User talk:Ideogram: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:40, 14 July 2006

Welcome!

Hello, Ideogram, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Allan McInnes (talk) 22:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome

Hello Ideogram, Welcome to Wikipedia.
Thank you for the very kind message you left for me. It came as a very pleasant and welcome surprise. I think Wikipedia has a lot of potential, although it has its detractors, but I'm glad you've decided to make up your own mind about it and the best way to do that is to get involved. In the long run things usually work out well, and there are lot of very capable and dedicated editors here that ensure the integrity of the project is protected as much as possible. (The abilities of the various monkeys here are diverse but the mix seems to work.) Please let me know if there's anything you ever need help with and I look forward to hearing from you. Once again, welcome! Rossrs 00:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israel apartheid activity

Well, in hopes of ending a revert/move war, I listed the poll Wikipedia talk:Central discussions/Apartheid#Poll: Rename "Israeli apartheid" article to "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" as an official Wikipedia:Requested moves poll. This stopped the revert war, but attracted many other editors to the article. Now the article is getting over 100 edits per day, and its talk page even more. There's not much progress; it's mostly churn. The level of acrimony seems to be below the level that requires administrator attention, but getting anything like convergence looks difficult. One of the interesting phenomena with this article is that it has timezone issues; it's being edited around the clock, and there's almost a daily cycle of point of view adjustments. Any ideas? --John Nagle 23:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say keep discussing it and hope that you can reach a consensus. Wikipedia encourages people to participate; the broader the eventual consensus the better. Ideogram 13:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's been a blowup over there. See the end of Wikipedia:Central discussions/Apartheid and the tail end of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Sigh. And for a while it looked like we were making progress. --John Nagle 22:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how I can help. I'm not an admin and I hesitate to get into a dispute between admins. Ideogram 22:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Thanks. --John Nagle 22:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict

Hi Ideogram, I've been away for a couple of days, but looking at the talk page it looks like things have calmed down a bit. To be honest, I would not feel comfortable entering a conflict that I've had no previous part in and taking a stance against another user. I appreciate that you have felt overwhelmed but I don't think my joining in would be particularly helpful. It looks like there's been a shift towards agreement anyway, and that's a very positive thing. Rossrs 12:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Rossrs. Yes, the conflict appears to have been resolved. Ideogram 12:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to hear that! I sometimes think it would be so much easier to resolve things face to face - this is not exactly an easy medium for communicating. Rossrs 15:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Editors recommended actions"

This really clutters up the AfD page and serves no useful purpose that I can see. Everything below the nomination is the editors' recommended actions. Just my opinion. Fan1967 16:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was just using the template from the instructions. Ideogram 16:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I haven't seen it before. Must be pretty old. I don't know that I've seen it used before. Most AfD's just have the nominator's comments, and then others chime in, like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megaryhmes Fan1967 16:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current events in HK and Macao

I've created June 2006 in Hong Kong and Macao and also updated Current events in Hong Kong and Macao. But it was quite a bit of work because of all the formatting. I don't think there's enough interest to upkeep current events in HK and Macau to as much detail and attention that those pages currently require. I suggest we come up with a simpler format for those pages. I'm going to comment in the Talk page of Current events in Hong Kong and Macao. We can take the discussion over there. Hong Qi Gong 16:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems that Instantnood has reverted my changes. I commented on his talk page. Please participate in the discussion if you're interested. Hong Qi Gong 17:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BuddhisticStatuesHK.jpg

Hi, you contacted me on my commons-page because of my photo. Thanks that you want to use my photo. Sorry dont know how/where to write you a wikimail. Can you tell me that? Where exactly do u want to credit me? Isnt my commons-name sufficient? Please reply on my commons-page --AngMo 19:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good article graphs

Cheers man. I think the graph is pretty neat myself - it's nice to see something visually rather than wade through a table of data! And it will be easy to update too - the "Easy Timeline" tool is a bit of a misnomer, but once you look at the source for the page I think anybody could update it. I just added another one in to show the "per million" statistics, which showed up something very interesting: while the proportion of Wikipedia articles that are featured is in long term decline (and not even slowing down), the proportion of "good" articles continues to climb quite rapidly. The long term decline of the featured article proportion has been commented on before, but hopefully it's just a sign that the golden standard is being continually raised higher. It's reassuring that the good article proportion (and the good article criteria are about as tough as the featured article ones were until relatively recently) is on the up. TheGrappler 23:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and thanks... good spot! :-) Nice to see somebody else edit that page, and that it's in an easily editable form! TheGrappler 00:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the timeline tool is very cool. I'm going to play with it in some other articles too. Ideogram 00:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It could do with better documentation perhaps; but cool nonetheless. I've been doing things like sticking timelines into biographies. TheGrappler 05:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this timeline tool? And would someone like to apply it to Timeline of Chicago history, which has a timeline garbaged by bad CSS absolute positioning? Thanks. --John Nagle 05:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can read the (sparse) documentation here. Two simple examples are on my user page User:Ideogram and at Wikipedia:Good articles/Statistics. Ideogram 05:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prod

Howdy - just wanted to make sure you are aware of the Proposed Deletion process available at WP:PROD. I noticed some of the articles you sent to AfD are pretty much non-controversial and likely could be deleted using this process. You just place the tag on the page and it is automatically deleted after a few days if no one contests it. Easier than AfD! --Aguerriero (talk) 18:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. --Ideogram 18:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia conventions

Wondered if you had seen the questions I posted at the bottom of User_talk:Jpaulm - not sure if you still had it on your watchlist, or were just busy... Jpaulm 19:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I try to prune my watchlist, so if you want my attention you should post here. --Ideogram 19:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great! 'Nother question: what is the difference between References and External Links - subhead Articles (this convention is used in Service-oriented_architecture)? I have added one article in the latter section of Flow-based programming - do I have the format right? TIA Jpaulm 14:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References would be any background reading material helpful for understanding the article. External links would be anything else that is on a web page. Your format looks fine. --Ideogram 15:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, "References" should be material that was actually used as a reference in constructing the article. Some editors include a "Further reading" section for other useful reading material. Guidance on "External links" can be found here. --Allan McInnes (talk) 17:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, guys!Jpaulm 19:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another handy resource I forgot to mention before: Wikipedia:Guide to layout#Standard appendices discusses the standard section headings (references, further reading etc.), what should appear in them, and what order they should be in. --Allan McInnes (talk) 19:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regional Municipality of Peel, Ontario

Thanks!!! though I doubt that anything drastic will happen. This has been very low key. :) Cheers!Eagle talk 08:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edit

I appreciate your obfuscation of my email address. SteveWolfer 18:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[1] made on July 11 2006 (UTC) to Russo-Turkish War, 1877–1878

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.

The duration of the block is 12 hours. William M. Connolley 07:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YOu're right - 4R was outside 24h. I've unblocked you William M. Connolley 08:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you, but my ip address is still blocked. BTW I've learned my lesson; I won't cut it so close again. --Ideogram 08:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it unblocked now? William M. Connolley 09:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPR Mediation

I trust you've seen this bit from MSTCrow's history. In light of his efforts to intimidate you away from the NPR discussion, I think his history is ironic. He removed that part of his resume from the mediation page, but it's there in the history for those who wish to find out about the qualifications of that particular "mediator."--RattBoy 10:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I was aware of that. It's hard to intimidate someone over the Internet. I'm watching him very closely. --Ideogram 10:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent POV pushing by anons and socks on Taiwan/ROC related articles

The recent POV pushing by several anon (and in some cases, registered users) on Taiwan/ROC related articles seem to be the work of at least one individual using multiple sockpupppets (all edits from the 167.7.39.* IP block). I am also beginning to suspect that 24.88.124.252 (talk · contribs) may also be a sock of Devout Christian (talk · contribs) based on some editing and edit summary similarities, though I am not sure if these are all the work of a single individual. Given the persistant reversions by anon IPs and their seeming disinterest in engaging in dialouge I am beginning to lean towards semiprotection of the affected articles. Any ideas? -Loren 04:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another revert warrior?

I see that you are engaged in nasty revert warring on Russo-Turkish War, 1877–1878. In case that you have not understood that WP is not a Turkish propaganda machine, please review the guidelines and take care. If you continue to revert mindlessly and spread Russophobia abroad, I'll have to report you. Revert warring is not acceptable and will get you blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ideogram is a Communist bitch

go to hell and file the RFC against yourself.

@@ Line 131: / Line 131: @@
 I see that you are engaged in nasty revert warring on [[Russo-Turkish War, 1877–1878]]. In case that you have not understood that WP is not a Turkish propaganda machine, please review the guidelines and take care. If you continue to revert mindlessly and spread [[Russophobia]] abroad, I'll have to report you. Revert warring is not acceptable and will get you blocked from editing Wikipedia. --<font color="FC4339">[[User:Ghirlandajo|Ghirla]]</font> <sup><font color="C98726">[[User_talk:Ghirlandajo|-трёп-]]</font></sup> 07:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
+== Ideogram is a Communist bitch ==
+go to hell and file the RFC against yourself.