to trust all the admins to judge these right can skip reading the corresponding debates as soon as the see the red link."

Two of the cases I removed from VfD were speedies, but they were also 5 days old, and due to be moved to /Old anyway. The others were not speedies but deletions by User:Neutrality who forgot to finish the process of closing them (as they should be, since their 5 days is up). While I agree with your point about generally removing red linked items, I don't think these counted. However, I will leave it to you(or some other wikipedian) to revert the changes back in, as it's not a big issue. Thanks for explaining letting me know about this on the talk page. JesseW 01:26, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sophocles

I liked your work on the Sophocles article.

A question, as it's been a long time since I've written to Wikipedia: when you come upon something that's not exactly clear, how do you deal with it in editing? For example, you read something and have no idea what the person meant to say. Do you leave it as it is, or remove it as incoherent? A few bits I was working on last night, I had no idea what the people meant. EventHorizon 04:48, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Category:Olympic softball players of the U.S.A.

RB tk
Hi - you recently replaced the contents of this category article with [[Category:Orphaned categories]]. If you want to delete a category, please add {{cfd}} to the category article and create an entry on Categories for deletion. Thanks. -- Rick Block 05:54, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

U.S. politician categories

Be careful with what you're doing. I've had to undo some of your changes because they were factually incorrect—not all Presidents and Vice Presidents were ever candidates for those offices, so it is incorrect to place them as subcategories within the candidate categories. Four presidents never ran for that office, and I believe two VPs. Even if that were not the case, it would be ill-advised to effectively hide the Presidents category within the candidates category. It is not intuitive that a category merely labeled "candidates" contains those who have actually won that office as well. Additionally, Category:American diplomats is not by its own terms limited to those who have held a formal diplomatic position with the federal government, and so not all of the individuals were "appointees" of the executive branch.

Why are you changing the current system anyway? In general, I'm not seeing how your changes (with the exception of Category:U.S. presidential cabinet members) are improving the structure and ease of navigation. Postdlf 10:28, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I saw very little in the way of a current system, and didn't anticipate breaking anything useful.

The only cogent answer i can offer to your very general question is the principle you see me recognize, that Cats need to be subdivided to be browsable.

As to Candidate vs. Pres/VP, i take your pt & it had fleetingly occurred to me at some point, but IMO the assumption that the name means what it says deserves at least as much respect as people's inclination to think of the name as meaning something other than what it says. Perhaps for that problem what you are looking for is "losing candidates", which would meet both of the concerns. Aslo a small Cat for unelected presidents; maybe that should be "unelected presidents and VPs", rather than splitting Ford off in a Cat of 1.

I also see that i failed to move VPs & Prexys into "Exec Br electees", where they belong whether or not there is are "candidates" cats; perhaps doing that & never trying to lump the winners and losers will go a long way.

Do keep in mind that Cat titles need to be as long as they need to be! Yes, long names are a problem, but their solution is not making the user guess what is meant; their solution is additional facilities for prioritizing Cats of a single page and for hiding the "too much info" until the user indicates interest in it. It'll be awkward in the interim before those facilities arrive, but not as awkward as teaching users to expect illogic.

In any case, i am off-line for a while; if you like, go at it, and i'll critique as my next round rather than trying to dive in so boldly.

Glad to see someone gives a damn! Tnx.

--Jerzy(t) 11:03, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)

RFC pages on VfD

TB tk
Should RFC pages be placed on VfD to be deleted? I'm considering removing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Slrubenstein, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jwrosenzweig and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/John Kenney from WP:VFD. Each of them was listed by CheeseDreams. Your comments on whether I should do this would be appreciated. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:50, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not a mailing list :-)

I just went through Wikipedia:List of administrators and messaged people. Then I got blocked halfway down the list by User:Silsor for "spamming". Which pissed me off no end, especially because they implied I was doing bad faith edits. Anyway, I've created an admin noticeboard because it's too hard to communicate to other admins via messages. So I've come up with a Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard. Please feel free to use this! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:11, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, so I've worked out (the hard way). So this might be a good thing anyway because I've created it. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:27, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ambition?

You wrote on my talk page something about the "Ambition controversy". As I said when I replied, I'm not connected to that issue, and I don't really understand what the deal is. It seems bizarre that a card game would be so divisive.

I am curious, because this episode seems to be one that's important in the community, and it happened while I was on hiatus from Wikipedia. Furthermore, all the back history is so opaque that it's impossible for me to get a coherent feel of what's going on. To benefit my curiosity, what is this "Ambition" issue? When did it start and why are there so many strong opinions? EventHorizon 03:00, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

VfD Section Link

Just you know, I've requested that as a feature. See: meta:MediaWiki_feature_request_and_bug_report_discussion#Depending_on_page.27s_section.2C_Special_Variables:_Section Special Variables: Section

-- AllyUnion (talk) 00:08, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Charles Darwin

Silly thing to argue about? Sure. And you are entitled to your opinion as to the relevance of the item in question. But when you say that my behaviour is abusive, I feel I must respond to you personally.

My position is that I am the one being abused. I have a developed argument, I have accepted compromise, and I am not the original author. I am being bullied by a POV majority who became incensed at having someone stand up to them. I think the old expression "a tyranny of the majority" applies here. For that reason and because of the abuse I have been subjected to, I am boycotting the vote and waiting instead (failing a compromise) for the results of mediation. Vincent 08:52, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Answered at Talk:Charles Darwin#Do not include the fact at all, point 16. --Jerzy(t) 18:13, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)

"Fake" move

The changes at Talk:Ambition (card game) were not intended to be bad faith edits, but I'm on an apparently flaky internet connection and the page move didn't work properly.

What I was trying to do was clear that stuff out of Talk:Ambition (card game) and preserve it elsewhere, but for some reason the page move failed to do what I intended. I'll try it again when I have a more stable connection and it won't result in the loss of information. Pw3x 17:24, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Category:United States Senators

Hey, howdy. One of the benefits of the formerly REALLY long list of U.S. Senator articles is that we could quickly see "how we were doing" by comparing the number of articles in the category with the total number of U.S. Senators. Is there any way to have the 'pedia add up the number of articles over the several pages so we can keep that functionality? Thanks! jengod 22:12, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

D'oh! Sorry! I thought that was you. I guess it's part of the new MediaWiki 1.4. :( Thanks/sorry. jengod 22:13, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

User:Oven Fresh

>:|

I will not stand for you reverting my edits. I just noticed, ten days after, that you reverted MY changed to User:Lst27. It is not against the rules to edit userpages, and I made a edit that fixed what was breaking his user page. Lst27 subsequantly reverted YOUR edits. So stop your ignorant crusade against me. Knowing your record to remove any crits on your talk page, I'm sure this will be shortly removed by you. ✏ OvenFresh☺ 03:55, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In Re OF

Anyone interested by OF's post above should be aware of the history. I have not read the entire history, but it may be of interest that i insisted on them editing this page further only under circumstances that they give no sign here of having complied with, or having even sought to comply with.
Such interested parties should also watch this section (or a subpage which may soon serve most of this section's current role) for further developments, as i have not yet said all that merits saying.
--Jerzy(t) 06:04, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

The history of what? And who is "they"? Complied with what? What the... o_O ✏ OvenFresh☺ 15:56, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm waiting. Snap snap. ✏ OvenFresh² 01:17, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since you are aware of the history, so the invitation was not addressed to you. The result does not seem worth the effort involved at present (no one but you seems to care). And i care less and less as i see things like your presumably intentionally rude msg just above. --Jerzy (t) 17:38, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

Comment on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/667 Dark Avenue

[Some of my own formatting errors fixed w/o new sigs. --Jerzy(t) 09:44, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)]

Jerzy(t) converted (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/667_Dark_Avenue&diff=9091834&oldid=9079461)

• GAYYYYY ehm... I mean: delete. --fvw* 16:18, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

to

• [Personal attack (however harmlessly intended) on multiple colleagues deleted here by Jerzy(t) 18:01, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC). Intent may have been "Should be embarassing to its creators."] ehm... I mean: delete. --fvw* 16:18, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

thereby stimulating the following dialog:

My apologies if my comment on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/667 Dark Avenue caused offence, however it was merely a parody of something that was on the subject page at the time. --fvw* 18:12, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

Ah, tnx, that goes enormously toward restoring my opinion of you as a colleague. And perhaps i should have looked at the history before considering exactly what interim remedy to apply.

On the other hand, i assume you've learned the lesson of not assuming the context will be stable. And at the risk of preaching (and maybe even preaching to the choir), i'm deputizing myself to make the points to you that

• WP, tho a volunteer activity, sets a standard of collegiality comparable to professional and academic ones.
• WP is firmly committed to a very high level of inclusiveness, precluding behavior that invites any inference of dispensing :with respectful communication.
• Emotive language is not "just words", i.e., its purpose and effect are only secondarily the explicit conveying of information.
• In practice (whatever the proper status of theories of "oppressed groups" may be), to the degree that calling a group "oppressed" escapes universal derision ("Oppressed American millionaire"? Liberate this, fat-cat!), many of the group's members react involuntarily, to what appears to them to be disrespect based on membership in that group, as they would to organized oppression, and they are done real harm by that appearance.
• Thus "gayyy" and, say, "niggerish", are words that should (occasionally be discussed but) never be applied at WP, however satirical the intent.

Of course in the long term you are much more able than i to express your real intent. I saw quick amelioration as mandatory, and the intent of my edit was that, not contributing to the discussion at hand or making any point of independent importance. Thus i would welcome your rewrite of your original vote (eliminating my contribution completely if that is acceptable to you). (In such situations, my preferred documentation measure is modifying the sig-line into one dated like

16:18, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC) & 20:04, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

(taking advantage of 5 tildes rendering as just a time stamp w/o any user link), tho i don't claim there's any clear policy calling for the double timestamp.)

Thank you for your quick and responsible reply to my action, and thank you in advance for your attention to this as well.

Jerzy(t) 20:04, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

I disagree, I think as long as terms like gayyy are used they're valid targets for parody, and I think the context, even with the comment removed from the subject page, were sufficient to indicate it was intended as that. But if the current version makes you happy, that's fine by me. I'll just leave the comment as it is now. ----fvw* 20:33, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

Irony (of which parody is one form) is a dangerous tool beyond the bounds of those who know you well enough to pick up your real intent, and WP is certainly beyond those bounds.

Moreover, contrary to your suggestion, context is crucial for parody to work. Swift's Modest Proposal is such a classic because so many of its audience couldn't grasp the context and for them it failed as parody; its success was not in communicating to its readers. The comfortable readers who failed to perceive it as a parody are the ones who make it famous: that failure showed those who did understood it, better than their reading of the parody did, how deserving of ridicule those morally comfortable ones were. "Dying is easy; comedy is hard."

But let's get clear about your parody:

• 667 Dark Avenue was VfD-ed.
• Edits started coming at the rate of two per hour for the next four hours (including an edit deleted as vandalism after 3 minutes).
• An IP, who had not edited the article before (tho they had an IP close to that of the creator), added (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=667_Dark_Avenue&diff=9043977&oldid=9042780) "GAYYYYYYYYYY" under "==External links==". (Which suggests to me it came from a critic of 667, who is likely to agree with you that the 667 article is not worthy of retention.)
• You decide, 33 minutes later, that imitating an apparent critic of 667 (not someone who said, e.g., that 667 is valuable via making readers aware of what is GAYYYYYYYYYY and what is cool) by calling 667 "GAYYYYY" was a useful, or at least clever, comment, in support of your del vote.
• BTW, the context of your VfD edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/667_Dark_Avenue&diff=9049331&oldid=9043504) disappeared (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=667_Dark_Avenue&diff=next&oldid=9044173) (utterly predictably, IMO) after another 27 minutes.
• You explain your intent as parodying the use of "GAYYYYYYYYYY". That seems odd, if parody indeed is "imitation of style" for "humor or to ridicule": did you think the personal attack you imitated, on those whose site you were criticizing, was something to joke about? Or were you for some reason seeking to ridicule others taking the same position as you, and whose personal attack you did not otherwise criticize?

At the bottom line, i think

• you misjudge what expressions are acceptable media for parody at WP: terms of abuse that focus on sensitive groups are far too dangerous for that.
• this particular "parody" raises for me a serious question about your skill at that rhetorical device, so that i hope you will give serious thought to whether wisdom bids you completely avoid parody here, and perhaps irony as a whole.

In any case, this bodes well by continuing gratifyingly civil. Thanks.

--Jerzy(t) 09:44, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)

VfD Marco of Alexandria

Well done on straightening out the tally on the VfD for Marco of Alexandria. It was getting quite confusing and involved several judgement calls which I didn't really want to make, in case I was taken as being partisan. -- Solipsist 12:25, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

VFD/Today

Thanks for updating the comments. By the way, it was placed under a sub-sub-page in the event that an article named "Log" is ever listed for VFD. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:26, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Real

Ultimately it does not matter how things are arranged, but what makes you put the Brazilian currency on top of everything else. Just curios. Also, I did not understand your mention of the sock puppet. Cheers. Oleg Alexandrov 02:42, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea why I put the message on your talk page. Most likely I clicked on the wrong thing in my watchlist. Never happened before. Sorry for that.

About my spelling. I did mean "curious". Sorry for that one too. Usually when writing articles on Wikipedia I am more careful, and also use spellcheck. Anyway, thank you for your patience. Cheers. Oleg Alexandrov 04:58, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

New Frontier

I am curious then, is mark McHenery not to have a bio under the Star Trek:New Frontier post, or does it need to be reformatted ? Thanks in advance. --James 07:57, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would listen to someone who said, "That can't possibly be true, if they had read the book. The bio that was given for the character was correct in every way. Meaning that when someone posts, Some odd mix of f*ncr*ft and fanfic I thinkor Delete as nonnotable character. it simply shows me they have not read the book series. It is not fanfic and as non notable if you meant the main charcater for the previous 2 books...I would agree. As it stands the bio is correct, as people who responded noted. So again I ask, is there some kind of format or something that needs to be changed, because you are asking me to take into accounts opinions that have no basis in fact. --James 09:02, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Star_Trek:_New_Frontier"

Professor in accounting VfD

Good point. If I had read this today, I'd probably vote Move, and that's what I plan to do. Thanks for the heads up. --Deathphoenix 22:42, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the advisory on VfD procedure. Now that I apparently have been admitted into The League of Extraordinary Deletionists, I would do better to get with the program.  ;-) Edeans 04:09, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thich Nhat Hanh

I have gone ahead and moved around one of my comments on Talk:Thich Nhat Hanh. In response to your comments on my talk page:

• "your dismissal of my previous evidence re the status of "Thich" as if you had never read it," — I don't think this accurate. Your previous evidence has convinced me that it is plausible to not treat Thich as part of his name, whereas previously I thought it was implausible. I still don't think that the article should state as a fact that it is not part of his name. And I don't see it established anywhere that "Thich" is translated as "Venerable"; the only example cited on talk is in a letter from Martin Luther King, who one would not expect to get all the details right in addressing Buddhist monks.
• "your discussion of PoV-implying names as if i had even hinted that "Nhat Hanh" should be eliminated from the article," — this was in response to your comment in talk:Thich Nhat Hanh, "OK, so he changed all his names to words that if not treated as names are make incredibly vague, and outrageous, PoV claims about him;" My point is that this is normal, and therefore the name "Thich" is not exceptional here. In fact, one might say that the claim implied by the word "Thich" is less PoV than what is implied by "Nhat Hanh".
• "your characterizing 68 words by your "[dis-]comfort" without indicating a single word that would contribute to your comfort by replacing some of them, and" — many of those words could be eliminated (as I have indicated in my refactored comment), but really I want to get to the bottom of the basic disagreement before I start worrying about what the article should say. At least, that's my feeling so far; I might decide to make a revision later.
• "(I suppose one answer for that is that i'm weirding you out, or shall i say, addressing you in a tone that raises tension for you. My temperment is quite averse to conflict, so please say so if i'm creating difficulties for you; i'd rather help you be, well, comfortable, than not, as long as you're not mocking the value of what we're doing.)" — your tone is a little unusual, but that, in itself, is more of a good thing than a bad thing. Not knowing what other tones you have at your disposal, I think I can say that the present one is just fine. Use whatever tone you like, it's not a problem. - Nat Krause 06:27, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

LoPbN talk page organization

jni tk
Hello Jerzy, I just did some minor cleanup to the set of talk pages under Talk:List of people by name. Hope I did not break anything. Was it your intention that new discussions should go directly to appropriate subpages, or are the subpages just archives? At least I haven't ever received any feedback to my question Talk:List of people by name/Individual Entries#Year links in entries. I'd appreciate your comments on this, since you seem to be the most active maintainer of this HUGE index. In my own few additions to LoPbN I have tried to minimize extra links to year pages or even articles (in the third field after dates), but haven't reformatted sections that already have them. Cheers, jni 08:18, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Martinman11|Hoekenheef

Mm tk

Wondering

I would like to know why the tone of Kaiju Big Battel is incorrect for an encyclopedia entry. It is just plot and character list. If what causes this problem is the fact that their are short bios after each character, that can be fixed. But the reason I have them is to give viewers a quick overview of Kaiju Big Battel. This is because about 1 out of every 75 or more people know what Kaiju Big Battel is. Hoekenheef 12:08, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Kaiju

Okay I messed up two words everyone does that, but about the article being "fictional," the article is completly real in the sense that, of course, their are not actual Kaiju, but that this is show that is held in different parts of the country. I also did not enjoy the fact that you said, "I hasten to add that i don't question your hold on reality...learn to use the Page history to review the nature of the changes made..." The first statement is not based on any facts or evidence as we most likley have never met and the second is once again false because you do not know my habits when I edit an article (and yes I do use the page history).

I will say I agree that Antaeus Feldspar re-wrote the intro in a good way that I had not thought of. I wrote what I thought would be the best way, yet questioning my hold on reality is not how to go about this. That is all of what I have to say. Oh, in the future don't "sweeten" the end of your comments. Hoekenheef 12:35, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Apology

I realize now that your words were intended to be helpful and I am sorry I took them the wrong way. I just was bugged by the two comments that I refered to in my previous post here. I also see how that article was written in the incorrect point of view. My personal purpose is to not make enemies here, but to still stand up for myself and my works. I see not that on most levels here I was in error. Hoekenheef 11:54, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your help

Js tk
I really appreciate your help in fixing the absolute mess on the Revival of Buddhism in India article. If you had seen the previews of the fixes that I attempted, you'd understand why I turned it over to someone else. Joyous 05:43, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

user talk:afanous

Hi Jerzy! Thanks for your advice. I agree with you that my post was somehow offensive. I will delete that paragraph of mine and will try my website to adopt a more gracious attitude from now on. Thanks again :) -user:afanous

Posting style

The problem is that if person A makes a long comment with points X, Y, and Z, and person B comes along and makes a long response to point Z, and I want to comment on point X, if I put my comment below person B's comment it makes no sense - why am I talking about X, when the person I am (seemingly) replying to is talking about Z? So that's why in those cases (you will note that I don't always do this) I stick it in below person A's comment, indented further.

I will look at the commetns you reformatted, and see if they still make sense reformatted. If not, I will put them back the way they were. Noel (talk) 04:47, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Coptic et al

User talk:Afanous
Hi Jerzy! How are you? Hope all is well. First, please don't change Coptic to Coptic language, since the adjective Coptic can refer to many more things than just the language. Thanks :) Then, I didn't want to comment on you deleting my last posting in the Isaac Fanous debate. Yet, I somehow agree with Omar that you delete/keep postings according to your own moral code system. But many postings, such as my last one for instance, was by no means intended as a personal attack on Omar. You thought it was and decided to delete it. I just don't see it to be very fair. Anyway, the issue is over anyway as you know. I just wanted to draw your attention to that, since we decided to be friends ;) Cheers, Andrew!

- Man! Please calm down! It was just an innocent comment! 1. I was talking about my comment to Omar about how he knows the guy is not notable if he wasn't Egyptian (to which he replied saying he was an Egyptian Catholic. You deleted my question and left his answer). I fail to see how that's a personal attack? 2. Of course I don't know the rules of Wikipedia yet because I am relatively new. I followed your advice and moved Coptic (adj.) to Copt, which previously pointed at Copts. Thanks for taking the time to write back. User:Afanous

Edit summaries

Please do not use edit summaries to "hold conversations" (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Sisterproject&diff=9757004&oldid=9755339). Summaries should describe the edit, not be used to send messages. Avoid taking a "judgmental tone in edit comments" as per Wikipedia:Civility. This is important because they are a permanent part of the history log, and can serve to bring disputes into the wrong forum. We all need to do better with that, but I wasn't sure if you're aware of that guideline, judging by your contributions. -- Netoholic @ 06:35, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)

Category:Writers by subject area

I'm afraid I'm not exactly sure what you are talking about.

I reorganized Category:Writers by subject area because it was a horrible mess. The alternative, of course, would be to get rid of the fiction and non-fiction subcategories and throw in the lot of them together.

Category:Mystery writers very definitely belongs under fiction, as do Category:Western writers and Category:Romance writers, although it seems that the latter should be merged with Category:Romantic fiction writers. (When people say "Romance" today, they are thinking about a genre of fiction. If that is not what is meant by the category, then it needs work.) I am quite familiar with mystery writers and the other two categories were so small that it didn't take much research to figure out what was going into them.

In my experience, military fiction tends to be called "military fiction", and that is what I would expect a category for military fiction writers to be called. Certainly the writers that I checked seemed to be writers of military nonfiction (I did not assume anything). Neither of your two examples is currently categorized under a Category:Writers by subject area subcategory, so I'm not sure how I'm supposed to have been able to tell if they were meant to be there. (And I wouldn't want to put either of them in with Che Guevara.)

As it currently stands, Category:Military writers is being used for nonfiction writers. I categorized it accordingly. One doesn't usually say "military nonfiction". However, it might be useful for organizational purposes if Category:Military fiction writers existed. -Aranel ("Sarah") 16:34, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The genre, as far as I know, is called "military fiction". We do not say "science-fiction writers", so I don't know if it is necessary or (or necessarily grammatical) to say "military-fiction writers". Perhaps we could go with Category:Writers of military fiction. (What the heck, it might not hurt to do that to some of the others. "Science fiction writers" could theoretically sound to someone like an appropriate category for a character in a science fiction story who happens to be a writer. On the other hand, no one talks about "mystery fiction" or "Western fiction" writers. Consistency may be less important than clarity.) Of course, the same weakness is shared by Category:Military writers, which could (much more easily than "military fiction writers", I would think) be construed to mean "writers who are associated with the military".

1. We could save ourselves the trouble and just dump the two categories in Category:Writers by subject area and get on with our lives.
2. If we don't use categories based on a-what they are supposed to contain or b-what they do contain, then what is the point in worrying about them at all? (It seems to me that all that is left, then, is "what you feel like putting into them".) I do actually do quite a lot of categorization work and I do have some idea what I'm talking about here, whether or not you agree with my conclusions.
3. You said, "but what we should be discussing is how to achieve clarity", which is what I thought I was doing. If you don't think that Category:Military fiction writers would be sufficiently clear, perhaps Category:Writers of military fiction would be easier for folks to understand unambiguously. (It was just a suggestion. I like getting rid of the fiction/non-fiction distinction better, though.)
4. Rules for hyphens are extremely complicated, rather picky, and subject to change. Science fiction is very frequently used as an adjective now (see for instance Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America (http://www.sfwa.org/)). As the term becomes more familiar as a fixed unit, the need to insert the hyphen diminishes. In any case, it's a very fine point. (And if I were not willing to admit that, you could simply say "science-ficiton is used as the adjective form" and not waste any time at all. I am neither stupid nor unreasonable. I do, however, sometimes have trouble keeping my languages straight.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 00:09, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster

Hi Jerzy. I am tempted to make a change in your edit of the Merriam-Webster article, but I decided to consult you first. About Webster's Third NI, you wrote, "the most complete non-specialist dictionary of American English." I would replace this with, "the most complete non-specialist American dictionary of English." Oxford is more complete, but is not American. The "Third" is an American dictionary, but it does not specialize in American English, and wouldn't be "non-specialist" if it did. Correcting this would remove the link, which is not applicable anyway. If this agrees with you, you can change it, or I can.

I see that you also described the Collegiate as, "a bookshelf-sized work based on the Third International and popular for home and office use." Since the Third New International has been reprinted virtually unchanged for over 40 years (except for additions to the new word addenda section,) and the Collegiate has been much changed and revised, the Collegiate has become a separate entity. so, I would remove the "based on..." clause. And what do you think of changing "bookshelf-sized" to "desk-sized" ? I put all sizes of books on shelves. "Desk-sized" is a commonly understood term.

216.19.218.93 19:40, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Hi! First thought: take the plunge and register, which will turn your contributions into a coherant body of work people can relate to, and ease communication. (You're probably the same person, with at least two talk: pages, User talk:216.19.218.67 & User talk:216.19.218.93; see Wikipedia:Changing attribution for an edit & make your request as soon as convenient.

Pretty good insights IMO; i'm not sure any of the your proposed changes are necessary, but none of them seem harmful, and if they make it clearer to your eyes, they probably will to someone else's.

My recollection may be wrong, but i think the IIIrd just has not had a complete rework, and that the work on the two is coordinated among mostly a single unifed staff. Dord talks abt the revision process of the many-faced IInd a little, and i doubt the IIIrd is even as static as that one was.

Thanks, --Jerzy(t) 23:40, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

Reply to above: Hi again. Thanks. I just discovered Wikipedia. I may soon learn to contribute without so much ceremony. On registering: Unfortunately, the computer I use most is screwed up and will not allow the cookie setting to be changed. I don't understand why cookies are needed if we have passwords. 216.19.218.49 06:01, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I dunno if it's a strict requirement or just a big convenience. E.g., i am pretty sure you need cookies for the "remember my password" check box to be effective. But i suppose it may also be that the server is smart enough to know you don't have a permanent IP#, and worry that you lost your connection since logging on, and thus feel it necessary to check a cookie to be sure someone else didn't dial in to your ISP and get the IP# you were still logged on at. In that case the cookie would be mandatory for any useful work under it. (And if you've tried it, rather than just assuming you understood exactly the intended meaning of the mention of cookies, you know that much more than i.)

But at the very least, registering would give you a single place to look for replies, even if you can't always log on. Specifically, you could leave a note at the talk page of each IP# you save edits with, urging colleagues to talk to you at your talk page: after editing the article, click "Page history". The resulting page will show your edit, usually at the top of the list. Click on the IP# link that appears just to the right of the time/date-stamp. Then click on the "(talk)" link on the line, two below "User contributions", that begins with "For " and your current IP#. Then edit that IP's talk page, named (e.g) User talk:216.19.218.49; if i were you (or rather if you were i), we'd add a line reading

Sorry, at this point i have to do most of my editing as an IP, but i am User:Jerzy and the surest place to reach me is by editing User talk:Jerzy.

(Of course you aren't i, and you, being you, would use your own registered user name in place of mine. Plz excuse my overcaution.) You'd do that once with every new IP # that you actually used to save an edit. Only once altogether, you should also edit your registered username's talk page (and probably its user page) using your registered username, to include

So far, i usually edit as an IP in the range 216.19.218.xxx

and sign that contrib with four tildes (~~~~). This makes it possible for colleagues to rule out the possibility that all of the claims that such IPs are from you were originated by some stranger "spoofing" your username. (Of course, it gives people on the same ISP the opportunity to spoof yours more convincingly than others', but you can check (using "What links here" from your registered username's talk page) on which IP user-talk pages make that link, and at least be warned if there are such messages created by someone else. Of course, once you disavow one of those IP edits, your whole unregistered identity becomes a question mark, so you'll then have lost much of the benefit.

--Jerzy(t) 19:17, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)

• Since you contemplate changing the size description, note the error i made: the Collegiates are neither bookshelf-sized nor desk-sized, but sized for use storage and/or use on a bookshelf or desk; they can be loosely described as being bookshelf size or of bookshelf size, and (IMO less loosely) as bookshelf-size dictionaries. Actually, the OED is bookshelf-sized, i.e., the size of a bookshelf, and a desk-sized dictionary would be not smaller, but larger than even that -- stunningly large!

--Jerzy(t) 19:17, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)

Reply to above: Thanks for the thoughts about registering and alternatives. I will work on that. Good point about size. It's ambiguous. I might change it to "concise" or something else. Heck, it's a college dictionary, everyone knows what they look like anyway, right ? I'm most interested in documenting the special and relative values of dictionaries, their histories, etc. 216.19.218.67 04:54, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Template talk:Sisterproject#Survey

On WP:TFD, you voted for keeping Template:Sisterproject. However, another vote is needed to ensure it is used. Please state your opinion at the above link. — Itai (f&t) 15:05, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reversal of VfD-sub-page Move

Since i think i followed standard practice when calling the result in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Isaac Fanous (but don't often do such calls), it would help me to know whether you think you were following some policy, or just improvising independently. --Jerzy(t) 07:50, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)

Hi Jerzy! I looked at Talk:Isaac Fanous, and I thought: what if some newbie comes along, and wants to start editing the article and writing notes on the talk page? He might be confused by the "Please do not edit this page" warning.

As far as policy goes, see the deletion process, section "Votes for Deletion page", step 5b. But I guess you already know about that, as you edited that page last August, before I had even heard of VfD.

It isn't something I feel strongly about; if I was overly bold, sorry. dbenbenn | talk 14:35, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• You're absolutely right on what the policy says, and it may therefore be that i am confused about the practice, which is (wisely or foolishly!) where i do most of my learning. No, i don't think you've been too bold. (And even if you had, i won't cast an "Of course no one who rv-s me should ever become an admin." change of vote!) You may, for the time being, want to start a list rather than act immediately, tho, on any similar ones you find. Lemme get back to you. Tnx. --Jerzy(t) 17:12, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)

Hostile interaction

Hi, Jerzy, remember when you taught me about cats? That was fun, it's a fond memory. I believe you just wasted a lot of time and good advice on a contributor with no interest in courteous interaction and a paranoia about "insider" wikipedians being out to "drive him off". From some comments he's made, he sees himself as the St. George of the ordinary reader, out to save the princess by slaying the dragon "insiders". Please see the history of that talk page, as he is in the habit of quickly removing all comments containing any breath of criticism of him, together with his own intemperate responses. (The last thing he said to me was "I wonder how many people you have driven away from Wikipedia".) Few people would frequent his talk page more than once, I guess, but since he does such a lot of categorising, unsuspecting new people are always wandering by and getting their day soured by his hostility, and for that reason I've had some thoughts about actually RfCing him for outrageous interaction style. (I know of one excellent contributor who left because of it. :-() From the comments by some strangers on my own page, an RfC like that might gather a record amount of comments. But I'm really, for myself, into ignoring him, it's a lot simpler after all. I don't exactly thrive on conflict and hostility, few of us do. If I might make bold to advise, Jerzy, remember few things on the internet are worth losing sleep over.

Hey, look, he's not ignoring me, I see--he just mentioned me on his page! I have no intention of appearing there, but yes, I am in fact proud of my interchange with him, my mother would love it (my part in it). [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pcpcpc&diff=8984069&oldid=8983832) [3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pcpcpc&diff=8986210&oldid=8985698) [4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pcpcpc&diff=9298333&oldid=9298273) If this remark is mysterious, please see the history, as pcpcpc is likely enough to have deleted his own comments again. Best wishes, --Bishonen | Talk 11:51, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sig

Thanks for the suggestions. I'd like to keep the red link as part of my nonserious experiment, as an attempt at modesty, and as a sign that I have some sort of sense of humor. I'll try out the space between brian0918 and TM, but I don't think I can shorten the name, except maybe to 0918. --brian0918™ 18:02, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Moving

Hi Jerzy--did you do the move and merge of info from Tiny Tim-> A Christmas Carol? If so, could you please note my comments at the TT talk page?

Thanks! Quill 23:33, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bookmarks

Current VFD is being updated by a new bot and at a different page: User:AllyUnion/VFD List. It also notifies in the edit history what articles have been added. -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:49, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Victoria Chaplin

[Full discussion assembled here by copying the portion at User talk:RickK#Chaplins, and chronologizing and reformatting here, by Jerzy (t) 21:29, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC).]

I dunno if Victoria Chaplin (etc.?) are worthy of articles, but i'd like an explanation for how you think you can speedy her. --Jerzy (t) 06:42, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

I don't know etc. you're talking about, since I only deleted the Victoria Chaplin article, but I deleted it because it had no content. "She is involved in film" and two external links is no content. RickK 06:45, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

The "etc." refers to the other 5 Chaplins that i treated similarly in the same session but didn't happen to check.
IMO, the implicit content is indicated by the lk being an IMDb one: someone (not me as it happens) thinks she deserves an article (as indicated by the LoPbN entry that i moved the ext lk from), & supported that with the fact she's listed in IMDb. IMO it is entitled, least with stub tags, to a hearing on VfD as to whether it could grow beyond stubdom.
Attacking it from a different angle, i would hope you would agree that LoPbN entries should not have ext lks. When they do, i think it wrong to throw away the info just bcz i don't have enuf interest to pursue it by creating more of an article than the one i gave her. I think putting it on a talk page for a non-existent article would be futile; better that someone with the interest gets a chance to look at the IMDb entry, or someone with the familiarity to say "Victoria? Nah, she's the least of Charley's kids, off to VfD."
In light of the presumption of good intention, "in film" is not nonsense and it is content: if her vital stats were there but "in film" weren't, adding "in film" would be an enhancement, so it's content.
Will you restore & VfD, or do i have to VfU it?
--Jerzy (t) 07:14, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

If you want to VfU it, go ahead. I don't plan on undeleting it, because I believe it's nonsense. RickK 07:16, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Jonathan Dwayne

Hi there, It is really enjoyable to work with people like you. Thanks for fixing some things in the article, it looks fine. I took a look and I would like to thank you for consulting me. count me among your Wiki-Friends Tony the Marine

Thanks for contacting me

Hey, I appreciate you contacting me on my user page. However, I have decided at the time not to involve myself further in that matter. I will say that I think the first sentence, which I wrote, is accurate, and the second sentence is close, but needs to be qualified to avoid conflict. Beyond that, please proceed as you would if I were not involved. I hope to return to the issue, but I don't expect to in the near future. - Nat Krause 14:34, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jerzy: not to worry, I certainly didn't stop editing Buddhism articles. If you check my contributions, you'll see I still edit them often. It's more that there are some subjects I try not to get too involved in while living here in China. Incidentally, I finally got around to asking one of my Vietnamese friends, and she thinks that "Thich" is more like a title, so that implies that you were right. Also, how do you feel about Maharishi Mahesh Yogi? - Nat Krause 13:47, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Müller, Muller etc.

Hi, and thanks for the long message on my talk page. I'm not quite sure I fully understand what you are asking me to do, or what you are planning to do yourself for that matter, but let me just briefly repeat my point anyway:

(1) Muller, Mueller and Müller are 3 (three) different names. Anyone can go ahead and mix them up, but it's wrong. I'm not really familiar with Øs, Œs, łs etc. so someone else would have to decide that. For the French, I believe, an e is an e, whether it is an e, é, è, ë, or ê.

(2) Unless you decide to ignore the differences between u, ue and ü altogether, you will have to make up your mind as to a consistent alphabetical order. I tried to show three ways of dealing with the problem (see User_talk:KF#Alphabetical_order_and_umlauts), adding that in official telephone directories lots of inconsistencies can be found.

(3) I won't have time to get involved in this subject again, but you may want to transfer this text to the appropriate talk page.

All the best, <KF> 22:14, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Substubs