User talk:Alatari/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Indian Removal Act[edit]

Does not contain any language supporting the inference that it was the first usage of The Final Solution. I'm not saying it is or isn't but when you claim the first usage of any term on Wikipedia it needs to be heavily sourced. Alatari (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added the article by Mattias Gardell I found it in. I think that should be quite enough consedering he's not just any jounalist hack, but a scolar. // Liftarn (talk)
I can't find a translator link or an English version of that article. It is notable but most editors will want to read it in English and some will require 3 scholarly sources for that type of superlative/comparative statement. Alatari (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
If you want I can translate the central part (or if you wish you can ask for an independent translator). What "most" and "some" editors want and what policy says may be very different. // Liftarn (talk)
I am not sure what the policy on translations is on Wikipedia but I'm sure we can't do it. You will find that consensus on a page is what ultimately rules here at Wikipedia. Hope you find an English source but it can't stay without English sourcing. Alatari (talk) 17:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Addition of POV template to University of Missouri your opposition to the current consensus[edit]

Hey Alatari, just wanted to hash out a few things here before (and if) we get into it on the University of Missouri talk page. First off, I've replaced your "NPOV" template with "POV-title", as your not claiming that the article is NPOV, but that the namespace is. Please familiarize yourself with the recent action of the curators of the University of Missouri regarding use of the title "University of Missouri." You can find a somewhat informative link here. To sum up that action, the use of "University of Missouri" has been almost completely restricted to the Columbia campus. Though this is what prompted me to originally move the page from University of Missouri–Columbia to University of Missouri, it is not the main reason. Virtually all the pages that link to University of Missouri are in reference to the Columbia campus, so it was chiefly a matter of practicality. Also Wikipedia:Naming conventions wikipedia's policies on Naming conflicts states that "If the common name conflicts with the official name, use the common name" and that "The most common use of a name takes precedence." Please also take the time to read the talk page as this has been painfully hashed out. If after that you have new arguments to introduce, please do. Thanks.Grey Wanderer | Talk 21:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that University of Missouri–St. Louis, and University of Missouri–Kansas City are ever referred to simply as the University of Missouri?Grey Wanderer | Talk 22:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
In my UMR handbook circa 1981, my University of Missouri diploma from Rolla and many letterheads and thousands of official transcripts and diplomas by UMSL and UMR and UMKC graduates which read "University of Missouri" in bold print on the first line then underneath on the second line "at Rolla" or "St. Louis" Your renaming of the page and moving of the contents without building consensus was heavy handed and will lead to arbitration. Alatari (talk) 22:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, A couple things:

  • I'm not personally attacking you, I'm sorry if it feels that way, I think your intentions are good, but that you're a little misguided.
That's a rather arrogant statement assuming I don't understand Wikipedia policies. Alatari (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I know my move caused controversy, if I had known at the time I would have built a consensus first, but it seemed so obvious to me at the time and was in line with Wikipedia's naming conventions, thankfully we were able to build consensus later.
  • Your UMR handbook is obviously not a reliable source we can use on Wikipedia.
The Diplomas are... Alatari (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I really think you need to read the changes to the Collected Rules and Regulations of the University of Missouri, I still get the feeling you haven't because they make it pretty clear how the names should be used.
University rules are not in charge of Wikipedia naming conventions. Common usage by the general populous is the POV that decides commonality. Alatari (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I encourage you to find reliable sources that you can use to back up your statements, but doubt that you will be able to. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for ideas and policy.
I understand reliable sources and you are failing to read the the web site of the other UM schools which clearly state University of Missouri. Alatari (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Umm gosh I hope we can avoid Arbitration but you really shouldn't use that as a threat. Remember Arbitration is the last resort.

Thanks again.Grey Wanderer | Talk 22:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you work within the UM system? Alatari (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I plan on putting the article back to pre-December status and then we can build consensus on the new name for Wikipedia if any. Alatari (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Please don't make any drastic changes until we come to a consensus, we obviously need input from all of the other editors involved in this. I do not work for the UM system. The websites of the other schools (UMSL UMKC and ROLLA) all use University of Missouri-(name of the campus). None of them use simply "University of Missouri." A Diploma from decades ago is not a reliable source for naming conventions today, and carries significantly less weight then common usage. I'm aware the University rules do not dictate naming conventions on Wikipedia. My point is that both University rules and common usage support locating the Mizzou page at the University of Missouri namespace. If nothing else virtually all the internal links within wikipedia are in reference to Mizzou not the system or any other system campuses.Grey Wanderer | Talk 23:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not a single Diploma. It's thousands upon thousands of dilpomas issued by the University of Missouri system which do not in fact have the word 'system' in them. You have made the drastic change without reaching consensus I am just restoring it to pre debate status. Links within wikipedia linking to Mizzou are not evidence. Wikipedia can't be cited as a usage source and your common usage argument fails upon Google investigation. If they refer to Mizzou the most why not locate the article under Mizzou and let the University of Missouri article refer to the entire system like the usage and legal terms do? Alatari (talk) 23:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Each school is individual accredited, a University of Missouri–St. Louis diploma says "University of Missouri–St. Louis" that is the full name of the school.Grey Wanderer | Talk 23:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Alatari, you are one editor against four or five, please don't make large changes that we haven't proposed or discussed especially when they are this controversial. I have not removed your templates or reverted your edits, and I'm open to as much discussion as you want.Grey Wanderer | Talk 23:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Please, Grey Wanderer, do not resort to untrue statements like that. You know very well there are others who have expressed my view very vehemently on the talk pages. Once it goes to arbcom a wider range of experienced editors can finalize this decision. It is obvious there can be no compromise with you and it's best to get it to arbitration quickly. Alatari (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I managed to pursued them all that the move was the correct action, there has been no disagreement about the move for about a week now, only about how to handle the naming on the page itself. You seem to have no interest in resolving this outside of arbcom, are you open to mediation?Grey Wanderer | Talk 23:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

One week is too short a time period for this kind of consensus. There are only 2 votes on the NameSpace consideration.. not a consensus. Before you moved the article in 2006 you made no attempt to reach a consensus. This needs a wide range of editors comments to get it resolved and a vote on the talk page won't reach that audience. Alatari (talk) 00:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I know I made a mistake when originally moving the page, and I apologize, I didn't know it was going to cause such controversy. However since then we have formed a consensus that that was where the page belonged. I think you misunderstood what the vote was about. The vote was above what names to use in the opening paragraph. After I convinced Lazytiger that the move was necessary, there were no editors who opposed the move. Current supporters of the move include User:Grey Wanderer, User:Lazytiger, User:Americasroof, User:Dmp348, and an [Anon User]. Current editors who oppose the move included User:Alatari yourself. I'm not using this evidence to prove whos 'right' or 'wrong' just simply that shouldn't move the page back, as there is much opposition.Grey Wanderer | Talk 00:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually a user made this very good comment: "Having lived in Missouri my entire life, I have never met anybody who says they went to the "University of Missouri." They all say either Mizzou or Columbia. And I have seen diplomas from UMC, UMR, and UMSL, and they all say "University of Missouri" with no -city. With the rule change on name publication I agree that thread name should not have -Columbia, to comply with wiki commonality rules. However, the article should have -Columbia because that is the official name used by the university system and people should know that." and User:Lazytiger opposed you but you badgered him till he gave in. The common usage for University of Missouri is to refer to the entire system not one school. Alatari (talk) 00:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Once again Altari, I never said no one disagreed, I said no one now disagrees.Grey Wanderer | Talk —Preceding comment was added at 00:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

That's inherently untrue statement because you would have to poll all people who read the page in the last week to determine this. Once it's open to the wider Wikipedia editor pool it will be clear. Enough commenting on my page for now. Further comments will be deleted. Alatari (talk) 00:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


Request for mediation not accepted[edit]

Exquisite-folder4.png A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/University of Missouri.
For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 06:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

unoffical mediation[edit]

Please see the case page for more disscussion on the topic: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-12-09 University of Missouri.Grey Wanderer | Talk 06:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Misaddressed?[edit]

Hi. I don't think this was really intended for me, was it? --John (talk) 15:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem. --John (talk) 15:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Don Pietromonaco[edit]

You have any further info on him and the teen club he was involved with in the basement of the Imperial Club located at West Florissant and Goodfellow? -- Alatari 15:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as the teen club, sorry, no. I was in elementary school during his days as Johnny Rabbitt, and never got further north than Arsenal Street without being in the company of my parents. They and I did once get to visit with him at the station in "Radio Park", though.
Everything else I know about him (and that's not actually that much) would almost certainly be original research as I doubt I could find a verifiable citation for most of it. -- Davidkevin (talk) 18:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject St. Louis[edit]

Just created this, thought you might be interested:

STLfinal.png
Hello, I noticed you've made edits to St. Louis articles or that you are in some way connected to metropolitan area. I thought you might want to become a member of the St. Louis WikiProject. We've recently built the project page and started a drive to improve St. Louis related articles. Please take a look to edit an article or add one of your own. Once an article's status has been agreed upon, feel free to stop by and lend a hand in getting it to featured article status. Hope you can participate!

Grey Wanderer | Talk 20:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandals and IP addresses[edit]

Hey, thanks for your note. The only way to tie and account and an IP address together is to request a Checkuser and you need sufficient evidence to back up your request (e.g. similar editing patterns). Hope that helps! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

As before, the only way to check is by the Checkuser method. However, it is perfectly permissible to exercise one's right to vanish and re-appear with a different user name. It should only be a problem if any of the accounts are used maliciously. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the repeat request. Guess I was just looking for input on whether to do so not how. Alatari (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Well if you have evidence to support your theory that blocks are being evaded or malicious accounts are being used then it doesn't harm to lodge a checkuser request. But you do need some evidence. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Firstly the checkuser reports need to be added into a specific category which broadly indicates why you're requesting a check. Secondly, you're expected to provide 'diffs' to support which category you've selected. However sometimes it's just instinct, in which case you just have to be up front and say that you feel there's some kind of subversive block evasion going on. A lot of of Checkuser reports draw blanks so it's not a big problem if this one does too. Do you have anything specific to back up your thoughts? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia[edit]

I'm actually not new here, I've been using and contributing to the site for well over a year but I decided I wanted to remove ties to my previous username and start off on the web more anonymously. Thanks for the tip though. AncalagonTB (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Southern soul[edit]

Hi, You wrote me asking about Dana Glover...Have I edited the Dana Glover page? I can't remember doing so? What made you want to ask?Nazamo (talk) 04:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC): Hi, I have done some edits on southern soul-related music, but I have to say I don't know about Dana Glover. Good luck on your research. Have you tried just going onto Google and entering "Dana Glover and Southern Soul" and seeing if any good info comes up? Good luck on your research and editing.Nazamo (talk) 16:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

She describes her music as Southern Soul on her MySpace page but I didn't find any established reviewers saying that. I didn't search very hard. Alatari (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Updates to EVE Online[edit]

Great work on the article, I suggest you add yourself to the "actively contributing" box on Talk:EVE Online, it provides a good contact point for new editors with questions or looking for advise. -- RichardSlater (About) / (Talk) 09:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do so. I'm a better copy editor and source researcher than contributor. Alatari (talk) 12:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

History of computers[edit]

I think you'd be better off improving the history sections of the individual microcomputer articles - all this personal computer stuff is besides the point in History of computing hardware (1960s–present) which should be more of an overview and less obsessed with individual home computers and PCs. These *aren't* what the article should be about. --Wtshymanski (talk) 04:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is about the most notable computer hardware of the 1960's and later. That would include machines which sold 1 million or more units. If you wish to add groundbreaking first hardware as notable devices to the article be my guest. Alatari (talk) 04:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

January 2008[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Chief Illiniwek. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Barry m (talk) 07:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


Information.svg The third opinion for the article Chief Illiniwek has now been posted at Talk:Chief_Illiniwek#Third Opinion. Please edit the Acceptability Section to indicate whether you agree with the Third Opinion or not. Barry m (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Templates[edit]

Best I could find was from Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes... {{3O}}, hope that may help a bit? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Place that on the article itself? I suppose over a few days or weeks as other peoples visit the page it may encourage them to take part in the discussion. Thanks. Alatari (talk) 08:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. Good luck and try not to get sucked into WP:3RR...! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
It was 2A.M. and I didn't realize it was my 3rd revert. I try to always stop at 2 just in case. I can't sleep. Alatari (talk) 09:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Bot[edit]

No I don't have a bot running, but have previously looked at creating one. To create a bot you will need plenty of programming experience and have a high level of understanding of wikipedia policies, and preferabely stick to them as much as possible, or be able to defend breaking some rules (as per Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means). The main policy relating to bots is Wikipedia:Bot and for creating a bot see Wikipedia:Creating a bot. Please note that you will require a new user account which has a bot flag added by an administrator for when you are running your bot. Limited bot testing is permitted using your normal user account. Barry m (talk) 10:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Where does Wikipedia say, "no sources that require registration"?[edit]

Hi Alatari, it's me. I read what you've posted on Toxicmango's Talk page - that his source within the EVE Aurora forums isn't valid in the sense that Wikipedia doesn't allow sources that require registration. When I first read Toxic's source and got prompted for my account info on the Aurora site I pretty much thought the same: "I can't see Wikipedia accepting this." But I looked for a rule about it and didn't come up with anything appropriate. Where does Wikipedia say that these sources aren't allowed? Can you point me to the right page?
-- Aexus (talk) 03:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll look for it. It was somewhere possibly in the WP:EL pages. Alatari (talk) 12:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I've found it. Thanks for the hint! I checked WP:EL. In the section Links normally to be avoided there are Sites requiring registration. The paragraph says: "A site that requires registration or a subscription should not be linked unless the web site itself is the topic of the article." Exactly what I needed. Thanks, Alatari.
-- Aexus (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion[edit]

Information.svg The third opinion re-write for the article Chief Illiniwek has now been posted at Talk:Chief_Illiniwek#Third Opinion. Please edit the Acceptability Section to indicate whether you agree with the Third Opinion or not. Barry m (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Information.svg The third opinion re-write for the article Chief Illiniwek has now been posted at Talk:Chief_Illiniwek#Re-write 2 Acceptability. Please edit the Acceptability Section to indicate whether you agree with the Third Opinion or not. Barry m (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Accusations[edit]

Before you request a checkuser and start accusing people of sockpuppetry, perhaps you should pay attention to their previous contributions and activities on Wikipedia before jumping to that conclusion. I am not participating in the discussion because it is cyclical and redundant to previous discussions, and I would rather contribute to something new rather than re-hash something I thought was settled before. Justinm1978 (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


That was a cheap trick, Alatari. Rhetor230 (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't any kind of trick. You weren't willing to compromise and the account is a single page edit account of recent origin. Blatant symptoms of sockpuppetry. The article isn't that important to me but on controversial issues heavy sourcing is needed especially when trying to describe word usage. These kind of disputes can take months to resolve and you seem to think you can push your POV through in hours or days. Good luck on that... That's why 3RR exists. Alatari (talk) 12:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Videos[edit]

Yes I know, video for dance are important, just as images. But... Wikipedia is not a web directory. Wikipedia needs its own content. Just as you may uploads free images, you can upload free videos into Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons. People may use google to find zillions of other videos to understand how swing looks like. A problem with external links is that they very often go dead, moved elsewhere, etc. Quite annoying it is to click and get bounced. These are general considerations. Now, if you are talking about these youtubes, they are a copyright violation: someone uploaded videos of filmz like Hellzapoppin with no permission explained. `'Míkka>t 17:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It was the Swing Videos vids. I was trying to get my head around why they weren't a good WP:EL. Alatari (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
These ones are plain ugly. Who the heck are these people? But this is beside the point. Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. For dance teaching there are wikibooks. `'Míkka>t 00:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Holocaust[edit]

I don't know of any detailed comparison between American use of reservations and the Nazi policy of the "Final Solution". It's quite commonplace to point out that the general concept of "manifest destiny" and the displacement of the original population by "superior" Europeans was part of a widespread social-darwinist model at the end of the nineteenth century that provides a model for the Nazi idea of lebensraum. There was a these written on that as far back as 1950: Frank Parrella, “Lebensraum and Manifest Destiny: A Comparative Study in the Justification of Expansionism” . There's also Reginald Horsman, Race and Manifest Destiny. Ward Churchill makes comparisons between lebenraum and American attitudes to Indians in his books, notably A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the Americas. Paul B (talk) 02:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: History of Earth[edit]

Thank you for the kind words; I worked very hard on that article. Perhaps creating History of Earth and the Medicine Collaboration of the Week will be my most important legacies at Wikipedia. Unfortunately, even though I was quite attached to the clock analogy, it appears a number of other users did not appreciate it, judging from their comments on the talk page. I think, though, that there would still be a lot of work to get the article to featured status. It covers, as you point out, a great deal of information, spanning multiple disciplines. I’m really not qualified to write about any of them in much detail. I’ve done my best to synthesize what appears to me to be the most well-accepted and up-to-date information. Still, I’ve had to focus on biological trends, since that’s what I know best. I think the article would require dedicated attention from several people with specializations in different areas to get the article to featured status, and unfortunately, I lack the time these days to attempt to coordinate that. — Knowledge Seeker 07:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

RfC[edit]

I've started drafting a user conduct RfC that you might be interested in here. If you'd like to participate in drafting it, please feel free. Cla68 (talk) 03:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

University of Missouri[edit]

Just wanted to let you know someone is rocking the boat about the name change thing again. You might want to voice your opinion-Grey Wanderer | Talk 21:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

WP Computing[edit]

Greetings. You are receiving this note as you are a member of this WikiProject. Currently there is not much of activity in the project and I am hoping to revive the project with your help. I have made a few changes to the project page Diff. You are welcome to make suggestions of improvement / changes in the design. I have also make a proposal to AutoTagg articles with {{WikiProject Computing}} for the descendant wikiprojects articles also. Please express your opinion here -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 12:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Eve Online and its Expansions article have been suggested to be merged[edit]

Hi, Alatari. Do you remember how we moved the Expansions of Eve Online to their own article? And how we anticipated another editor one day suggesting to merge the articles back together? The day has come, today Albeiror24 has suggested to merge the Expansions article into the main Eve Online article. In case you'd like to discuss the suggestion, please find it here on the Eve Online Talk page. Greetings.
-- Aexus (talk) 10:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

manual line breaks[edit]

Hi,

I've removed a bunch of manual <br /> tags you'd added to personal computer. These shouldn't be used for article presentation. If you need to break a section because of image layout or whatever, you can use the {{-}} tag. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Old North St. Louis[edit]

You will find Walnut Park under Walnut Park East, St. Louis and Walnut Park West, St. Louis DaronDierkes (talk) 03:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)