User talk:WilyD

Template:Jwelcome Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 17:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Babe Ruth

I'm posting this message on you Talk Page either because you've contributed to the article Babe Ruth, or because you've edited other baseball or sports related articles. I've recently completed a revision of this article at Babe Ruth/rewrite. If you have the time, I'd appreciated it if you'd compare the articles and leave any feedback you might have on the rewrite discussion page. I'd like to reach a consensus before makeing major changes to the main article. Thanks for your help. --djrobgordon 20:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canadio-Americans

I'm leaving this off of the other talk pages because I very much agree with the overall gist of your comments on "American". However, I'm quite certain that on at least one occasion, probably two or three times, maybe more, I've heard Canadian people express the sentiment that, in theory, they are also Americans because they come from North America. Thus, they would be willing to be called "American" in a context where it was clear that it didn't refer specifically to the U.S. That said, I'm sure that you and many other people would be generally offended at being called American. Personally, I'm from Chicago, and I find it a bit offensive that people don't want me to call myself American, although rarely get worked up about it and would probably never punch anyone over it.

In the interest of greater friendship and collegiality between peoples, what say we on both sides of the border just start calling ourselves "Canadio-Americans" instead? - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 21:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scarborough[1][2]

I bes saving this

Scarborough nicknames

Thanks for adding your thoughts to the discussion. However, I predict that User:Dscarborough will stomp on your edits within 24 hours. --Atrian 18:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mastery of English

If tomorrow the Americans changed the name of the country to Walamazoo and insisted the proper adjective for them is Nurple, the proper name of their country would still be United States of America and the proper adjective would still be American.

Apropos of nothing, how do you feel about Mumbai? Sumergocognito 22:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm somewhat ambivalent about Mumbai myself, I guess Chennai is now the proper name of that city though, I wonder what becomes of Madras shorts. Where there's a genuine change of name it seems easier to go along, rather than when a non-English speaking government purports to lecture us about English orthography (cf. Kyiv, Makkah). As for the Skydome, I applaud your cussedness. Sumergocognito 23:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have access to JSTOR? It would be helpful to have a second pair of eyes look over the articles Deep is citing to. For the life of me I can't see where he gets it is apparent that that wasn't the only meaning in English, nor was it considered appropriate. out of Mencken's article. All Mencken did was catalog the various alternatives to American which had been proposed up to 1947. He didn't opine on the propriety of contemporary usage and he also documented (without remorse) how quickly any alternative term for Americans bit the dust. Sumergocognito 21:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PROD/AFD/CSD

As a quicker way of PROposing an article for Deletion (hence PROD), you can stick a tag on the page as follows. {{subst:prod|Add reasons here, and mention WP:NOT, WP:CORP, WP:WEB or whatever the reason is }}. Details at WP:PROD, but basically it gets deleted if tagged for a week. If someone disagrees, they can remove the template. In that case you'd need to open an AFD as you've done.

You can also check the speedy deletion criteria at WP:CSD. They are fairly limited in scope, and it's pretty simple, just add the appropriate db-something template. If you have several reasons, you might use db-reason and list them all, but one is enough. On AFD pages people usually write A1 or G4 rather than "Article lacks context" or "Recreation of previously deleted material". Hope this makes sense. If not, or if you have any other questions, please leave a note on my talk page. Best wishes, Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, saw that comment also. You might want to read Wikipedia:Introduction to Deletion Process to get an overview of the whole thing. PROD is a good timesaver, but if you're new, it may be worth developing a sense of what deletions are controversial before starting to use it a lot. Cheers! Mango juice^talk 03:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pedantic comments

Hi. Please refrain from pedeantic comments and stick to the subject at hand, making sure that you eastablish clear logical connections between premises (i.e. propaganda for ... because, etc.) in a civil manner. Thanks in advance. Regards, El_C 14:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive moves

Hi. You are not being responsive and you are not addressing the issues presented in a substantively way. Do not move the page again without substantive discussion, or this will be viewed as disruption, which you may be blocked from editing for. Thanks. El_C 20:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I've stated numerous times, my only concern is that WP:Consensus is followed. If you want to ban me for adhering to that policy, feel free. There isn't much I can do about it, but a wikipedian must have principles. WilyD 20:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to appeal my decision in however way you see fit. El_C 20:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Invasion of the Tribbles

Kudos for keeping your cool on the The Invasion of the Tribbles deletion page. I laughed out loud when I read your response to that IP. Geedubber 01:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice AfD message

Thank you for giving a wonderful alternative name for the NPOV policy. (-: Anville 17:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

portal

The other ones had ZPORT and HPORT--D-Boy 19:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

question

From what you know, was Quebec considered one of the "American Colonies" between 1763 and 1776? If not, then perhaps the origin of the regular use of the term "American" is when the American Colonists dumped the term "Colonist" after the Declaration of Independence.

Also, if you have time, take a look at the Royal Royal Proclamation of 1763 which provided for the incorporation of Quebec and Florida as British possessions after the French and Indian War. It refers three times to the "Continent of North America" but also uses the term "America" by itself. Uses of the latter are somewhat ambiguous but in each case seem (to me) to read as "the parts of North America that were already British, before the war". One could argue, I suppose, that "America" is used in an interchangeable way with "North America" but I seriously doubt that there are linguistic accidents in legal documents of this importance. Thanks- Sumergocognito 10:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... then the terrorists have won.

Just wanted to say that your comment on the AfD page for The terrorists have won was 1) brilliant, 2) overdue, and 3) hysterical. Good work. Tcatts 17:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures of Toronto schools

In reply to your comment on WP:EiC:

Thanks, that would be much appreciated! --Stephane Charette 20:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English Speaking populations

Thanks - I think the list is beginning to shape up now. -- Avenue 02:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gretzky

Hi, WilyD. I see that you replaced the image of Gretzky in the The Greatest Canadian article with a fair use image. I don't know if you noticed in the article history, but Thivierr recently replaced a previous Gretzky image in that photo montage with a non-fair use image, on the basis that: "fair use replaced with free - note: fair use images should *never* appear in galleries like this". I seem to recall having seen a wikipolicy at some point to that effect, but of course I cannot find the policy now. You may want to contact Thivierr to discuss the issue. --Skeezix1000 19:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well, I'm not convinced it isn't fair use, but I double-checked and Wikipedia does have a public licence image of Gretzky, so I swapped it for that. When I cam across the article, the image was busted, which is why I changed it. WilyD 21:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, both the Cherry and Gretzky images (which are otherwise identical in usage) are licensed as fair use promotional materials - so I'm not clear on the overall point. WilyD 21:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who knows. I just wanted to let you know about a recent edit summary. I have now found the policy reference I referred to earlier, which says: "Fair use images may never be included as part of a photo montage, as their status as being "fair use" depends on their proper use in the context of an article (as part of criticism or analysis)". It's up to you to decide if you agree with Thivierr's interpretation or not. --Skeezix1000 21:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Thivierr didn't go after the Don Cherry image because its fair use source information was added after Thivierr made his edit to The Greatest Canadian (according to the article history). --Skeezix1000 21:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need your help

I saw your comments and edit to State terrorism in Syria. It was well done and appropriate. I began to peel of individual state terrorism articles from the main State terrorism page so as to minimize edit wars. first was Syria and second is Sri Lanka. I need your help in State terrorism in Sri Lanka page too. A vandal who has a POV towards the state of Sri Lanka wants to delete the article based on what he saw in the Syria article. If you can help us there, I can continue my project of peeling of individual countries section from the State terrorism article and make it an appropriate entry. My next target is Sudan, Iran...Huracane 12:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WilyD, I welcome your comments and your balanced observations.As you can see the existing article had a strong POV against Sri Lanka. the article "state terrorism in sri lanka" is taken verbatim from "state terrorism" page , and its content has existed for a number of days. I did not know it is permissible to delete anything even if it is not cited. My problem is users on this page tend to cite from sites which exist as propoganda outlets for the designated terrorist organisation LTTE. E.g:- tamilnet.com, tamilnation.com. Are citations from propaganda websites allowable. My preference is for neutral organizations like BBC, UN, CNN, EU and Amnesty International. Also let me know how long I should wait for citations to be added.Ruchiraw 14:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments WilyD. There appears to be consensus on what is State terrorism on the originating page. The following introduction at the top of the State terrorism page defines what is and what is not state terrorism.

State terrorism is a controversial term (see:State terrorism. Confines and definition), which means violence against civilians perpetrated by a national government or proxy state. Whether a particular act is described as "terrorism" may depend on whether the International community considers the action justified or necessary, or whether the described act is carried out as part of an armed conflict. It has to be mentioned, that the opinion of the , so called, International community cannot be defined and determined with proper neutrality. State terrorism, where applicable, may be directed toward the population or infrastructure of the state in question or towards the population of other states. Although attacks on non-combatant civilians may occur during a time of war, they are usually considered terrorism, especially if these are not attacks on the enemy's war fighting capacity (for example an industrial port). The terrorism may be carried out by the state's own forces, such as an army, police, state supported militias, or other organisations, where it is more usually called state-sponsored terrorism.Care should be taken to differentiate state terrorism from acts of violence carried out by government agents which are not specified by government policy. A murder carried out by a policeman, for example, is not considered state terrorism unless the government sanctioned the action.

As you can see , it is generally agreed that state terrorism must involve a policy of government sanctioned violence.So even low level organised incidents such as My Lai massacre and Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse would qualify as state violence or war crimes (acts of violence carried out by government agents which are not specified by government policy) but not as state terrorism. As Colin Powell said , these things (civilian killings) occur in war. Every army of every nation throughout history has committed war crimes against civilians. It wouldn't be fair to say the actions of a few deranged people in its security forces constitute state terrorism. However I dont deny Black July appears to have been organised by the Sri Lanka government at the time. It has its own separate page however.Ruchiraw 15:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shall I add an introduction saying that the user should see the state terrorism page to form his own judgement as to what constitutes state terrorism. The main page users appear to be in consensus but the State terrorism in Sri Lanka page users are not. Ruchiraw 15:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

State terrorism

Hello, thanks for your hard work in State terrorism in Sri Lanka article. I have also organized without consensus the main article of State terrorism please take a look. Thanks RaveenS 16:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have peeled off another very volatile one. See State terrorism by United States of America. Thanks RaveenS

Thanks for your hard work see the new version State terrorism in Sri Lanka. It is in and it is because ofyour early support and encouragementRaveenS

honeybee dance language AFD

Good evening. There have been some new facts and evidence presented in the discussion since your last edit. When you have a minute, would you mind taking the time to revisit the discussion? Thanks. Rossami (talk) 22:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm stealing your bit.

"Wikipedia, she be many things..." cracks me up so much that I plan on using it when I prod articles. :) -- Merope 15:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This Article is hard to write?

What does "this article is hard to write" mean? Mike33 12:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a "little obtuse" it is completely meaningless. You have a completely different understanding of verbum sap sapiente. Explaination saves time. it also saves you replying to missives like this. Be clear be bold EXPLAIN what you are trying to say. Mike33 13:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I list the Afd purely because the amount of editors involved would take months to resolve. verbosity is not clarity, and clarity is not vague phrases:

"Keep articles for deletion is not cleanup, nor is this article is hard to write a good criterion for deletion" Mike33 13:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now this was verbose:

Given that two editors "dittoed" me, I'm not sure my sentiment was as vague as you found it. Whilst it is almost certainly the case that I could've been more precise, it ain't my natural inclination to write long essays about articles that are obvious keeps. I'm not sure it'd be possible for me to adopt a verbal style that would never confuse anyone. For what it's worth, articles for deletion is a discussion, not a vote - if it is the case that my arguments are poorly reasoned or incomprehensible, then they'll be discounted anyhow. In general, I would expect (although it may be foolish of me) for anyone reading my comments to be familiar with the rational for deletion - so I'm not sure it's all that beneficial to reiterate them in my discussion. Short and sweet can also be too short or rot your teeth - and I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough for you - but I would worry that rehashing too much will just clutter up the discussion. WilyD 13:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mike33"

Clearly we have a misunderstanding. I have no gripes about a keep (by the way when have i ever suggested that Afd was a VOTE?). You didn't make an argument, a simple keep would have fulfilled the goal. Italic this article is hard to write implied that i made the statement. To anyone not familiar to admin parlez, it is just a meanless string of words. Editors surely "ditto"ed your Keep not this article is hard to write (see All your base are belong to us). It can't only be me, that didn't understand what you were trying to say. I am not asking for a gold bull, all i need to say is that a string of words is not necessarily as meaningful to the viewer, as it was the writer. Mike33 16:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok sweet, my apologies too. hope we meet in wikipedia in happier circumstances, your friend, Michael West Mike33 16:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spam

It's still heavily processed chopped-up meat, no matter how you serve it or waht you serve it with. Lurker ^oi! 17:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments at Talk:Canada

Was interested in your comments re: linking to message forums. My understanding is that external links should be presented only when they lead to an alternate source of information that will expand the reader's knowledge on the article in question. Is there a specific policy on links to forums? I recently debated the article on army.ca and suggested it be deleted. The result was "no consensus", but I find that most of the links in the article are to forum postings. In other words, this is a self-referential article about a web forum (non-notable, in my view) that uses its own postings as 'evidence' of some of its claims of notability, and as the sole reference to other claims such as forum membership. Is there anywere I can go to see a discussion of the use of web forums as external links and as "source" material. It's an interesting subject, and I think I may agree with your assessment that they should "never" be used as an external link but would be interested in seeing the views of others. Would also be interested in your input at the army.ca article re: the use of self-referential footnotes from the forum itself, considering the article is about the forum to begin with. At the very least, the use of an external link as a footnote to the description of every single subforum should be removed, but I find my edits are being reverted there due to personality conflicts. Would welcome your thoughts.Michael Dorosh 17:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Bonomo

In the AFD of that article, you 'voted' to delete because of verifiability problems. Please note that the article is now referenced, and that many more sources were discussed in the first AFD and the deletion review. Grindingteeth 22:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lists

I don't want you to get the wrong idea that I'm just going after lists for the hell of it. Like you I believe they can serve a useful purpose. I just don't think that the two we happen to ben voting on do.

I'm interested why you particularly feel that the composers list is an "obvious" keep. This isn't a challenge or a confrontation. I'm interested to know what utility it has that I'm overlooking. I'm perfectly willing to admit I could be wrong, and if I am I'd like to be enlightened. Cain Mosni 17:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your list IS worthwhile

The list (art magazines) you created is/was up for deletion. I want you to know there is a place for it: http://wikitistics.com . No one will be able to nominate it for deletion because it fits one simple rule: it's a statistic, list, or figure. Good luck with your endeavors! Joe 18:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Bush

I don't know what that list said, but see Michael Dutton Douglas. --Dhartung | Talk 20:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External Link

Thanks, I think I will approach RIC. Cheers. Joe 21:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]