User talk:Aecis/Messages 49-60

AD vs CE at the Village Pump

Hi. You recently edited the era formats in Sophocles, so I'm letting you know about a discussion I'm starting at the Village Pump, in case you're interested in helping to find an NPOV solution to this issue. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Thanks for your support self proclaimed liberal from the netherlands. :D

Is your basques (?) finish template a spin off of my Ancient Norse one? Chooserr 00:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:WSS/P

Hi Aecis. Re the usefulness of the proposals page -- I don't think the rules that the proposals page seems designed to enforce seems very useful, nor is it really necessary to propose stub templates before making them. For instance, enforcing naming conventions, which is touted as a virtue of the page, seems a bit pointless to me, and so does enforcing a 60-stub minimum. If categories that don't follow these rules are really a major problem, they can quite easily be changed. All in all, if I thought a stub category would be useful, I would just make it -- if people didn't like it, it's easy enough to discuss it after the fact. That process seems to work for all other pages and templates in the encyclopedia; why would stub templates be such an exception. The proposals page seems unuseful to me, in short, because I see no compelling reason to have such a barrier to someone performing a simple task like creating a template. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Happy holidays

Happy Holidays! Deckiller 03:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

MFD

Heh, it's strange that way sometimes :-)

BTW, I think WP:WSS means well at heart, but has ultimately been corrupted by a sense of power over one of Wikipedia's vital processes. If it was just about sorting, that'd be fine, but it also seems to about creation and dissemination as well. I have a view stated at my arbcom statement in regards to stub naming.

1. Every word except "stub" is always capitalized.
2. No abbreviations, except for when the category is better known as an acronym(even then, if an alternative exists, it's preferable)
3. Hyphens are used at every level and before "stub"

That doesn't violate WP:BITE like current stubnaming policies (or lack thereof) with needless instruction creep chaos, but it gets the job done. However, this would never become policy/guideline from the current state of policy/guideline creation on Wikipedia which currently is --- "If you can get a bigger mob to claim 'consensus' for what you believe than those who disagree with you, you win". That's not the way it should work, but that's the way it does. If I had proposed that we call that page "ideas" rather than "proposals" or suggest those ideas as a consistent stub naming policy, it'd probably be rejected out of hand since it would take away some of the sway of their side(WSS knows all the arcane spellings/punctuations of stubs, and I assume that the group enjoys making people like me and SPUI feel like they're a bottleneck that you need to get through in order to have stubs that don't go to SFD).

Anyway, Merry Christmas. Hopefully we can see eye to eye on other things and respect each other when we disagree. That's all you can ask for in Wikipedia nowadays it seems. karmafist 15:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Signa Vianen, Journalist

From your post on the talk page, would you be willing to work on the article and add that information to it? That would provide a claim to notability and It's what I've been trying to get to for the last couple of hours. Amsterdam is a new user and seems to be having some difficulties understanding notability (the language barrier doesn't help). Let me know if you're willing to work on the article and I'll remove the protection. --GraemeL ^(talk) 21:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Somebody that speaks Dutch working with him would probably be helpful. He seems very enthusiastic to contribute, but less enthusiastic about taking the time to learn policy (probably because English is his second language and policy can often be dense). He tends to jump right back and defend himself without necessarily having understood the comments directed at him. Explaining (in Dutch) notability and the necessity of including claims to such in the text rather than just providing an external link might help. I copied the original article to a user sub page, it's linked in an older version of his talk page (he keeps blanking it) here. Let me know if you need any help as I must admit I'm becoming a little frustrated trying to guide him towards useful contributions. The main reason that I've continued working with him is that I feel he genuinely wants to contribute. --GraemeL ^(talk) 21:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, Kappa has turned the other version of the article into a stub. It's at Signa Vianen. Working on that one would probably be better as there is no need for the journalist part for disambiguation. --GraemeL ^(talk) 21:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh Dank u dank u!

Tot mijn onsteltenis zijn gisteren ook andere namen die wij hadden willen invoegen - de schrijfsters Cynthia Mc Leod-Ferrier en Bea Vianen - van het hoofdmenu gewist. Ook achtten wij het zinvol om behalve dat van de briljante Signa Vianen, ook de naam van de journalist Erna Aviankoi te vermelden. Die is naar ik meen reeds sinds 1997 bij dezelfde krant werkzaam en komt uit een minderheidsgroepering (Marron). Kranig vrouwtje hoor ik, heeft in het vorige kabinet een minister de poot gelicht. Kan ik hierover spoedig met u in contact treden? Ik wens u alsnog gezegende dagen en betreur het stellig misverstand ten zeerste... was getekend Amsterdam 17:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

evol-0

I changed the userbox. Take a look! Template:User evol-0--Shanedidona 21:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

evol user boxes

I have a quibble about the wording for the current evol-3 box. This user is convinced of the theory of evolution is too weak. It implies that evolution is just a theory. I've created my own evol-3.5 box (on my user page) that says This user is convinced that evolution is a fact. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 17:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The formulation I prefer is that it is a fact that evolution has occurred. Darwin and Wallace proposed the theory that evolution proceeds by natural selection as an explanation for the observed facts of evolution. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 18:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not engaged in editing Evolution or related articles, and I can't accept that NPOV prevents me from stating on my user page that I accept a well-attested natural phenomena as fact. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 18:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Your rfa...

... is all ready to go! It's at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aecis. Go toWikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate#What to do if you are nominated by someone else: and follow the instructions for accepting the nomination and adding the request to the rfa page. Good luck! :) Grutness...wha? 00:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your additional answers. Your RFA happened to be the first one to pop up after midnight, so you were the first in a little experiment I'm holding to get a better gauge of admins. As soon as I saw a candidate more qualified than *I* was, I knew I'd get good answers. :-) --Deathphoenix 17:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Response to your question.

Aecis, I believe that my comment on the votes for deletion page of the Alliance was accurate, but I tried to alter it so the accusation wouldn't be there forever and because I have no want to go sifting through all your statements etc. Unfortunately, I was not allowed to remove that part of my comment from the deletion page. I really don't want to continue arguing with you however and I apologize that my comments have caused you any undo stress. Dwain/User:Pitchka

Dear Aecis (Sorry for the typos. Here is a decent retry :-)

Dear Aecis

Thank you for your comments regarding my efforts to rearrange "Science", "Israeli Science" and other "Science" related Articles and indices.

In fact I have been wondering why some of my Index pages did suddenly seem to contain Articles in them, that I did not intend to appear there.

Also, some sub-index pages seem to have not sorted properly in their parent-index pages.

Perhaps you can drop me a few clues as to why that happened.

However, Please note that when exploring Israeli Scientist bios, I was amazed at what seemed to be total disarray and random entry patterns, indices and sortings.

When attempting to assist with the "American" science entries, with which I am also of substantial familiarity, things appeared to be a lot more in order.

Then when exploring other "science" related indices I have begun to see what appeared to be a systematic chaos, contrary to common (and well-established) information organization practices.

In particular, the "by name" in parallel to, perhaps the by-discipline, and so on- systematically leading to a centralized article entry for elaboration, this categorizing format is consistent with any single encyclopedia that I humbly had the opportunity to examine in my lifetime.

May I please ask for your assistance in conveying my message to more colleages, so that we discuss this situation and help devise a rapid constructive solution?

Best,

Hard Nut