User talk:Calton/Archive02

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

Links to index pages[edit]

I don't think the links to index pages (e.g. "See USS Albacore for other ships of that name.") need to be at the top of the articles. They're more of a ==See Also== feature. It's a good thing to have disambiguation links at the top, so that if someone types Albacore, and didn't mean the fish, they can go on without having to scroll down the page (though in fact that page has the links to other Albacores at the bottom!). But if someone types (or follows a link to) "USS Albacore (SS-218)", they presumably know where they intend to go. —wwoods 10:38, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Edit summaries/minor edit flag[edit]

Hi, I see you flagged your changes to WP:AN/3RR (among many others) as a minor edit. Use of this flag for that edit was inappropriate. Help:Minor edit gives guidelines on when it's appropriate to use that flag; please follow them. And before you say that in your opinion, your change was minor, please note that that page says:

consider the opinions of other editors when choosing this option

so whether you think they are minor is less important than what other editors think. While I'm at it, please always fill in edit summaries with a description of your change. Wikipedia:Edit summary says:

Always fill the summary field.

(Emphasis in the original.) Thanks! Noel (talk) 18:37, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

PS: I don't usually check other User_talk: pages (so that I don't have to monitor a whole long list of User_Talk: pages - one for each person with whom I am having a "conversation"), so please leave any messages for me on my talk page (above); if you leave a message for me here I probably will not see it. I know not everyone uses this style (they would rather keep all the text of a thread in one place), but I simply can't monitor all the User_talk: pages I leave messages on. Thanks!

Hi, you again made a substantial edit and marked it as "minor". And I see from looking at Special:Contributions/Calton that you are still marking all your edits as "minor". Please stop doing this. Perhaps you have the "Mark all edits minor by default" flag in your Special:Preferences checked by accident? Noel (talk) 14:53, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The link to the page was to enable you to see for yourself that there really is such a policy, and that I wasn't misinterpreting it. (Finding applicable policy documents on Wikipedia can sometimes be a bit of work.) I didn't bother to cut-and-paste a large block of text over because I assumed you'd simply read it there. (Also, you don't need to add the ":" to Template: references as long as you link to them with [[ ]] - they only get expanded in-place with {{ }}. Images and Categories do need the ":", of course...) Noel (talk) 12:41, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Big Pink Yorkshire[edit]

Re. what you wrote on my talk page: this article absolutely nothing to do with me! Grinner 12:33, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

You certainly are a super sleuth! But I still protest my innocence; this IP connection is "open" to anybody at the university. The Suilven image comment was me, I got logged out that time. Grinner 14:22, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Duplicate link[edit]

Thanks, Calton, for helping me replace the link. :-) Something must have happened when I was moving the text around. --Deathphoenix 14:07, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Regarding GRider's 'Socratic' VfD nominations and the ensuing reactions by voters, please read and comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GRider2. Thanks. Radiant_* 10:26, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

User:Aeropus II of Macedon[edit]

Every time he creates one of these public accounts, he's going to get blocked. RickK 21:25, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Request for comments re: user Wareware[edit]

Greetings.  :-) I just wanted to drop by and thank you for taking the time to respond. I think it's terrible that some Wiki users would prefer to reprimand me when I tire of such attacks and respond with mere sarcasm -- and ignore Wareware's comments entirely. They'd rather pretend they don't see the racist poison he spews on a regular basis. Wikipedia is truly appalling in that way. No wonder there are so few blacks here. Anyway, I followed your advice and left a message on the admin page. We'll see what shakes out. Peace 2 u -- and thanks again for taking the time for trying to make Wikipedia a better website, a better community.  :-) deeceevoice 23:15, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh noes[edit]

Wait, too bad you don't own this wiki. There is absolutely nothing around here that says I can't have an article on my bloody userpage -- and I'm going to, whether you like it or not. You come to my userpage, acting all authoritive and godlike (when really, you're not even a sysop yourself. Hell, you're just like me!) and setting some sort of a "deadline". I immediantly thought "Oh noes, Calton is going to ask an admin to delete my article that I worked hard on before some jackass came and accused my favourite painter of not existing". Oh, but then I realised that you CAN'T. Let the bloody VfD finish, and try not to act so pissy to newer people.

In other news, I have emailed the owner of SKIR to ask if they could send me their sections of their webpage so I could prove Saito has existed. So hold your horses, oh-authority, and I'll be adding some images to the article (that or send them to your email if they're non-fairuse-able). Sheesh. Cheeseburger.png Suffice 17:24, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Taipei Times[edit]

I've heard of it, somebody mentioned it on the wikien-l a few days ago. It could warrant a story, but I don't know if I'll have time to get around to it. If you're interested and think it's worth the effort, you could certainly start drafting an article for The Signpost yourself.

A vaguely related news item that has also come up this week is the new WikiWax index. See wikinews:Surfwax releases "quick index" to 600k Wikipedia terms. Tying those two together might make for a decent story. --Michael Snow 21:00, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Alleged Double Voting[edit]

If you or anyone else have any actual evidence (rather than circumstantial evidence and bad faith assumptions) that demonstrates that I'm someone else, or that someone else is me (or whatever other conspiracy is currently flavour of the month), then publish it. I've already given a more than adequate response to the recent allegations to the contrary. --Centauri 06:34, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've already done all the explaining I need to - as my edit history will reveal when you get around to actually looking at it. --Centauri 09:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)


  • Actually, looking at recent edit histories, I'd say you have a point. (* = Centauri, # = Gene Poole). Any admin responses to this? Should this be on RFC? Radiant_* 11:41, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
* 10:29, Apr 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Calton (→Alleged Double Voting)  (top)
# 08:17, Apr 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) Talk:2005 Britannica takeover of Wikimedia (schools ?)
* 07:54, Apr 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) Mothman (top)
* 07:34, Apr 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Calton (alleged double voting)
# 06:04, Apr 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Saklan Valley School (→Saklan Valley School)
# 04:01, Apr 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Coppell High School (→Coppell High School)
# 03:42, Apr 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) Canopic jar (rewrite section on heart + brain to correct mistakes) (top)
# 03:34, Apr 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) Mummy (top)
* 03:29, Apr 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies (→Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies) (top)
* 03:24, Apr 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ashley House (→Ashley House)
* 03:21, Apr 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/You Kicked My Dog (→You Kicked My Dog) 
# 03:16, Apr 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Jayjg (advice)
# 03:04, Apr 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) m Talk:Egyptian pyramids (→Temporary removal) (top)
# 03:03, Apr 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) Talk:Egyptian pyramids
# ...
# 00:32, Apr 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) Talk:Seborga (→Not a neutral article) (top)
* 00:10, Apr 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Gene Poole (→You're a sockpuppet!) (top)
# 00:05, Apr 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Centauri (friday amusements) 
* 23:59, Mar 31, 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Gene Poole
* 22:54, Mar 31, 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Thryduulf (olchfa footbridge) (top)
* 22:51, Mar 31, 2005 (hist) (diff) User:GRider/Schoolwatch (→Listed on VfD) (top)
* 22:47, Mar 31, 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Harlaw Academy (→Harlaw Academy)
You know, back in December, a sock puppet felt that Centauri was a Gene Poole sock puppet here. At first, I did not believe him, but then I starting developing suspicions here and here. Another point: Centauri has the same point of view as Gene Poole on Sealand. Both users have the exact point of view concerning deleting articles. I am very suspicious about the whole affair here at this point. Samboy 21:06, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hey there![edit]

Just waving "Hi" - you might remember me as <josh> from The WELL. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:04, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Images and media for deletion votes[edit]

  • I am contacting people who previously helped to vote to delete a generally objectionable photograph by a vote of 88 to 21, and who might be unaware that immediately after that image was voted to be deleted someone posted another which was very similar in content. My objections to this, and the previous image that was voted to be deleted might be based upon reasons far different from any that you have, but I do object to it, and consider the posting of such images to be acts of asinine stupidity, which burdens the project and its major educational aims in ways that they should not be burdened, and can be extremely detrimental to the acceptance and growth of WIkipedia's use and influence. Thus far those who I believe to be in the extreme minority of Wikipedians who would like to include these images, many who have been channeled to the voting page from the article with which it is associated have dominated the voting, 23 to 12 (as of the time that I composed this message). I would like to be somewhat instrumental in shedding a bit more light upon the issue, and if possible, helping to turn the tide against its inclusion. It might also be necessary to begin making an effort to establish an explicit Wikipedia policy against explicite photographic depictions of humans engaged in erotic, auto-erotic, or quasi-erotic activities. To my limited knowledge such images have not been accepted as appropriate anywhere else within this project, and frankly I can agree with those who are casually labeled prudes for opposing their inclusion, that they should not be. Vitally important information that might be unwelcome by some is one thing that should never be deleted, but un-needed images that can eventually prevent or impede many thousands or millions of people from gaining access to the great mass of truly important information that Wikipedia provides is quite another matter. There are vitally important distinctions to be made. Whatever your reasons, or final decisions upon the matter, I am appealing for more input on the voting that is occurring at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion. ~ Achilles 01:31, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Netoholic RfAr[edit]

I received your message regarding my presentation of evidence in Netoholic's case. I believe I have provided many references to evidence along with my arguments. Argument is certainly allowed in the rules and as evidenced in prior cases. All argument is supported with reference to evidence. I just got done reformatting a large portion of this and Netoholic will likely be removing his section so this could be causing some confusion while we transition.

Thanks. --Wgfinley 08:20, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Hi Calton, thanks for your message. I decided a week or so ago not to edit that topic again, as it seemed that there were people involved who had interests other than trying to be encyclopedic; when the discussion started to become abusive, I disengaged and don't want to re-engage. I'm sorry. It happens in these controversial areas. Best, SlimVirgin (talk) 03:33, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Copied from SlimVirgin's talk page, since she keeps deleting it.

Talk:Anti-globalization and Anti-Semitism[edit]

At Talk:Anti-globalization and Anti-Semitism, you wrote Anyway, I've used another program and I've now managed to see what's written on the star. It isn't sheriff.

What program did you use and what was that word? And are you going to get a refund on that program? Because this image (Image:Davos WEF Golden Calf.png) indicates your program doesn't work very well. Any comments? --Calton | Talk 01:28, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to get involved either. On the other hand, you made an explicit and firm statement of a fact -- which turned out to be flat wrong. I, for one, think an explanation is called for. What program did you use to reveal something not in the picture and how did it lead to this misinterpretation? What was this word that you say it said? --Calton | Talk 03:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You know, for an administrator you're not showing a great deal of integrity here. --Calton | Talk 21:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Please don't question my integrity. That isn't fair, and it's the kind of personal abuse that seems to surround this particular topic, which is why I disengaged from it, and I really don't want to get involved again. I said everything I had to say, and haven't looked at the issue since then and therefore can't comment. The statement that I made was not, in my view, flat wrong; and in your view, it was. To reconcile our views, I'd have to debate it again, and I don't want to. To conclude from this that I lack integrity is to make a quantum leap that I hope you'll reconsider; and the only reason I've deleted your reference to the subject from my talk page is that I don't want to keep looking at it, not that I'm trying to hide it. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:09, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

You know, it's none of my business, but you're not showing a lot of Wikipedia:WikiLove to SlimVirgin. Even if you think she is misguided, you could just let the issue go. It's beginning to look a lot like you're hounding her. How is that improving the article? She does not have to explain herself. This is not a court of law. This is a place where friends come together and work to build an encyclopaedia. Now, both you and SlimVirgin are good editors. Neither of you is gaining anything from this spat and Wikipedia certainly isn't. If she wants to delete the comments and just move on, let her. Why not? What's to gain for you from making this an unpleasant environment for other editors? I apologise for the interruption. Normal service is now resumed. Grace Note 08:50, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Copied from Grace Note's user page, since petulantly deleted:
=="You know, it's none of my business..."==
And you should have stopped right there, especially since you misunderstand and mischaracterize what's happening, and toss in some passive-aggressive insults to boot. Is "integrity" such a difficult concept for you?
Read your own words, absorb their meaning, and save your scolding for someone who invited it. --Calton | Talk 12:43, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You know, SlimVirgin is a nice person and a good editor. You're a little shit. I tried to talk to you like a human being, you're aggressive. I don't take away a good impression of you. I approached you in friendship. You bit the hand held out to you. Don't talk to me about "integrity", dude, you have no idea what it means. Grace Note 13:49, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Copied from Grace Note's user page, since petulantly deleted:
Speaking of reading your own words:
You know, SlimVirgin is a nice person and a good editor.
A good editor owns up up to his/her mistakes, and certainly doesn't go to great lengths to dodge or hide from them. A good editor also doesn't require an accomplice to blow smoke for him/her.
You're a little shit.
My, your dedication to the principle of Wikilove is firm. If you're gonna talk the talk, you should walk the walk. Or is Wikilove only for the little people?
I tried to talk to you like a human being...I approached you in friendship."
Horsefeathers. You tried to scold me about something which, as you said yourself, was none of your business. You delivered passive-aggressive insults, and, called on it, have skipped the "passive" part. I didn't have to scratch very deep to see what was underneath that smarmy veneer.'re aggressive.
Pot, kettle. Or is Wikilove only for the little people?
I don't take away a good impression of you. You bit the hand held out to you.
What hand would that be? Was I supposed to say, "Gosh, ma'am, can I have some more?" If you want to practice your busybody skills, I'm sure you have neighbors that are in dire need of straightening out their personal habits, unqualified parents roaming the public square in need of your advice on child-rearing, and the badly dressed wandering the aisles of your local Marks & Spencer who desperately need fashion tips. Go for it!
Don't talk to me about "integrity", dude, you have no idea what it means.
Far out! Like, of course I totally do: you, on the other hand, seem to believe it means "defend someone blindly and aggressively without thought to objective circumstances", or so your actions lead me to believe. Maybe "integrity" IS a difficult concept for you.
To bring it down to its basics: It was a simple question or two I originally had for SlimVirgin, but the more that she avoids the question, the more suspiscious I've become. Maybe for you niceness (or, at least, niceness in others) trumps factuality, but not for me, but before you work yourself into a further lather, you might ask yourself, what was so tough about the questions I originally asked SlimVirgin? --Calton | Talk 01:59, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I adore your impersonation of a 12-year-old boy. I picture you wagging your finger at me. I'm not actually obliged to stand by and watch you harass a decent editor though. She told you she doesn't want to talk about it. Now I'm telling you I don't want to talk to you any more about this subject. I've said all I want to say about it. I am going to rob you of your opportunity to dicksize with me by simply ignoring you.

This place is about "niceness", Calton. That is the objective circumstance here. It's not about trying to be number one or overcoming your fears about yourself by demeaning others. You're doing nothing productive here. Neither am I, so this is more than enough.Grace Note 02:14, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Copied from Grace Note's user page, since petulantly deleted:
I adore your impersonation of a 12-year-old boy. I picture you wagging your finger at me. See Psychological projection. Or is Wikilove only for the little people?
She told you she doesn't want to talk about it. Fine with me. However, it was only when I pointed out that doing so was a fine demonstration of a lack of integrity that both of you went off the deep end. That assertion still stands no matter how much smoke you blow.
I am going to rob you of your opportunity to dicksize with me by simply ignoring you....This place is about "niceness", Calton. That is the objective circumstance here. Your overreaction shows me how skin-deep your gasiness about Wikilove really is. No, this not about "dicksizing", nor is this place "niceness": it's about creating an encyclopedia. If SlimVirgin wants to make an absurd claim then refuse to justify it (making it difficult to assign good faith to future claims), if you want to preach Love for Your Fellow Man and then scream like a fishwife when contradicted (making it difficult to attribute sincerity to future utterances); well, none of those are particularly productive, are they?
Some (unsolicited -- ironic, I know) advice. Don't give out advice you're unwilling to even minimally follow. --Calton | Talk 04:12, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rounded S?[edit]

AP versus PDF. Please comment here or in the image talk page (if you choose to comment, that is), rather than on my talk page. El_C 13:00, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Hi Calton - it took over four months of fierce debate to come up with a wording for the China-geo-stub that was acceptable to as many wikipedians as possible. PLEASE do change it. I don't think anyone wants to start the raging arguments that ensued last time. (have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Criteria#The_China-Taiwan_mess for just one of about six different parts of Wikipedia where the battle took place)! Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg 06:48, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi again. Yes I meant "please don't..." Personally I agree with you, but terms such as "China", "Mainland China", "Republic of China", etc can be very touchy for some, particluarly those who live there. Also there is a separate stub for Hong Kong, so it does make some sense. Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg 07:42, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Please reconsider your vote to delete the article Netbux, which has been completely re-written. Your delete vote reflects your attitute to the previous version of the page, but I am sure your vote will be to keep the current version. Thanks. THE KING 08:24, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Hi, if you have an interest, pleaee visit WP:JCOTW and vote, thanks. --Aphaea* 04:32, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


hey, thanks for doing all that work on the day-pages. i appreciate the edits you're making. Kingturtle 06:10, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

  • I hate to be a pest, but if you delete names from an article, please do not mark it as a minor edit. some people have their settings so they don't see minor edits at all. cheers! Kingturtle 08:03, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Jeffrey W. Parker[edit]

I have added some more info which may suggest notability. It's still a work in progress though. You may want to watchlist to see if you want to change your vote later. Thanks, 19:05, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Get a Life[edit]

do you spend every waking moment on this thing? (Unsigned comment by User: 13 May 2005, 15:51 (UTC))

On Nehru[edit]

Hi Calton, appreciate your enthusiasm, but your insistence that the non-aligned movement did not have any dictators and Nehru was never a socialist and that India never had a state-contreolled economy, and statements by PBS, Parliament of India, Frontline (India), Forbes Magazine, Encyclopedia Brittanica are all conspiracies to defame Wikipedia is incorrect. India *is* still a largely state-controlled economy. It has improved since 1991 ever since it started dismantling the Nehrucian economy, what you read in the mainstream press is not the result of any grand conspiracy. (Unsigned message from [[User::]], 16:46, 15 May 2005)

Biting newcomers[edit]

You're not very welcome for that rant on my talkpage. You have obviously taken offense at the fact that I'm actually explaining to the new user how the article might benefit from her contributions.

You seem to have absolutely no idea how often people insert links of dubious significance into medical articles. Perhaps it's different in your area of interest. A brief look at Alzheimer's disease shows the accrued matter of endless insertions without any good structure.

As there is no supercilious attitude, I've got nothing to lose. JFW | T@lk 15:02, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

WP:AN size[edit]

Hi, I know it's gotten a bit big (~80K); I just did a big round of archiving on it a few days ago, and I've been busy with other things since; just getting around to doing another round of archiving. (Actually, once I get things all caught up, I think I'm going to try and get someone else to take over the archiving - I've been doing it for 6 months, but it's getting really old.) Noel (talk) 19:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


Did you already read the discussion on Gdansk talk? Do it and then "spin" all articles back ...--Witkacy 04:54, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

School VfD's[edit]


I noticed you voted to delete on a number of elementary/middle school VfD pages. For example, the following caught my eye, on Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/All_Saints'_Academy:

Delete. Isn't worth the storage space, no matter how low disk-storage costs have gotten. --Calton | Talk 03:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Please try to keep things in perspective. Surely this article is far more important, and far more worthy of a WP page, than, say for example, just about any article in Category:Soviet Navy submarines? Good lord, the Soviets are gone, the cold war is over, the damned boats have sank already; why bother wasting electrons on submarines, (or railway lines, for that matter; I notice you are interested in these too), and then VfD'ing schools? Surely, some hobunk elementary school in the middle of nowhere is more noteworthy and encyclopaedic than some rusty railway line or some smelly submarine? I mean, if the schools collapse, who is going to have the education, the knowledge, the know-how to pilot the subs? The Chinese? The Indians? linas 00:26, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi Calton; to reply to your post, I picked on soviet submarines simply because that is fairly clearly a topic that is not encyclopedic, and yet Wikipedia has a bunch of articles on them, and they are not getting VfD'ed. I'm sorry I didn't quite get this point across; I am not suggesting that all of the submarine articles should get VfD'ed. What I was trying to say is that WP articles on grade schools and high schools are more important than, for example, articles on submarines. I did not mean to offend and imply that your interests are boring or not noteworthy; I'm just trying to say that you should keep perspective: just as you seem to have a distaste for articles about schools, realize that others may have distaste for, for example, submarines. linas 01:05, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Maybe I shouldn't have picked on submarines; I'm sorry if I offended. Let me try a different category; I hope I don't offend by pointing at Pokemon characters. There's a prime example of the absurd penchants to document the bizarrest things. Good lord, there seem to be 300 or 400 of these beasts, they all seem to get WP articles. Maybe now its clear why some hobunk school deserves a WP article? We'd have to VfD 400 pokemon articles and I don't think that would go anywhere at all. linas 01:15, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

linus's comments[edit]

Thank you for explaining. I couldn't tell if he was serious or it was just some elaborate joke he was playing. I'm still a little suspicious that he might just be having a laugh at my expense. In any event, I appreciate your clearing that up. Jayjg (talk) 02:03, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

List of Holocaust victims[edit]

But you have to admit that there are people who should have a Wikipedia page, but don't as of yet? The red links can be an invitation for someone to create an article. In fact, I just created a stub based on a red link in the List of Holocaust victims page, on the notable French poet/literary critic Benjamin Fondane. Don't know much about him as of yet, but he seems to be notable enough, and I might expand it. Eixo 05:05, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

But you're ignoring my main point: a red link can be an invitation to create an article on a person who should have an article but does not, as of yet. Are you saying that Wikipedia lists should only have blue links? Eixo 05:57, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I've put the point in bold, so it will be easier for you to spot. Eixo 06:12, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I didn't address your direct answer because I thought your last reply was rude. As for your solution to my "trivial" point: that's not, for the moment, how Wikipedia works, as any of these pages will show you. Your solution would elliminate the invitation represented by the red links - right there on the article page - for anyone to add an article on a subject if they find it notable, or remove it if not. Eixo 15:31, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

The examples I chose were representative, and I also gave you the justification. An intellect of a certain calibre should be able to extract precedence from individual examples, without requiring a rigid policy. But if that’s a problem, then check out Wikipedia:Lists, where it says “Some lists are useful for Wikipedia development purposes. The lists of related topics give an indication of the state of the 'pedia, the articles that have been written, and the articles that have yet to be written.” Which is more or less the exact point I was making. Eixo 01:04, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I have struggled long and hard to make any sense of your last response, but I got stuck on my alleged “inability to make choices”. In any case, since that was probably some sort of personal attack, I’ll ignore it, and move on to the substance of the debate. What it seems you have failed to understand is that, since Wikipedia is a community, the dichotomy between what is precedence and what is policy is a false one. Wikipedia works the way users want it to work. I am quite happy about the way lists are operated at the moment, if you are not, you will have to argue against it in public fora.

Anyway, you say you’re not interested in the issue, and I’m not really interested in continuing the debate on your level, so why don’t we just call it quits? Eixo 14:39, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

PRC is not a nation[edit]

Could you please read the nation article? It is not correct to describe the PRC as a nation (thought you would have an argument for the China article). For one example of many of a state being described with its primary characteristics to begin, see the Taiwan article.

Whoops, I meant the Republic of China article, not the Taiwan article.

My, my my.[edit]

You sure do make a lot of friends.

I know you're not likely to understand this, but my argument (logical, not rancorous) was in the form of the date—namely dd Mmmm yyyy as opposed to Mmmm dd yyyy, and not the minutiae of whether or not a comma was needed or appropriate anywhwere. After all, I used the example of 3/11/05 at one point in my argument which has no commas at all. It was the form. Yep, about 98% of my point. You managed to miss 100% of it. Well done. Duckecho 23:26, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I will not revert your edit; Either way is ok[edit]

I just wanted to let you know that your style edit on the Schiavo page is not a critical issue, and I will not revert it, if you feel, with your skills in English literature, that the "surgical" word is superfluous and not needed. You did check out the "diff" at didn't you. In any case, the editors on the Schiavo talk page frequently argue over much larger matters. I wish all the disputed edits were like this one, where either option was OK. I just wanted to drop you a line to let you know that your opinion was considered as useful; perhaps some of the other editors who know how to will look at the diffs and weigh in or maybe not. Your comment on your front page about WIKI suggesting WIKI is rather addictive and sucks you in is quite correct: Don't let it, unless it is just for enjoyment. I, too, didn't know that WIKI could be edited by anyone, until I, too, discovered some problems, and took a "closer look." Have a nice day, Calton, way over there in Japan.--GordonWattsDotCom 07:45, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) Bold text