User talk:Marskell/Archive 5
- 1 Btw
- 2 Vandals
- 3 Definition of planet images
- 4 Thanks
- 5 answers
- 6 Thanks for the support
- 7 Voice of All, my RfA
- 8 CBW RfA
- 9 Margaret Turnbull
- 10 Images
- 11 Bias
- 12 George W. Bush
- 13 List of movies
- 14 What to do with Schiavo 'discussion' from Euthanasia article
- 15 Host wafer
- 16 Hi Marskell
- 17 edit summaries
- 18 My RfA
- 19 Pluto's moons
- 20 My RfA
- 21 re: 5078 Yonge Street
- 22 PRueda29 RFA
- 23 188.8.131.52 through .29
- 24 Re:Hi there
- 25 FireFox RFA
- 26 Category vote request
- 27 Thank you
- 28 FF
- 29 Refs
- 30 Planetary Hab
- 31 RE: hello again
- 32 Research in ireland
- 33 Airports
- 34 Making new diagrams to replace unfree ones
- 35 Thank you
- 36 Your comment on my RfA
- 37 WP:SCH
Turnbull has two articles about her ideas on spacedaily, and her catalog will probably be used in TPF... --Molobo 15:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Very nice! I shall study WP:BEANS before making such comments in future! I wonder if it might be merged into WP:BITE; if not it should certainly be linked to from there (and probably from Special:Recentchanges too). -Splashtalk 19:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Definition of planet images
There are a number of images I would love to upload, such as this:
 for the "double planets" section, but I have no idea how to convince Wikipedia that the image is in the public domain.
Markskell - Thanks for your vote on my RfA. I'm gald you like the project, I hope that we can continue to improve wikipedia. If you ever need something to do, I'm sure we could put you to work :) Thanks again, and if you need anything just ask! --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 05:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
>Is it more important to you that Slim acknowledges what you perceive to be mistakes or is it more important that the conflict be gotten past, however achieved?
It is more important that I know that the hatchet is really buried this time. I deleted my certification of my RfC against SlimVirgin to allow it to be deleted to wipe the slate clean.(same reason I deleted my certification of teh Bensaccount RfC, to wipe the slate clean)
A month after the RfC is deleted, SlimVirgin unburies the hatchet and not only attempts to use the deleted SlimVirgin RfC against me, she started rewriting history to say no one credible supported it.
So, I got past this when I withdrew my own certification against SlimVirgin. That proved to be a mistake. The only "dispute" now is whether or not I can keep a record of what's happened before and since then.
SlimVirgin's posse is trying to force me to delete it, even though there is no policy against it and other editors (who are even admins) have kept records about other editors.
I believe that I need to keep a record of what really happened, because the last time the records got deleted, SlimVirgin used it against me a month later.
>Secondary to this, how could you not interpret Slim's e-mails as reaching out and why did you not reach back?
Read her email. It is written passive voice. "mistakes were made". She says the dispute between us has started up again, but she refused to acknowledge that she was the one who unburied the hatchet.
My response was essentially that I buried the hatchet and she dug it up. That I have no reason to trust her since she was teh one who brought it up.
She wanted me to delete these subdirectories and she demonstrated that I needed them to record the truth and protect myself.
>Will you admit that you followed Slim's contributions and reverted because you were annoyed? I'm not concerned about the content of the edits on this one—following somebody repeatedly and reverting is actually rather unsettling for the receiver.
I quoted "Words to avoid" to her. She then deletes that entry in the article. I revert her. She followed me.
She wasn't involved in teh Bensaccoutn RfC or the Creation Science article that it involved for at least a week. The day she declares she can assume no good faith of me, she shows up on the RfC and says it's a bad RfC. She followed me.
>If you're willing to admit you lost your cool why can't you admit it to her frankly (even on her talk for instance)? Specifically, why can you not offer an unqualified apology for your swearing?
I filed the RfC against SlimVirgin on July 14.
16 July I delete my certification and the RfC is deleted.
On 18 July, I posted this to her talk page 
How much more unqualified do you want for an apology?
>Note, "she hasn't done the same" is the ten-year old answer on this one. In terms of actual words written she has not gone as low as you.
I deleted certification on my own RfC.
I gave her an unqualified apology.
a month later, she's fighting me about content on another page and unburies the hatchet and tries to rewrite history about the RfC against her.
>All for the moment. Marskell 16:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- SlimVirgin has no involvement in the Creation Science article at all. She makes no comment on the RfC when it is opened or for the week following.
03:26, 31 August 2005: SlimVirgin posts on my talk shes "All out of good faith" 
22:47, 31 August 2005: SV says Bensaccount RfC "looks like another inappropriate RfC filed by you,"
- No involvement in the Creation Science article at all. No involvement in the RfC for an entire week. The day she gets mad enough at me to say she's out of good faith for me, she starts a crusade to label the Bensaccount RfC "inappropriate".
23:26, 15 September 2005: I cite "However" in "Words to avoid" to SlimVirgin 
22:57, 17 September 2005: SlimVirgin deletes the "However" entry 
- In her RfC "summary of dispute", SV says she arrived at the "words to avoid" article "first". The only problem is that the DIFF she provides points to a day AFTER I cited teh "Words to avoid" article about the "however" entry.
20:11, 16 September 2005: This is the diff that SlimVirgin provides saying she arrived there first. 
Duh, forgot to sign again. That was me, if it wasnt' clear. FuelWagon 19:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the support
I'd like to thank you for the support now. I most likely won't be an admin after what I've seen, but I'm glad that you support me. It means a lot that atleast some people support me. Private Butcher 18:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Voice of All, my RfA
Thank you for taking the time to vote on my Rfa. If you have any concerns over my actions please let me know. CambridgeBayWeather 23:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Per the discussion at Deletion review, I have restored this article and relisted it on AfD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margaret Turnbull (2nd nomination). -Splashtalk 17:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi. First of all, I'd like to point out that I'm not a wikipedia image expert or anything. But I will attempt to answer you questions. Yes, if the image licence specifies that it can only be used non-comerically, it cannot be used on wikipedia. I think this is becuase it is incompatable with the GFDL, which allows commerical use. Some wikipedia mirrors are commerical. As for where this is actually writtern down, that's abit harder. The Template:CopyrightedFreeUseProvided template mentions the Wikipedia licensing policy. Although, I can't seem to find it. However, I can assure you this is the policy. As you can tell from the Wikipedia:Template_messages/Image_namespace all non-commerical tags tell the user to list the image for deletion.
On a personal note, I don't like this policy either. I think that mirrors should pay more attention to the content they are mirroring and delete non-comerical images as needed instead. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 16:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- I'm glad I was of some help, I hope you can get the image licened under a GFDL compatable licence. Good Luck! --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 16:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
"If left alone it will read "Germans are murderers who only want to murder Poles." I am sorry if you feel that way but what are you proposing ? The history of Germany has many cases of atrocities against Poles. Nobody is claiming what you wrote, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't write about history or delete those facts.Is that what you are proposing ? Anyway your opinion isn't true since before vandalisation there sections of persecution of Poles in other countries. --Molobo 16:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
So in other words you believe Wiki shouldn't have articles about Auschwitz, Operation Tannenberg, SS, Concentration Camps etc ? --Molobo 17:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
What was the point of your remark then ? --Molobo 17:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Amazing. That is absolutely hilarious. I did it as a joke (hence the "oneoneone" at the end). I was about to just say that I was shortening the statement (in the summary), then I thought, "hmm, wonder what'll happen..." ... and, wow, there it is! Reverted. Quite an impressive prediction on your part, I must say. ;)
(By the way, I'm not a huge fan of the man, but I prefer him to, say, Kerry. I certainly don't condone vandalizing his page.) Matt Yeager 23:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
List of movies
They are there for a reason. Listing them acts as a placeholder, in order to clarify what was to be. Plus, it keeps the article consistant with Prequel trilogy (Star Wars) and Original trilogy (Star Wars). The Wookieepedian 09:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
What to do with Schiavo 'discussion' from Euthanasia article
I am enquiring as to what you think I should have done.
I moved some stuff on Schiavo from Talk:Euthanasia to Talk:Terri Schiavo, as it seemed to me to have nothing to contribute to the latter, but (possibly) something for the former. I linked the old to the new location.
Your comments were:
- Why do we need this tirade here? Marskell 15:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- Unless it's a personal attack or nonsense you actually shouldn't remove anything from Talk pages. Yes, people wander off on tangents but they're ultimately allowed to. Archive if you feel the thread is dead or unneeded. Marskell 15:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
The first sounds as if it does not belong, the second as if it should stay there. Do you mean:
- I should have left it under Euthanasia?
- I should have archived it (which I have not found out how to do — or is that an admin thing)?
- It should be removed from one place or the other, or moved back?
Marskell, I very much appreciate your attempts to seek a compromise and not to start reverting on sight. I saw your suggestion yesterday, and I admit I've been online a few times since, but sometimes it's easier to revert vandalism, or add a sentence to an uncontroversial article, than to provide long theological arguments. In fact, I feel it is a complete waste of time that I have been forced to give long explanations (not to you) in the last week, over something that had been there for over six months and was never disputed until someone who tends to be hostile to supporters of the Schindlers discovered that I wanted it. I cannot judge motivation, but I can have my own ideas on it. I have tried to remain polite, calm and rational, and I am frankly appalled at the efforts to insert something that is not needed, and that causes problems for some editors. I am also appalled that someone would make (as justification for his edits) the utterly untrue statement that there were multiple uses of "altar bread" in the articles on Holy Communion and host, and would not withdraw that statement when it is questioned.
However, I didn't come here to gossip about other editors. I just want to say that I don't intend to ignore your suggestion. I will provide a fuller answer on the Terri Schiavo talk page later. My brother is home from England at the moment, so I can't sit in front of the computer for hours – which is why it's quicker to do a bit of uncontroversial edits on different subjects. To answer briefly, while thinking about how to answer on the talk page, I'll just say that the term "host wafer" is never used in a liturgical or sacramental sense in my experience. There are some matches on Google which have to do with religion, but most seem to be connected to a totally unrelated subject which I don't understand at all:
- ...to the host wafer. Chemical-mechanical polishing is then used to achieve a smooth silicon ...
- The process starts with a host wafer containing many chips. Next, other wafers or individual chips are bonded to the host wafer at room temperature ...
- Microcap bonding on a selected area of the host wafer was successfully demonstrated through flip chip and wafer level alignment. A passivation treatment was ...
I stand by my claim that my creation of a short article explaining the word was sufficient for anyone who was puzzled by it and wanted to know what it meant. Just like viaticum, which is in the same section, and is wikified rather than being explained.
I feel very saddened and discouraged at this completely unneccessary attempt to deny Catholic teaching in the article. I wouldn't dream of inserting that the priest was unable to give her the "Body of Christ", even though that's what I believe. I know it's POV. "Host" is not POV: it neither affirms nor denies the Real Presence – and I know from my experience with non-Catholics, that they are familiar with the term.
1) Perhaps you should check who created that archives page in the first place.
2) It's a perfect example of the ridiculousness associated with the article ('Host', as long as it's linked correctly, is fine, and doesn't need explanation). A ten word decision became a 5000 word catfight.
- You're right - on reflection, it was a little too sarcastic (although removing it should have been my decision, not another user's). It's been toned down, I still think the point is a valid one. But thank you for making me realise I was being over-critical. Proto t c 12:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I am not taking your note badly, but it surprised me. Can I assume your bot did not count automatically generated subheads in edit summary space as edit summaries? If you had asked I would have described myself as punctilious at describing edits that might interest other people, especially negatively. I do not put edit summaries on rollbacks because there is no way to do it, but I only use that on obvious nonsense, usually from anon editors and no one has ever complained about it. The other group I often do not summarize are ones that are automatically generated by subheading. I do much answering at ref desk, where the topic is always supplied in the edit summary; I never change it, so people can recognize when someone has added to a question they are following. I also allow subheads to serve as edit summaries on articles where I am doing lots of solitary expansion (e.g., see Lugdunum or Guthrie test) and no one else is involved. I write lots of articles from the ground up with little attention. Finally, if I have edited and supplied a summary and then recognize immediately that I have left a typo, I usually just correct it without an explanation because my previous edit had an explanation and I let it serve for an immediate sequel. I actually do not edit contested articles all that often, and try always to use edit summaries in those. I assume your statistics were generated by a bot that cannot distinguish the above types of edits. I have never had anyone ever accuse me of misleading edit summaries or complain about lack of edit summaries. I suspect if you review my last 50 edits, I doubt you would find a single instance where someone might have felt misled or cheated by my lack of edit summary. I can't say your note makes me want to change my behavior, although I may pay even closer attention to situations where someone would want one. You might look at whether many of the editors caught in your net have similar patterns. alteripse 01:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
- My 2 cents on the issue -- I am unaware of any wikipolicy that requires edit summaries, since most people (so I understand) tend to look at the "diff" tag on edits regardless what they are; my understanding is edit summaries are a courtesy and are suggested if there may be some issue with the edit being made. I usually do edit summaries but not all the time if I feel they are unnecessary. Where is such a statistic available, incidentally? I'm fairly new in the admin world so maybe there's a page I'm unaware of. 23skidoo 06:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Thank your for vote on my RfA. I have already stated on the request page in the Comments section that I am going to use edit summaries as much as possible starting immediately. I will appreciate it if you wish to change your vote to Support. Thanks again! — Wackymacs 07:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I was wondering why you considered your source on the outer Plutonian moons to be an update, when it was a report of an Oct 31 blurb that came out the same day as the IAU announcement. The larger diameters of the IAU announcement were justified with expected albedos (100 and 110 km with Charon's albedo, 140 and 160 for the darkest albedos of the Kuiper Belt), and are also consistant with the quoted upper bounds on the masses of the moons.
Thanks, kwami 20:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
- How about we revert to what the Hubble team themselves have said, then? (The ref, by the way, is in the Pluto or Pluto moons article; I'll add it to the individual moons as well.) kwami 23:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
re: 5078 Yonge Street
I delisted 5078 Yonge Street from AfD and re-listed it at Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion as that's where it belongs. You may want to head there and vote. Cheers, Marskell 23:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for re-listing it, and thank you for contacting me on my talk page (I always appreciate that). If you see the AfD page, it was originally an article, until Zanimum redirected it. I questioned whether this should be at AfD or RfD, as the redirect was done without community consensus, yet he eliminated beaurocracy. Any thoughts? Thanks, [[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 04:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your support! I really appreciate it. PRueda29 13:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
184.108.40.206 through .29
Can you give an example of the error messages that you get when trying to edit? Please cut and paste the messages. Are you being blocked from editing, or just finding the system very slow ("half an hour to edit")... unfortunately, there's nothing I can do about the latter. -- Curps 18:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, what happened was that someone registered the username "Fuckjapan" at 4 November 2005, 22:44 UTC (Greenwich Mean Time) and it was blocked as an offensive username. See this link: . However, the way that blocks work on Wikipedia is, when a username is blocked the underlying IP address is also automatically blocked temporarily, usually 24 hours. Note that for privacy reasons, Wikipedia administrators don't know what that underlying IP address is, I had no idea even what part of the world Mr. "Fuckjapan" was editing from until you informed me.
What you should do is report this to your ISP: give them both the IP address 220.127.116.11 and the exact time it was used: 4 November 2005, 22:44 UTC (presumably this is November 5 02:44 in the morning local time in the Emirates).
However, this is just one IP and wouldn't explain the other IPs .21 through .29 if these are blocked too. Either you have a lot of abusive users (which your ISP might wish to drop as customers), or your ISP is using a so-called "open proxy" which allows anyone anywhere in the world to use their ISP to make edits to Wikipedia (or visit any other website). If the latter is the case, then you should probably expect these IPs to get blocked fairly often, since Wikipedia vandals sometimes take advantage of open proxies to try to conceal themselves. Perhaps you could contact your ISP and get more information. -- Curps 20:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm, that's too bad about the non-responsiveness. Perhaps there's a language barrier? If they don't have control over who's using their network to surf the internet (possibly even people who aren't their customers), they might find their network being used for illegal purposes someday (perhaps it already has been), which would be unfortunate.
Thanks, I did withdraw my RfA early though because it basically disintegrated, and at the moment I'm not interested being an administrator. Anyway, i don't think computer knowledge is needed to write Bill Gate's biography, it just needs lots of sources and good core information. I'm going to continue adding to the current revision of the article. I have also replied to your comments at Talk:Bill Gates. — Wackymacs 17:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Category vote request
Hi, thanks for supporting me on the eccentric category. I would really appreciate your comment or vote at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Jewish_American_actors. There is a real problem with this category and similar ones as mixing ethnicity-nationality-profession in categories is in my opinion extremely bad for the category structure. The main reason for this is many people are being added to these xxx American categories for having one grandparent of that ethnicity, therefore they can be in four xxx American categories. If we allow the ethnicity-nationality-profession mix in categories, for example, for someone who has grandparents of four different ethnicities and two professions i.e. actor and director, they could end up in four xxx American actor categories and four xxx American director categories which in my opinion would make Wikipedia look ridiculous. In my opinion this category should be merged with Category:American actors. Thanks Arniep 21:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Tim, thanks for your reply, you voted to support my cfd on Category:People_widely_considered_eccentric! The problem with this category is that many people are being added to xxx American categories who do not identify as that, the only criteria being they only have one grandparent of that ethnicity. At first I was prepared to support the Jewish American actor category if people who do not identify as Jewish American were moved to a category such as Americans with Jewish ancestry, but then I realised there was a greater problem, in that accepting this category will inevitably lead to the creation of more xxx American yyy categories. Given that many Americans are of very mixed ethnicity, this could lead to someone who has 2 or more professions and grandparents of four different ethnicities ending up in 8 xxx American yyy categories, or someone with 3 professions ending up in 12 etc. Arniep 23:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Very much for your kind support of my adminship. I'll do my best to live up to your and my other supporters' expectations. If you have any comments or concerns on my actions as an administrator, please let me know. Thank you! — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 14:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Here was the last content of Fuckfrance.com before deletion:
fuckfrance.com is a website primarly focused on French bashing, but showing interests in many other fields.
Proper chronological searches of the Internet Archive reveals that FuckFrance.com and XP.com were once one and the same although the spelling is different.
"Shon Deux", the creator of fuckfrance.com, is from Boulder, Colorado. He may, or may not, be Alex Chiu, the inventor of the magnetic rings.
It is an example of Anti-French sentiment in the fvcktardland (United States). Very little moderation is done except when it comes to banning trolls and spamming. As a result, an extremely free-wheeling discussion is a feature of the site, including material that some may find objectionable. Material, written and photographic, of an adult nature, may be found on the site as well. It has been noted that French posters are way more articulate than the average US French-basher, it is therefore a good site for young Americans to learn how English ought to be written.
- You're welcome. I've been annoyed by not being able to see deleted history as well. Incidently, the "pure wiki" deletion system would solve this problem by treating deletion and undeletion like any other edit, to be reviewd by anyone at will. See WP:PURE for more info. Friday (talk) 22:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
7 000 should be 7,000. Sorry, but isn't that the sort of minor crap you edit yourself when looking at an FA nom?
- It's a no-win situation at times for us FA reviewers. Sometimes people take offense if you make a stylistic change like that (you never know what someone is going to find controversial) and sometimes they take offense if you don't. Not a big deal really, though.
- I'd recommend you be a little more patient regarding waiting for substantive content-related commentary. It's been up on FAC less than 24 hours. It's going to be up there at least a week, and hopefully some people — I admit it — more interested in the topic than I am will review it along those lines. In the meantime, though, it doesn't hurt to look at the simple structural issues that I think our FAs — our "very best work" — should meet.
- Big bang was featured 10 months ago; footnotes weren't as common then, I don't think. Not having any footnotes, it didn't have a problem with telling which corresponded to what. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
RE: hello again
Good job. I have to say, you've put a spectacular amount of work into that piece, and it looks great. I find the whole "references" thing rather confusing myself, and probably will be content to let my articles rest in obscurity. I admire your fortitude in going ahead. Thanks for your adivice, but it's doubtful I'll be around much longer to take advantage of it; I'm going to be taking a breather from Wikipedia for a while. I've gotten into a number of incredibly stupid, pig-headed arguments over utter trivialities in the last few weeks, which resulted in me completely losing my cool and looking foolish as a result. I then realised that I was beginning to take this "project" way too seriously, and that it was time to get some actual real-world perspective. Thank you for all your great support! I really appreciate it. I hope we shall meet again when I return. Serendipodous 16:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Research in ireland
Hi, I've re-written this article and done a Move to Expertise Ireland as per Isotope23. I'm now notifying Delete voters accordingly. Would you mind having another look and seeing if you think it's keepable at this stage? FWIW, I was involved in setting up the data feed from one of the Irish Universities to this site. Dlyons493 Talk 16:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
And how to rank airport traffic of the cities?
Making new diagrams to replace unfree ones
Regarding the ESA pic what do you mean by "this one can be essentially recreated under a free license." Sorry if I'm an image dummy--literally try and create the image from scratch?
- I just meant that it's a diagram and someone could go and make a new diagram with essentially the same information (like Wikipedia's London Underground maps). This is fundamentally different from images taken on another world - there's no way we can recreate those. Wikipedia doesn't have any contributors on Titan. Maybe I'll give the article a closer look tonight. Good luck. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 16:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Your comment on my RfA
I'm sorry, but you're wrong on this one. I did go to VfU once the people who deleted the template repeatedly and without any comment at the talk page whatsoever told me that the fact that the situation changed and that 3 months have passed is not enough to recreate it the easy way. And note that this pretty much ended the problem. Halibutt 17:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
What would be an acceptable amount for you? Remember that information such as city, state, country, and school district are not being counted toward the 3 sentence total but are always included anyway. When it is all said and done the articles will realistically have a 5 sentence total at minimum, which does not qualify as a sub stub any longer which is a vast improvement over the current situation.Gateman1997 19:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- To be honest I agree with you on a personal level. However our opinions are not held by half to 2/3 of all Wikipedians. As such we need to stop voting against them outright and find a middle ground. Continuing these AFDs the result in no consensus our outright keep is not a constructive use of our energies and myself and serveral others (deletionists and inclusionists) are ready to work something out. Schools are not inherently notable, but then as the inclusionists point out neither are alot of things week keep such as County Roads. And merging stubs into larger articles does solve alot of the trouble that leads to AFDs in the first place. I hope you can see that deleting isn't going to work and happen, it's a sad fact but one we need to accept and learn to work with those that do want school articles. I hope you'll continue to join the debate and not end up like User:Nicodemus who seemed to be your inclusionist counterpart.Gateman1997 23:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- That's where you are wrong. Several inclusionists are involved in the debate at WP:SCH and they are accepting the merge proposal. Progress is being made. You, breneman, and Nicodemus are the only hold outs. That's what he meant to say when he said you're like Nicodemus. You're not giving anything from the delete side and he's not giving anything from the keep side. Attitudes like that in either direction are counter to wikipedia consensus building and common sense.Gateman1997 23:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)