Jump to content

User talk:Circeus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 83.5.250.98 (talk) at 22:30, 24 July 2006 (→‎[[WP:OWN]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Note to self: keep copies of own answeres here for reference.

Archives:

Regina Cyclone

Thank you for helping me clean up that page. I thank you as well, for removing the innacurate data on it (canada's never had a CONFIRMED F5, but the Edmonton Tornado may have been the first...). User:Raccoon Fox - Talk 03:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert on the Dodge Template

I have reverted your removal of the DODGE name on a red background. While the policy preclude the use of tradmarks on templates, the policy to the best of my knowledge does not prevent the use of original artwork, nor the use of shareware (open license) freeware fonts (those fonts which are created and distributed freely) as I used in the image when I created it. In this case, the original artwork, is just that, original artwork, thus this is not a fair use issue. Stude62 01:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

answer

Senate templates

Would you mind providing me (at my talk page) a full list of these Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 May 24#Senate templates that need deletion? Circeus 03:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

help

I am a newby. I am a photographer and I want to contribute to Wikipedia, but I know zilch about formatting, categorizing, etc.

I ha losts of great images of Mexico, landscapes, cities, people, etc... but I need help in placing them in such a way as to be useful to others.

Can you help?

Thanks!!!

--tomascastelazo 23:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

answer

Dominica/Saint Lucia

comment

Well, true they're both officially English-speaking and most recently British colonies rather than French, I've been expanding both based on the Garland Encyclopedia of World Music, which makes it pretty clear that their music is more French Antillean than English (see both articles, music of Dominica talks about the predominance of French Creole in song lyrics, for example -- I just happened to notice skimming through that article that italicized terms and names begin looking very French then grow more and more English-looking further down in the article and later chronologically -- and music of Saint Lucia, which focuses on the important of the quadrille and also notes the predominance of French Creole lyrics outside of the church. So, I think the most musically informative category is French, irregardless of the official languages, legal status, recent history, etc. The shorter answer is because I already made the same change elsewhere, such as at music of the Lesser Antilles, and wanted everything to be consistent. Tuf-Kat 00:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

answer

Gay Fest references

comment

Bonjour Circeus. I have added the translation of the Romanian article titles in English. Thanks, Ronline | Today, solidarity and hope 03:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

answer

Spouge

Great, thanks. I'm going to be trying to fill in as many red links as I can and every little bit helps... Tuf-Kat 15:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crohn's disease

Hi Circeus, I remembered your comments regarding jargon on Schatzki ring. Could you have a look at Crohn's disease if you get a chance? I re-wrote a whole heap of it, but it's replete with jargon. Your comments would be appreciated.


Many thanks -- Samir धर्म 15:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Circeus, thanks a lot for your suggestions to both articles and your changes to Endoscopic foreign body retrieval! Your jargon reports are very helpful (I write so many other reports daily that it is very easy to fall into jargon on WP). Thanks again -- Samir धर्म 23:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given names

Hi, I see you deleted my notes on the name Jennifer in the Given names entry. I'd be interested to know why. I think the Jennifer craze is a much better example than, say, Keira or Peyton, which the article sites, and which I still left in. 7 June 2006 -KXL

cui-ui

thanks for your ongoing plethora of good technical edits. i think a reference in the intro is your edit to cui-ui needs attention. it doesnt seem to be working, and im unfamiliar with this ref style. could you take a look at it? thanks Covalent 23:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

answer

aha, i understand. thanks for the quick response Covalent 23:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete sections of text or valid links from Wikipedia articles. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. CFLeon 01:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had picked the most appropriate template, but it says "second level warning". Sorry if I sent the wrong one. CFLeon 02:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to remove content from pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. I don't know what you have against this particular link. Maybe it's commercial competition with a paysite of your's? CFLeon 02:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

relevant discussion

Wikipedia:Article series

Hi. I noticed you reverted the above page and merged the other articles. Whilst I support the merging of the other articles, I think the merge proposal should have had some time to gain consensus. In particular, I think you made the wrong call in deciding to remove the merge template from Wikipedia:Article series for the same reason as the previous point. Please leave it alone for at least 2 weeks! I was fully intending to merge the pages (rather than simply drawing people's attention to the need for a merge, but hoping someone else would do it), and providing no significant opposition is encountered, I still intend to merge the other 2 pages. Though before I do, the community deserves to have its say.

Moving along to you edit summary: "not all article series have to do with main and subarticles. Also, WP:SS is much more develloped, while this page deals mostly with templates". The first point can (and should) be made explicitly clear on the merged page, and the second point IMO is a good reason for the merge. In the future please post such comments on the talk page so we can have this kind of discussion there. Thanks. - Gareth Aus 06:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pando

Thanks for commenting on the Pando (Quaking Aspen) article. We are currently trying to have it achieve featured article status. Any input on its peer review would be helpful. Thank you again. Globeism 16:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image size/location

Hello, I noticed you changed the images in Fête des lumières from being large and distributed on both sides, to being small and all down the right hand side. What's your thinking? Stevage 07:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

answer
Ah, thanks for explaining. I think I agree with most of your comments, but I find thumbnail size really too small to be useful without clicking on the image. I may expand one of the better images again, and leave the crappy ones (ie, the ones I took :)) small. Stevage 08:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Collegiants

comment

They were around until at least the 19th century. After that, not sure. I don't actually know Dutch, but I'll get the titles translated, and maybe the Latin ones. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-12 00:06

Period/Full Stop and reference location

Many thanks for your comment at Wikipedia talk:Footnotes#Period/Full Stop and reference location. I had quite some work doing these edits. I even created special code for the MWiki-Browser tool for these edits. Now that I'm starting being a bit more productive with that, I run into opposition :(. Being a serial edit geek isn't easy—sigh. We get shot first and it is sufficient to "hit" on the wrong person's watchlist. A single opposer and "there is no consensus" anymore. Cheers! --Ligulem 23:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

polyphenol antioxidant

thank you for your detailed discussion on the talk page. it is not so simple to classify so much of the article as jargon. this is an article about a complex biochemical subject. the language is accepted tehnical and medical literature based. it is well wiki linked to allow the non specialist to explore these normal terms of the subject matter. i dont think we need to talk down to the reader. many other biochemistry and medical articles in wikipedia are written in the same tone. nevertheless i agree the articles ought to be approached by the well educated generalist. i have altered the article to address your comment #1 and i shall work through your list as i have time in the next week or two. please do not conduct wholesale alteration of this article unless you are an expert in this field. the changes you made in the last section had to be reverted because they deleted important facts such as the role of UV-radiation....the central element of the phenomenon. i appreciate your numerous past technical edits on other articles, which tend to be done with surgical precision and would like to keep our relationship amicable. best regards. Anlace 04:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saltwood Castle

I learned that Saltwood Castle was placed on the DYK page today. Thanks for 1) egging me on to find some ref's and 2) for tidying them up! Verne Equinox 23:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vis a vis User:MPF and User:Brya

Other relevant discussion: Brya's Talk, MPF's talk

I've been watching this with horror as well (and in fact am watching both their pages and contribs trying to understand it the last couple days). I agree, the edit war should be stopped. However, you should be aware that Brya is engaged in an active edit war against a few others working in WP:TOL, MPF is just more actively watchful than others (myself included). Brya is also quite dismissive when concerns are brought up about his edits. Should you decide to "bring it to court", please inform me as well. SB Johnny 15:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think they've had the discussion before, to no avail (any discussion will be in old versions of Brya's talk... he does not respond on other's talks). It's more or less just a strange form of vandalism (some folks think "purple people suck" are better than constructive information, Brya thinks his POV is more important than the consensus POV). Again, I think intervention might be a good idea, because it's getting prety silly. SB Johnny 15:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Circeus - many thanks for the offer to mediate, which is very much appreciated. It may take me a little while to get my thoughts and points together (I don't find it the easiest of things to do!), maybe later tonight or tomorrow. I'll definitely stay away from editing the disputed pages until the dispute is settled, though - MPF 16:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my justification for my edits, and subsequent revertion of Brya's reverts, to:

Edits for clarity - some changes I made to improve readability and clearer sense, e.g. "a recent publication sets it as counting 342 species" changed to "a recent publication treats it as containing 342 species" (plant families can't count!).
List of examples - I changed these to the names actually used for the articles concerned, i.e., Marchantiophyta, not "Hepaticae (Liverworts)" (which leads to a disambig page), etc.; I also fully linked all the examples, and removed italics from family and higher ranks (as above).
Taxobox changed to reflect taxobox usage at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/taxobox usage#Plant species. I recognise that this does not fit in well with the APG system, and may be better changed. However, no formal proposal for change has been made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/taxobox usage. Taxoboxes are supposed to be uniform in structure; it does not help to change taxoboxes to the two or more different APG-versions I found in a small handful of articles (probably less than 0.1% of plant articles; but disproportionally higher among higher taxa like orders and families). Many orders and families now have taxoboxes very different to those of contained genera and species, which does not look good. If taxoboxes are to be changed, a formal proposal should be made (in plain English!), so that the changes can be checked for formatting suitability and compatibility, and then changed en masse by a robot editor.
Family description. I tried to edit this for readability, changing odd grammatical constructs like "is the botanical name for a family of" (what's wrong with just "is a family of"?), and (at Ranunculaceae) "Such a family has been universally recognized by taxonomists: it is also known ..." into Plain English that is easier for non-expert readers to understand.
Italics removed from family names - as above.
Genus list. This comes from the Dallwitz reference (which was added by Brya in the first place). A clue to his removing the genus list comes in his new edit [1] to Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life, "Dallwitz ... Unique resource, updated to about 1998 (note that especially the lists of genera are outdated)". Yet if it is outdated, why does he not update it, with a reference to the newer research? Deleting it because it is 'out of date' without further explanation does not help anyone.
External links. As above. I shortened the excessively long Dallwitz reference; the full title of the site is not necessary, as the link takes one there regardless of the length of the subtitle blurb.

MPF 01:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting to come upon this. The latter point is of course well worth commenting on. If Mike Dallwitz and the organization at DELTA go to great lengths to kindly provide descriptions of families (available nowhere else on the internet), then the least we can do is to respect the style of referring to this that has been expressed at the site. I think it is very undignified to force Mike Dallwitz to run round and manually correct all these references. Speaking about contempt!

As to another point mentioned above. In spite of the sentiment expressed above ("it should be easy to create a server with reliable information on the latest taxonomy out of thin air") accurate taxonomic information is hard to come by. For a large plant family it requires a considerable staff working for decades to even get near. Accurate descriptions are even harder to come by. The trick is to make do with the information that is available, and to put that in the right context.

Providing a list of redlinked names of genera (and that is not readable because of faulty layout) that may or may not belong to the family discussed is not helping anybody. All that is communicated by such a list is "this page was put together by somebody who did not know what he was doing". Anybody who is interested in the list of genera as it was according to Mike Dallwitz in 1998 can follow the link and see for himself. At least then he will be aware of the proper context. Brya 06:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that you coukd provide such a large piece of justification without refering to a single wikipedia policy or guideline, which is exactly what I requested you to do. On Ghillean Prance and Misodendraceae, you blatantly violated the manual of style by removing the header formatting of "external links". On Ghillean Prance, your removal of the IBN is left completely unjustified: How is a biography of the article subject inappropriate to mention in the article? Please do not perform complete revert including edits that are very pertinent.
I several instances you cite violations of the MoS. MPF cited what was actually violated in these pages. I see a user having at best issues with WP:OWN and now allowing any edit whatsoever, using the MoS without citing which element thereof as catch-all excuse to revert ay edit to his articles, leaving them either incomplete (all family articles include list of genera. Loranthaceae comes across as incomplete work either way) or in blatant violation of the MoS. Circeus 13:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A few points to consider. Many, most, or likely all, family treatments are incomplete and they will remain so until Wikipedia attracts a staff of competent people who devote very considerable time to this. This is not a bad thing when there are sites that can be linked to. Priority should be to avoid giving misinformation.
AFAICT, lists of genera in family treatments are the exception rather than the rule and this is a good thing. At least if giving accurate information is the purpose.
A copy-and-paste of a paragraph of text from a copyrighted site is a violation of copyright (unless a number of conditions are met, and there is not even an attempt here to do so). Also violently against basic Wikipedia guidelines. Brya 05:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have all but given up on being a regular contributor to Wikipedia, largely because it has become evident I was fighting a losing battle against those who were not necessarily more knowledgeable, or better editors, but apparently have limitless time on their hands to edit thousands of articles. However, I have been following this "discussion" with some amusement and feel compelled to come out of retirement to comment.

Brya has (apparently unilaterally) decided to follow a typographical practice for botanical nomenclature used in printing the ICBN that does not even rise to the level of "example" (as defined within the Code): the italicization of all botanical names at all ranks. As others have discovered, this leads to stylistic inconsistency between botanical and zoological Wikipedia articles, and between those botanical articles which Brya has or has not edited. In the end this is about as inconsequential a disagreement as I have ever seen on Wikipedia, but as Brya clearly has no intention of accommodating, cooperating or compromising with, or conceding to, any other editor, and has displayed such breathtaking arrogance in all his (her?) past and present editing, I hereby award him (her?) my "Does Not Play Well With Others" award.

Now to the matter at hand: the ICBN (Saint Louis Code, published 2000), in its preface, states, "As in the previous edition, scientific names under the jurisdiction of the Code, irrespective of rank, are consistently printed in italic type. The Code sets no binding standard in this respect, as typography is a matter of editorial style and tradition not of nomenclature. Nevertheless, editors and authors, in the interest of international uniformity, may wish to consider adhering to the practice exemplified by the Code, which has been well received in general and is being followed in an increasing number of botanical and mycological journals."

I became curious as to how "well received" this practice has been and to what extent it has been followed, so I did a quick survey of the most prominent botanical, mycological, and phycological journals in my library. I was hard pressed to find any that italicize botanical names above genus. Of 30 journals I checked, only 3--exactly 10%--have followed the example set by the ICBN. (The actual percentage is probably lower, but I did not check every minor journal.) The journals I found using italicization are Edinburgh Journal of Botany, Mycotaxon, and Kew Bulletin. In my judgment, it would appear that the non-binding practice of the ICBN is little more than a quaint typographical convention that has not been widely adopted. MrDarwin 17:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Biography 2

comment

About that, I tried to create a size applicable biography infobox, but then I saw there was already one available, so I just gave up on mine. You can delete if you like, I could never quite get it to work. Registered User 92

Compitalia

comment

Do you mean that the citations are confusing, or what? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-17 23:24

answer

  • Yes, they are the original sources for the content in the article. In Smith's dictionary, they're all abbreviated, and I figured out what most of them were, and gave the full name/title, instead of an abbreviation, wherever possible, but I could not figure them all out. However, maybe someone else will come along and solve that. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-17 23:44
  • I figure, as long as we have the original sources at hand, we might as well include them, especially since Smith's writing style focuses so much on the original sources, rather than attempting to write his own overly-broad interpretation. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-17 23:45

Whatever program you're using couldn't handle Greek letters. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-18 03:00

answer

CityRail Template

Can you please leave the template alone? You are wrecking a lot of good work people have done. There are plenty of other templates like this on Wikipedia and no one has a problem with them. Why are you taking it out on ours? Please stop it. I'm annoyed that you would just go ahead and delete stuff without even asking users on WikiProject Sydney, who had approved the template for use. (JROBBO 00:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

answer
What are we supposed to do then? It was written specifically to fit in with that image and was appoved by other users- you've stuffed up our work and we don't have antyhing to fall back on. I am really annoyed because I put a lot of work into making that look good, and I'm annoyed that you wouldn't even let people talk about it. You have still not addressed my question about informing people either. (JROBBO 00:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
answer

Thanks for uploading Image:CentralAvenueCornell2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

copied to original uploader's talk

Template:Infobox generic

comment

There are sometimes requests for infoboxes that will be used on only a handful of pages or even just one. I started the generic infobox as a way of handling these - rather than creating a new infobox template for each 'once off' situation. Basically it can duplicate the contents of nearly any infobox, but requires additional parameters to allow that flexibility. Hadn't needed to complete/use it yet, but I'd like to keep it around for such cases. --CBD 14:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

answer

reply

Cornell010: Pictures scheduled for deletion

I have emailed Alex Sergeev, the holder the pictures in question, using one of the prepared letters issued forth by the Wikipedia organization, and he has assented to the use of his pictures. Also, I have forwarded the email response of Mr. Alex Sergeev to the Wikipedia organization, at the address of permissions@wikipedia.org. Since, the above mentioned steps have occurred, I believe the the time has come for the scheduled deletion of the photographs on the Cornell University page to be suspended. Thank you.--Cornell010 17:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

answer

Why do references have to be "small" rather than "medium" ?

Small is so hard to read, and seems to make everything "small" that comes after it. KarenAnn 00:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

answer

Pre-ejaculate

Wikipedia:Profanity: "Words and images that might be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by other Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available." A picture of some exhibitionist's penis is indeed profane and, judging from the discussion page and frequent deletions, is clearly offensive. It does not add to the article at all, since "clear lubricating fluid that is issued from a man's penis when he is sexually aroused" pretty much tells the whole story. Clearly, you have this on their watchlist, choosing to ignore the link at "Wikipedia is not censored" to Wikipedia:Profanity, and re-add every time someone deletes. And many people will not be convinced by Wikipedia policy that violates their own ideas of what Wikipedia should be. But I hope that you will respect not only what Wikipedia rules say, but also what Wikipedia aspires to be. People who insist on unnecessary explicit photographs will make Wikipedia something avoided by teachers, students, the press, and the general public, since it enforces the popular image of Wikipedia as a Wild West where smut and lies are easily promulgated, rather than a self-regulating source of information that is just as reliable and relevant as a traditional encyclopedia. 192.68.228.4 22:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit buttons

Just thought I'd check with you before I make further changes: Is there any particular reason why you removed the edit button from Template:Evolution? Thanks. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

answer
Necessary? How about "convenient"? Seeing that this is a volunteer project, life should be made easy for everyone. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's user:SB_Johnny and user:Brya

I'm trying to avoid making a third revert on Tautonym (and Tautonymy). Tried to use the dispute/contradiction tag, but I'm not sure I got it in there right (doesn't link to the contradicted article). Brya's reasons seem to have something to do with the unfair treatment of botanists by zoologists, which I'm not sure I get. What should my next step be here? (Getting pretty tired of this.) SB Johnny 08:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC opened

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Brya. This is going nowhere at the moment. SB Johnny 09:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arecaceae

comment

Yes, I saw that, thanks for the excellent detail in the review. SCHZMO ✍ 11:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aiman abmajid

He seems to have wised up to the requirement of having sources for his images. That was the reason for my self revert here. He has declared that he made his pictures (at least Image:Plaza_toll.gif and Image:Expressway_interchange4.GIF) himself. And it looks quite likely - the lines on the latter are evidently drawn by an amateur, most likely himself. Now if we can make him write the correct source description for his other images... Kimchi.sg 14:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

answer

Citing to the Bible

As a recent participant in the TfD dicussion on whether {{Bibleverse}} and {{Bibleref}} should be deleted, I wanted to make sure you were aware of the new discussion at Wikipedia:Citing sources/Bible. The goal of these discussion is to resolve the concerns raised re GFDL, use of an external cite, etc. Additionally, this page should serve as a location for recording research about the different websites that provide online Bible information. Please edit the summary and join the discussion - thx Trödel 15:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Bhadani has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

--Bhadani 16:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Circeus: Thanks for your edits of the new article Flue gas stack that I created last night. - mbeychok 17:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template categorization

Hello, Circeus

I noticed that you added the Category:Citation templates tag to Template:FishBase species alt. It seems to have had the undesirable effect of adding any article that includes that citation template (example: Spotted barb) to the Citation templates category as well. I can see what it is you're trying to accomplish and it certainly would help to have such a category, but I don't know Wikipedia well enough to know how to accomplish it without that side effect. Perhaps the category needs to be on the template's talk page instead? Neil916 16:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I figured it out. Neil916

Vancouver

I agree with your change. Too bad it looks so ugly. --Usgnus

answer

Well, accessibility always wins over appearance in my book. I'm glad you like it better this way. :-) --Usgnus 23:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May crowning references

comment

Thanks for the heads-up. I haven't done a DYK for a year and didn't know about that being a new requirement. Let me know if the references I provided work for the requirement. --ScienceApologist 00:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:AnnaKucsma/Geography/France

How did you move it, I couldn't do it, because the way I normally do it is to type in what I want and start a new user page, but if you typed in User:AnnaKucsma/Geography/France, it just went to the article, and didnt ask about starting a user page, so how did you do it? Philc TECI 00:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

answer

Seeking Administrator Involvement

comment

Please give me advice on what to do. I don't want to make mistakes and make a fool of myself, but I have been reading over all of the dispute options and I just feel more confused than ever. It is glaringly obvious that the user in question has been cited on more than one occasion for inappropriate behaviour, and yet it continues. I do not feel that the "lesser" steps in resolving the issue are going to do anything other than waste time because it seems that other users have followed them before, multiple times, for many reasons, and without ultimate success. How do I ask for an administrator to step in and take action? Pacian 05:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[2]

I would say his most recent paragraph on my talk page makes it clear that he has no interest in being civil to me, or to anyone. Pacian 05:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[3]

I've unblocked Haizum for the time being. See his talk page for more info. He's commented that he'll try to tone down some of the sarcasm and try and play nice. If you feel I have erred, don't hesitate to contact me. Thanks. --LV (Dark Mark) 06:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: random comment on cite templates

comment

Thanks for your comment. There was no confusion - what's separated by a semi-colon are two separate thoughts entirely. However, thanks for bringing the cite news template to my attention. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Church Hill Tunnel

comment

Thanks for the heads-up. I have added footnotes. This one is in the local news are they are now talking about digging it up and recovering the train and bodies! Mark Vaoverland 19:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Grammar series

Je vois que vous parlez le français, que je'apprends á l'école. Donc, je vous écrirai en français. Je voudrais vous remercir pour avoir redessiné: Template: Grammar series que j'ai créé. J'essayais en créer un trés similaire à ce que ce que vous avez fait, mais je ne savais pas y faire. Alors, merci. (J'éspere ne pas avoir fait des fautes! - Je n'apprends que le français depuis quatre ans.)

Lofty 15:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Total dissolved solids

comment

thanks for the constructive editing and kind words. ive added the cite to the one i found. where is the other one? by the way i dont know the cite format editing to cite the same source twice and only have it appear once in the ref list. could you help me with that element? thanks. regards. Anlace 04:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

answer
one more cite added. working on the last one. may take a while to find the best one. thanks for the repair on multiple cites to same ref. i couldnt figure out doing it from the wiki source you gave me. Anlace 05:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
answer

Image:Sovereign_Hill.jpg

notice for IFD

I uploaded Sovereign_Hill.jpg because I did not think the image there before it (Sovereign_hill_window.jpg), was appropriate and did not meet image quality standards. Ansett 05:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

answer

<div class="references-small">

G'day,
I noticed you using this markup for the references in article Celia Rosser. I was wondering, when an article has an external links section after the references section, should both be made small, or should the external links section be big again? Neither option seems particularly attractive to me. Snottygobble 05:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

answer
I have no intention of reverting; I think it looks better, except that the reversion to larger text afterwards looks a bit strange. I wanted to do the same on Banksia brownii but wasn't sure how to proceed. Thanks. Snottygobble 05:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
extra answer
Thanks for all the cleanup on Banksia articles. Nice to have your help. Snottygobble 00:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I hadn't realised that you were cleaning up DYK articles. I thought you were specifically hanging around Banksia. Thanks for the offer; I'll bear that in mind. Snottygobble 00:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind going over Banksia brownii for me? As soon as there's evidence of stability, I want to push it through GA. Snottygobble 02:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I knew that. Sometimes I do these silly things anyhow. ;) Snottygobble 02:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. I'll get back to it shortly. Snottygobble 03:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Persondata

Thanks for editing my articles! On June 29,you added "persondata" at Alexander Korzhakov - what's the practical implication of "persondata"? Odengatan 08:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

answer

Alvetina Kochina assistance

Thank you for your assistance on the Alevtina Kolchina article. It earned an DYK yesterday. I look forward to working with you in future endeavours. Chris 12:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Panin

Thanks for picking up on the birth year confusion! I'd forgotten to change the category after I changed the birth year in the article. --Fang Aili talk 19:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chaos Theory of Literature

comment

You said the article I initiated is ineligible for "Did You Know.." because I did not cite my source -- but I cited two books which laid the foundation for this school of theory; did I not cite them properly enough?

Thanks for the guidance as I try to find a way to be useful around here. -- Scartol 23:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

answer

Digimon 02

I noticed your note on the Digimon talk page and to help with the sourcing on the reasons those Adventure 02 episodes were banned episodes you can use Youtube's English downloaded episode pages for that:

Episode 44 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DI1pBPUiVxc

Episode 45 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf2l--PCkh8

Episode 46 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_4xmXIy9yw

Although videos like this scare this should help give you what you need for a source. A few important scenes I noticed when viewing these videos are; 44; MarineDevimon destroying buildings on his rampage and the fact that both Silphymon and Shakkoumon were forced to kill MarineDevimon and LadyDevimon. 45; Daemon threating to incenerate a apartment building with people watching before Imperialdramon Fighter Mode intervene. 46; the fighting in the city between WarGreymon and BlackWarGreymon including a small scene where WarGreymon is knocked into the side of a small building. I hope these video's will help you in looking for a good source for the material to prove it. -Adv193 05:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just did some checking around and this is the only source I can provide on those three banned episodes. -Adv193 15:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually the banned episode of Pokemon Tentacool and Tentacruel was banned due to the scene of buildings being destroyed and the reason why I quit watching Digimon back then was due to noticing when I was watching that run on ABC family and it went from episode 43 to episode 47. -Adv193 15:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

answer

After checking that link to the banned episode page I think it would be better to put a citation mark on that section rather than try to delete personally as the material in the episode partly explains why Disney has chosen not to show it or you can just leave the banned episode details in but take the September 11 attack info out and believe me it was watching Digimon on ABC Family back then is where I personally got wind of it myself. -Adv193 15:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah looking back on this situation I can say is that these three episodes have been aired on Fox Kids but they were brought out of rotation after Disney bought out Saban, I am not comfortable about deleting this information but as I said on my last post that pargraph can be modified rather than deleted. -Adv193 16:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just rewrote the paragraph to comment that these episode used to air on Fox Kids and if you don't like the way I wrote it then you can just re-edit it or delete it if you want. Also the reason I gave you those YouTube links so you could view those three episodes yourself. -Adv193 17:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

category sort

I noticed you did a category sort on something I worked one. Good. Is there some wiki tool you use to do this sort or do you sort the categories manually or?. Thanks Hmains 02:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

answer

I am afraid I removed it from my watch list. It was probably a tornado of some kind or another that involved links to multiple 'History of xxx' states that I changed to 'Natural history of xxx' states. Thanks Hmains 03:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

answer

OK. Thanks anyway. Hmains 03:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pernambucan Revolution

Thank you for cleaning up the references for me! OMEN 08:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks on the Avifauna cats

I bit off a lot working on Avifauna. However the initial page from January, (that I used) the List of Kansas birds, was then updated with pics. Because I spent a about 2 months on the List of Arizona-SW birds (Yuma County, Arizona), I had found all the errors. I was able to help his final edits, and I even left a ( ? ):, it's still on the arizona page, but 2 birds were added to answer the ?-reference. Anyway....Thanx, I progressed to plants (for the Lower Colorado River Valley,) actually, the Sonoran Desert, but have been caught here with the Natural history cats, Trees of the various states, and the Flora of Southwest, Western U.S., etc. I have been Busy. ....I will say my pride and Joy is the start at the Midwest.. the Prairie Chickens, and some select birds ( Lark Bunting) go there. It is for the moment: "Category:Fauna of Plains-Midwest U.S.", there is a Flora and a "Trees of Plains-Midwest U.S.". ....Anyhow I needed help.

A recent worker just did "all" the Natural histories, with Tornadoes, Hurricanes, etc. And the Fauna is being worked on. And i see Fishes got started, as well someone wants to do the plants of all the countries.

I actually have done many of the western states, but it is a little time consuming, going state by state, and finding the links ~ (What an Understatement..) Well, "enjoy", "peace", and in Akkadian (to)–be–safe.... Michael inHOT,YumaAZ.. --Mmcannis 00:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DYK

Thanks for tidying up my DYK nominations - I have noticed your smartening up most of them recently. It feels a bit like wikistalking, but in a positive way, so thanks. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ghirlandajo

You are merely the latest victim in this user's pattern of engaging in wildly uncivil behavior, accusing admins of misconduct, threatening to file grievances, and then backing off when he realizes his claims have zero merit.[4][5] Don't sweat it too much. --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't done an extensive review of your current dispute with him but I know he does have an ownership complex over articles that he has worked on. For the most part he does high-quality work; it is a shame that he is utterly incapable of working with others or adhering to WP policies regarding civility etc. See, e.g., the nightmare I went through with him over meticulously well-sourced additions to Oleg of Novgorod. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a consistent pattern of bullying and intimidation, plain and simple. And when I confronted him about it in my case and challenged him to go ahead and file his claims, he backed off instantly. But I wonder how many have been cowed into submission by his threats? Frankly the only reason I didn't file claims myself is that I don't have the time or the patience to jump through the hoops. If there was some sort of proceeding against him I would certainly put my two cents in, though. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FYI Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ghirlandajo --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Ghirla's pique at Briangotts

Salut Circeus,

Ben ecoute, je sais bien que Ghirla est caractériel comme tout. Moi j'ai essayé de le raisonner il y a quelque temps au sujet d'une autre remarque de ce genre, j'ai essayé de le calmer sur sa page de discussion, mais j'ai jamais eu de réponse. C'est clair que c'est un gros dilemme... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 21:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Je suis tout à fait d'accord avec toi. Mais bon, comme on dit "on ne se refait pas". Je vais essayer de lui parler, mais comme il répond meme pas à ses messages, ça va etre un peu difficile... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 21:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Le truc en fait, c'est qu'en ce moment, il y a un conflit giganstesque sur la partie russe de Wikipedia, dont Ghirla s'occupe beaucoup. Il y a des guerres dans tous les sens, c'est un peu le Bronx... Donc en fait, les gens qui sont déjà pas très patients par nature, comme Ghirla, démarrent au quart de tour et en général, ça explose... :( -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 21:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ce qui se passe actuellement, c'est qu'il y a un conflit gigantesque un peu partout entre, en gros, le point de vue consideré comme "pro-russe" ou "pro-sovietique" d'un coté, et des editeurs ukrainiens et/ou polonais un peu radicaux. Personne n'est parfait dans cette histoire, mais ça degenere tres tres vite... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 21:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, it'll try to be more careful from now on. The ADS abstract page should cover most of those I reference, and is freely accessible. Deuar 22:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forshaw: both

I have both actually.... :-) -- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm

Youve just banned an Anon, on the basis that youve assumed that im a blocked user. First off i suggest using Request For Checkuser. Second, i also suggest banning Deathrocker as appropriate for his use of Anons to violate his Revert Parole, and then him doing it openly.

Yew may also wish to go through the Abrirrition case for that user, as he was found guilty of using Anons to impersonate Leyasu a number of times as well.

If your going to ban Anons on assumptions, you should also follow policys. As an admin, thats both your duty and your job.

If you check the arb com case, you will also notice that Deathrocker has been banned far more times for changing those edits against policy. So that avenue of attack was pretty non-consequential.
Remember, your the admin. Your supposed to block people for not following policy, not for following it while you break it continiously.

If your going to block all these 'sockpuppets', i suggest blocking all of Deathrocker's known ones that he is using as well. At the minute your in massive violation of policy. Sure im violating WP:SOCK and WP:NOT. But the point is, if the admins can violate and be biased as to who they let violate policys, so can other Wikipedians. Everything works both ways.

Your abusing your admin powers now by blocking any user that makes an edit that doesnt agree with what you want to be on the article. Please dont force people to start reporting people for this. As an admin your supposed to uphold policy, not violate them whenever you see fit to push your own views onto articles and/or compromise the intergrity of articles. Also, grammatical corrections do not count as Vandalism. I am also not a sockpuppet. Im sure a Request For Checkuser can verify that one, as well.

Plus, labelling my reverts as vandalism is wrong as well. What your restoring is vandalism that several admins before you have reverted. The AbrCom also ordered it reverted in case yew forgot to check. Policys also demand they be reverted.

It was also labeled vandalism before as well.

What your currently doing is giving the two fingers to policy, the arbcom, and most of Wikipedia. Not paticularly admin behaviour that.

Sockpuppet?

Hi Circeus, I've noticed that the IPs, 202.79.179.226 (talk · contribs) and 202.79.179.227 (talk · contribs)‎ are similar, and they have vandalised the same articles. Could they be sockpuppets from different IPs? --Terrancommander 14:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Persondata

I've noticed that you are one of the very few persondata adders and your contributions are therefore greatly appreciated! :-) One thing I've noticed is that you tend to put the name as it appears in the article title as the "name" field and the name in full (e.g. with initials expanded) in the "alternate names" field. My guess, going from the instructions at the WP:PERSON page, is that it should be the other way round and the "name" section should have the name written out as fully as possible. Does that make sense or does it sound like I'm barking up the wrong tree? TheGrappler 15:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's definitely some ambiguity. I initially thought the same as you. But then I noticed: When specifying the person's name, use the following format: [surname], [forename] [middle names], [title]. For most cases this will be straightforward, for example, "George Walker Bush" becomes "Bush, George Walker". So my guess is that if forename and middle names are available, they ought to be used. I think the convention of using the article name is more about making sure that if there are variations on the name (e.g. a person famous under a stage name, or different romanizations of a Cyrillic name) then the variation used as the article title ("the most common in English", at least in theory) should be the first name on the Persondata, but fully expanded. Does that make sense? TheGrappler 21:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just took "[middle names]" to mean actual middle names, in full. It's an interesting question and I'm certainly not criticising you over your choice. Just thought it was odd we were doing things in different ways - which is a sign the pair of us are actually working against consistency at the moment! I am currently writing a note - representing both views - on the talk page for persondata. Feel free to intervene if I misrepresent you; I just think it would be wise to canvas some third opinions! TheGrappler 21:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you see, the whole thing is so ambiguous I actually took that advice as neutral between our points of view. When it says "use the name in the article title", I agree entirely - some people have multiple names (Cassius Clay, anybody?), so we should use the name used in the the article title. But I suggest writing it in full, and you suggest leaving it in the truncated title form. Both of us agree with using the title name though. TheGrappler 21:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Panairjdde

I'm not really involved in the continuing dispute. I only started reverting his edits as vandalism because I noticed a user was making changes en masse (which is rightly suspicious), and noticed that he had ignored an admin. I was only active in the matter because none of the admins seemed to notice what he was doing. Now the community has noticed the argument between him and Codex Sinaticus, I've moved on. CRCulver 23:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Admin, I think it is quite obvious that Panairjdde is quite the controversial character. He seems to be engaging flame/edit wars with many people (look up his discussions and history) and worst of all, lets his bias influence his edits on Wikipedia. First of all, all my discussion relating to edits were deleted - leading me no choice but to edit unilaterally, which was not what I had planned to do. Second of all, it is quite obvious that he lets his bias control the way he edits - and his use of double-standards from one article to another shows this. Next, is the fact that he is indeed engaging in multiple edit wars - which is quite the distraction to Wikipedia and causes many other Wikipedians great distress at the activities of this troll. Please do something about this, he is angering other Wikipedians due to his penchant for deleting anything that he is personally against and therefore is a negative influence on this site.

Re: Chamber of Nationalities

I'm awfully sorry, but I am afraid you'll have to ask the article's author about that information. It does meet the DYK criteria in every way, though. -Fsotrain09 04:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the intervention

...with the Leyasu IP sock. I am not inclined to go 3RR battling with her. Does constant circumventing her block fall under the vandlism banner...and should it be reported at WP:AIV? Or should it be posted at WP:ANI? Again thanks! Fair Deal 15:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re : semi-protection

Because you're classical, like me? Protection to me are still in terms of full protection from all editors. :P - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 16:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duke of Caxias

Thanks for yhour help and pointing my attention to that error, however, I simply removed the remark about Sao Paulo etc. I left additional comments on that article's talk page. Please try to find any other errors, as the Portuguese article seems very vague and hard to read (as I am not a native speaker of that language, it was even harder).

But anyway, thanks NOVO-REI 16:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, references have been added, which I explained further on here. Some references retain Portuguese, as it is pretty hard to get detailed information outside the host language. However, I did this with Confederation of the Equator and Pernambucan Revolt, which were both nominated, and have both passed from DYK. So, I'm trying ;-). Although, I have to respect you - I understand you are looking out for the betterment of the community. NOVO-REI 17:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your help, I've been watching it. I am sorry about the mistakes I make, perhaps I not a very good Wikipedian, unfortunately. WIkipedia is blessed to have people like you in it though. NOVO-REI 18:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, but I am NR, from above - sometimes I get signed out automatically (don't ask me why:-) ). 24.164.196.105 18:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, what do you think of the article now? And me as a newcomer? NOVO-REI 18:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amorphis albums

Please stop reinserting this category, it is broken and I am trying to fix the problem. Also, it is entirely unnecessary, there are only seven of them. Just zis Guy you know? 20:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thank you for the award. I didn't do much but I only hate people writing wrong digivolutions. I'm very happy to see it. Onur

Moving Generic Citations

Hi - because Wikipedia:Citation templates had been a redirect to a category and edited 2 times, User:Ligulem had to manually move using a cut and paste from Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles/Generic citations. Can you delete Citation templates and move Generic citations there (or merge the history. Thx in adv --Trödel 00:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

new day boilerplate

Regarding your deletion of the NEW NOMINATIONS section, that allows the &section=2 parameter to work on the TfD instructions. In turn, that prevents edit conflicts during nominations. It also gives a clear target for those that don't bother to read and follow instructions. Nudge nudge, wink wink.

The alternative would be to order the nominations from oldest to newest; then the &section=new could be used. But that would break months/years of tradition.

Please don't delete it again.

--William Allen Simpson 00:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. It looked like some misguidedly-inserted header. Circeus 00:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's hope not too many folks have the same reaction. The old way (edit the whole page) can take forever, creates edit conflicts, and is more load on the servers. One advantage of &section=new would be that it's a built-in, not relying on page format.
--William Allen Simpson 17:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brianbarney (talk · contribs)

If you're not interested in overextending yourself over this user, trying to patch things up, as it were, don't worry about it. While assuming good faith, I also intend to not be stupid, keeping an eye on his potential future contributions carefully.

However, if you'd like to clarify your thoughts based on the "contribution, not the contributor" ideal, that is, explaining more on the purpose, it might warm him up. Nevertheless, there's no obligation to, until his future contributions proves him to be less of a detraction to Wikipedia than I gather he definitely seems to be to you.

Thanks again, CobaltBlueTony 02:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld

Thanks for the help and response.(Robp 21:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Railway terminals & beyond

Hi, Circeus. Thanks for pointing me to the policy which I myself mostly wrote, it's nice to know my work was not in vain and that people quote it on occasion :)

The reason for the revert was quite simple, though. WP:RUS indeed says that the "-ий" endings could be romanized as either "-y" or "-iy". The choice is ultimately made by the author of the original text. Changing one variant into another is just impolite as changing British spelling into American.

Please contact me again if you have further questions about this.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Poland

I'm not getting into an edit war with you over this, but what you claim is an "established standard" is clearly not by the disclaimer: This is for informational purposes: listing here does not imply endorsement. Your format, which oddly enough sets the flag afloat somewhere in center right, far off the right border, appears in about four or five boxes, far from a "standard". You might also want to cut down on the language you use on other good-faith editors. In conjunction with your poor spelling it makes you come across as a bit limited. ~ trialsanderrors 05:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It might not be an "endorsement", but consistency (mostly in color here) is good. Besides, that version was needlessly constricted and poorly coded. My spelling, as far as I am aware, is no worse than any other users, although I readily admit issues with my computer's spacebar. Circeus 05:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Color is not grounds for reversion. Explain poorly coded. Clearly a template that can't fix the flag to the right border shouldn't be held up as an example for good coding. ~ trialsanderrors 05:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've move the discussion to Template talk:Poland

Reverting blocked user edits

Hello. Thank you for blocking Italy national football team vandal. A question: if I revert his contribution/vandalism, will this count towards my infringment of 3RR? Thanks--Panairjdde 14:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Admin, it is quite obvious, that while Panairjdde works the undermine other national football pages, he keeps the Italian National Site under his under supervision, deleting anything that he is presoally against. Not only this, he has deleted my discussions - forcing unilaterial edits instead of edits through discussions between peers. Also, it should be noted that Panairjdde does frequently clash with many other Wikipedians for his shameful actions and unilateral deletions on pages that he personally does not favour without listening to the discussion of the other Wikipedian. It should also be noted, that this user engages in double-standards and hypocracy as he frequently attacks other National Team pages while keeping his own, squeaky clean. One needs to only look at the Korean Republic football discussions page and Panairjdde's own discussion page to see the negative impact this user has on the Wikipedia community. Please take all these issues into account, and note that not only I have been foiled by his personal bias, but many other users have clashed with this user, due to his own personal judgements over-ruling the need for good, unbiased Wikipedia pages.

Armenian dram and language icon

I can see your point. But many countries are multi lingual. Take a look at Swiss franc and Finnish mark. If you have a strong reason to remove the language icon from Armenian dram, then make some rules that make sense, and apply that to all currencies. Don't fix one instance of the problem. Fix the entire class of the problem. --Chochopk 00:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So do you think that there *should* be language icons when there are more than 1 language? What about the case where the language name is not implied by the country name (e.g. Malay is the language of Brunei, Dzongkha is the language of Bhutan) --Chochopk 03:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I don't have a problem with that. But I still don't understand what you mean by "part of the lead". Can you give examples? Let's try Rwandan franc, Brunei dollar, and Canadian dollar. About more than 1 non-English language, what about using templates like {{lang-fr}}? --Chochopk 03:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is the lead? --Chochopk 03:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. What I originally intended was to make the currency infobox like country infobox. But I felt country infobox fails to address this issue. But I still think it is important to include this information in the infobox, and language indication is required when 1) there are more than 1 non-English languages, 2) the language spoken is not implied from the country name. I will devise a consistent method of doing so. --Chochopk 03:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. If I <small> them all, would u mind if I put it back for Armenian? --Chochopk 04:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Hello, Circeus, thank you for your support and for your advises. I have now written an answer where I quotate some references. It is so sad to be out of an article because an authoritarian attitude, but I just cannot do the same, because the subjects of my interest are almost the same of Ghirla. As a matter of fact, I suspect that he reviews my contribution list to watch new articles and change them. See Las Médulas, Granada Charterhouse, or the special case of First Romanesque, style that was first denied its existence, (he first thought it was original research, then that it was about the churches in a valley in Catalonia): when given evidences with sources and quotations, he stopped his acusations but then changed the name of the article without any explanation. As other user and I requested for an explication of the change, he just changed again to the former, without a word. It is very hard to work in an enciclopedia with that "help". I have lost most of my time here writing letters to him and trying to dialogue with him. He may be prolific editor, but I am not ashamed of my contributions, I think they are valuable and I don´t deserve such a treatment. Thank you again, and cheer up!--Garcilaso 12:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to ask to you which is the adequate proceeding to inform of the problem or to have some external help. Although I have been writting here for months, I still don´t know how to defend from such attaks. Last one is a clear threat for restoring the chronological order of the interventions at the talk page, formerly changed by him to make no sense of my interventions, that complaint of his silence although he was editing that days. [6]. What can I do? Thank you for advance, --Garcilaso 13:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced Information

Considering you placed the protection tag on the template, I was hoping you can look at the user who I have been edit warring with edits on a related article. The user keeps adding a highly POV unsourced piece of information. When I removed it and told them it violates WP:OR and isnt even attempting to be verified, they tell me to add a fact tag and put it back. I do not understand why anyone would keep adding back information they know to not be verifiable, or why they would attempt to keep it in the article. I understand leaving fact tags perhaps when the original person who cited it cannot be found, but this user simply refuses to provide a source for the statement.

All I have been told by this user is I should rewrite it if I have a problem, but since there no source, whats there to rewrite? I can't state a view differently if there is no source for it at all, and one refuses to be given. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:War on Terrorism

The following articles removed from the template definitely belong there:

1. Bybee memo. It is about the prisoners captured during the War on Terrorism. 2. Combatant Status Review Tribunal. It is about the prisoners captured during the War on Terrorism. 3. Extraordinary rendition. It is about the prisoners captured during the War on Terrorism. 4. Long War. The Bush Administration has callen the War on Terrorism that. 5. Unitary executive theory. It is about the prisoners captured during the War on Terrorism. 6. U.S. government response to the September 11, 2001 attacks. Do I need to explain? 7. Detroit Sleeper Cell. This was certainly not a main event.

The following articles were added, and shouldn't have been:

1. 2002 Bali bombing. This was not a main event. If the Madrid and London attacks are not listed, why this one? 2. Hambali. His organzation's article is listed, and has a link to his. 3. Khadaffy Janjalani. His organzation's article is listed, and has a link to his. 4. Shamil Basayev. His organzation's article is listed, and has a link to his. 5. Moscow theater hostage crisis. The Second Chechen War article is listed, and has a link to it.

Notice that the articles that belong there even the template, and the ones that don't doesn't have it.

As the Second Chechen War and the Al-Aqsa Intifada are ongoing conflicts, they should be listed as "Contemporaneous conflicts", just as the other war templates have that section.

Also, why were the borders of the flags removed?

Please, fix the template accordingly. Esaborio 06:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the borders once because they were causing the names to break off from the flags, my resolution is 1280,1024 and I use IE if that helps. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 11:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We list Koffi Annan when the UN is listed, we list Osama bin Laden when al-Qaeda is listed, we have Ayman al-Zawahiri, who is not even the leader listed. Yet the other group should not have its leader listed? Abu Sayyaf and Jeemah Islamiyah are major players in OEF-P, they are responcible for Oplan Bojinka, they held the summitt that had the 9/11 suicide bombers gathered. They are responcible for the bomings in the Philippines that led to the US involvement in the area, one that was asked for by the government after Abu Sayyaf kidnapped numerous US tourists in the area. They play a bigger role on the terrorist side then most of the nations listed play on the anti-terrorist side.

Yes, but they never appear anywhere, unlike bin Laden and ZAWAHIRI. Esaborio 04:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore it seems Nescio is refusing the even answer the question regarding the 2005 Bali bombing and instead wants to rewrite the entire template. He is actually refusing to answer why he removed it. I find his dismissal of me quite in bad faith, and since that is the issue that originally led to the template being protected, can you please ask Nescio directly to answer why he removed the item. He will ignore me, but perhaps he will nto dismiss you. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do. Esaborio 04:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My main issue is Bali, but just to point out, one of the London bombers specifically stated that Iraq and Afghanistan was there reason for action, it was an attack on a country for their support of the WOT, its obviously relevant. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 11:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with listing the London bombings. Esaborio 04:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, I already have posted my two cents there. Esaborio 04:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I posted on template talk:War on Terrorism. Esaborio 05:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Margherita Gonzaga d'Este

Sorry, how's this? Mak (talk) 23:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Manske assistance

Thank you for your assistance in the Nicole Manske. I just received a DYK today, similar to what I got for Alevtina Kolchina on June 29, 2006. I look forward to working with you on future endeavours. Chris 16:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've been getting a lot of these lately

The Minor Barnstar
For being a brilliant wiki-gnome and contributing to the bettering of many articles, I award Circeus the Minor Barnstar -- Samir धर्म 02:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bot request for ISBN template

I consider myself a budding coder and could probably write some bots. I'd like to write a bot for Project Echo, but I need to get my feet wet. Writing something that only needs to perform a quick check rather than something highly intensive sounds like a good first attempt...if you still need such a bot. If you don't, could you refer me to the person who wrote the bot so I could ask them for some pointers? Xaxafrad 02:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Substituting templates? I'm not familiar with the details regarding the use of the isbn template (including why it's not supposed to be used). I've read the TfD page, and checked out some of the 'What Links Here'. It seems it's been thru TfD twice, and the consensus seemed to be delete. In the future, however, somebody may use the wrong template on several dozen articles and you want to use a bot to change {{ISBN}} into {{ISBN ###############}}? Basically, just tell me the steps you want a bot to perform (download the whatlinkshere page for old template first, I think). Xaxafrad 05:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avifauna cats, and the others

Hi Jean-Sebastian, again you helped me previously, and I just want to give some notes: Montana ended up in Categ:Avifauna of Northwestern United states, and Categ:Avifauna of Plains-Midwest. A few other states could also be put in two categories.

I worked on all of the west, as well as some of Mexico. So there should be constistency on any one page. If you look at a "Natural history of X" page, an idea of what to expect is there. One of the first states i did, (I live in Arizona=) was New Mexico which has the Chihuahuan Desert in the south of the state. the Categ: Rio Grande ended up in the Natural history page of New Mexico. (It is a fairly undeveloped category(Rio Grande).). And keep up my happy guffaws: " A page a day!", a very high ampbition. Michael in HOT,yumaAZ --Mmcannis 13:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what?

I've been floating infoboxes in the top-right corner since day one, as I find whitespace above an infobox to be visually unsettling. The page you've cited does not appear to be an active one, and I don't see any discussion on the talk page regarding the assertion that dablinks should have an unobstructed easement to the right side of the screen. I don't understand the benefit of doing so either. Seems like page-scroll creep to me. — Jul. 16, '06 [18:12] <freak|talk>

Ignoring, for a second, the orange "New messages" banner, can you actually say that this looks well-formated? Also, if the order that elements appear in the page source is more critical than their relative layout on the screen, perhaps we should have the infoboxes' css class force them back up to the top corner of the page? — Jul. 16, '06 [18:46] <freak|talk>
How about this. — Jul. 16, '06 [18:51] <freak|talk>
Believe me, I do see a lot of egregious misuses, which I typically clean up, as I did in this case by creating a disambiguation page, but I often get reverted. Back to the previous question: is there an easy way to keep an infobox in the top right corner rather than below the linebreak(s) created by the disambiguation link(s)? — Jul. 16, '06 [19:08] <freak|talk>
So if we make all the infoboxes use the correct css, fix the broken, non-standard skins, and kill all subst'ed/hand-coded infoboxes with a stick, it can be done... That's a relief. I'll start on it as soon as I find the time. — Jul. 16, '06 [19:30] <freak|talk>

Another thing I just thought about... If I understand correctly, the part of the concern here is readability (err... listenability rather) for visually impaired users, who would have to listen to the infobox text before hearing the dablink. Now I have never used or witnessed the use of a screen reader (and I've heard that the ones that are worth a damn are rather expensive, so not likely to happen), but somebody told me a few months ago during a discussion about infoboxen that certain tags enable the listener to skip various sections at will, including the infobox, and that there was something to that effect in the .css files, and that there were also certain tags affecting the sequence in which text is parsed by the synthesizer (I don't remember the specifics). All that aside, however, I would suggest that if the user cannot determine from the infobox text (only upon reaching the dablink) that he/she is at the wrong article, there is most likely something fundamentally flawed about the infobox itself. — Jul. 16, '06 [19:50] <freak|talk>

I just thought of something else: I was blind, I'd probably prefer for a {{stub}} template to be at the top of an article, so I'd know to skip said article and move on, rather than enjoying one paragraph of prose, and then disappointedly realizing that there is no more content. I'm not trying to be sarcastic or offend people with disabilities... it just seems like it would be a big concern. — Jul. 16, '06 [19:56] <freak|talk>

Revert war

Hi Circeus, I saw your blocking of User:PedroPVZ and User:João Correira because of a revert war. I think it could be better for the template that these two users were unblocked, since they are two of the most important editors on Portuguese issues. Since I've started a discussion in the template talk page trying to solve the issue, I was hoping that the two users in question could work together and share their views. Hope you understand. Thanks. Joaopais 01:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three hours is fine. Thanks for clarifying. Joaopais 01:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good article!

I thought you might be interested to know the article we worked on, "Winston tastes good like a cigarette should," has been promoted to good article status after just one day. Thanks for contributing to a job well done! Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 04:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked user Leyasu is editing again

This time she is using IP 86.143.122.86 And editing the Gothic metal article.Fair Deal 14:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update, add anoth IP...81.157.83.168 same copycat edits to Gothic metal Fair Deal 16:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanku for ed./suggestion re creation of maps

Dear Circeus,

Thank-you for your edit (rm problem causing space) of 10 July on my contribution to the Discussion page for Spanish Baroque. Which was my first edit since acquiring a user name.

Currently I am collaborating with Alessandro57 on aspects of the Borgo XIV rione of Rome article. It occured to me that this article as all artilcles in Wikipedia of a simitar geographical nature for any locality on the globe, would benefit greatly by the special creation of maps. Now I understand that the use of a historial map as illustration where copyright has expired is encoraged BUT, reproducing any map produced recently is not. HOWEVER the inform that any map repoduces is in the public domain. It is the artistic license in the creation of a map, (for example roads may be anywhere from three to ten times actual size) which makes of any map an original work and potentioally liable to breach of copyright. IF however an existing map is sufficiently altered, say by the removal of some of the information, the altering of others, it then becomes in turn a new work of art. I myself have had some experience of the process in that I modified the floor plan of a certain building, to how it might have looked in an earlier period. In my case using scissors and paste. But today with computer scanning, might it not be quite easy to scan a map into the computer and make many alterations quickly and easily. It may require collaboration between someone wise to the ways of altering images and the writer. Selected information refrered to in the article, such as the location of specific buildings could be included on the map' and maybe even a system of cross referencing. Ideally map and text should be as close as possible to each other on the page.

I'm sure that many if not all of the points I've raised have already occured to many wikipedians, but I feel sure that someone with your experience and seniority might be able to direct me appropriately.

thaks again johndvincent--Johndvincent 10:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gothic Metal

Why did yew just revert grammatical corrections to the page? And then protect a vandalised version from IP's being used by Deathrocker to violate his revert parole?

I played a core role in writing the original article. What i did was corrected my own grammatical errors and mass link spam. I also went through the talk page and gathered the most prominent sources, most of which i dont even like (Metal-Archives is a site im reknown for hating), and per WP:EL attached a brief comment explaining the relevance of the page.
So, mind backing it back to the one i just editing grammatically? Yew can knock the sites off if its that much a problem, it doesnt concern me that much. My only intention was to correct the gramma and wording. Check the edit if yew wish.

RfAr involving Zero

Apparently mediation does not improve the current conflict I have with this user. Since I am at my wits end I have filed a case at ArbCom. This is to notify you should you wish to comment there. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 11:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are blogs allowed as external links?

Circeus, User:84.233.226.200 has just added a blog to the external links of the Refrigeration article. The blog is at Refrigeration World. I find it fairly interesting and well-written and my inclination would be to allow it. But does Wikipedia frown on blogs as external links? Please let me know by responding here. - mbeychok 17:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:DYK

Hi - The two Rediff links, and to a minor extent the CPI link are the references for the article. It is not necessary to have book references. But I'll find more net sources just to be safe. This Fire Burns Always 19:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Rediff.com is a credible news site. Its not a blog or an ordinary commercial website (no doubt it is commercial). This Fire Burns Always 19:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then its a minor issue - I'll rectify it immediately. Thanks, This Fire Burns Always 19:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. This Fire Burns Always 20:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The name "Dutta" is commonly spelled "Datta" as well in India. Its true that the sources spell it Datta, but its also spelt Dutta. I'll make this clarification at the top of the article. This Fire Burns Always 20:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nevada State Historic Places

Wow... I'll definitely support deletion of that. In fact, I think I'll list it right now. --SPUI (T - C) 22:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed it at TFD - it shouldn't be hard to make it into a list. --SPUI (T - C) 22:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nevada State Historic Places

When I started that I never realized how many there were. I have been thinking about how to split it up. The only alternative I have is to do one for each county with links to the templates for the other counties. Would doing that make sense? BTW, I have been slowly working down the number of red links in that template. But with the number of missing articles, that will take a while. Vegaswikian 22:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yea, there are link issues in several places. As I was building the template I caught a few. If I split the template into pieces, then the county portions could be placed in the list. That would shorten the list and make navigation between the various sites and counties easier. It would get the list down to a bit over a page for most users. Does that sound like a good way to go? BTW, I did notice the nomination. I also pointed out there that you and I were discussing this here to try and implement a better solution and asking that it not be acted on for now.
    Another option would be to just use that template in line in the list article to improve its layout and deal with the county templates later. This would eliminate the redlink concerns for some of the larger counties that don't have any articles on these places yet. Vegaswikian 23:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ED209 and Vaughan

  • Circeus, first off, thanks for getting involved - I know many admins want to stay away from the Vaughan dispute, but its appreciated. Anyways, I have been contemplating an RfC on ED209 lately, however, after my RfC on User:Eyeonvaughan kinda fizzled out after he was found to be a sockpuppet of User:VaughanWatch, I'm not sure how effective the RfC/U process is. What would you reccomend? Mediation? Arbitration? RfC? - pm_shef 04:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stop posting on Vaughan-related articles like you promised you would. Problem solved. I would probably back off from touching them as well if this occurred. As of right now, my role is to counter-balance your posts in order to maintain some objectivity. ED209 04:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ED, stop this nonsense. Of course it is as far as Wikipedia is concerned, but whether you are stalking pm is not the matter. I'll point out to him that I posted on your talk before he posted here. However, I'd request that you two keep your quabbling on your respective talk pages and out of mine. Mediation is clearly needed here. Circeus 04:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dutta Samant

Updated DYK query On 24 July, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dutta Samant, which you helped create. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for helping fix the refs -- Samir धर्म 13:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OWN

Neither you have editorial control. Please learn to resolve editorial conflicts peacefully, through mediation and arbitration procedures and not through blocks. Your taciturn revert warring will not be tolerated. --Ghirla -трёп- 15:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dont worry, please watch the article for instances such as this [11] (minus the $) and dont let yourself be intimidated. Ghirla and conflict is like Khan and war :D from what I have read. See Sortavala for what is happening :(. After making one edit to my family's hometown I have come across this editor, checked his history, talk... seems his smugness and overblown ego results in childish hissy fits, name-calling and personal offence. 83.5.250.98 22:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility

To me "Thanks, no really, thanks soo much for helping us to "save" this article of shit. " seems like a very sarcastic, vulgar and uncivil remark. I am surprised that you would try to describe it otherwise. Kappa 16:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Persondata

Hey, Thanks for the screenshot.
--Jerzy•t 17:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Circeus&oldid=65641632"