User talk:Alice

If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply
on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.

This user is straight but not narrow.

This user loves Singapore.

Alice's ("missing") 'user page'
My last 500 contributions
My Edit Count

"I am running out of patience for incivility at Wikipedia,... Some people simply should not be contributing to an encyclopedia.... and note that all editors should always endeavor to treat each other with kindness, or else find another hobby. When we put up with this kind of behavior, we enable a hostile environment that drives away good people. We should be gentle, but firm: this kind of behavior is not allowed at Wikipedia." --Jimbo Wales 21:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC) [1]

I don't like breaking up conversations. If I start a conversation on your talk page, I'm watching that for at least 5 days - so please leave responses on your talk page. If you start a conversation here, I'll reply here - so make sure you watch this page. Thanks. Any article I have contributed to recently will also be on my watchlist.

Welcome to Alice's talk page!

The Status Bot has been blocked. See my last edit here. Please sign your posts using four tildes (~~~~). Please add all new threads at the bottom of the appropriate division; either P or non-P. Please note that I do not respond to every comment. I only respond to the comments I feel I need to respond to. Personal attacks, uncivil comments, and comments which don't follow the conventions of this box may be either immediately archived or removed. Please post comments relating to the contents of our articles on the relevant page's discussion page, and not here. That way all interested parties (including you and I) can participate and reach consensus. (All articles I edit are automatically added to my Watchlist).

Perspicacite comments go in the "P Section"; all other comments: (+)

P section This "P Section" is for posts by, (or that have a strong link to the conduct of,) User: Perspicacite alias Jose João (P). One of the reasons for this division was the sheer volume of templated messages and text dumps from P - measuring up to 105,077 bytes in one message! - but these have now been archived since he seems to have found new protagonists. If one did not assume good faith, one would assume he was attempting to drown out normal dialogue on this, my user talk page since, unless in extremis, I don't usually instantly expunge unfavourable comments (as P does on his own talk page and now even on article discussion pages ). Please note that I have no desire to get this prolific, erudite and intelligent editor banned (unlike his own stance towards me)(Update: This attack page has now been deleted by an admin). I merely wish him to change his behaviour File:231647949 1fd14dbb22 o.jpg and act in a more collegial manner towards his fellow editors by ceasing to label a) anyone that edits an article that he previously edited a stalker and b) anyone that changes his version a vandal and his contributions vandalism to be reverted on sight by him without regard to the content or merit of the specific edit. Perspicacite I took a look at the history of the page, and the two diffs P provided. It was clear you weren't the problem, so I attempted to defend you the best I could. Good luck dealing with this guy. Mr Which??? 05:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC) I should imagine you are talking about P's latest attempt to have me perma-banned: [2]. I find it a little ironic that someone who ostensibly, is so concerned about rules, can not follow the simple one at the head of that page: "As a courtesy, you should inform other users if they are mentioned in a posting (you may use the {{ANI-notice}} template to do so)" He's tried to get me banned 5 times on that page now but rarely bothers to inform me of the discussion... Thanks for making some perspicacious comments! Being fair to P, there is a kernel of truth to his allegation that I watch his contributions. Because he is such a prolific editor, his particularly sour brand of instant reversion and wiki-lawyering can be very dispiriting and bitey to new editors. I hope that my "baptism of fire" by P has made me stronger and more knowledgeable about our policies and procedures but I do try and encourage new editors that have been savaged by him so that they do not leave the project in disgust as fast as he attacks and reverts them. The real solution would be to appoint a mentor for him and put him on one revert per day parole. He really is quite hard-working and could be an asset to the project if we could only correct his bitey behaviour and contempt for his fellow editors. PS: I'm going to move your comment and my reply up to the P section of this talk page now... Alice✉ 05:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC) Non-P section How to make my name red again? {{helpme}}How can I make my name appear in red again? Before, when I didn't have a user page, my name appeared in red in my watchlist. Now, even though I've deleted my user page, it is still the same old boring blue. How can I get it back to red again?Alice.S 03:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC) And my signature has changed from red to blue as well!!!Alice.S 03:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC) Hello again. Links to pages that exist appear as blue and links to pages that do not exist are red. Blanking your userpage doesn't delete it. You can request that your uerpage be deleted by adding {{db-user}} to it. Alternatively, if you just want your signature on talk pages to appear red, you can add [[User:Alice.S|<font color="#CC2200">Alice.S</font>]] to the signature box in your preferences (remember to check the raw signature box. That code will make your signature look like this: Alice.S . Hope this helps. :) WODUP (?) 04:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC) Wow, you must be the most helpful person on Wikipedia, WODUP! That's done the trick for my signature (on this page at least) but how do I get my name to appear red in my Watchlist? Is the only way to do it the {{db-user}} trick? Alice.S 04:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC) Sadly, the only way to do that, short of possibly writing some CSS, is to delete your userpage. WODUP (?) 05:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC) Well, as you probably realise, that is beyond my capabilities, so I've placed the code you suggested on my user page, WODUP. Thanks again for your very prompt help and assistance! Alice.S 06:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC) Okay. I found something that may work: User:Ais523/highlightmyname2.js. This script highlights your username on pages (including your watchlist). If you want to try it, you can add importScript('User:Ais523/highlightmyname2.js'); to User:Alice.S/monobook.js. If you decide against it after you add that to your monobook.js, you can just remove it, and it'll be back to how it is now. WODUP 11:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC) That works wonderfully - I've changed the code to show my name with a background in a fetching shade of Coral Pink - you really are the cat's whiskers, WODUP! Alice.S 07:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC) recent edits at de facto Your recent edits at de facto appear to have changed many non-italic text bits to italics. This is in contradiction two principles. (1) If it's in an English dictionary, it's appropriated and should not be italicized (this is the Chicago manual of styles definition of appropriation, but Wikipedia does not have one to the best of my knowledge and it's a good rule of thumb), and (2) the exclusion for the topic of the article in WP:ITALICS#Foreign_terms. Would you mind fixing the article so that neither de facto, nor de jure is italicized? Pdbailey 13:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC) Thank you for taking the time to explain your point of view. My reasoning was as follows: 1) a) Is "de jure" a phrase or a word? I decided that it was a foreign phrase (in latin) that did not (yet) have everyday usage (other than in legal and constitutional, etc, circles) and, therefore, that "Wikipedia prefers italics for phrases in other languages...". Adding weight to this argument was that de jure is usually italicized in legal texts b) an additional consideration was that, throughout our article, de jure is contrasted with de facto and it is helpful to italicise to emphasise the distinction. 2) I did not italicise de jure in the title of the article as per WP:ITALICS#Foreign_terms but think that in the body of the article the italicisation is clearer and thus trumps any style preference but realise that this is a fine point. I have, therefore, copied this passage to our article's discussion page for further input from other editors. That being the case, I would prefer not to self-revert until consensus has been achieved but do feel free to revert me if you are utterly convinced I am wrong since I am very new here! I also think it might be worth you starting a discussion on the Chicago manual of style's definition of appropriation at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (text formatting) which, I'm sure, would benefit from your erudite input? Alice.S 21:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC) Alics.S, in your post regarding this same topic on the talk page you mentioned interest in WP:IAR. You may find that the WP:IAR? an interesting read. My interpretation is that there is no reason for a rule to make Wikipedia not all that it can be. I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia. BTW, I generally put comments not about a article on the talk page, and comments to an editor, or unrelated to a specific article on the user's talk page. However, I generally request what I consider to be clear candidates for reversion on the talk page if the edit appears to have been made in good faith--but with a misunderstanding of the rule or policy in question. I'll admit right off the bat that i don't always know the policy as well as I think, so it's fine to challenge me, and it was fine but not necessary (in my opinion) to move that challenge to the talk page of the article. Finally, thanks for being courteous throughout this conversation.Pdbailey 02:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC) I'm very sorry if I did something wrong by trying to discuss things on the article's talk page - I really don't wish to challenge you in any shape or form and please forgive me as a newbie if that's how it appeared. I just assumed it would be OK to have a public discussion since I didn't think it right that just some of the occurrences of de jure should be italicized but not others. I really don't wish to fall out with anyone on Wikipedia and, as I said before, feel free to just make the changes without further discussion if you feel The Economist`s Style Guide is clearly wrong at http://www.economist.com/research/styleGuide/index.cfm?page=805685 Alice.S 02:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC) I think we are poking at the underbelly of this particular policy. Usually when I do this I get one short response from one other editor over at the guideline page and it's often not all that well thought out--but sometimes I get a gem. BTW, you are far from falling out with me (quite the opposite), I was trying to say thank you and give you a tip as to how things usually proceed because you appear to be new and curious about how Wikipedia works. Pdbailey 06:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC) I do really apologise for the misunderstanding - it may be a gender thing or the fact that I am very new to online argumentation - it's quite difficult when there are no smiles or tones of voice to give you a clue. Thank you very much for being patient, tolerant and understanding with me. Please feel free to correct my howlers - I'm trying to learn as much as I can as quickly as I can. Alice.S 06:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC) Vanuatu Sorry, it's easy to forget that jargon and abbreviations are not easy to recognize by the new. "rv" just means revert, which I did because I think "European ethnic groups" is not an appropriate place to direct readers to. Ethnic groups did not colonize Vanuatu, it was European nations, and "Europe" is what most readers will expect to find when they click that link. If there's anything else you need, feel free to ask.--Cúchullain t/c 21:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC) Thanks for clarifying both the abbreviation and the reason for the revert that I queried at your user talk page. I would slightly disagree with you that these were all national government sponsored and organised expeditions - some of the very first landings were by privateers that would have been executed by their respective (European) governments if they had been caught- but no matter. There was also a distinct feeling of ethnic superiority and solidarity amongst the colonisers which many Vanuatuans feel is still relevant. Alice.S 21:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC) Replied... to you here NoSeptember 01:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)]] Re:Thanks again for good advice You are most welcome, and please do feel free to do modifications as you please. This is your talk page afterall, and a beautiful one at that! Meanwhile, I notice you still appear to have some problems with the signature part. You only need to insert --~~~~ behind your comments. No need to manually type in your name and timestamp. Hope this helps!--Huaiwei 01:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC) That's exactly what I do, Huawei, but because I do not (and do not want a user page) a bug in Sinebot thinks I haven't signed. Sinebot's owner was kind enough to respond to my concerns here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Slakr&oldid=167995998#Sinebot_signs_after_my_signature Please keep up your mentorship - it's much appreciated! Alice.S 08:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC) Interesting essay a note to myself (and anyone lurking, of course). Alice.S 12:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC) Category:New Zealand-Pacific relations Hm... good question. To be honest, I didn't have a specific definition of Pacific in mind when I made the category. I initially used it for articles relating to the history of NZ in the Pacific islands, but articles on NZ's relationship with countries like Japan do make some sense being in there (but not - as Gadfium says - articles like Japan itself). Thanks for the comments on the paintings - I should take that banner off my talk page, the exhibition finished a couple of weeks ago! It went well, though with fewer sales than I would have liked. Lots of good comments and a couple of good reviews, though. I have quite a few on my paintings up at my website here and follow the links to the "by year" pages :) Grutness...wha? 23:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC) I do like Liz and the reiteration of the Sydney Harbour Bridge is wonderful, James. "Life's a long song" is really poignant, too. Have you ever shown any stuff in Singapore - there's lot's of folk with high disposable income here now... I'm going to try and make the category description a bit more explicit - just correct me if I do anything you don't like. I'm also going to take a look at some articles (beginning with Samoa) to see if they can be appropriately added to your category (which looks a bit on the sparse side...). Best wishes! Alice.S 07:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC) Sounds fair. As far as I'm concerned, any articles directly connected to NZ's links with Pacific Island or Pacific Rim countries are probably suitable. Any articles on Samoan links are definitely woith putting in there, since Samoa was a New Zealand territory at one time, though again, the category would be more for things like History of Samoa than for Samoa itself. I'm glad you like my art - no, I haven't exhibited outside New Zealand yet, though several people from other countries have bought my work either through my website or through seeing it in galleries while visiting New Zealand. Oh, and it's "Kia ora", BTW, though it's normally used more as a greeting than at the end of a message :) Grutness...wha? 23:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC) Thanks very much for your prompt and helpful reply, James. I've already added the History of Samoa to your category (that article seems like it could really do with some knowledgeable editors - I'm certainly not one) and I'll watch out for any others. Sorry about the "Kia ora" (maybe now you understand the "Bimbo" stereotype about beauty pageant queens...) What would be a good thing to say at the end of a message to someone from New Zealand? Alice.S 23:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC) :) That's ok. Other than the standard English sign-offs, I'm not really sure what you'd use. "Haere ra" is used when you've been talking to someone in person (sort of the equivalent of "farewell, be seeing you"), but I'm not sure whether you'd use it on a written message. I have seen "Na tou hoa" used, but it's a slightly different sign-off (literally "from your friend"). "Kia ora" does work, but it's less common as an ending than as a greeting (confusingly, it's also an affirmation - you can use it to interject and show your support for what someone's saying, like the old "hear, hear!"). Grutness...wha? 00:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC) It's really lovely of you to help me with this, James. I'd love to come and visit your wonderful country one day and "Kia ora" sounds like a very useful word for a forgetful person like me. Is there a place on the web that I can learn to pronounce it properly? Hopefully Maori is not an intonal language like Chinese where slight changes are crucial. I suppose the weather is wonderful now on your southern island? Alice.S 01:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC) It's not intonal (thankfully! I've been trying to learn the basics of Mandarin Chinese, and the tones are thoroughly confusing me, as is remembering the difference between ch, sh, q and x!) I don't know anywhere on the web which has Maori pronunciation guides. Very approximately, Kia ora is pronounced KEY-uh AW-ruh (key as in door-key, aw as in saw), though it's often pronounced KEY-AW-ruh - and there's a very slight trill on the r, like in French. As for the weather, it's typical spring here - warm sunny days alternating with cold wet days. Today was sunny but windy. Hopefully it'll soon settle down into long warm periods as we get nearer summer. Grutness...wha? 08:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC) Wow, you sound like such an interesting fellow, James. Are most New Zealand people like you - we tend to lump you in with Australians but I guess you're very different and probably a bit more cultured - if that doesn't sound like an offensive stereo type. Isn't Wikipedia wonderful that we get to meet and co-operate with people from right across the world to make a better information source! Thank you very much for the pronunciation guide - I'll try it out on the first guys I meet who I am sure are from New Zealand (off to check the differences in the Flags... ah yours has red stars). It must be nice to have the weather to talk about - Singapore weather is so reliably predictable - even when we have those dreadful smogs from Indonesia. Thank you so much for being helpful - as you might have noticed from the section above, I was beginning to think that Wikipedia is not really the place for me! Thanks for brightening up my afternoon! Alice.S 08:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC) any time :) Yup - four red stars - the Aussies also have the big extra star under the Union Jack canton which we don't. Grutness...wha? 09:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC) No harm done I realize you're a (relatively) new user, and I probably should have worded my reply to reflect that. SparsityProblem 01:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC) Thanks for being so gallant. And no need to pull your punches - it was pretty stupid of me not to have read the whole debate before I commented and your succinct and accurate summary of the process jolted me out of my laziness. Sorry again and thanks for the "wake-up at the back" comment! Alice.S 02:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC) KSB's revert It's already been reverted back to your newer, changed version by another editor. Cheers! Gwen Gale 02:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC) Yup, I'm a slow typist and folks seem to be very quick on the draw. Thanks for keeping an eye on things, Gwen! Alice.S 03:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC) It was my mistake Alice, and I deserve no congratulations for reverting it, though I appreciate your kind words at my talk page. I apologize for not looking closer at what you were actually doing, and you have my sympathies in your current dispute with Perspicacite. I've watched the dispute a bit, and it appears you're on the side of angels there, so-to-speak. Keep up the good work of encyclopedia building! Best regards, K. Scott Bailey 06:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC) Looking closer, I realize Encyclopetey beat me to the revert, so it wasn't actually my undoing of my mistake. Again, though, I take full responsibility for not looking closer at what you were actually doing. K. Scott Bailey 06:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC) Well, dragons are busy creatures and it can be hard to spot the detail sometimes when you're flying at such dizzy heights (grin). P has been actually showing distinct signs of editing rather than reverting recently - I do hope I'm not grinding him down (wan smile). Alice.S 06:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC) "Straight but not narrow" I've been on the lookout for a userbox saying something like that for awhile. Where did you find it? And I hope you don't mind that I swiped the code to put on my userpage. K. Scott Bailey 17:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC) Gosh, you're very polite and friendly for a dragon! I'm afraid I've forgotten where I swiped it from, (that'll teach me to use better edit summaries) except that I'm fairly sure it was either GFDL or public domain. You might like to edit it to show the male symbol as slightly more prominent or keep it the same to reflect the female gamete's dominant role in our world (grin). Thanks for being so friendly! Alice.S 21:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC) Made me smile This and this made me smile; hope it does the same for you. WAS 4.250 01:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC) Me too and how lovely for you to think of me! A very interesting new source for stopping me getting any work done! I think I need a sugar daddy so I can stop all remunerative work and concentrate on Wikistuff. This may get seriously addictive... Thanks for being nice to me. Alice.S 01:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC) Turns out there was more. I wondered why he stopped where he did. WAS 4.250 01:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC) Comments.... Hi there. My editing today on a few articles may have removed or changed some of your material. Please don't be offended, but all I merely wanted to do was to remove any dubious unreferenced material. The worst though is that anon IP who turns out to be a block evading sock of the rude User:Domaleixo. I can't say I understood your message, but I'm guess it was tongue in cheek. Cheers and happy editing. --Merbabu 06:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC) I'm not offended at all - that's what is so wonderful about Wikipedia: we can all stand on the shoulders of others and become GIANTS! I'm sure that, given your evident cultural sensitivity, you will be aware that the IP (s)(socks or not) feel very strongly about the topics they edit on and that may lead them to be bit rash and loud at times - especially when it is evident that, like me, English was probably not the language they first learnt to read in. They have provided some good material, though, and the articles they have edited could definitely do with lots more citations. Lastly, I'm intrigued as to exactly which message you did not understand - can you provide a diff? Alice.S 06:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC) North Korea What North Korea thinks of itself isn't relevant to its well sourced government type. NK fits the very definition of communist, etc. If you would like to participate in the discussion on the article's talk page, that's great. But simply deleting sourcec information isn't appropriate. Rklawton (talk) 15:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC) I disagree. But I do agree that it's more productive that we discuss this on the article's talk page, so I've added to the previous points I made on that discussion page here. Incidentally, your point had already been well discussed on the article's talk page by (you and) others, so please don't assume that I am ignorant of the background to your comment. Alice.S 21:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC) I invited you to participate in a discussion. How is it you infer I might think you ignorant? Rklawton (talk) 01:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC) My mistake then, I read your comment as implying that I changed the "label" in the infobox from a position of ignorance and without reading the prior discussions on the article's talk page. My change took account of those discussions (I don't have to participate in a discussion to be able to understand its drift). What I took offence to was the "simply deleting" part. For the avoidance of doubt, I do believe that government's self descriptions are both illuminating and relevant; I will get seriously worried when the USA ceases to view itself as a democracy (whatever I may personally feel...) Alice.S 02:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC) The U.S. isn't a democracy. It's a republic. It's in the name. If you were aware of the talk page discussions, then why did you choose to delete something most editors believed belonged? Rklawton (talk) 04:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC) This isn't usenet and I'm not going to debate politics here. I chose to delete two words from a userbox description that was un-encyclopedic: "communist dictatorship"; used together they are inappropriate and a contradiction in terms. We don't label the Provisional IRA or Al Quaeda as terrorist murderers for the same sort of NPOV reasons. Most Wikipedians are not telepathic and, without active canvassing, it's only a small minority of editors that will ever comment on an article's talk page. That's one reason that Wikipedia is explicitly not a democracy and it is the arguments themselves that are important rather than counting heads. I know that's very difficult for most westerners to understand, but it's something very easy to understand in Asia. You take a different view, even although there is discussion on the article's talk page that explains a view that runs counter to your own. I'm not vehement about this which is why I've commented as I have done there. Please make your points on the article's discussion page rather than here - that way your rationale (and mine, if I choose to contribute) will be available for subsequent editors to assess. The magic of Wikipedia is that it has developed mechanisms so that editors of all persuasions (and none) should be able to work together collegially. Alice.S 06:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Working together collegially does not include making controversial changes without discussion. It also does not include using the words "ignorant" and "bimbo" or accusing others of these presumptions. Rklawton (talk) 15:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Look Robert, we're in substantial agreement here that you didn't mean to offend me (and I certainly didn't mean to offend you) so let's give it a rest, eh? Both you and I were wrong in being bold and changing the Infobox description without reaching a consensus. Now let's concentrate on the article's discussion page in proposing mechanisms for reducing to-ing and fro-ing in this infobox so we can reach a stable, good article... PS: I did enjoy the Japanese motorcycle article you pointed to! Alice.S 00:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC) what to call me Alice.S, I never care what people call me, so it's completely up to you. I usually try to call people by their entire username unless they ask me to do otherwise (not that I'm suggesting this for others, it just what I do out of fear of accidentally insulting someone). Cheers, Pdbailey (talk) 03:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC) I'll call you Paul then (email me privately if it's really Peter or Patrick or Parthenon or whatever - I promise to respect the confidence. I have a mental image of a tweed jacketed, pipe-smoking Irishman originally from the Scottish lowlands that is ultra-reliable and patient - but that's just because of one of my tutors - cheeky grin). I prefer to be simply called Alice. Thanks for giving me lots to think about in our discussions! Alice.S 03:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC) Sure thing Alice. I'll answer your question about the "red link bot" de facto here because it's less apropos to the article. Sadly, there is no red link bot that fixes them and makes everything all nice in the way you described (and I would argue that we don't want one because red links are good in a sense). But if you set up a redirect then it is seamless (i.e. try this link to Robert Zimmerman). Now try clicking on the link after "Redirected from ..." where you can edit the Robert Zimmerman page. Right now, it's just a redirect to Bob Dylan. Now, as far as I know, a bot would come along and fix that link to Robert Zimmerman were it in the article space (and not in the user space where the bot might not roam). Back in the de facto* world, this means that de facto, de jure and the other one that I couldn't spell without looking at it all could redirect to one article transparently, saving many a neophyte the trouble of making a red link or having to look up the real article. Since you appear to like to know about Wikipedia's clock works, I'll point out that sometimes people link to disambiguation pages, which probably isn't what the intended. These are all flagged and one can help by going through and fixing them to the author's intention, and many editors do (helpfully) spend time fixing these. Pdbailey (talk) 05:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC) * italicized because it's a word as a word ;) I do appreciate the time and careful way you have explained this to me. It's much appreciated, Paul. Where is the list of links awaiting disambiguation to be found, please? Alice.S 14:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC) WP:DPL. There's also a Disambiguation Wikiproject, if you're interested. Cheers, Tonywalton  | Talk 14:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC) Isn't Wikipedia amazing! If there's ever insufficient work to do with the 120 articles I currently have on my watchlist I know where to look. Thanks again for being so helpful and informative, it's really appreciated! Alice.S 17:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC) You could also fix the one on this page. Hint: it's in italics against wikipedia's type setting rules (as defined by you). ;) Pdbailey 23:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC) So, there is a wikilink on this my talk page (written by me I guess) that points to a disambiguation page instead of to a Wikipedia page or redirect and it is in italic script? I can't see it but are you saying that there is some page I could go to or tool I could use to find it, Paul? If you're talking about in extremis then I'm happy with the explanation given at the top of the disambiguation page for in extremis (and I personally use a different rule for italicization than that followed by our encyclopaedic articles). I'd still like to know if there is a tool or page to find these for a particular page, though... Alice.S 09:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC) That's what I was talking about. You're right that there is a dictionary entry there and no encyclopedia article that you might want to link to. I'm not sure what to say about that, it's a bit ugly (not what you did, the page and how it disambigs). Pdbailey (talk) 14:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC) Phew! That's a relief, I can stop worrying that my growing reputation as a pedantic little minx is safe. I assume that there is no tool or page I can use to check out a page that you know about. Have you voted in the ArbCom elections yet? Alice.S 14:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC) What the duce is ArbCom, and why does it need an election?Pdbailey (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC) I suppose it's just possible that you are not feigning ignorance here, Paul, so I will say that many editors view the Arbitration Committee as a court of last resort (and some, misguidedly, as a court of first instance ); it sees itself rather differently. Elections are useful for trying to ensure that the electorate views ArbCom's decisions as having the stamp of legitimacy: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007. (PS: I'm still cogitating on your merge query).  Alice✉ 07:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC) Possible, but not the case. I generally pay no attention to the rules until I get smacked on the hand for not doing so. BTW, you probably have more edits than twice the number of edits I do (or about 95% of wikipedia editors), so I would suggest getting used to knowing more than most people you run across. PS, thanks for the update on the cognition. Pdbailey (talk) 00:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC) Continuation War Thanks for your work today cleaning up Continuation War. It's nice to have someone who hasn't been caught up in the past year and a half of arguments make a big contribution. --Stlemur 17:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC) Well that's very sweet of you and makes a pleasant change from some of the comments that have been left in my "P section". I must admit I trembled a bit before I dared tickle the lead since I know diddly squat about the subject matter. Thanks for giving my spirits a boost! Alice.S 17:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC) HI You're entirely welcome to use that. Perhaps needs putting into context! edward (buckner) 10:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC) Thanks, Edward. I knew you were a sport. Kick it into whatever context you feel appropriate. Be my guest (non) user page editor!Alice.S 15:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC) Re: WP:why Better to redirect it directly to the main page ("Wikipedia:Why create an account?" in this case) to prevent loops. -- Mentifisto 11:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC) I'm brand new here as you probably realised. Does that mean that the shortcut [[WP:WHY]] may change in future? Alice.S 11:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC) It may change but probably won't... the main reason you should redirect to the article directly is because MediaWiki won't finish the redirect wholly and will just halt at WP:WHY... which isn't the aim of a redirect (because then you'd have to click it manually to get to the main page). -- Mentifisto 12:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC) Thanks very much for taking the time to explain that to me - it's much appreciated. (I have gone back to other 2 re-directs I created and, I hope, done the job properly now.Alice.S 13:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC) And welcome by the way. :-) Also you might consider archiving this talk page since it's becoming big now. ;-) -- Mentifisto 12:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC) Folks were very welcoming to me when I first started 10 weeks ago and their welcome is archived. More than 80% of the bulk of this page is taken up with the "P Section" but I am unable to archive that until the situation is resolved - hopefully next year in 2008. Alice.S 13:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC) Why exactly do you get in conflict? -- Mentifisto 11:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC) From my perspective that's a bit like asking the Polish Government on 17 September 1939: "Why is it you keep getting into conflict with your neighbours?". Obviously I have my opinion, but it might be better if you form your own by reading my "P Section". Thanks for your interest! Alice.S 13:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC) Update: The contents of the "P Section" have now been archived to here [3]. Alice✉ 23:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC) Singapore Airlines Hey Alice.S Thanks for the welcome :-D Hopefully we can get the Singapore Airlines right and make it a great article and balancing veiled and explicit views of editors in the process! —Preceding unsigned comment added by RomanceOfTravel (talk • contribs) 18:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC) That's the spirit! Isn't Wikipedia wonderful? What's your favourite airline if you're flying economy ?Alice.S 18:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC) Blocking (section reconstituted from [4]) 8.1) Blocking is a serious matter. Administrators should be exceedingly careful when blocking. Blocks should be made only if other means are not likely to be effective. Passed 10 to 1 at 17:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC) [5] Especially when you are not dealing with some pimply teenager that can not take a hint. Why not ask Edward nicely first if you do not wish to receive communications from him? Alice.S 17:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC) Edward is passionate about Wikipedia. He has a stack of intellectual effort invested in it. Admins should only block serious contributors as a last (and not a first) response. Alice.S 19:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC) In my mind, disrupting an open election through a smear campaign is a serious matter - especially if the perpetrator has been asked to stop, and has refused. >Radiant< 22:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC) Well If you're unwilling to respond to that, you really shouldn't be trying to "throw the book" at people. >Radiant< 23:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC) I think you're assuming too much again. If you had bothered to read what is on the top of this talk page, you would be able to work out that I believe it's more difficult to have a dialogue when people are talking in separate rooms. You may well have been privy to information that I wasn't but I just reacted to what I thought I saw. A rather veiled warning to Edward followed by a block a few minutes later. I'm probably getting a warped view of things but I see too many examples of lazy admins (not that I'm necessarily putting you in that category) who can't be bothered to attempt to engage a (possibly) problematic user in dialogue before reaching for the block button. I must admit that I'm not impressed by you removing the thread from your own user page so quickly and then suggesting that I'm "unwilling to respond". Now I'm going away for a few days so I'd suggest a period of sober reflection to ascertain what you want from me before appearing on my talk page again - to swat me round the ear or to persuade me that I was in error. If the latter, then I'd very much welcome the courtesy of a considered reply (since I don't perceive any urgency about the situation now) rather than (what still appears to me as) a precipitate response. By the way, I do like both the idea and execution of your "quilt". Alice.S 23:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC) It strikes me that if you disagree with a block on somebody, you should address the issue at hand, rather than copy/paste a bit of a policy page. I am aware that people shouldn't be blocked lightly; if you believe that I have acted too hastily, it is far more helpful to explain why you think so, rather than reiterate that blocks are a last resort. For what it's worth, after investigation by a few other admins, Dbuckner has now been indefinitely blocked. >Radiant< 00:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC) Sad Personally, I think Edward went about things the wrong way (I voted for FT2). It might have been better if he had raised his concerns about bad publicity for Wikipedia with the ArbCom secret mailing list or the Foundation in confidence first. Equally, he may actually have done that and felt his concerns were not being timeously addressed or he may just have felt that confidential mailing was an underhand way of going about things. I don't know the guy, but from his postings he seems to be concerned with ethics. Whatever the sequence of events I do think it sad that things had to come to this. Anyway I do hope we can agree to disagree on some issues without rancour or grudges. Alice.S 10:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC) I fully agree to that. >Radiant< 09:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC) merge Q Now that you've had some time to think about it, are you still opposed to the de facto / de jure merge? Pdbailey (talk) 21:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC) Would your proposal be: to have ONE article, entitled "When law and common practice differ" with three main headings of de facto, de jure and desuetude to change the current three separate eponymous articles to redirects to the relevant sections? Would there be any technical difficulties with having redirects to sections rather than the whole (new) article? If there weren't, that would overcome my neophyte argument, but I must confess I'm still not clear on the advantages (as opposed to the lack of drawbacks) of such a merger, Paul... Alice✉ 20:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC) Well, I was kind of hoping you would say you were still strongly against it and then I would drop it. But, it comes down to a view of this beast (Wikipedia) as an encyclopedia and a few things I've noticed: More articles on the same topic leads to a few that are way below par and a maybe one great one that is even well maintained. Why not have all the below par ones in the great one as subsections and let them get lots of attention? Many times when I look something up, I find just one of the many possible articles and it can take months for me to find either the good one or even years to find all the bad ones to redirect. But again, I fear it's just my view of Wikipedia and that I'm not right to impose it. So since you considered this most I thought I would ask you where you stand. I'm fine with all of the above, and it will all work great as you hope. Pdbailey (talk) 14:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC) Again, you have given me some new perspectives to think about and deepened my respect for you, Paul. Now you have given me a positive (editor pedagogic) rationale for making the merge. However, may I ask you to explicitly answer each of my 3 numbered questions posed above. If the answer is a clear YES to the three numbered questions (and a NO to the subsequent un-numbered question) then I would support whatever you wish to do. Thanks again for explaining all of this patiently and rationally to me! Alice✉ 23:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC) 2006 figures better than 2005 figures You got the facts wrong my friend. The latest HDI values (2007 report) are derived based on 2005 data. People often get confused and think that the year of the hdi report is the year from which the values are derived. This similar mistake is found on the wikipedia pages of many other countries too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.14.236.218 (talk) 05:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC) Thanks for taking the time to respond to me here. (Although a better place, since yours is a general point concerning the contents of the article, might have been Talk:Singapore). Personally, I'd hate to doubt the truth of your statement. However, our encyclopedia needs verifiable sources for everything we write. It would really help me if you could provide the source (even quicker would be an on-line source for your changes). Again, a good place to do this would be on the talk page of our article. There's some information you may find useful for that right at the bottom of my "user page" here. It would help myself and others take you more seriously if you got an account and signed your comments on talk pages. Lastly, on talk pages, it's Wikipedia etiquette to add new sections at the bottom of the page. Just click the fourth tab from the left at the very top talk of talk pages that's marked with a "+" (plus sign). Thanks for taking the time to write a better encyclopedia! Alice✉ 07:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC) Singapore To remove the external source is necessary because it is misleading. It basically provides the rate in the year of 2006. Plus, the inline citation already showed the sources of rank. If you want to object, write down your reason in the talk page of Singapore. Coloane (talk) 08:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC) Thanks for taking the time to respond to me here, Coloane. (Although a better place, since yours is a general point concerning the contents of the article, might have been Talk:Singapore). Your comment relates to the contents of our article so should have been placed on Talk:Singapore) and not here. That way all interested parties (including you and I) can participate and reach consensus. (All articles I edit, including their discussion pages, are automatically added to my WP:Watchlist). Your edit removed the relevant inline citation placed by Huaiwei but left the claim: "It (Singapore) was rated as the world's best airport in 2006 by Skytrax". That may not be what you intended, but if you actually examine your edit that's what it did, Coloane! And you are also running perilously close to being in breach of WP:3RR. Alice✉ 09:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC) Season's greetings! And compliments of the season to you too - hope your Christmas has been a good one :) Grutness...wha? 21:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC) To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. In allowing anyone to edit, we work from an assumption that most people are trying to help the project, not hurt it. If this were not true, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning. When you can reasonably assume that a mistake someone made was a well-intentioned attempt to further the goals of the project, correct it without criticizing. When you disagree with people, remember that they probably believe that they are helping the project. Consider using talk pages to clearly explain yourself, and give others the opportunity to do the same. Consider whether a dispute stems from different perspectives and look for ways to reach consensus if possible. This can avoid misunderstandings and prevent problems from escalating. Good faith is obviously not bad faith. Bad faith editing can include deliberate disruption just to prove a point, playing games with policies, and vandalism. Even if good faith is in doubt, assume good faith where you can, be careful to remain civil yourself, and if necessary follow dispute resolution processes rather than edit warring or attacking other editors. About good faith Assuming good faith is about intention, not action. Well-meaning persons make mistakes, and you should correct them when they do. You should not act as if their mistakes were deliberate. Correct, but do not scold. There will be people on Wikipedia with whom you disagree. Even if they are wrong, that does not mean they are trying to wreck the project. There will be some people with whom you find it hard to work. That does not mean they are trying to wreck the project either. It is never necessary that we attribute an editor's actions to bad faith, even if bad faith seems obvious, as all our countermeasures (i.e. reverting, blocking) can be performed on the basis of behavior rather than intent. This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include repeated vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying. Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice. Good faith and newcomers Main page: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers Be patient with genuine newcomers. Newcomers unaware of Wikipedia's unique culture and the mechanics of Wikipedia editing often make mistakes or fail to respect community norms. It is not uncommon for a newcomer to believe that an unfamiliar policy should be changed to match their experience elsewhere. Similarly, many newcomers bring with them experience or expertise for which they expect immediate respect. Behaviors arising from these perspectives are not malicious. Take special care not to apply the principle of "Ignorantia juris non excusat" (Latin for: "ignorance of the law does not excuse"). This is incompatible with the guidelines of not biting newcomers and assuming good faith. Assuming good faith means in part knowing that people come in not understanding our policies and guidelines. Dealing with bad faith Even if bad faith is evident, do not act uncivilly yourself in return, or attack others or lose your cool over it. It is not necessary to be a fanatic yourself. Even though it demands a lot of self control and patience, it is ultimately a lot easier for others to resolve a dispute and see who is breaching policies, if one side is clearly editing appropriately throughout. Wikipedia administrators and other experienced editors involved in dispute resolution will usually be glad to help, and are very capable of identifying policy-breaching conduct, if their attention is drawn to clear and specific evidence of it. Accusing others of bad faith Making unwarranted accusations of bad faith (as opposed to explanations of good faith) can be inflammatory, and is often unhelpful in a dispute. If bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that others' editing is in fact based upon bad faith, it can also count as a form of personal attack, and in it, the user accusing such claim is not assuming good faith. Merry Christmas! Jose João (talk) 06:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC) Why sources should be cited Main pages: Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research Wikipedia is by its very nature a work by people with widely different knowledge and skills. The reader needs to be assured that the material within it is reliable: this is especially important where statements are made about controversial issues. The purpose of citing your sources is: To improve the overall credibility and authoritative nature of Wikipedia. To credit a source for providing useful material and to avoid claims of plagiarism. To show that your edit is not original research. To ensure that the content of articles is credible and can be checked by any reader or editor. To help users find additional information on the topic. To reduce the likelihood of editorial disputes, or to resolve any that arise. To ensure that material about living persons complies with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. When to cite sources When you add content Main page: Wikipedia:When to cite All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source. The need for citations is especially important when writing about opinions held on a particular issue. Avoid weasel words where possible, such as, "Some people say ..." Instead, make your writing verifiable: find a specific person or group who holds that opinion and give a citation to a reputable publication in which they express that opinion. Remember that Wikipedia is not a place for expressing your own opinions or for original research. Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to other language sources of equal calibre. However, do give references in other languages where appropriate. If quoting from a different language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it. When adding material to the biography of a living person Main page: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons Biographies of living persons should be sourced with particular care, for legal and ethical reasons. All contentious material about living persons must cite a reliable source. Do not wait for another editor to request a source. If you find unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about a living person—whether in an article or on a talk page—remove it immediately. Do not leave it in the article and ask for a source. Do not move it to the talk page. This applies whether the material is in a biography or any other article. When you quote someone You should always add a citation when quoting published material, and the citation should be placed directly after the quotation, which should be enclosed within double quotation marks—"like this"—or single quotation marks if it is a quote-within-a-quote—"and here is such a 'quotation' as an example." For long quotes, you may wish to use Quotation templates. Images Images must include source details and a copyright tag on the image description page. It is important that you list the author of the image if known (especially if different from the source), which is important both for copyright and for informational purposes. Some copyright licenses require that the original author receive credit for their work. If you download an image from the web, you should give the URL: Source: Downloaded from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4280841.stm If you got the image from an offline source, you should specify: Source: Scanned from public record #5253 on file with Anytown, Somestate public surveyor When you check content added by others You can also add sources for material you did not write. Adding citations is an excellent way to contribute to Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards and Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check for organized efforts to add citations. How to cite sources Further information: [[:Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style]] If you do not know how to format the citation, provide as much information as you can; others can reformat or remove information, but can't fabricate information to make up a deficient citation. Articles can be supported with references in two ways: the provision of general references—books or other sources that support a significant amount of the material in the article—and inline citations, that is, references within the text, which provide source information for specific statements. Inline citations are needed for statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, including contentious material about living persons, and for all quotations. Say where you got it It is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making it clear that you saw only that intermediate source. For example, you might find information on a web page which says it comes from a certain book. Unless you look at the book yourself to check that the information is there, your reference is really the web page, which is what you must cite. The credibility of the article rests on the credibility of the web page, as well as the book, and the article itself must make that clear. When citing books and articles, provide page numbers where appropriate. Page numbers must be included in a citation that accompanies a specific quotation from, or a paraphrase or reference to, a specific passage of a book or article. The edition of the book should be included in the reference section, or included in the footnote, because pagination can change between editions. Page numbers are especially important in case of lengthy unindexed books. Page numbers are not required when a citation accompanies a general description of a book or article, or when a book or article, as a whole, is being used to exemplify a particular point of view. Full references All citation techniques require detailed full references to be provided for each source used. Full references must contain enough information for other editors to identify the specific published work you used. Full references for books typically include: the name of the author, the title of the book or article, the date of publication, and page numbers. The name of the publisher, city of publication, and ISBN are optional. For journal articles, include volume number, issue number and page numbers. References for newspaper articles typically include the title of the article in quotes, the byline (author's name), the name of the newspaper in italics, date of publication, page number(s), and the date you retrieved it if it is online. For web pages, include the URL, the title of the web page, and the date on which you accessed it. For two books by the same author, published the same year, using Harvard referencing, this might be: Clancy, T. (1996a). Executive Orders. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons. ISBN 0-399-14218-5 Clancy, T. (1996b). Marine. New York: Berkley Books. ISBN 0-425-15454-8 If the article in which the preceding examples appeared used footnote referencing rather than Harvard referencing, the letter after the year would be omitted. In the Harvard system, full references appear at the end of the article in a section labeled "References." With the footnotes system, full references may also appear in a section labeled "References" or may appear in a mixed "Notes and references" section. Full reference templates Further information: Wikipedia:Citation templates Various templates can be used to help format full references more consistently. Templates exist for specific formats, such as {{cite journal}}, {{cite book}}, {{cite web}} and {{cite news}}. There is also a generic {{Citation}} template. The use of templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged by this or any other guideline. Templates may be used at the discretion of individual editors, subject to agreement with other editors on the article. Some editors find them helpful, arguing that they help maintain a consistent citation format across articles, while other editors find them unnecessary, arguing that they are distracting, particularly when used inline in the article text, as they make the text harder to read in edit mode and therefore harder to edit. Archive references The content of any webpage may alter of course, and may in time disappear completely. In any case where a webpage is referred to from an article, where it may be subject to future change or removal, the specification of an alternate archive URL will ensure link accessibility and stability. When referenced content can be retrieved from an archive source such as the Internet Archive then archive information can be included along with the original reference information. Anticipating the possibility of future alteration or deletion, archive URL information can thus be added pre-emptively, at the time of reference's initial inclusion and ahead of any potential issues with the original link. It's defintely in here. Trust me, I looked extensively to find it. Jose João (talk) 07:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)