User talk:Antonrojo/Archive 3

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

Yoshiaki Omura[edit]

We're currently working on mediation on a subpage of the talk page. Before making a whole lot of changes to the article, you might want to join the discussion. - Che Nuevara 06:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I was about 90% through on the edits so I finished them off. If you could point me towards the subpage (I assume you don't mean the sections of the Talk page referring to mediation), I'll look it over and comment if appropriate. Antonrojo 07:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
It's here: Talk:Yoshiaki_Omura/Mediation - Che Nuevara 19:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Antonrojo, thanks for your interest in this article. As I mentioned elsewhere, I personally have no ax to grind beyond ensuring WP's rules are followed, as I got there by accident trying to informally mediate. Your latest version with all your changes can be found here. Feel free to modify it further, and/or join in with the mediation process. Thanks, Crum375 20:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

RefDesk[edit]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say about problems with the list. Is it not at the top of the page, for quick reference?  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  04:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The current design is good but not as usable as the prior design. In my opinion, the older design does a better job of integrating search and 'how to' info into the header in a way that they desks still jump out at users. By breaking them into boxes, since we read from left to right then users need to look at two other infoboxes before finding their destination. While I could see an argument for prioritizing the 'how to ask a question' section, I don't think putting policies up front is in keeping with the wiki philosophy, which is that editors can simply click the edit button and make changes, and learn the right way to do things later on. Visual icons also add to the usability of the page.
Overall, if the page is to be redesigned I suggest replicating the current design with smaller icons to accommodate the additional desks. I'm sure a lot of editing went into that design so I would stay away from 'reinventing the wheel'. I'll clarify my comment at the proposal page to this effect. Antonrojo 14:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, the front page of RD will rarely cause problems in usability, because we will always be 1 click away from the desks, and it's navigation between desks that really require care in designing them usefully. For users that have never seen the RD before, it is absolutely reasonable to even require them to wade through instructions before access is given to the desks, though we on WP aren't likely to be that demanding of users.
Visual icons, in interfaces like a web browser, allow quick idendification of tools with basic function (i.e. forward arrow, stop sign). Since the desk buttons on the front page require no such "quick identification", and are very limitedly advanced by identifiable images (it could be argued that there is no way to accurately, conveniently identify "humanitites"), it's my personal opinion that it's an unneccessary flare. Icons could be added, though, if everyone wants them. Nobody seems to think they are needed for the desk header though, and I feel the same about the front page.
Lastly, I hope it doesn't appear that I am trying to "reinvent" anything here. The current layout was developed over time by adding new features and rearranging everything else appropriately. It appears that nobody has ever put any serious thought into the design, and it has grown into somewhat of a monster. I just thought it was about time that somebody took everything that had been contributed to the RD project and organized it in some sort of modular way.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  21:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
My take on redesigns of efforts that have evolved over time (even through chaotic processes) is summed up well here. While webpage layout is nowhere near the complexity level of commercial software, I suspect a lot of tweaking went into the current layout. Requiring users to read instructions before using the RefDesk or not depends on which direction an editor thinks WP should take--for some, we should be limiting edits to registered users for example so I can't argue that my personal preference should be 'The Way' to do things. A passing thought: you might consider having people vote on specific changes, creating sort of a 'working design session' rather than a yes/no vote approach. I think the chaos would be worth tolerating to get more specific feedback. Antonrojo 20:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Lori Klausutis[edit]

You deleted the entry from Jimbo's talk page. This was previously a front office issue and Jimbo participated in the AfD after I posted the notice. For that reason, I am not sure that it matters that you deleted it, but it also might make it relevant to keep on his page. I am okay with it either way.

I would appreciate a courtesy note on my talk page if you decide to delete my comments in the future. Thanks! --Tbeatty 18:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I restored the comment. There is a large volume of 'could you look at this edit/CFD/whatever' noise from people who don't understand that you shouldn't go to the top for peer review or conflict resolution and that edit appeared to fall into that category since the connection to Jimbo wasn't evident. Since the vast majority of these types of edits are near-vandalism, I rarely notify the editors when removing the comment. Antonrojo 20:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Rearranging CfD comments[edit]

I'd be wary of rearranging other people's comments in a CfD discussion. It won't reflect which comments were responding to which other comments and can give the wrong impression about the votes either by presenting all the deletes first or giving the impression the mood began to shift from delete to keep. Wryspy 21:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You sorted me into the right group, but I'd prefer if the comments were not sorted at all. LaszloWalrus 22:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Ditto. Please don't do that; CFD is not about votecounting but about discussion, so rearranging the order doesn't actually help the closing admin and may confuse the debate. >Radiant< 11:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

I added a rework/keep vote there. The tone of the article needs reworking, in my opinion and I haven't looked closely enough at the article to see if it is properly referenced, etc. so I can't really comment on the "non-compliant" tag at this point. Antonrojo 14:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crazy Therapies (book)[edit]

You may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crazy Therapies (book). Yours, Smeelgova 03:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC).

Ignatieff article reprotected[edit]

Hi, Not sure what's going on? [1] 64.229.31.197 16:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

RINOs[edit]

Please see my question at Talk:Republican In Name Only#NPOV Tag. - Jmabel | Talk 21:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

AA Transsexualism[edit]

Thanks for your work on the article! You have removed a lot of original research I had gone back and forth about with User:Hfarmer. However, in the process, you removed some published clinical data and writings about African American transsexual people that have historical significance (the Meyerowitz and the Lothstein in particular). I'll add those back in unless you'd like to discuss it on the talk page first. I have concerns about reliable sources being removed during an AfD, making it more likely the article will fail. Jokestress 23:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll add comments about this to the Talk page when I get a chance. Antonrojo 03:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

I'll be reading! Redpatcher 09:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Happy Wikiing! Antonrojo 21:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

FindWebEvents.com[edit]

Hi Antonrojo,

I noticed that you removed the "External Links" for FindWebEvents.com under the following topics:

Web conferencing
Streaming media
Webcast
Podcast

I would like to ask that you reconsider this removal as "linkspam". Although I am the creator of FindWebEvents.com, more importantly, this tool was created out of my own frustration with not being able to find relevant web events on specific subjects. Wikipedia is a great tool which helps users find relevant information on specific topics. The only reason for my inclusion of this site under the above topics was to hopefully provide more relevant information for the Wiki audience as well. Until now there has really been no good way to find web event information. I would like to share this tool with a larger audience and help fill a gap that exists on the Web. I am sure many more people have a hard time find specific web events for the topics on which they search. Rest assured, this is not an advertising gimick, only a link that I thought would be relevant to the topics above. From the traffic I received yesterday from Wiki (until the links were removed), I would say the users find this link relevant as well. I'd be happy to share these stats with you if they help you understand how users are using the site.

Regarding the description - you are correct, "most comprehensive" is subjective and I will be happy to alter the verbiage, no problem. I just want people to be able to find relevant information for which they are looking.

Please email with any questions, and if you would like me to re-add or if this can be done by you.

Thanks for your time,
Curtis Hughes

Streamlogic 13:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Curtis, see WP:EL. I have nothing personally against your site and I don't doubt it's a valuable tool. The problem is that there are so many links that could possibly be included on a page that a high bar must be set or the reader will be overwhelmed by them. Or as the policy states "External links should be used sparingly and kept to a minimum. Wikipedia is not a web directory; there are criteria a link should meet before it is added to an article's External links section." I suggest you frame your arguments for including your link in the terms of this policy. Antonrojo 14:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Semitic people[edit]

The category definition is a great addition. The only thing I would possibly add as an exception is attacks on Judaism. There's some potential for abuse of the category on that score, though having gone thru all the articles, only Alphonso de Spina really needed to be moved out of the cat. -- Kendrick7talk 00:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree and I added a note to that Talk page to that effect. Theological disputes with Judaism, including attempts to convert Jews, should not be labeled Anti-Semitic. I removed a similar miscat today for Jack Chick. Antonrojo 02:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm... well, Jack Chick is a little over the top from what I've seen of his work. You might have an uphill battle on that one. -- Kendrick7talk 02:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
In my estimation, he's clearly anti-Catholic and there isn't any cited info showing that he's anti-Jewish. This is the tract the article claims is anti-Semitic [2]--basically stating that Jews (like all non-Fundamentalists) will be going to hell. For contrast, here's an anti-Christian tract [3] which states that the Jesuits perpetuated the Holocaust, and in other tracts he identifies the Pope as the devil. I wouldn't be surprised if research turned up a clear example of anti-Jewish tracts or statements though. Antonrojo 02:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
You might also be interested in some ideas kicking around Talk:John Chrysostom. -- Kendrick7talk 21:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Michel Thomas[edit]

Good edits and suggestions. I'll do my part to add citations. --Roy Rivenburg

Thanks! Good luck with that. Antonrojo 20:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a Thomas ally went through and reversed a lot of your edits, trying to turn much of the entry into a critique of me. I left some of his changes alone, especially the citations that were added, but deleted statements that were off-point, unattributed, overly detailed and/or inaccurate. I tried to shift the focus back to Thomas and restore your inclusion of attributions. But you might want to take another look. Rivenburg 10:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

p.s., On the discussion page, NVResearcher also restored the material you archived, fyi. Rivenburg 10:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I'll do some editing on this when I get a chance. Great work on the citations you added by the way. Antonrojo 04:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words on citations. I still need to add a few. Meanwhile, there was an edit war on the Thomas article today, so some might be erased by the time you visit again, depending on which side has gotten in the last licks :) Rivenburg 06:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Yeshivat Chovevei Torah[edit]

Hello, as an FYI Orthodox Jews never refer to synagogues as "temples"; they always use the word "temple" to refer to the Temple in Jerusalem and no other place. YCT has actually come out with opinions on a number of elements on women's issues. I believe it would be better to leave the title as iss and the expand the article content to fit it title. If you disagree, please reply on the article talk page. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Since it sounds like you know what you're talking about, I defer to your opinion. Antonrojo 17:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Omura peer review[edit]

I didn't mean to circumvent you, or mean any disrespect in my response to your opening a peer review. I just wanted to make sure that someone answering the review would know what they were getting themselves into. Your continued efforts to work on this problem are commendable. - Che Nuevara 20:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Your input is very helpful for me since you've followed this discussion in depth. Thanks for the encouragement. Antonrojo 03:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yoshiaki Omura Arbitration[edit]

I don't know if it's of interest or not, but I thought it appropriate to inform you that RM has presented a request for arbitration re the Omura entry [4]. GenghizRat 06:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I let Che Nuevera know as well. Unfortunately it looks like he's very busy at the moment. Antonrojo 03:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like you're a little busy. You might be interested in this arbitration request, which mentions you as part of it's justification [5]. Antonrojo 03:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've seen it already, and I'm preparing to make a comment. I appreciate you telling me though. - Che Nuevara 03:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yoshiaki Omura[edit]

This arbitration case has closed and the decision is available at the link above. Richardmalter and all other accounts and anonymous IPs with the same disruptive editing pattern are indefinitely banned from editing Yoshiaki Omura or its talk page. They may be blocked for up to one year if they do so. Blocks, and any alternative accounts or IPs used, should be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yoshiaki Omura#Log of blocks and bans. Care should be taken with anonymous IPs to avoid blocking addresses used by other users. The remedies in this matter apply to any article concerning the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test (BDORT or PMRT) under any title. For the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 23:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

List of exonerated death row inmates[edit]

Excellent effort on this article, thank you. Glad you restored the (unlinked) John Ballard. I deleted his name only because I thought that if I un-linked it, someone would just re-link it again . Keep up the good work! --Ossipewsk 00:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)