User talk:Aecis/Messages 325-336

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
User talk:Aecis
Archived messages
Messages 1-12 • Messages 13-24 • Messages 25-36 • Messages 37-48 • Messages 49-60 • Messages 61-72 • Messages 73-84 • Messages 85-96 • Messages 97-108 • Messages 109-120 • Messages 121-132 • Messages 133-144 • Messages 145-156 • Messages 157-168 • Messages 169-180 • Messages 181-192 • Messages 193-204 • Messages 205-216 • Messages 217-228 • Messages 229-240 • Messages 241-252 • Messages 253-264 • Messages 265-276 • Messages 277-288 • Messages 289-300 • Messages 301-312 • Messages 313-324 • Messages 325-336 • Messages 337-348 • Messages 349-360 • Messages 361-372 • Messages 373-384 • Messages 385-396 • Messages 397-408 • Messages 409-420 • Messages 421-432 • Messages 433-444 • Messages 445-456 • Messages 457-468 • Messages 469-480 • Messages 481-492 • Messages 493-504 • Messages 505-516
Archived Wikipedia Signposts
Signposts 1-12 • Signposts 13-24 • Signposts 25-36 • Signposts 37-48 • Signposts 49-60 • Signposts 61-72 • Signposts 73-84 • Signposts 85-96 • Signposts 97-108
Archived newsletters
Alternative music: 1-12 • 13-24
Formula One: 1-12 •
Military history: 1-12 • 13-24

Gigi Becali[edit]

Hello! Some time ago ( you've marked that article as NPOV, but you never detailed on the talk page why exactly you did that. 7 months since that date, the article has changed pretty much: Could you please check it out and see if the template should still stand? In that case, please also point in the talk page the precise reasons for that! Thank you very much! --Vlad|-> 15:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello again and thank you very much for having answered my message! I've read the article carefully, and I can tell you that unfortunately (for him) the article presents a perfectly balanced image of the character. And once again, unfortunately for him, this is what he is: an unbalanced balance. As anyone can easily see, each and every paragraph is referenced (true, only with links from Romanian media, but only because GB is a favorite subject of Romanian media, but not at all as a "threat to politics", but mostly like a curiosity and with increasing popularity, due to his crude, and often foul language. So, all in all, like I've already said, if you feel like it, please feel free and re-add the npov tag once again (maybe pointing to these discussions) or if you want, you can raise the issue on the Romanian noticeboard. But as I've seen from your Babel, you haven't indicated your level of knowledge of Romanian, so it might be difficult to discuss a subject without understanding the referenced sources (like for instance I wouldn't ever think of arguing about a Dutch-related issue without being able to understand a iota of Dutch! :)~--08:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)~~
I'm sorry if I've offended you by questioning your Romanian skills, it wasn't my intention at all (as I see now that you've got a certain level of understanding! :) And unfortunately, my Dutch is far worse than your Romanian (like I've already said), so I have to take your word for granted (about using the Romanian article about Cadrilater in The article you've pointed it's unfortunately a little bit too long for me to read it entirely (I'm a little short on time, like you). So once again I take your word for granted, and once more I urge you to mark the article as NPOV if you still feel it's the case! Thank you very much for all your messages so far and have a nice day! --Vlad|-> 13:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I see. So you want to create some subsections: anti-Roma, anti-gay etc. Of course I don't mind, after all we're all here on wikipedia to make it better and the editors motto is: "be bold!" --Vlad|-> 06:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


Hm, I suppose I should have explained that better, sorry about that. As you probably know, deletion debates are not decided by a vote count, but rather by weight of arguments. In general, categories with unclear inclusion criteria are considered not such a good idea (the overcategorization guideline has some thoughts on that). There are a number of fictional characters for whom being fugitive has a clear and continuous impact on the story (e.g. "The Fugitive" from the series), but there are also many for whom "being on the run" is mentioned in their backstory but isn't really important throughout the story, and there are many for whom the "fugitive status" is a temporary plot point that is resolved in the next chapter. Aside from that, the categorized characters really don't have all that much in common. Contrary to what Petri says, in general fictional characters are categorized by their fictional characteristics, not by plot elements. HTH! >Radiant< 08:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  • No problem, I'm not at all bothered by the questions. I'd say that Category:Fictional characters by situation is in itself somewhat dubious (e.g. is "disease" really a "situation"?) but the difference is that an adoptee or rape victim does not in later part of the plot become not an adoptee or rape victim - whereas a fugitive generally stops fleeing later in the plot. There are always exceptions, but vaguely defined cats are generally deleted because they're not useful for finding things. >Radiant< 10:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Elaine Summers / section on Kinetic Awareness[edit]

Dag Aecis,
Why did you delete this section and after I had just asked for more time to correct it, yesterday? I've re-read IT again and cannot agree with your classification as a WP:COATRACK - which on the User:Weregerbil/Coatrack article is (self-admittedly?) said to be "the official policy of absolutely nobody".

Summers' choreography is closely linked to Kinetic Awareness and as such I argue that it has a right to be mentioned in an article about her.

I had just re-written it yesterday since Yamara had pointed out to me that in its previous form it was more like an advertising than an objective encyclopedic text. I've cleaned all, to what I thought was to the absolute bone. To then have the entire section removed by you, not Yamara, without further advance notice and especially after I've just requested to give me time for re-writing by inserting a "hangon" mark, is a quite a stunt.

Here's my argumentation against this section being covert advertising:
This specific kind of body work has been around since the 1960s. It has been written about by others than me, and others than Kinetic Awareness practitioners (although admittedly not many) These are a.o. Sally Banes and Anne-Sargent Wooster.
Given that I have correctly understood the guidelines, the writings of these two women are qualified as secondary research, and I have mentioned them in the sources. In these articles you will find the historical information from which sources Summers developed this body work, about how the work is structured and what its goals are. The approach to exercises in this body work is a characteristic, other body work has very different strategies. I fail to see how the listing of these items still qualify as hidden advertising. The one thing I could have done, on re-reading is to change the in-text weblink to the Kinetic Awareness Center and put it down to the links at the bottom.

When you find time to respond I'd appreciate it, also if you'd leave a mark that in any case you've read this.
Thomas Körtvélyessy 23:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Aecis! Thank you very much for your quick and detailed answer. I appreciate your points and line of argumentation as very clear and logically well-reasoned. I will try to respond accordingly by giving it a second try, now having quite a bit more clarity about your points of objections. Thank you again for being specific and to the point.

My plan is to be more tight with the references on which I base my content in this section, especially where it concerns validation of reliable secondary sources about Elaine Summers as the originator of Kinetic Awareness, and being very sec about the work itself, indeed presenting its proclaimed aims and perspective as exactly that, not as facts. I will also try to get this done for the entire article.

It may be a long way before I will reach the detailedness that I find in the comparable article on Moshe Feldenkrais, but I will go for it. I will notify you when I have the section ready. Once again thanks for your prompt sincerity.
best wishes,
Thomas Körtvélyessy 22:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Arden Wohl[edit]

sorry I was just trying to add a "hang on" tag ..didnt mean to mess with anything...could you please take the time to look at how I fixed the article up and take off the deletion tag! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tweety21 (talkcontribs).


Updated DYK query On 10 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article IJsselmeervogels, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 17:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The Hitler Game[edit]

You had no right to delete this article. If you do not believe that it should be on wikipedia, could you please tag it AfD, rather than simply removing it yourself. Morevisit 23:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The Hitler Game[edit]

The Hitler Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Wikipedia should be a community site, not one man's vendetta Morevisit 23:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


Sounds great. I'll finish writing the questions, and get in touch with you later this week to get a head start. Ral315 » 04:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Zakspeed 861[edit]

Thanks for your message. I don't disagree with your removal of the {{prod}} tag and don't intend to pursue the deletion of either article. In fact, I am truly impressed with the amount of expansion that took place; I would never have thought that multiple sources could exist about a single car. If you wouldn't mind, please pass on my sentiments to the members of Formula One project. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 22:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

List of Formula One records[edit]

I'm done, thanks for waiting. mattbuck 16:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Andrea Lanzani is the same as Lanzano[edit]

I quick glance at Italian names in the Getty Museum database (ULAN) shows how this can be a nightmare, I will redirect one to the other using the preferred ULAN name. Thanks. CARAVAGGISTI 18:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Osterritter's death[edit]

I see you added a mention about Osterritter's death to Wikipedia:Deceased_Wikipedians#Osterritter. Do you have more info about this, including his real name and a verifiable source for this death? Any info you can provide will be appreciated. Best,--Alabamaboy 22:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for offering to translate. The planning of translations is currently underway at User:Ral315/Board 2007. Ral315 » 15:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I figured you'd probably hit a few snags trying to translate, though I tried to make it as easy to translate (free of idioms, etc.) as I could. Do whatever makes sense, and I'm sure it'll be fine.
Those templates will go for every user; I didn't have time to look up information on the rest. Local rights are rights on a local project (adminship, bureaucratship, etc.), while global rights are those affecting the whole community (stewards, current board member, member of a Wikimedia Foundation committee, etc. The question marks were just because I don't know what rights Ausir holds, and won't until he responds :) Ral315 » 03:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)