User talk:PHenry/Archive2

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

iPod#Criticism

I was the one who deleted the Criticism section of iPod, because I feel it's somewhat POV to confine any negative comments to a separate section, and because it's somewhat confusing to have discussion of the same subtopic in two different places. This isn't specific to criticism of the iPod; I don't like Criticism sections in general.

What I did was not just delete the section, but instead I split its information into the various subtopics, where relevant. Here is the diff, if you'd like to see it. I'm more than flexible on how things are split and where they go, but I'd rather see ugly Criticism sections gone whereever possible.

I'll hold off before splitting the criticisms into the relevant sections in iPod for a bit; I'd like to hear your reply. A Man In Black 00:42, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, you moved almost none of the substantive criticism of the iPod into other sections when you deleted the Criticism section; most of it you deleted entirely. Examples:

• You completely eliminated any mention of the iPod/iTunes combination as a potential vertical monopoly (in my opinion the most important criticism of them all).
• You soft-pedaled the FairPlay system's incompatibility with non-Apple music players to the point of unrecognizability.
• You eliminated most of the criticism of the iPod as being technologically inferior, in the eyes of some, to competing players, retaining only a narrow and somewhat esoteric criticism regarding gapless playback.

I don't know whether or not your motivation was to whitewash any and all criticism of the iPod and turn the article into a big wet kiss for the device, but that was very definitely the effect your changes had--which is exactly why it's so important that the Criticism section remain in the article.

"Criticism" and "controversy" sections are by their nature POV. This does not create a problem when they are presented in context, in an effort to fairly and appropriately report upon legitimate criticism that the subject of an article has engendered. Often partisans of the subject being discussed come along and pair some or all of the criticisms in such a section with rebuttals, which can be entirely appropriate if done well. In some cases a subject garners so much criticism that it gets broken into its own article entirely, as for example here and here. POV? In some sense, yes--but in a larger sense such articles are necessary to eliminate bias by ensuring that all sides in a dispute are fairly represented.

You may not like criticism sections in articles, but they've evolved as a widely accepted means of achieving compromise on topics that tend to create controversy, and it's not up to you to unilaterally decide that they should be removed from articles. I will oppose any attempt to eliminate the Criticism section in the iPod article. --PHenry 05:18, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The third point was partially intentional and unrelated; the same language, changed slightly, could be applied to every single electronic device in the history of electronic devices. To say that there are those displeased with the performance in a general way is a tautology. I retained the battery complaints and the gapless playback complaints; what is left in that paragraph, besides some vague references to subjective sound quality complaints that aren't much bourne out by reviews?

That aside, these are fair points, and I probably didn't do a very good job of integrating them into the other sections. My goal wasn't to eliminate criticism per se, but to eliminate the ugly Criticism header where all of the negative comments are sequestered, a full screen away from the origina subtopic being criticized. Why isn't criticism of the iTunes integration under the iTunes header? Likewise the vertical monopoly comments? Why not put the criticism of the battery with design? Why do we need a pouporri of negative comments all in one place?

I understand the value of retaining criticism. What's the value of a specific Criticism heading, though? A Man In Black 02:50, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've made a temp version in my userspace, for you to take a look at. I retained all of the vertical monopoly wording (and even reinforced and reiterated it somewhat), and harshened the commentary on unsupported formats and the battery replacement issues, while deleting the criticism header entirely. (I also deleted a bad link, moved the Harmony stuff, and move the BMW link to the body of the text, but I doubt you care about that.) Let me know what you think. A Man In Black 03:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, with a week of no comments on the iPod talk page, I'm just going to be bold and do it. A Man In Black 22:06, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

*laughs* I was planning to aim a bit lower than that, but what the hell, I'll see if I can't so something about restructuring Wal-Mart. If I'm going to do something, might as well not do it in half measures. A Man In Black 00:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hm. After reading Wal-Mart, I'm having trouble seeing how it could be restructured. The elements of criticism are topics in their own right, rather than downsides or caveats to other topics mentioned. For example, it's reasonable to talk about both the functional and negative implications of the iTunes/iPod integration in the same place, much of the critical commentary in Wal-Mart is strictly critical commentary.
On the other hand, there's no reason to have the "Employees" section separate from the "Employee/labor relations" section. Hmm.
Not entirely sure if it was an earnest challenge to take on those articles, but I'll see if I can't do something with Wal-Mart once the protection is taken off of that page. The recent trolling will make people extra-vigilant about "whitewashing," so it shoould be interesting. A Man In Black 01:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vandal tags

Thank you for reverting vandalism on Wikipedia!

Be sure to put warning tags on the vandal's user talk page (such as {{subst:test}}, {{subst:test2}}, {{subst:test3}}, {{subst:test4}}). Add each of these tags on the vandal's talk page, in sequential order, after each instance of vandalism. Adding warnings to the talk page assists administrators in determining whether or not the user should be blocked. If the user continues to vandalize pages after you add the {{subst:test4}} tag, request administrator assistance at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Again, thank you for helping to make Wikipedia better.

Wikipedianinthehouse 01:06, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Keetoowah Arbitration case

Hello,

The Arbitration case against Keetoowah that you contributed to has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Keetoowah. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Keetoowah/Evidence.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Air America Radio Stalemate

I know we're not trusting eachother's references and sources at all at this point. I've taken the initiative to list the article section at Wikipedia:Third Opinion in the hopes that someone neutral who hasn't been involved with the battle can come in and take a look at it. I'm hoping that you and I can come to some sort of conclusion based on third-party intervention on it as opposed to what we've been doing. Thanks. --Badlydrawnjeff 16:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the map images... they look great! --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs - count) 02:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Washington State Route WP

Thanks for the route maps.

However, the map for SR-99 does not travel nearly the entire distance of SR-99. Having driven the road for many years, I can tell you that the State Route starts at an intersection just west of I-5 / SR-18 and intersects with SR-516. From there is travels north past Sea-Tac to a short freeway section, which then intersects with the map you have. If you could please update your map I'd greatly appreciate it. Remember Fife/Federal Way to Everett.

Also if you could, we could use a map for SR-525 Spur.

Thanks: TEG 17:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Road stubs

All of the following made their way to WP:SFD:

• {{Arizona State Route Stub}}
• {{Kentucky State Highway Stub}}
• {{Maryland-State-Highway-Stub}}
• {{Massachusetts-State-Highway-Stub}}
• {{Michigan-State-Highway-Stub}}
• {{Missouri-State-Highway-Stub}}
• {{Nevada-State-Highway-Stub}}
• {{New-Hampshire-State-Highway-Stub}}
• {{Nhroute}}
• {{Washington-State-Highway-Stub}}

--Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

TDC

I noticed you have been getting in a revert war with TDC. Probably not surprising to you, you are not alone. See: Talk:Winter Soldier Investigation, Talk:Human_rights_in_Cuba TDC has been rebuked by Tony Sidaway Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:TDC

So if it continues contact Tony. And TDC can be booted for a 12th/13th time. Travb 17:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Nice work

I like your 'Synonyms for "say"' on Wikipedia:Words to avoid. I've found it helpful. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 20:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

rfc comments

if you have spare time, please review Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Deeceevoice and comment. -Justforasecond 17:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia Healing

I left a response to your question at User:Alabamaboy/Healing Wikipedia. best, --Alabamaboy 15:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Left a new reponse there to your new comment. In short, I apologize. I was wrong. I've also stated this publically and have proposed a remedy to put both DCV and JFAS on parole for stirring all of this up. Please check it out.--Alabamaboy 19:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The Evergreen State College

I made the original move and I was wrong. I left a more detailed message on the article's talk page. I've also moved it back. My apologies! Semiconscious · talk 02:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The Game

Can you please explain why The Game should not be classed as a game here. Kernow 13:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-12 U.S. Roads

If you are interested in this case please leave a statement at this page for the mediator. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Help for WA

Look at the List of Washington State Routes and at the new completion list off WP:WASH. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Washington State Route infobox

Please comment, if you wish to, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Washington State Highways#Shrunken infobox. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

RFC

Cool. But where do I add my statements? I pretty much agree with yours, but just wanted to provide support... also there's SPUI's move log and SPUI's block log. You can add that to evidence. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Can I add the above links myself? Also added an inside view. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, you're not supposed to revert the page moves... to be fair I will have to block you if you move any more Washington State Route pages. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware, and it's nothing personal.,.. but I've faced criticism for not blocking you... and then at the ANI page they were clear that it applies to all parties. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Rschen7754/HDD look good? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is my plan: Go eat dinner. Then give them all the link and see what they think. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Your Comment

I don't know, it seems to be all the rage in any case, along with claiming that your opinion is that of "the community" so you might as well keep at it, and leave SPUI out of it while you do so. Karmafist ^{Save Wikipedia} 03:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

In re to: List of Washington State Routes Sorry but...

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. Admrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 19:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry! Admrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 19:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of this so quickly. No hard feelings. --phh 19:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Maine

The war has spread there. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

AFD 4 on the Game

I'm sorry about that. I hadn't noticed your earlier comment. Even if your earlier comment hadn't been there, my comment was probably too harsh. AfDs do seem to bring out the worst in people but that is not an acceptable excuse for my comment. Please accept my apologies. JoshuaZ 03:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• There's no reason you should have remembered that comment, or remembered that it was from me. And certainly my new comment wasn't as helpful as it could have been. No hard feelings. --phh 15:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Washington State Route 704

Map request: Image:Map-WA-704.svg; currently in development, but WSDOT site has a map. Thanks Admrb♉ltz (t • c • b • p • d • m) 04:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :) Admrb♉ltz (t • c • b • p • d • m) 16:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

WT:UTSH comment requested

I know you are in WA but could you check out my proposal listed on the linked title. Thanks Admrb♉ltz (t • c • b • p • d • m) 01:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Go to WT:UTSH (had a p there accedently...) Admrb♉ltz (t • c • b • p • d • m) 04:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Wyoming Shield

Thanks; I was planning to do that once i got around to making all the wyoming shields. Any particular reason for the naming convention WY-789? I've been making everything as [state name] [route number].svg. CA followed this model, so i've adopted it as well. So far, Colorado, CA, North Dakota,Rhode Island, and Virginia follow this model. atanamir 20:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

SPUI has made a more descriptive model [state_name] [route_number] Shield.svg. That's being used at Utah and Florida as far as I can tell. atanamir 20:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't be a DICK

I did not "lose" anything on Category:U.S. Highways in Washington and Category:Interstate Highways in Washington. I urge you to read JohnnyBGood's comment - Washington highways (which was kept with no consensus) is for stuff that is not a state highway, like the Pacific Highway. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 18:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm applying normal editing in a case of no consensus. These categories hold state highways. I will continue to revert your mistaken edits until the cows come home and give birth to calves who grow up and come home. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 04:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)