User talk:SimonP/Archive 3

• Archive - for user talk from December 2001 to September 2004
• Archive - for user talk from September 2004 to February 2005

---

CSB bias

Can you tell me how you calculated the numbers here: User:SimonP/Geography#Does_a_geographical_bias_exist.3F about Canada, Nigeria etc? - XED.talk 16:05, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No reason

What rules are you following there is no such thing as deleting external links. From where do you get the reason for your actions? WHEELER 20:37, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Point it out to me please. direct me please to your specific rule please.WHEELER 20:52, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Here is a quote from the External links: "Pages that are linked to in an external links section should be high content, with information that is not found in the Wikipedia article. This restriction does not apply to sites used as references.". My article is information with high content not included in the republic article. Sparta, Venice and america and others are Republics. Britain didn't call herself a republic but she had mixed government. WHEELER 21:16, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Protected Page: Please join the debate

• List of countries that only border one other country. Instantnood is a pedantic annoyance spreading misleading inaccuracies and must be crushed. —ExplorerCDT 21:30, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Republic

Protected. Maybe this will get WHEELER to see reason, but don't hold your breath. :-) —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 15:46, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I considered that, but since the only substantive edits since the last stable version were the additions and removals of one link, I was concerned that it might be seen as favoring one version over another. If WHEELER refuses to discuss, I suppose we should just unprotect the page and continue deleting the link. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 22:44, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)

PLEASE VOTE

• Wikipedia talk:Requested moves - help save Requested Moves, bring friends. I'd hope you vote to keep voting at RM instead of running away to cabal at distant talk pages. —ExplorerCDT 19:03, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Iraq election criticism

Anyone that advocates violence is not being critical. Including quotations from Al-Qaida only serves to tarnish the other truly critical and insightful reactions to the Iraqi elections. I removed it because I realized only those that supported the Coalition Provisional Authority's position about how the elections went were the sames ones that felt the need to include the Al-Qaida quotations. If you think that info really belongs in the article then feel free to move it somewhere out of the criticisms section where it does not belong. zen master T 21:15, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Criticism implies constructive criticism, those adovating violence are not being constructive. I am not saying that info does not belong somewhere in the article, but it definitely doesn't belong in the criticisms section because it detracts from the other much more reasonable (non violence advocating) criticisms. The users that added those paragraphs to the criticisms section have no intentions of actually being critical (they support the Coalition Provisional Authority's position about the iraqi elections and the occupation). I could argue that those first two Al-Qaida/Zarqawi quotation paragraphs in the criticisms section were actually supportive of the occupation of iraq in a reverse-psychology sort of way, which seems like the plan by the user(s) that put them there. A red flag should be raised whenever those supportive of an article's POV are the very same ones framing the criticisms section. zen master T 21:40, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Republic

Please go to Talk:Republic and discuss your reasons for not wanting the link to wikinfo since the lock cannot remain indefinitely. AndyL 00:05, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Iraqi election article

How is it possible to have a "criticisms" section without quotations/citations? You left in *just* the al-Qaida quotations which seems inconsistent? Perhaps we could paraphrase what the reasonable critics said and just not include full quotations? But anyway, thanks a lot for your other clean ups to that article, they were good. zen master T 06:52, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

But what about conservative critic buchanan's very relevant statement that I believe added balance to the article, "the people of the middle east don't hate our values, they hate our policies"? Also, if a critic is saying the election was fake would you consider that acceptable? Perhaps we should just create a new section for info on critics that claim the election was somehow faked and not include verbose quotations? zen master T 07:20, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

SimonP

Who are you? You make up the rules all the time. WooooWW!!! And now you charge me with spamming? What in God's name do you have against me and information. If you look at the external links of the Nazism you will see external links that say "Hitler, a rightist" and "Hitler, a leftist". There is no problem except that you are making one. What is your expertize? Anything about the Classical, Medieval or American politics? You are making a problem out of many things. Information goes where it is required. Everywhere like the Dorian page, the Spartan page, the JBS page, the Venetian page all require information on a Classical republic. I will put pertinent information there for people to learn.WHEELER 14:48, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Could use your help with Wikipedia:2004 Encyclopedia topics. Danny 14:07, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

personal Wiki record!

The change you made last night to Appalchian Mountain Club set a record for me: Longest time after I created an article before it was edited by somebody else. (From March 2003 to Feb 2005 - almost two years!) Isn't that fascinating? (Wikipedia is definitely rotting my brain) - DavidWBrooks 17:04, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Canadian federal election, 2005 / 39th Canadian federal election

I am a little concerned that you made the move of the article when no consensus had been reached despite the fact that Canadian federal election, 2005 is not entirely accurate. I would point out that UK general election, 2005/06 provides something of precedent. Also, the format "political division, date" is the established Wikipedia naming convention. - Jord 04:30, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

SimonP, I would appreciate hearing your comments, I think that the page should be moved back to Canadian federal election, 2005 but I would like to hear your point of view before making such a request. - Jord 16:21, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That is not necessarily the case, there are other matters of confidence that could come up that would force an election in 2005 and Martin could well go to the polls willingly should he be on the right side of a major issue. I am not arguing though that there will be an election in 2005, I am pointing out that 39th Canadian federal election does not meet Wikipedia naming convention standards. I would suggest Canadian federal election, 2005/06, Canadian federal election, 200x or perhaps even Canadian federal election, 2009 with the article stating that "though it is likely there will be an election before 2009, the 39th general election must be held by that time". - Jord 18:08, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean you changed the convention!? I don't think the solution to your having named something that contradicts a convention is to change that convention! - Jord 20:44, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've responded on Talk:39th Canadian federal election - Jord 22:00, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

District of London / Districts in London

Hi Simon. Hope you are well. I see you have moved all Category:London Districts to Category:Districts of London. I wonder if you noticed that a fair few articles are hiding in Category:Districts in London - Bethnal Green is for example - so you might want to move those too! All the best. Mrsteviec 07:15, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wiki requirements

Hi there! In reaction to your remark on VfD that Wikipedia does not have a notability requirement, I'd have to say that to my knowledge, it does. The Wikipedia:Verifiability page lists two other parts of policy, Wikipedia:Neutral and Wikipedia:Informative. The latter mentions notability. Also, the deletion policy lists Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not as one of the arguments for deletion, and under 'Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base' a notability requirement is mentioned. Yours, Radiant! 11:03, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Ok, we can always agree to disagree. However, how is 'informative' defunct if it has had about a dozen edits this year? And WWIN does state that certain classes of items are not suitable for inclusion - and the Deletion Policy page does state that being unsuitable is grounds for VfD nomination. I do agree that the word 'notable' isn't always used, but the words 'informative', 'interesting' and 'notorious' are. And for purposes of VfD discussions, 'not notable' and 'not interesting' can probably be considered synonymous. Radiant! 16:08, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Lower Morden

Poor old Lower Morden. It is still listed in Category:London Districts even though it has been correctly categorised. Its Special:Whatlinkshere/Lower Morden is empty even though Beverley Brook and Morden both link to it. Do you know how to fix the database? -- RHaworth 20:50, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)

It should now be fixed. - SimonP 00:34, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Category fixed. Special:Whatlinkshere/Lower Morden not fixed. But I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. -- RHaworth 05:13, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for "spotting" me on my new wikis. --AStanhope 00:32, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. - SimonP 00:34, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

History

The template is the only continuous history described at History. Hyacinth 04:04, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What comes after prehistory? Just history? Hyacinth 04:13, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Kudos for your recent edits. The history and ancient history articles are much clearer now. Are you aware of Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias? Hyacinth 04:53, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What do you think of Template:History by continent footer? Hyacinth 05:18, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Great! Thanks. Hyacinth 05:46, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Category:Barnet

Should an article such as Hendon or Edgware be in Category:Barnet and in Category:Districts of London or just in the former? Please post your answer at Talk:Hendon#Category:Barnet. -- RHaworth 11:08, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC)

Dead End Pages

Hi there! I noticed over a hundred new DEP articles appeared last week, but only in the P and R sections. Since you're working with that list a lot, do you know what happened? Yours, Radiant! 15:44, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Schools on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion

As of March 4, 2005, the following (7) articles are currently listed for deletion under the POV suggestion that schools are not notable (even though this is invalid reasoning as per the Wikipedia deletion policy. Whether you agree or disagree, please be aware that the following schools are actively being voted on:

• VfD: Canyon Crest Academy
• VfD: Devonport High School for boys
• VfD: Eyuboglu high school
• VfD: Geylang Methodist Secondary School
• VfD: Maha Jana High School
• VfD: Robert Frost Middle School
• VfD: Wood Green School

Thank you for your time. --GRider\^talk

Template:VfD criteria templates

I would suggest getting some consensus that all those templates are really a good idea before creating any more. -- Netoholic @ 06:57, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. Personally I think they're a good idea (forces the nominator to actually explicitly state where the page fits within the deletion policy), but you know how things are with VfD.

Also, I didn't realize you were in the process of creating them when I started messing with the style. Sorry about that.

One minor problem with them is that with short VfD entries, they run into each other.

– flamurai (t) 15:10, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

• They are stinkingly ugly and make that already difficult page very hard to read, without making the page more useful. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:03, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Would you please stop adding all these templates to VfD pages, at least until some consensus has been reached in the VfD discussion David Gerard started about eliminating all VfD nominations that don't follow the exact criterium of policy-as-written? Thanks. Radiant! 17:27, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

• • It seems to me a good idea to test those template in the VfD page. If they are not tested in vivo, I don't see how to make an opinion on them. And it is important that VfD criteria be clear, in order to limit exhuberant deletionism, even if it still might be insufficient to reduce it to a reasonable number. We need speedy un-VfD, it seems good to me that David Gerard took the initiative to test it also --Pgreenfinch 17:43, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Stop vandalizing my VfD nominations with YOUR interpretations of my motives in listing them. This is verging on vandalism. RickK 05:18, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

There is now a policy discussion underway at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Policy consensus/Deletion criterion boxes on whether the boxes should be retained and used. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 20:27, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Classical Republic

I am sure there is a reason WHEELER is telling me that you told him to relist his article on VFU. What reason that could possibly be eludes me, however. Snowspinner 21:31, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Image:Al-Idrisi's world map.JPG

• Halló SimonP! Could you please put Muhammad al-Idrisi's map on commons:. Thanks in advance! best regards Gangleri | Th | T 01:02, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)

• Halló SimonP! I have no clue why Special:Whatlinkshere/Image:Al-Idrisi's world map.JPG does / did not work properly.
• Some tests:

1. Image:Al-Idrisi's world map.JPG - using the ' character
2. Image:Al-Idrisi's world map.JPG - using the &27 characters
3. Image talk:Al-Idrisi's world map.JPG
4. Special:Whatlinkshere/Image talk:Al-Idrisi's world map.JPG - "OK"

• Best regards Gangleri | Th | T 09:09, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)
• Additional tests:

1. Special:Recentchangeslinked/Image:Al-Idrisi's world map.JPG does / did not work properly
2. Special:Recentchangeslinked/Image talk:Al-Idrisi's world map.JPG - "OK"

• Gangleri | Th | T 15:30, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)

Re: NIV

Hello, I appreciate the effort you are putting into the Bible verse articles. However as to fair use, it seems that you are writing your way through the whole Bible or at least the Gospels, and whether you complete it or not yourself you are providing a template for the rest of the Bible. I say this because you have been writing these articles sequentially through chapters of John and Matthew rather than highlighting isolated verses.

By the NIV guidelines you cite, it is forbidden to quote more than 500 verses, which would limit you to 500 of these verse articles. Or less, if you wrote up an entire short book—they specifically count TOTAL usage in the whole work, i.e. Wikipedia, regardless of how much "commentary" there is.

More importantly, including the legally problematic NIV translation is completely unnecessary, as your articles already include the KJV translation. For these Gospel verses the KJV seems easy enough to understand, but if you feel you need to include a modern translation there are plenty of other alternatives like ASV or the contemporary World English Bible [1], which are public domain. Therefore in the interim I will be substituting the WEB in your articles where NIV presently occurs.

Lastly I would ask you to consider, if it is your intention to make these articles for a large portion of the Bible, transwiki-ing to Wikibooks, because these seem more in the realm of Bible commentary and original research than encyclopedic articles. I do not say this to deprecate your writing, which is good, and I don't intend to press this point, but I do think that is a better venue for a line-by-line analysis of the text, especially if you wish to have more editorial control over the articles. However that aside I do strongly believe we should avoid using quoting large portions of the NIV. You will note that even most articles on popular songs in Wikipedia do not quote more than fragments of the lyrics. NTK 01:15, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Another Please Vote

Please vote at Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Teletraffic Engineering. Not on the technical merits of the articles but on users intentionally creating parallels/forks of existing articles as declared in Ian Kennedy's email. -- RHaworth 03:30, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)

Economy of Africa

Hi SimonP, I remember that you've been doing a superb job at Economy of Africa last year. These days, our general article on Africa is the CSB Collaboration of the Week and I figured the best I could do for its Economy section is ask you to tune in and take a look at it. If you have time and if you feel like it, that is :). Cheers, — mark ✎ 00:11, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Alliance Airways

Hi. recently you added some material to Alliance Airways - unfortunately it is a duplicate article and the correct and substantial article is Alliance Airlines. Would it be possible to delete Alliance Airways?? Ardfern 23:15, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ensoniq EPS

Hi Simon: Thanks for the compliment of removing the cleanup tag from Ensoniq EPS after my last edit. --Theo (Talk) 22:02, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Transwiking

Removing any article from Wikipedia requires the consensus of the community. Please stop unilaterally redirecting Star Wars articles off site. - SimonP 23:24, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

If these articles are to be deleted anyway, I am simply putting them where they need to be, as many members of the community have agreed on before. A Star Wars Wiki was needed because of the many articles regarding the subject could not stand on their own on this site. Deletion already happened for one article today which I had to ask to be reinstated temporarily so I could move that to Star Wars Wiki. Normally it would not have survived in Wikipedia. As for the ones that have been voted to keep or merge I have left those alone to see what happens. But I believe this action is justified. -- Riffsyphon1024 23:39, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

But none of there are going to be deleted. GRider nominates dozens of articles per day in an attempt to prove a point, but hardly any of them ever get deleted. - SimonP 23:45, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

But some like Order D6-66 would be deleted if not merged, however for the Star Wars Wiki, this article could reasonably hold up by itself as a stub there. -- Riffsyphon1024 23:50, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

It's fine to copy articles to the Star Wars wiki, but VfD results should be respected. If an article is to be merged it should be left as a redirect to where it was merged, not to an external site. If the vote, as in this case, is to delete the article then it should be deleted. However, I am certain that if this article was ever rewritten as a stub or longer it would be kept. - SimonP 00:05, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

This Order D6-66 is only a stub as best, and because it is not of importance to the Wikipedia, only to the SWW, it would be deleted for sure. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:15, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Plus, might I ask why you are moving all the templates for SW Wiki to the talk page, no one will see them there. Plus various SW articles under Vfd were dealt with the same way. Care to explain? -- Riffsyphon1024 03:32, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

I think that if the fans had a site to which they could add articles like this (1) the articles may not show up as much in the general Wikipedia, (2) when articles do show up, Wikipedians have a place they could easily move them, (3) the VfD's would pass much easier as a Transwiki than a Delete.

This is what I am worried about. Anything that discourages people from creating Wikipedia articles or makes them more likely to be deleted is a bad thing. - SimonP 16:51, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

But this doesn't discourage people from making good Wikipedia-worthy articles. Articles on a fictional universe with no relevance to the real world (i.e. something no one outside the fans would care about, and labeled cruft) need to go to a specialized place. Now currently we are deciding what is major and can stay on Wikipedia and what is minor and needs to be exclusively transwikied. Anything that remains on Wikipedia will simply be a copy of it on Star Wars Wiki. I was to start with the articles that had the possibility of being deleted. Sure I could have copied the text and saved it in case an article went, but then that meant correcting all the redlinks that would go to nowhere if it was deleted. I admit, I'm still new here, you still learn things even after 3 months at it. Do not take these actions as anything personal, as I was only ensuring the safety of the existing articles, and thanks to GRider, has forced me to take charge. -- Riffsyphon1024 17:16, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

I understand what you were trying to do, but you should be aware there are many of Wikipedians, probably the majority of us, who see no difference between "articles on a fictional universe" and "good Wikipedia-worthy article." - SimonP 17:20, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

I will just copy articles now rather than transwiki them. If you have any further questions, contact Cbarbry. He is running the Wiki and deciding how this should all be done. -- Riffsyphon1024 18:00, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it's user-run - just like Wikipedia. I just happen to be the first user and the one who initiated it.  :) Cbarbry 05:51, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am joining this debate on SW articles, I have mostly voted to merge. Anyway I suppose the point is that if you blank articles before the VfD is over or vote to "transwiki" to the Star Wars wiki then it's means the content is lost to Wikipedia and judging by how a lot of the votes are going, this is not where the VfD debates are going... most of them are moving toward merge. Also, no offence, but I don't really see why you are even mentioning that the content is being copied to the SW wiki, it's a seperate webpage, so moving stuff over there isn't really relevant to the VfD debates -- Lochaber 18:47, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You're right. The word "move" can have more than one meaning. Copying is what will be done now, and to the articles facing Vfd. Whatever happens to them here won't matter if we still have it on the SWW. But then redlinks start forming here. -- Riffsyphon1024 23:52, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

As I said above, I think it is relevant to the VfD debates because (1) the articles may not show up as much in the general Wikipedia, (2) when articles do show up, Wikipedians have a place they can recommend to put the fancruft, and (3) the VfD's would pass more easily as a Transwiki (i.e. the information isn't lost, just put in a better place) than a Delete. WhiteBoy 10:54, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

See also

• Wikipedia:Village pump#Star_Wars_Wiki discussion

Revert link on Ashland, Oregon

Hi! You recently reverted an addition to Ashland, Oregon, can you please discuss on its talk page? Thanks! Demi ^T/_{C 06:57, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)}

About RickK, me, and user blocking

Note: Please read this carefully and thoroughly, as this is important.

RickK, one of the admins, blocked my former accounts "User:Hil Duff" and "User:Hil Duff star". He didn't give any reason why and totally ignored my comments on my talk page just because he thinks my user name would be something like imposting or vandalizing. I wanted to discuss things over with him, but he just deleted my account immediately without reason. I just want to be a happy Wikipedian here.

I AM NOT A VANDAL, and I won't be Hilary Duff, just Cool Cat886. I won't tell anybody that I am famous or a pop star. I just want to contribute in peace here, and YOU CAN BLOCK ME ONLY IF YOU SEE ME VANDALIZING OR ACTUALLY DOING SOMETHING BAD, BECAUSE I DIDN'T. Would you support me and be my good friend, or should I just get blocked for eternity because I didn't do anything? Cool Cat886 07:19, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Uncategorized pages

Thanks for letting us know about the "Au" section. They are now categorised. User:Alphax/sig 15:40, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Ottawa Wikipedia Meetup

Hey, just a quick note to let you know there is an Ottawa Wikipedia Meetup coming up this Saturday @ 2pm. If you can make it, please drop by the Meetup website and RSVP. If you can't, join up anyway, so you can find out about future Ottawa Wikipedia Meetups! --Spinboy 20:54, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

More schools on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion

As of March 25, 2005, there are an additional (6) articles listed for deletion under the POV notion that schools are non-notable (even though this is invalid reasoning as per the Wikipedia deletion policy). Please be aware that the following schools are actively being discussed and voted upon:

• VfD: Blake Junior High School (renominated)
• VfD: Franklin High School
• VfD: Lake Dow Christian Academy
• VfD: Red Lake High School
• VfD: The Sage School
• VfD: Toowoomba Grammar School

In response to this cyclical ordeal, a Schoolwatch programme has been initiated in order to indentify school-related articles which may need improvement and to help foster and encourage continued organic growth. Your comments are welcome and I thank you again for your time. --GRider\^talk