- Hello Cosmic Latte. I'm not trying to be cute, concerning mentioning of the United States presidential election, 2008. If Bush dies, resigns or is removed from office before his term expires? Cheney would be the 44th President. This time - I've replaced 44th with next. GoodDay (talk) 14:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've also changed 44th President to next President, at the 2009 article. PS- Though I disagree with using 44th, I won't revert (again) if you guys prefer to keep it. GoodDay (talk) 19:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll leave it up to other folks, too. Seems like both of us have pretty much stated our cases on the matter. Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For those of you who might be interested in time-related articles and edits, and would like some more information about the above dispute: Basically, it boiled down to a debate about how to apply the WP:FUTURE policy to an upcoming presidential election. A very broad interpretation of this policy might suggest that, because WP is not a crystal ball, it can't predict that the next U.S. president will be the 44th. Because some extraordinary circumstances could make him or her the 45th, WP can only claim that the election will be for the "next" president. My view, however, is that this argument is a "slippery slope" to saying that, because WP isn't a crystal ball, it can't say anything about the future, because there is always the possibility--however minute--that some extraordinary circumstance could change all plans. What if a meteor or supervolcano wipes out the human population? What if a wandering black hole eats the entire planet? Thankfully, however, a close reading of WP:FUTURE excuses us from making such bizarre considerations, because it states:
- [A.] Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. [...]
- [B.] Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate.
- To assume that the next presidential election will be the 44th (or that the human race and Planet Earth will be around tomorrow) is to meet condition A, whereas to recognize the possibility that it will be the 45th (or that Armageddon is just around the corner) is to meet condition B. Thus the former assumption is, in my view, acceptable, whereas the latter recognition is not. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to be rude, just correct. Since multiple free nations such as the United States view Hezbollah as a terrorist organization I must credit anyone helping their cause or working for them as a terrorist.
- Thanks for letting me know. But "terrorist" (not to mention "free nation") is one point of view, which, in an enclycopedia, is just as important as any other point of view. "Militant" is undisputed fact. See WP:POV. Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
British usage on Wikipedia
Unfortunatley, I've ran into trouble (in the past) trying to push for British usage. The biography articles like Sean Connery (for example), refuse to use British. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If Rab-k thinks Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales & England are/were the only states to merge into a larger state? He's incorrect. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The constituent country article does indeed list examples other than the UK. Even the United States was formed as a sort of "merger" of smaller colonies that still (as states) retain a notable degree of individual autonomy. But Americans are still listed here as "American," not "Californian" or "New Yorkian" (is that a word?) or whatever. In any event, the British listings are highly inconsistent. Some say British; others say English, Welsh, etc., and I imagine that some sort of standardization would be good. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, British should be the usage. GoodDay (talk) 14:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Time Times (2008-04)
|
Time Times
|
|
Issue Two • April 2008 • About the Newsletter
Written by FrankP and Template Designed by Diligent Terrier
|
|
News
- Recent Project News
- Article count on at 961! We now have 961 articles but, will have many more soon as only a few are marked as in our project. At least 803 are unassessed though, plenty of work for us to do.
- Project member count reaches 12 members! Keep inviting all your WikiFriends.
- Award offered—Since 2008-01-05, Sharkface217 has offered a Barnstar to the editor who can expand the article Timeline. It certainly needs it, now that it has been disambiguated from Chronology: Go to the Timeline listing on the Awards page to find out Sharkface's minimum requirements! From the Time Portal
- An IP added this funny comment to Portal talk:Time "I never though I would see the day mankind succeeds in creating a time portal."
- Recent Time News
- From the leap second article: in April 2008: ITU Working Party 7A will submit to ITU Study Group 7 project recommendation on stopping leap second[s].
- Calendars met on March 21. It was Good Friday (Western Christianity, 2008); Purim ends at sundown (Judaism, 2008); Naw-Rúz in the Bahá'í calendar, Benito Juárez Day in Mexico, World Poetry Day.
|
| Archives • Newsroom
|
If you no longer wish to longer receive this newsletter, please add your name here.
Newsletter delivered by {{{Delivered by}}}.
|
Time Times (2008-05)
Time Times (2008-06)
|
|
Time Times
|
|
Issue four • June 2008 • About the Newsletter
Written by FrankP and Template Designed by Diligent Terrier
|
|
News
- Recent Project News
- Article count at 1091! 979 are unassessed though, plenty of work for us to do.
- Project member count reaches 16 members! Keep inviting all your WikiFriends.
- Award offered—Since 2008-01-05, Sharkface217 has offered a Barnstar to the editor who can expand the article Timeline. It certainly needs it, now that it has been disambiguated from Chronology: Go to the Timeline listing on the Awards page to find out Sharkface's minimum requirements! From the Time Portal
- History of timekeeping devices reaches A-Class Status—On May 22 the history of time keeping article was promoted by User:Zginder to A-Class. This is our only article to reach this prestigious status. This was only possible with the dedication of the Tzatziki Squad. They are continuing to work on the article to reach Feature Article status.
- Merkhet was a DYK—The article appeared on the Main Page on April 28. With this text: "... that merkhets were Ancient Egyptian timekeeping devices that tracked the movement of certain stars over the meridian in order to ascertain the time during the night, when sundials could not function?" This also was only possible thanks to the Tzatziki Squad.
- Recent Time News
|
| Archives • Newsroom
|
If you no longer wish to longer receive this newsletter, please add your name here.
Newsletter delivered by {{{Delivered by}}}.
|
Maybe MI-5 poisoned Tallulah through her lipstick & cigarettes. S2grand (talk) 22:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)s2grand[reply]
- Okay, but can you add a reference to back up that idea? Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What are you? Hall Monitor for the day??!! While I was researching other material to add to a new section some busybody has to stick his or her nose in in the next minute. That's why the info was at the end. It's enough to make people quit contributing!!!
- I simply asked if you could back up your claim with a reliable source, and would have said nothing further had you mentioned that, for example, you were in the process of adding and referencing material for the section. That hardly amounts to a WP:AGF violation on my part, as you seem to be implying. You might be interested in this page (I see that someone has already directed you to this one on your talk page) regarding the importance of supporting your assertions. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a notification, but it appears that 219.23.5.48 (talk · contribs)--who seemed obsessed with plane crashes--has returned as 125.200.168.91 (talk · contribs) --CalendarWatcher (talk) 09:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that does appear to be the same person. Still adding unsourced disasters, I see, and (since he's currently on a 72-hour block) is in violation of WP:SOCK, so I've referred him to administration. Thanks for catching that! Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop vandalising the marriage page.
- I am reverting your WP:POV (and now WP:NAD) violations. That is not vandalism on my part. If you think you can improve the article, feel free to take advantage of the article's talk page. Cosmic Latte (talk) 06:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, please sign your comments with four tildes (~'s). Cosmic Latte (talk) 06:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have replied to your RfA query about which areas might be a good place to get started garnering the requisite experience. I hope it helps. If you have any further questions, do not hesitate to ask. Cheers! Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Twas helpful indeed. Thanks! Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Cosmic Latte. I have closed your Request for Adminship per WP:NOTNOW as it was unlikely to succeed at the time. Please do not take it personally, as it was nothing against you. If you gain more experience and become active in more projects, I am confident you will succeed in the future, should you choose to submit another request. In the meantime, you may consider taking up Editor Review or Admin coaching, if you haven't already.
If you have any other questions about my closure, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. Cheers, --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 21:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Thanks! Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I just wanted to say that I appreciated your effort to present yourself in the RfA process. Please let me know when you plan to give it another go. I believe that time is your ally and that you will be a fine admin in the near-future. Be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 07:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for the delayed response. But thank you for your kind comments in response to my RfA nomination. I'll certainly let you know if I apply again. :-) Cheers, Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
how is he not notable? he was a former footballer who has made professional league appearances in the past, which is the football notability guideline here on wikipedia, other people of this genre has been added to the death lists in the past and kept, so why not him? 86.148.189.82 (talk) 21:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If a reliable source demonstrates that he meets WP:FOOTYN criteria, then sure. However, your other entries--Wrestlemania and Guitar Hero--do not belong in the year article. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm...looks like you didn't add those other two articles originally, although you certainly re-added them with your revert. Be sure to take notice of what your reverts are actually doing. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not mean to re-add them, that was an accident. 86.148.189.82 (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, I just noticed. You seem to know the criteria, so I won't raise any more objections about Carter. Sorry about the confusion. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You went a little too far adding a last warning on this IP. It was the IP's 1st vandalism warning since November last year. I think a uw-1 would be better.(Planecrash111 (talk) 02:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Maybe so. But since this edit doesn't exactly look like an innocent test edit or an attempt to improve the article, I'd say WP:AGF is probably a moot point in his case. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So perhaps v4 was indeed a bit much, but I'd probably have started with
at least a v2 in his case, maybe a v3. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In retrospect, by the way, you're absolutely right that V4 was too much. Although I thought I paid good attention to vandalism/warning dates in the past, I evidently didn't pay it close enough in some instances. Thanks for pointing that out. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hah thanks for the typo fix, be a bit of a struggle to achieve a neural point of view :)
- Indeed. =) No problem! Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide me with a link to the AfD discussion for this article? I can't find it; I'm probably just missing it. Tan | 39 15:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe there was an AfD discussion, but I inferred from the "or" in the CSD A5 criterion that there didn't need to be one if the article had already been transwikied. But I'll get an AfD discussion going anyway. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I started an AfD discussion, but withdrew my nomination after it became apparent that the article has potential to be expanded significantly beyond an ostensible dictionary definition. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. Episode 51. Go. Listen. Comment. Enjoy. WODUPbot 04:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't want these notifications anymore? Remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery.
Thank you for your fine message. Yes, please keep me updated on your activities. You will be a fine administrator in the not-too-distant future. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Unfortunately, he tagged all the other (AD) centuries and millennia also. I think I've got all of them. Perhaps we should create a template, but that would have to violate the AD/Common era "cease fire". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see the subject interests you. I don't know if this is from an observers POV or as a practitioner, but in 1976 when I held a vigil at the Liberty Memorial Mall in Kansas City after the Republican National Convention (Ref: Kathleen Patterson, 'Prophet Chooses Park for Vigil', The Kansas City Times, 13 September, 1976, pg 3A and Robert W. Butler, 'Prophet Plans Appeal of Conviction', The Kansas City Times, 2 November, 1976) I enjoyed frequent access to drop into the studio of a local night radio talk show. One time an astrologist by the name of Gars Austin was on the line from Texas giving brief chart readings based only on the birth date of callers. Coming up to a news break and not knowing me, from the studio I asked if he could do a more in depth reading based on my birth at 8am Sunday morning in Montreal May 21, 1944. The talk show host, the listeners and I were amazed with what he came back with. I asked if the charts showed anything significant around February 1, 1975 the date of my Spiritual resurrection. He didn't know anything about that. We were all surprised when he said, "According to my chart, on that date you had a very powerful Spiritual experience." From that time I had to give more credence to what is written in the stars. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 13:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see the discussion to appeal the deletion of Nucular but can't see how to participate. The "edit this page" tab doesn't do the job. Would you kindly divulge the mysteries? Thanks. Thirdbeach (talk) 20:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Never mind -- found it -- the [Edit] link at right. Thirdbeach (talk) 20:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, really appreciate your comments throughout. Sound reasoning ... love it. Thirdbeach (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your feedback and for your contributions to the appeal! Your reasoning, too, is sound, and is much appreciated. Cosmic Latte (talk) 05:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you consider adding any input to our proposal regarding the DSM-IV. Input is being collected on our talk page. Thanks! Mindsite (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support at my RFA, which has now closed as a success. And thank you for your comments about my answer to question 3: outstanding in its thoroughness and thoughtfulness... I'm blushing as I type this!. Seriously though, your support means a great deal to me.
As for the issue you raised about magic secrets - I am in aggreement that secrets should be just that: secret. However, the compromise situation that we have of removing unsourced secrets is about as good as we can get at the moment. Maybe in time we will be able to get all secrets removed, and I am quite happy to champion the cause then. But for the moment, wikicalm has settled on this contentious issue, and I'd rather let sleeping dogs lie. Hmmm... any other mixed metephors that I can add to that last sentence?
Once again, thanks for your support. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're very welcome. Congratulations! Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The dictionary is not at the summary page, its at the publication page. If you click on "more information" you will see the official entry. Here. Next time you mock one of the most important mental health research groups, at least get your information correct. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speaking of "more information," you might like to give WP:CIV and WP:AGF a read in your spare time. Cheers, Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- By accusing me of being incivil, you are actually breaching AGF. The irony is amusing. By saying you are confused and showing you how to find the actual information is being completely civil and showing the utmost of good faith. Instead, I could have called you a troll who is spreading bad information and attacking valuable contributors to that page. I didn't. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And I could have called you uncivil, but I didn't; I simply suggested a reading list. Thankfully I didn't actually call you uncivil, any more than you actually just called me "a troll who is spreading bad information and attacking valuable contributors to that page." ;-) Actually, your tone of voice, and your accusatory-sounding section title here, came across as rude to me, and "rudeness" is listed as an example of WP:CIV. But I suppose rudeness is somewhat subjective, and WP:COOL might have been a better first choice. My apologies if I seemed rude to you as well. Cheers, Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I'm just a little confused about why you changed your mind. You're original support was:
"An intelligent, honest editor with firm knowledge of admin-related topics and a clear potential to use admin privileges to maintain the integrity of WP:MED, should he so choose. Answered questions thoroughly, candidly, and downright impressively."
And Dean B's opposition was:
"Don't really want to pile-on, when the user seems a good Wikipedian with excellent intentions. But as well as points raised above, looking through the contribs I don't see evidence the user actually talks and works with others. An admin should be a leader, someone who can work with disparate people and help them work together, a conciliator. An admin has to resolve disputes, to do that you need to be able to understand other points of view. Can I suggest you get involved in some article work and try and act like an admin in adminny places. You don't need the tools to be a leader here."
Considering I don't believe his oppose was based upon anything substantial, I have replied to his oppose and I'd like you to review it to see what you think. Contrary to Dean B's beliefs, I have contributed to article work (as backed up there by another user) and have had lots of contact with other users. Thanks for your time, happy editing! — CycloneNimrodTalk? 20:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Works for me. I've changed back to support. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
Thank you!
|
| Cosmic Latte, it is with deep awareness of the responsibility conferred by your trust that I am honored to report that in part to your support, my request for adminship passed (87/14/6). I deeply value the trust you and the Wikipedia community have in me, and I will embark on a new segment of my Wikipedia career by putting my new tools to work to benefit the entire community. My best to you, Happyme22 (talk) 05:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
And thank you for trusting me :) Happyme22 (talk) 05:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your kind remarks both during and after my RfA - much appreciated. Ben MacDui 10:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have indented your RFA vote of Cyclonenim 2 in Neutral section as you moved to support. This will fix numbering. I hope you dont mind -- Tinu Cherian - 09:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for letting me know. That's absolutely fine, though, and I'll try to remember to do that from now on. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No problems...Have fun -- Tinu Cherian - 09:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cosmic Latte, an edit war seems to be developing between me and Commodore Sloat on the Sigmund Freud article. Your comments/intervention would be welcome. Skoojal (talk) 09:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for letting me know. I've just added my own two cents on the talk page. I think that the overall WP:CON there is in accordance with what you're doing, anyway. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Latest signs are that the edit war is raging again, and just so there is no doubt, I regard this as equally Commodore Sloat's fault and my fault. Further comments/intervention may be needed. Skoojal (talk) 02:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for expressing your opinion about retention of the article on "Mononymous persons."
There is a parallel discussion going on concerning the category "Category:Mononymous persons," at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_July_12#Category:Mononymous _persons, if you would care to express your views there. It seems to me that it would be a shame if the article were kept but the category were deleted.
Thank you. Nihil novi (talk) 06:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for pointing that out. I left some input, and I hope that it's useful. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is, very much so. Very eloquent, indeed. Thank you! Nihil novi (talk) 11:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pop Culture - "Cosmic Latte".... Who's Gary West...?
On July 21, Cosmic deleted a contribution which sourced Gary West and Mr Pop History. Cosmic opinioned - who's Gary West? and "what was the buying power of a 13-year-old in 1959? If Cosmic only looked at the site sourced. It would have taken about one minute.
I'm the author of the site, now over 14,000 pages of Pop culture week-by-week content from the 1950's through the 2000's. I've also answered about 1400 questions in a weekly print column, which is also available on the site. And, I'm published and heard on national radio. The research has taken about 10 years and about 54,000 hours (1800 weeks x 3 hours each). All off-line. By the time its done - I'm looking at close to 2400 weeks. That's a lot of content from one person. I love doing it. But, hey - you asked!
On the sourced site, Mr. Pop History, Cosmic would have learned pop culture evolved from the buying power of baby boomer teens. That buying power was around approaching $1 billion in 1959. And, wouldn't it be nice to know that Dick Clark was the first, true - modern pop culture icon? The wiki-definition of pop culture is a little abstract for the average student to just source. It needs points in pop culture history - names and trends. God-forbid someone who knows this stuff take the time to contribute.
Unlike 99.9999% of Wiki entries, I put my name and source place up there (Wiki won't let you put a link - god forbid - so I sourced myself in name only in the paragraph). The idea - so the reader could see where it came from! If I'm wrong, I'll gladly take the responsibility. But, Wiki doesn't work that way. If my factoids are wrong, I get e-mails from readers. And believe me, I've gotten it wrong sometimes.
I also made a slight contribution - on the Rolling Stones page. That their first U.S. concert was in San Bernardino, CA. (Swing auditorium). And, it got deleted. What in the world is wrong with you guys??? Same thing - my name and source name. No links.
What I do not understand about Wiki and editors like Cosmic, who know very little about what they edit out from those who work hard. I was reluctant to add this fact, because Wiki has a terrible time - and seems to be confused about the real deal. I know several authors and experts who dare not post on Wiki for this very reason. Now I see, first hand - why!
What's amazing is - The Pop Culture Wiki page, says, "Please help improve the article." How in the world can you ask this when you've got "editors" deleting decent contributions from those who do and give-a-hoot.
And, so much of what's considered pop culture on WIKI can be added to. A ton of factoids.
Here's my real name. You can hold me accoutable for anything on these sites.
Gary West -
www.mrpopculture.com
www.mrpophistory.com
|
