User talk:Chadloder

Can somebody PLEASE tell me how to use hypertext anchors for footnotes? I want to add footnotes to an article using an anchor #someanchor like this, but I don't know how to do the <a name="someanchor"> part later on...I'd appreciate any help.

Hello and Welcome! I hope you like the place. Nice edits BTW! --mav

Hi. I'll make a comment, as per your request, in a few hours time. Right now I need to get to sleep. Mintguy

Hey, nice work. Welcome to the 'pedia. -- Zoe

Hi, I do have the time to write a Baraka article but I haven't yet seen it (!). I know it's been heavily praised; it's been on my to-see list for years. You've just pushed it to the front. :-) Best, Koyaanis Qatsi

Well, I never even heard of it till now. However, I don't think you need to disambiguate it by Baraka (film), Baraka should be fine. I can write it up, but I would only be pulling in facts, not opinion. -- Zoe

Well there is the poet Amiri Baraka, but I don't think people typically refer to him by his last name only. I think I'll see the film this weekend; I'm sick of these dry documentaries I'm watching in class. ^_^ Koyaanis Qatsi

I do think Baraka does need to be distinguished, not just because of Amiri Baraka. It was also a novel by John Ralston Saul. It is also the word for blessing in many languages and refers to an Islamic concept whereby blessings can be transferred from one person to another. Chadloder

PS - If you buy Baraka on DVD, try to buy the new edition. It's a new film->DVD transfer. I own both editions and the earlier one has lots of weird artifacts.

I put it on hold at the downtown library; I'm picking it up tomorrow. Er, today. After I nap. Best, Koyaanis Qatsi

Hi there. What is a "shortstop"? Shortstop or Famous shortstops needs to explain this; don't assume readers are familiar with US culture. -- Tarquin 11:53 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

Good point. Chadloder 12:37 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

Hi I made a comment on the Talk:Battle of Bennington page yesterday, about the use of the word Mercenaries, but Wikipedia was responding very slowly at the point and it didn't take my edit. so I logged off. I'm not sure my comment added anything useful though. Your point is well made. Mintguy

Welcome to Wikipedia, Chad! I'll stub something on Tron, but don't expect too much .. --Eloquence 23:14 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

Read your goodbye post in Talk:Kosovo War. I'm not yet convinced either, but I'm going to give it a little more time. Unfortunately there is no way to force contributors to come up with better cites before being allowed to "improve" factual articles. I don't see any way to cure the Kosovo War situation either. But you made many improvements to the wikipedia while you were here.

I'm sorry to hear that some POV creep over that the Kosovo article has driven you off. Normally there would be several other people there fighting against POV kooks but since we were Slashdotted and recently received other media attention the number of new and anon users has increased dramatically. The old hands are overwhelmed right now with all the new users. Please understand that this is not normal around here: usually it is the other way around. This will change in time as people drop out and others conform to our standards of neutrality and quality. After a few days please consider coming back - I really have enjoyed reading your contributions and would like to see more. :-) --mav

I'm sorry to find that you've gone and I echo Mav's words. A form of evolution takes place on the content of articles on Wikipedia. An Article mutates when a user comes along and decides it doesn't meet with his own understanding of the issue. They may add important information but with a biased editorial, which is then found objectionable by someone else, so that the article mutates again. Eventually a balance is found which appeased both sides, at least for a time. Most articles find the equilibrium fairly quickly, whilst some are almost endless battles, but it seems like a fun process to me. Mintguy

Just to let you know, the UK came into existence in 1707, and the USA in 1783. The significance of 1776 is conception, not birth. PML.

PML, why don't you sign in? Makes talking about this stuff a bit easier. The significance of 1776 is that the states first referred to themselves as the United States of America in their Declaration of Independence. That is birth and conception.

I might add that nobody referred to the United Kingdom as the United Kingdom in 1812. The war was between England and the United States. Can you provide a reference to a speech during this period where somebody is talking about a war between the Americans and the United Kingdom? All the speeches I've read from those on either side of the pond say England.

Furthermore, the American colonies did not see themselves as fighting against the United Kingdom, but rather against England herself. Were they fighting against Wales, Ireland, or Scotland (not counting the presence of a few dragoons or other conscripts from those countries)? I don't think so...

I don't sign in because of issues of which equipment I am using from time to time. NO, 1776 is not birth. There are numerous parallels. Taking a US one, would you say that the CSA existed as a sovereign state, or merely attempted to become one? Declaring independence only worked in areas under US control or influence, i.e. the USA only existed in embryo. Or the ridiculous Indonesian declaration of independence, before the Dutch police actions had come and gone. Think how many emperors of Rome were declared but got considered usurpers who failed. So, no, the USA did not come into existence until the treaty of Ghent; there were just people working to make it. Their wishful thinking is what is commemorated by 1776, since until they won they were just a bunch of rebels. That's how it works - and if they themselves hadn't understood that, they wouldn't have got their act together to deal with it. Some of them barely did get the idea in time as it was. Oh, and you are WRONG about "England" - check with JTDIRL. You may well find any references to "Britain", though. Where do you think phrases like "the British are coming" came from, if not ordinary usage? The American colonists did not see themselves as fighting England but Britain; that was the combined thing that had emerged, and your seeing them as a separate set of countries is just precisely the error of not recognising identity properly, done the other way round from recognising an identity too soon. PML.

OK, Britain or England, but not the United Kingdom. Although I think it's silly to say Britain when you really mean England -- or did Ireland, Wales, and Scotland have a vote as to whether they wanted to go to war? Chadloder

Um. I am afraid this may sound offensive, so I must apologise in advance. This is a technical area, and you do not understand it. Luckily, you can find a lot about it in Jtdirl's work. Here, you think "Britain or England, but not the United Kingdom." Actually, it's "Britain or the United Kingdom, but not England." And what has voting got to do with anything? Democratic formalisms like that came along much later. I very definitely do NOT mean England - it's actually offensive to someone of my background to have that conflation. PML.

I think I may have misread "England... did Ireland, Wales, and Scotland have a vote as to whether they wanted to go to war?" If you meant, "England was represented in parliament but the others weren't and didn't even have that much say" - well, no, they did indeed have a voice of sorts, at least as much as England had. Ireland still had its separate parliament, but the other countries/province were indeed represented in the parliament of the UK. None of these parliaments were precisely democratic, though. PML.

PML -- Sorry, you're completely wrong. I'm not conflating anything, I'm saying if you insist on saying United Kingdom even when it was England's war, at least use a term that was in use at the time (Britain). Saying United Kingdom to refer to this war is like using the word Iran to refer to ancient Persia. Consider that this war is called the British-American War, not the UK-American War.

You're also completely wrong about the USA not coming into existence until the Treaty of Ghent. I'm assuming you meant the Treaty of Paris in 1783. Chadloder

Regarding UK vs England vs Britain, I really don't have anything to contribute. Regarding the CSA, yes indeed it did exist as a soverign state until it was conquered by its neighbor. And finally, regarding the United States, the date England's recognition has no bearing on anything except the date of England's recognition. -º¡º

Dear Chad: Hi. Its curious you used London and Paris as examples in my talk page because there aremany cities named London and Paris, for example, London, Canada, and Paris, Georgia. As you can see, in those cases yes we need to differ each city. As far as the other cities, well, not too many people know where Aibonito or Bogota are. As a matter of a fact, there is a Bogota, New Jersey.

We dont even know how many Cairos, Aibonitos or Buenos Aires there are for that matter.

thank you and God bless you

Sincerely yours, Antonio I am Cornholioooo!! Martin

Antonio, I know there are ambiguities, but everybody knows what I mean when I say London, Cairo, and Paris. We should not be adding the country names to the article if not necessary.

But sometimes it is! Look at it this way: if someone knows a Tokyo in the Urals or Finland or whatever, and they want to read about THAT Tokyo, they wouldnt want to land at a page that talks about the Tokyo mostly everyone knows (which I think is the only Tokyo there is, by the way but you never know).

Thank you and God bless you!

Antonio Sex Cat Martin

OK, a sketch of the Society of Cincinnati is now out there. Let me know what you think. Also Enoch Poor is on my to do list. I might even get around to Bunker Hill one of these years, but there are so many missing 'shorter articles'. I don't like to create open cross links if I can avoid it. Lou I

I've also added a bio for Enoch Poor, so you can take him off your list. I found and uploaded an image, but I'm stil having problems getting images to display. The back end of his bio could use more info, but ?I needed the fiurst part to tie to the battle of Freeman's Farm. ;-) Lou I 19:57 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Sysop status approved

Congratulations, you have just been made a sysop! You have volunteered for boring housekeeping activities which normal users sadly cannot participate in. Sysops basically can't do anything: They cannot delete pages arbitarily (only obvious junk like "jklasdfl,öasdf JOSH IS GAY"), they cannot protect pages in an edit war they are involved in, they cannot ban signed in users. What they can do is delete junk as it appears, ban anonymous vandals, remove pages that have been listed on Votes for deletion for more than a week, protect pages when asked to by other members, and help keep the few protected pages there are, among them the precious Main Page, up to date.

Note that almost everything you can do can be undone, so don't be too worried about making mistakes. You will find more information at Wikipedia:Administrators, please take a look before experimenting with your new powers. Drop me a message if there are any questions or if you want to stop being a sysop (could it be?). Have fun!—Eloquence 22:14, Aug 5, 2003 (UTC)

Hi, I wonder if there is a good case for having badger as such, rather than Badger (animal)? I've never even heard of the other use, and I'm a Brit. The mammal use is clearly far more important. jimfbleak

(I deleted a response that was unattributed). I agree with you. Here's what happened. Badger used to link directly to the animal. Someone (not I) made it a disambiguation page and moved Badger to Badger (animal). I took some steps to reverse this change, deleting the disambig. page and making Badger link to Badger (animal), because whoever made the change did not follow the rules. Chadloder 18:57, Aug 6, 2003 (UTC)

Ranjith Hi Chadloder Thanks for the message. Glad you liked the Zakir Hussain page that I created. Well, as far as Indian Music is concerned, I know a little bit. I am not an expert though.

Qawaali is a form of Islamic sufi music, let me know which artists you are looking for and i will try get some info on them.
Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan was (he died some time back) was a very popular Qawaali singer
Ustad can probably be considered as a title of respect, literal translation means Master or Expert, will confirm this.
I will try to do whatever little I can to improve Indian Music page, but I dont think am competent enough to do that.

Peace Ranjith

When you have a moment I would really appreciate it if you took a look at Wikipedia:Selected Articles on the Main Page. Thanks. :) --mav 07:35, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Again, please read the above guidelines. Here is an executive summary; only events are to be listed (no birth or death listings unless they mark a 100 year increment), no stubs and no articles that do not have context in them (meaning no link to a recent day page; people need to know why an entry is listed by reading the article). --mav 18:54, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

By which criteria did you de-list 1998 U.S. embassy bombings? Chadloder 18:56, Aug 7, 2003 (UTC)

It is a stub. The whole purpose of Selected Articles is to select good examples of our articles based on certain themes. 1998 U.S. embassy bombings is not a good example of one of our articles. --mav

Nice work expanding 1998 U.S. embassy bombings! That is another reason why the guidelines are written the way they are: to encourage people to update the articles in order to get them listed. --mav

Hey, Chad :) Perhaps the old Fez, Morocco would have made a decent article under Fez - was the copy good enough to consist of an article? I don't think it needed to be deleted fully. Dysprosia 05:25, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I see. You're a stubsnob. Someone who doesnt appreciate the value of someones stubbery. Perhaps youd like to grade the quality of everyones work while your at it, so that people with knowledge wont get confused, seeing as how theres a a stub already there, and all. Thanks for your comments. Theyre really appreciated somewhere.--戴&#30505sv 08:26, Sep 17, 2003 (UTC)

I "should know better" what? 戴&#30505sv

Hey Chad, I've added an image to Tabla. The idea was to not just show the tabla but how the hands are placed and how fingers move on it. Jay 10:21, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Recent changes

Hi Chadloder, I am trying to keep VfD at a sensible size by moving off-topic discussions to the appropriate place. Hence, I have moved your request to Wikipedia talk:Recentchanges and responded to it there. In summary, I agree but obedience was a bad example and it's not just sysops who can edit that page. Take care, Angela

If I were....

Strange coincidence there... I decided that there was no apparent encyclopedic use of the term after several days on recentchanges and left a message that I was removing it just as you were writing a stub on a (probably unintenionally) related subject worthy of a redirect... The chances of that must be one in a million. Tuf-Kat 07:00, Dec 17, 2003 (UTC)

Hehe, I got sick of seeing it too. Chadloder 07:05, Dec 17, 2003 (UTC)

George Tenet

Hi, I noticed that you started George Tenet, and I was wondering where you found the birthday for Tenet? I'm looking up some other birthdays that might be found in the same source. Thanks, and please answer on my talk page. I really appreciate itMeelar 18:51, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Seeing ChrisO's comment at Talk:NATO bombing campaign in Yugoslavia (by the way, I agree that "Legitimacy of..." was a better name), I'd just want to warn you that when he says "This article needs a lot of reworking.", he means that he intends to rewrite the entire article from his own POV, leaving little or nothing of the original contents, as he already did so on several articles related to history of the Balkans. I hope that you could somewhat prevent him from doing so on this article, as it is exceedingly neutral.