User talk:SimonP/Archive 2

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

Archive - for user talk from December 2001 to September 2004


Deleting links[edit]

I see you have deleted the external link to my Yosemite tour. I am hoping to convince you this link fits the requirement given in the guidelines on external links: "Pages that are linked to in an external links section should be high content, with information that is not found in the Wikipedia article." These tours have been put together at great expense in time and money with over 4000 images in the case of Yosemite. There is nothing special about the text on the Yosemite page, of course, but the tour covers most of the roads in the park, which you can follow a step at a time, all the way across, and out of the park in some cases, along with numerous trails.

User talk:Mav reviewed my site and said he would not remove the links back when I added them (months ago). Also some of the links have been copied into the articles in other languages, indicating that others in the Wikipedia community have found them to be good. (I also copied some into the French articles, but about four of them were done by others first, including Yosemite.) I regularly see users coming from Wikipedia; one today spent almost half an hour and viewed 388 pages. --User talk:KelvinSmith

Expansion request[edit]

See User talk:Pablo-flores#Expansion_template --Pablo D. Flores 22:39, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Revert of Deadend pages[edit]

Hi there? I've edited and categorized several dozens of deadend pages, and thus removed them from the dead end list since they're not longer, well, dead ends. Why did you revert to put them all back, this isn't vandalism. Radiant! 14:40, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • We list deadend pages not because they contain no links, but because containing no links is an important clue that an article is sub-standard. Especially important is that a significant number of deadends are copyright infractions that msut be dealt with as soon as possible. Adding 'wikify' or a category or a single link does not turn and unwikified mess into a good article. Removing such pages from the list makes it is less likely they will receive the attention they need. - SimonP 14:47, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • I am aware of that. How about adding movie-stub, bio-stub, category:new york, category:landmarks, move to wiktionary, move to wikisource, vfd, db, npov and copyvio tags? Because that's what I've been doing (check the vfd list for the last couple days if you don't believe me). They aren't good articles yet, but at least they're somewhere they will be found. Radiant! 14:57, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • So you are suggesting that every non-substantive article is on the deadend pages list? There's already lists for stub, npov, dispute etc. According to the description on DEP, pages are there because they are improperly formatted and contain no wikilinks. Once they do, they fall in other categories. Radiant! 15:02, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • Are you aware that the talk page of DEP contradicts your policy here? Also it would make sense for a WP'er knowledgeable about foo to look in foo-stub for articles to expand, rather than in DEP. Radiant! 15:20, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, but style is not the same as content. Most stub articles conform to WP style since there's nothing in there to be badly styled (as long as they're divided into neat paragraphs etc). So if an article is a styled stub, it shouldn't be on DEP. Radiant! 15:57, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Seatbelt legislation[edit]

I removed the factual dispute tag from this article. You have not chosen to indicate which facts, if any, are disputed. All of the information in the article is sourced from widely available published sources in the (peer reviewed) international literature. You might also note that full references are given. --Sf 14:07, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

User SimonP wrote "Wikipedia articles should always reflect accepted wisdom (irrespective of its validity), and not be a platform for minority views". In my opinion, given the amount of effort that goes into ensuring both accuracy and NPOV you are going to have a hard time selling that attitude to a wider audience.--Sf 14:51, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wrangles Jeans[edit]

Hi. Where did you get the information that Wrangler (clothing) are based in Puerto Rico? I worked for them a few years ago, and the head office was in Greensboro, New Carolina. Sorry if you are not the person who added this, or I have got things wrong! :) George

Shaihu Manu![edit]

For your work on Usman Dan Fodio

Thank you for the edit at Usman Dan Fodio. I makes the clarification I was seeking. I think you deserve an award. This is a slightly political point of view, but in this day and age, when the "fundamentalist" right-wing of Islam co-opts people like him, it is very important to point out that the right way to start a Jihad is by a legitimate leader chosen and/or recognized by a community; not by individuals.

BTW, where did you get the content?

PS: in case you are wondering about the heading above, it is the exclamation a Hausa-Fulani might utter where an English-speaking Westerner would go "Jesus Christ!" ("Manu" is a Hausa shortform/nickname for "Usman(u)") iFaqeer | Talk to me! 20:16, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

PPS The above comment is about [1]. iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 02:47, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)


I have noticed that User:Darrien crusades against standard English spellings on Wikipedia, replacing them wherever he can with Webster spellings. You have my full support in clearing up his mess after him. Chameleon 12:51, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Art Movements[edit]

Well done on cleaning up all the dubious links to I see that User:Canadianartist went above and beyond the call of duty this morning. I'd got a mental note to put Thinkism and the related artist on WP:VfD, but I see the pages have already gone. -- Solipsist 08:18, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Keeping Canada clean[edit]

I'm impressed when someone reverts an ad while I'm fumbling my way to do the same thing. Well done. :) Krupo 00:38, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

Beating a dead horse[edit]

Exactly how did the votes on this translate to a consensus to keep the article? Especially since most of the "keep" votes actually made no attempt to justify the article itself, only insulting and baseless accusations that the "delete" votes were politically motivated. Well, dear Lord, God forbid that when we have an idiom that can be fully explained in one sentence, we don't give it its own multi-paragraph article entry with two examples and three external links. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:48, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please protect archived VfD[edit]

You have closed the VfD Violence against Israelis and posted "Please don't edit this page", but User:MathKnight edited and put striku-thru through one of my posts before you closed it and he is now reverting my restores.

Besides the fact that he shouldn't be editing this page at all, he should not edit other people's posts. (If he disagrees with some opinion he should post his own, rather than crossing out the opinion he disagrees with).

I restored my original post but anon IP reverted it to User:MathKnight illegal version. Please either protect the page (revert to my version if needed) or ban User:MathKnight and User: from editing it. Thanks. HistoryBuffEr 17:52, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC)


I'm just using the same colours as in other places. The light blue is perfectly reasonable, but as for the red, well- we'll just have to make those red links blue, now won't we? Earl Andrew 07:04, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Civil war[edit]

I just wanted to say that you did some great work on Civil war. Given your excellent additions, it's doubtful if it needs to be COTW anymore (which I nominated it to be). Alarm 21:40, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I believe they are. I'm curious, what article are you going to use them for? PZFUN 17:34, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ah, that sounds like an interesting article. If you need any information about South Africa or Namibia, I'd be happy to help PZFUN 18:24, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I believe they are. I'm curious, what article are you going to use them for? PZFUN 18:40, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Björn Björnsson[edit]

Why did you remove my request for deletion and add a substub notice? If you had read the page's history you would have seen that I created the article. Regards, Wiglaf.

Deletion of Bertschi School[edit]

Hi... you moved the VFD for this school, but you didn't implement the consensus decision (delete by 9 to 3).. Are you planning to ? Mozzerati 18:45, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)

Hmm.. I'm most of the arguments were against the notability of the school, not the quality of the article. There are a number of better articles for equally notable schools which are in the process of being deleted. E.g. the school in Malaysia. What say, if we want to keep this, someone should try to get a policy which justifies it. E.g. "all schools are notable since they infuence thousands of people's lives" or "it is sufficient to have schooled 5000 people to be notable" or "it is sufficint to have done 25k teaching years to be notable". Mozzerati 18:57, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to leave it, since I'm primarily voting against boring and useless articles but I'm thinking about using it as part of an argument that all schools are inherently notable. My local Tesco is seen as a "landmark"... Mozzerati 19:19, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)

Fried meatballs[edit]

Were you aware of the fragile consensus obtained on fried meatballs before restoring them ? Do discussions matter ? Why did you restore it ? Why are you deciding this ? SweetLittleFluffyThing

Sorry, but, once again, I had the proof of the ultimate stupidity of vfd.

Some one propose a deletion.
Immediately, some users jump on it, in favor of deletion.
Others jump on it, in favor of keeping.

Then, an editor (me) comes around and try to find a solution. HOW STUPID ! WHAT A TOTAL LOSS OF MY TIME ! I tried to merge the content of the article in another place. Fix links here and there. Change it into a redirection. Try to start a discussion about a policy we should adopt.

Basically, none of the first voters came back. They did not see the changes made to the articles, so they can't even change their opinion on it. Some, however, commented on the policy discussion, and agreed with the idea.

Finally, someone just drop by (you), and without taking into account, neither the changes I proposed, neither the comments of the few who saw the changes, neither the first reactions to my policy proposal, just revert all I did.

Sorry, but this is not exactly what I call decision with consensus. This is not taking into accounts proposals made during the process. This is not constructive behavior, this is destructive.

This is also totally ignoring my efforts to try to find a solution agreeable to most reasonable people.

It is totally discouraging.

I listed the policy proposal on votes for deletion. Just make meatballs with it. This is all this place deserve for just making it clear to people that their efforts are NOT welcome. I have seen battle over recipes for the last 2 years now. I sure am not happy to see that the only attempt to try to find a solution is just ... thrown in the trash in such a way.

Fifth grade[edit]

Why was this kept? There were only a couple votes to keep; otherwise, all votes were in favor of removing the content, whether to delete outright or make it a mere redirect to primary education. A vote for redirection is not a vote to keep by any means. Postdlf 01:43, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

deletion request[edit]

Could you please delete my user subpage User:whosyourjudas/pui? I don't need it anymore. Thank you, Whosyourjudas (talk) 02:56, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Clarification on high schools, please[edit]

I happen to think consensus to delete is not at all obvious in the case of Hannibal High School. Therefore a judgement to keep is reasonable.

But I am puzzled by your remark that "I question whether there is consensus to delete any high school." Does this mean that if a particular high school article received, say, eight deletion votes and no keeps, you would, as sysop, act on that article by casting a single keep vote, declaring that "decision was keep" and keep it?

My own view is that it is very clear that there is no general consensus or policy regarding inclusion of high schools, and that each VfD discussion is an individual case. What I one would expect, given the contentiousness of the issue, is that in most cases there would not be a consensus to delete and therefore the actual outcome of most VfD discussions would be "keep." But I would expect there to be some cases where there would be consensus to delete, and I would expect a sysop acting on that VfD to respect that consensus.

I have heard assertions that there is a policy that high schools are to be kept. I have repeatedly asked for pointers to the discussions documenting this, and so far have yet to get one. I believe User:Geogre claims to have traced this assertion and that it referred to something different; it was in reference to one particular article which was a list of high schools and that there was consensus that non-notable high schools should not be removed from this list, and that since then inclusionists have mistakenly represented it as a policy regarding high school articles. I don't know. All I know is that so far nobody has been able to point me to any policy or documentation of consensus on inclusion of high schools.

[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 12:42, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

FWIW, there is no criterion of notability in the deletion policy for things. For people, it only suggests that they should have "some measure" of notability or notoriety. Even the semipolicy on "importance" doesn't give any standard of importance that should be met and rather implies that importance is in the eye of the beholder.

I am inspired by this: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing."

It doesn't say "all human knowledge except for schools or fancruft".

I agree with you, Simon, that there is absolutely no consensus for deleting schools. No matter who votes what way, the deletionists know that there are several editors who oppose any deletion of schools. How can they claim there's a consensus just because they win a vote?Dr Zen 04:52, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Topological Geometrowhatever[edit]

Good call. -- Decumanus 00:14, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)

John Vanbrugh[edit]

Hi, I have just used your great image of Castle Howard to illustrate a large re-write taking place at John Vanbrugh - I hope that's OK with you. Regards Giano 09:04, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete Article[edit]

The article: "Joan of Arc (cross-dressing)" should be deleted, not retained as an article. It serves no purpose now (I was the author, but its original function is obsolete at this point). Please delete it. AWilliamson 03:23, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

For heaven's sake....[edit]

This regards your note to my personal page. Since I'm the author of that article, and since its intended usage is no longer relevant (some of it will be incorporated into a different article), please delete it. There doesn't need to be a consensus if the article has no purpose. AWilliamson 03:35, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ruzwana Bashir[edit]

I went ahead & edited in, via ed-conf, what i spent a lot of effort stating as thoroly & clearly as possible during TV ads over the last 6 hours; i think this is not a routine situation that the procedures anticipate, so i make no apology. Please review and i will defer to your decision on how to clean up the mess that i've left there.

I have, however, closed the edit-windows i have open on

w/o making the following edit on them:

Following your last edit to the above-named debate, the nominator of the article asserted that the stated basis for your Keep vote (yours and those of 2 others, by name) included factual errors (of a testable nature). IMO:

  • this puts you under no obligation to comment further, but
  • either your confirmation of your vote, or your change of heart, would be valuable information for the person (not me) making final disposition of that VfD.

Further info:


  • The anon nominator attempted once to vote improperly (IMO probably knowingly), and afterward forged an ostensible reg'd-user vote.
  • I voted for deletion.

--Jerzy(t) 07:54, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC)

Thanks, but i shan't; over & done is fine too. --Jerzy(t) 18:44, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC)

CSB template[edit]

I was adding them because it was agreed on the WP:Bias talk page. I didn't see you cleaning up after me until I'd done a lot. Do you object to even the five article on the main CSB To-Do list having? You could have mentioned your objections earlier in that case and saved me, and yourself, a lot of work. -Xed 18:03, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

VfD action[edit]

Time after time I notice that you're the one who's made the effort to wrap up a VfD discussion and take the administrative steps to close it out one way or the other. I really appreciate the work you do in that respect.

Nevertheless, I must question your action on Revival of the draft. I see only one vote (Silverback) unequivocally for keeping, with one more that would accept a standalone article as one alternative but would also accept merger of the content elsewhere (Wile E. Heresiarch). Everyone else -- by my count, fourteen other participants -- voted against letting it remain in this form. (Some of them favored a merger of the content into Conscription.) I don't see how this can be interpreted as anything other than a consensus that this material shouldn't remain as a separate article. There was disagreement among the fourteen voters as to whether this topic even merited a redirect, but that's no justification for letting the one-and-a-half votes to keep the article prevail. I suggest it could properly be deleted, replaced by a redirect, and if those of us who disagree with redirect feel strongly enough about that point, it can be thrashed out through a listing on RfD. JamesMLane 19:25, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete, Redirect, Keep[edit]

I noticed that you consider delete and redirect to be competing votes when calculating a consensus. This concerns me because I have always voted believing that either one would do as a vote to not keep. I thought this was common sense, and I've observed many others acting on the same premise on VfD. It appears that a few people have already brought specific instances to your attention. What are your thoughts on this? Specifically, do you think most VfD participants think as I do, or as you do, or that their intentions aren't relevant? Cheers. -- WOT 03:44, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I still have two concerns:
  • It seems that in some cases, you counted straight, mergeless, redirect votes as keep. This is what you said to Postdlf about Fifth grade: "Redirect votes do not count as delete votes." Looking at the VfD history on the page, these redirect votes had no indication of rescuing any content.
  • Counting redirect and merge as keep seems to be an oversimplification. A hypothetical example:
    • 7 votes keep
    • 7 votes delete
    • 7 votes redirect and merge
14 votes (a consensus) indicate that there is content that should be kept, yet 14 votes (another consensus) also indicate that there shouldn't be an independent article. Merging and redirecting, in this case, would satisfy both. Simply keeping the article is essentially disregarding part of the intent of several of the votes.
Regards. -- WOT 17:58, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Clarifications on the two concerns:
  • Why were the Fifth grade redirect votes, for instance, counted as keep instead of delete, even though none of them suggested a merge?
  • I think that you must assume that a delete would prefer a merge and redirect to a keep unless specificially stated otherwise. Your counterargument has a few problems:
  1. A merge is assumed to mean "merge the accurate and useful content"
  2. Even if a user disagrees with what is accurate and useful, he can still edit it on the merged page.
  3. Most VfD participants vote on the assumption that delete prefers a redirect of any kind to keep. My observation has been that in rare cases where the assumption might not hold, users clarify preference orders.
Thanks. -- WOT 21:01, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
H'm. The chasm might be just a little too wide for this to be a productive discussion, but I want to give it one more shot.
  • You say that Fifth grade wasn't deleted by counting the redirect votes as keep, but you gave that as an independent reason for deletion to Postdlf (see my original first concern above). With that in mind, do you think you might be allowing personal opinion to outweigh the consideration of the intent of some voters in some cases?
  • Delete is not mutually exclusive with merge as your definition of delete suggests. Merge and delete is a perfectly valid combination. Thus, my concern about interpretation of intent remains.
  • That previous delete votes might be discounted because a page has been edited in the process is now a third concern for me. You must assume that a user sticks with his vote if he doesn't say anything else because:
  1. Users only vote once, not periodically, on an article.
  2. Precedent is that a user will strikeout his old vote and post a new one if he changes his mind.
  3. Precedent is that if the delete count is still high after changes and following votes, someone (generally the one that made the changes) will leave a message on the user's talk page, to request a reconsideration of his vote.
  4. Expecting otherwise would be impractical; no one would ever know how often he would be required to re-affirm his vote. Even if a notice on the corresponding VfD page were posted, it wouldn't be reasonable to expect each voter to continually monitor each vote he has cast to see if there has been a new development.
  5. If, after a change, the total is still a consensus for delete/redirect, and the end of the voting period is approaching, shouldn't the administrator extend voting for long enough to see if previous voters will have a change of mind, or new voters will tip the balance?
If you don't think we're going to see eye-to-eye on this, then I should probably address these issues at some VfD policy page. I don't want to feel like my time voting on VfD is wasted, and with so large an understanding gap, clarification on standards could only help. Thanks -- WOT 22:45, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)


You have reverted [[Austrian]] to be a redirect to Austria. I am just wondering why the disambig page was inappropriate? There was no reason given on the revert so I am not sure. The Austrian national airline is officially called "Austrian" and referred to solely by that name as of late-2003, when it renamed from "Austrian Airlines".

I think it is appropriate to have that on a disambig page, rather than IMHO the worse alternative that to have a "If you are looking for the airline 'Austrian', see.." on Austria. --kjd 09:50, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nadine Gordimer[edit]

Why did you re-delete the CSB articles tag in the Nadine Gordimer article? The article is far from complete and exhaustive and could definitely do with such a tag in order to advertise the need for people to add to it. At the very least, it does no harm. Elf-friend 09:57, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's always nice and courteous to give a reason for adding/deleting something in the edit summary, anyway. Elf-friend 09:59, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

old images[edit]

old images are not automatically PD .. see the tag PD-art .. applies in the USA only as Wikipedia is international. In refrence to the cathar image. Stbalbach 12:47, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

list of state leaders[edit]

I don't know if these pages are your idea, but they are brilliant: A perfect example of how the Internet/hyperlink aspect of wikipedia can organize existing knowledge into a new shape that can lead to new insight. I've always been frustrated by the difficulty of keeping track of what was going on in different parts of the world in ancient times; now that problem is solved. - DavidWBrooks 17:44, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Removing VfD tags[edit]

Why did you remove the VfD tag without comment from Meaning and Knowledge? The listing is ongoing, and consensus is unanimous so far in favor of deletion. Postdlf 00:37, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Ok, I read the article talk page, and I'm even more bothered now. A unanimous vote determined that this subject was insufficiently notable. I think we have a problem when an admin decides for himself what a consensus really said or what it should have said. I have not noticed anyone else both deciding to keep articles unanimously chosen for deletion or to interpret votes to keep an article as a mere redirect as a vote to keep the content. I think this should be resolved before you engage in any more clearing activities on VfD. Postdlf 00:49, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Remorse 1981[edit]

Hello SimonP. I see you removed the Remorse 1981 page but did not act upon the wishes of the consensus at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Remorse_1981. Last I counted there were 14 keeps, 13 deletes and 2 strong merges. You appear to have deleted this page (and any traces to it) without a majority vote. Please advise immediately or I will be reposting this article. Thank you. --Radman1 01:26, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Votes by sock puppets and anons are not counted. Try recounting valid votes. RickK 23:44, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

Based upon the definition of "valid votes" which I believe to be votes cast by users who are relatively well seasoned and/or have made over 100 contributions, this article should not have been deleted. Just because someone does not agree with you (and most people don't, I've realized) does not make them "sock puppets". There wasn't even close to a majority vote for deletion. If you have a problem with that, too bad. Radman1 03:35, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

14 valid keeps to 4 valid deletes. RickK 04:20, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

This is also quite hillarious: User_talk:Sjc#Radman1.27s_coterie Oh no, someone agrees with me, they must be "sock puppets". Stop abusing the term, RickK. Radman1 03:48, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Canawikipedian coffeeklatsch[edit]

Just discovered there's a Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board. Spread the word. Bearcat 03:11, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please don't recreate articles with a consensus to delete[edit]

You've been warned by both RickK and another admin above. If you persist, I'm going to request a temporary order from the Arbitration Committee. Please don't let it get that far. Ambi 08:00, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

VFD is process. The other pages are guidelines, many of which have never actively been voted upon, and if you wish to change this, feel free to propose it. But please discontinue this unilateral stuff. Even Netoholic dropped his unilateral VFD tampering, but by that stage, people had started talking about blocks and bans. I don't want to have to request action against a good editor, but if you persist, be warned. Ambi 08:08, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
If what you say is true, then VFD serves no purpose at all. But clearly it does, and is currently used as the method of determining consensus. Several proposals of changing this have been raised, but have been roundly shouted down.
If you want to keep articles that have a consensus to delete, then change the system. When Geogre wanted to do change things by getting rid of some articles before the seven days were up, he drew up the Managed Deletion proposal, though it eventually failed. If he has to go through that, then so should you. Ambi 08:36, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

VfD comment[edit]

Thank you very much for the note on my talk page. I'm truly flattered that you value my opinion and contributions enough to ask for my help. I'll be glad to comment ASAP. - Lucky 6.9 17:14, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Most wanted articles[edit]

Hi Simon - I note that you were the one who updated Most Wanted Articles last time to the "top 1,000" in early September. Now that over half of them have been either created or redirected, I was wondering if you could refresh the list again please? --Rlandmann 23:13, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

ThreePhase on RfD[edit]

Hi, did you do something with TestingThreePhaseSupply, and if so, whydid TestThreePhasePumps not go as well? I ask you because you're the person who deleted the RfD entry for them here, so I'm guessing you might have done something with the first article. (I did check the Deletion Log, but I couldn't find it there, although I checked all the way forward from when it was listed to when you removed the entry, so I'm guess something else happened to it, but I have no idea what.) Noel 01:55, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)


SimonP, thanks for the note about Wikipedia:VfD decisions not backed by current policies/poll. I've read the page and will respond within the next few days. It's an issue that interests me greatly; the only reason I haven't replied sooner is that I've been involved in writing 2004 Chuetsu Earthquake (a breaking story). Once again, thanks for raising the issue. Fg2 10:59, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)


Just letting you know that I thought you might be interested in taking a look at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/High schools, as well as what I wrote on Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy. Lowellian (talk)[[]] 05:39, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)


Congratulations! You won the best new article contest. Great piece of work. Please notify me by email as to where to send your prize. Danny 01:14, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well done. Filiocht 08:40, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)


Why did you revert my edits to the interventions article and restore Shorne's garbage? VeryVerily 02:17, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Something is not garbage until some evidence against it is presented. - SimonP 02:20, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
This is your justification for reverting me? You're clearly wrong. For instance, "Lincoln ate dogs with chopsticks" is garbage long before evidence is compiled. VeryVerily 21:29, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Thanks for your message. I've started a request for comment on him, to see what we can do about this. If you're willing to certify this RfC, that would be appreciated. --Michael Snow 05:56, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)


You reverted my change. I don't think silversmith should redirect to smith as long as the smith page has a link back to silversmith. It's a bit circular, I think. There should be a short entry about what a silversmith is and then a link to smith. Or, alternatively, just make silversmithing a subheading of smith and leave out the link. What do you think? --flyhighplato 17:14, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Poverty pimp[edit]

The question arose in connection with Impotence pimp, now being discussed on VfD.

For the record, could you put a note on Talk:Poverty pimp explaining why you elected not to delete the article? I count eight deletes, four keeps. I'm assuming you decided that in your judgement that did not indicate a rough consensus in this case, but I think that you should explain why, since it is a departure from the 2/3 rule-of-thumb. Legalistically one could say Ardonik failed to use the word "delete" but his intention was clearly to delete. And I don't see obvious sock-puppetry or anything like that. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:20, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I strongly agree that judging rough consensus is, in fact, a judgement call and I accept yours. And for what it's worth I would a) oppose reconsideration or VfD relisting, and b) if I were going to vote on the article now, I'd vote keep, as I believe the term is in use. But I do think your explanation should go on Talk:Poverty pimp. May I have your permission to copy it there? Or would you prefer to do this yourself? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:39, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
P. S. It would be silly to waste much time trying to parse Ardonik's confusingly-worded remark. Let me retract my comment that his intention was clearly to delete; his intention was not clear, and he could easily have said "delete" if he wanted to make it clear. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:43, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Thanks. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 21:14, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)


I already posted almost a week ago on the Canadian notice board that about half of the election articles were named YYYY Canadian election and the other half were named Canadian federal election, YYYY. I noted that a consistent naming format needs to be used for all of the articles. The only person to reply to my comment noted his preference for Canadian federal election, YYYY, so that's what I've been doing. I really don't care which one is used, as long as the same one is used for all of them. Bearcat 23:40, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Hi Simon. I need your address and your shirt size, so that I can send you the prize. Thanks. Danny 17:06, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Picture Copyright[edit]

Hi SimonP,

thanks for your comment on the picture I added to Zdenka Badovinac. I took that picture and there's no copyright. Grenz 17:28, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Culture of Greece[edit]

Culture of Greece is this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article.

Uriah Heep[edit]

This is quoted from the Hans Christian Andersen-page: "Shortly thereafter Dickens published David Copperfield, in which the character Uriah Heep is said to have been modeled on Andersen—a left-handed compliment, to say the least" so there's where I got it from.

Image tagging[edit]

Thanks for the heads up about the image tagging. I didn't bother tagging the ones that were not linked to an article, primarily because I don't remember where I got them from, so they should probably be deleted. The Image:Hwy401ParcloA4.jpg was not actually mine; awhile back there was some sort of craziness and the picture was swapped with another, so I went into my cache and restored the old pic. I don't know who uploaded it or where it is from. Darkcore 06:31, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your removal of {{G8}} from a number of articles[edit]

You removed {{G8}} from Italy and Russia without any comment. Please provide your reasons for removing it. Thank you. --Gene s 07:48, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Then you should have used the comment box for your edits. Silent edits like that are not a good idea. --Gene s 15:37, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There was considerable debate, but it was finally decided that country articles will only have a series box for their continent. See various conversations at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries. - SimonP

I had to go digging for this explanation. I shouldn't have had to. Use the edit summary so people won't be as angry at you as I am. Besides just because a wikiproject says that something should go doesn't make it official policy. --metta, The Sunborn 17:44, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Economy of Africa[edit]

Finally got featured status. Thanks for noticing the help; but that's all it was, you deserve the credit. :ChrisG 20:40, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

U.S. embargo against Cuba[edit]

You voted for U.S. embargo against Cuba, this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article.

Finding untagged images[edit]

Hi Simon - I notice on User:Pollinator's talk page, you'd listed a lot of his untagged pics. I know I've got some from a while back which aren't tagged too, but I don't know how to find them . . . if you have a bot that can do it easily, could you have a check to see which of mine need tags adding? - Thanks, MPF 22:40, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Economy of Europe[edit]

Hi, I noticed you'd made an edit to this new article, so was wondering if you would add your support to it's nomination for Collaboration of the Week. Simply add your support here. Obviously such a big project needs as many users with relevant knowledge as possible, so hopefully this will promote it a little. Thanks, Grunners 00:37, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Please stop undoing my fixes to these articles. Deliberate insertion of misinformation is considered to be vandalism by wikipedia policy.

Darrien 01:55, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)

David Holmgren is Australian, under Wikipedia rules International English should apply. - SimonP 19:18, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
What does that have to do with the spelling of phosphorus? There is only one way to spell it.
Darrien 09:30, 2004 Nov 22 (UTC)
Sorry I did not realize phosphorous had a different meaning to phosphorus. You must understand why many of us are likely to revert your spelling changes. Looking through your edit history you have used at least eight different justifications for moving spellings towards American English:
  • Moving cream (colour) to cream (color) arguing that spelling should be consistent across groups of articles not just within individual pages.
  • Changing a category to correspond to the spelling used in the article. e.g. Category:Colour replaced with Category:Color
  • Ensuring internal consistency e.g. Gluon
  • Imposing the mostly American IUPAC spellings (e.g. nickel)
  • Reverting change of meter to metre in krypton disagreeing that SI spelling should be standard
  • American Bobtail, a cat breed first bred in the United States deemed "a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country"
  • Potato chips restoring the spelling an article was first created with
  • White guilt - changing coloured to the less accurate Black under the MOS section that states "if the spelling appears within the article text, also consider a consistent synonym such as focus or middle rather than center/centre"
Some of these actions are perfectly legitimate,
So why are you complaining about the changes I've made that were legitimate?
others were not in keeping with policy and some of those edits have since been reverted.
Most of those changes were done before I fully understood policy regarding spelling changes. I try my best to follow policy now, and if I make a change that is against policy I will not change it back providing it is pointed out to me.
Your edits do make clear that you use every means at your disposal to increase the use of American English.
I could say the same about some people with British English, your point?
(The only exception being the few International English spellings used by IUPAC). Outside of the enforcing the IUPAC rules I have never seen your legitimate concerns for consistency, regional usage, or article history, bring you to change spellings to International English. Is this just a truly remarkable coincidence or do you believe Wikipedia should move more towards American English? - SimonP 15:48, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
As for me not changing spellings to British English when I see them, it's probably because I seldom see words which need changing to British English. If you want to make articles consistant with regards to British English, (providing it's within policy), go ahead. I choose to devote some of my time to bringing articles in line with our spelling policy, you are free to do the same.
Darrien 11:50, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC)
I am relieved to hear that you are neutral in terms of spelling, and that you almost only move articles towards American English simply because you have not seen any opportunities to move things towards International spelling. In my reading of the encyclopedia I have run into some such opportunities, for instance:
I would do that, but since my attempt to standardize Category:Color was met with heavy resistance, I am wary of making much larger changes that standardizing Category:Humor or Category:Gynecology would entail. Since there is also nothing in the MoS that would back me up, I will not be making any changes to these until there is consensus on how to handle conflicting categorization spellings.
  • Wikipedia currently ignores SI conventions, certainly as important as the IUPAC ones, by sometimes using the spelling meter. You have done much to get strict IUPAC rules in the manual of style and it would be great if you could do the same for SI.
The spelling of SI units is covered by the "If an article is predominantly written in one type of English..." clause in the MoS. As I've said before, if you want policy changed, do it yourself. My main focus is bringing articles in line with current policy, not changing it.
  • The word center is used over 20,000 times in Wikipedia. Many thousands of these could be changed to a neutral term like "middle."
That is something I would consider, but it looks as if the consistant synonym recommendation is going to be removed from the MoS. I'm going to wait and see what happens before I take any action.
Darrien 14:44, 2004 Nov 25 (UTC)
It would be great if you could take one of these issues as your next project as it would do much to dispel the image that you are simply working towards American spelling, and prove to your detractors that you are simply engaged in the valuable work of making Wikipedia more consistent. - SimonP 16:28, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)


You reverted a category alphabetisation edit I made, changing [[Category:Wallis and Futuna Islands|W f]] to [[Category:Wallis and Futuna]]. Is there any pticlr reason? I amended all the ccTLDs to be the same throughout, as I think having a single article categorised under dot seemed somewhat perverse.

I've not noticed any other ccTLDs being amended similarly, so do you object very strongly if I revert your edit? — OwenBlacker 13:04, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

I change this page because Category:Wallis and Futuna Islands does not exist. The category for the country is Category:Wallis and Futuna - SimonP 19:12, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
Aaah, I see. Thanks for letting me know. — OwenBlacker 19:18, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Please fix your mess on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)[edit]

You duplicated most of the misc section of VP when you were editing a comment on 11:28, 20 Nov 2004. This is a Bad Thing. Please fix it, and be careful to merge in the 33 changes(as of 13:08, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)) made after you. Thank you. And sooner would be better than latter, as it just gets harder to merge as more people add stuff. JesseW 13:12, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Political parties by name[edit]

I have read your proposal to delete the categorie Political parties by name and sub-categories. Please read my comment. I am ready to find a compromise and hope you have some suggestions. --Gangulf 17:07, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your comments on LoPbN Index-only pages[edit]

Your comments on e.g. List of people by name: Jo reflect your misunderstanding of the meaning of, and undercut the effectiveness of,

Template:Index only

whose purpose is to prevent names from ever being placed on these pages. You may have detected a need to reword the template, but please do not place any further such comments. I am reverting. --Jerzy(t) 07:50, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC)

Ah! My above comments reflect my misunderstanding of the meaning of your msgs. [wink] Your purpose sounds like a good one, and i am not reverting. But maybe (since you obviously have a bot for this) could you go thru and replace those cmts on the LoPbN pages that include
[[Template:Index only]]
(such as List of people by name: He, in contrast to List of people by name: Hf-Hh) with
This comment exists to keep empty "list of people" by name pages from clogging the shortest articles page. These comments can be removed if the design of this page ever changes to result in a significant length of source text.
If it would help you to have the Index-only pages in a Category, there is no reason not to add a Cat tag to the source text of Template:Index only. (Tho a Cat for the non-"index only" pages would be awkward.)
(BTW, it hardly matters, but the close-quote is in the wrong place in the msg; if it's a half-dozen-keystroke fix, it'd be nice. Don't bother if it requires noticeable effort.)
--Jerzy(t) 09:18, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC)

Well, it's hardly worth significant sorrow!
I must have misestimated in looking at the time stamps; i came away with the impression that you were working at a truly prodigious pace. I appreciate yr diligence & i'll follow yr example by fixing the index ones myself; adding Category:LoPbN index-only pages to the template may not speed that after all, but could have future value. I'm also going to touch up the wording some more (e.g. avoid "empty"). Thanks, which i seem to have neglected to say promptly.
--Jerzy(t) 20:47, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC)

The 34 i just did, listed in Category:LoPbN index-only pages (but only after they've individually been edited, i think even months after the template is changed) didn't feel like enough, and i am now using User:Jerzy/Argus for LoPbN MediaWiki to fill in. (I doubt that page is useful to you.) Perhaps their language links have been enuf to raise them above your current threshhold...? I'll let you know when i think i've got the "inx" ones done, & welcome word from you if more still show up (since i doubt i'll scan the 1st 1500 or so entries on Short pages at all regularly).
--Jerzy(t) 22:29, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC)

OK, i've added comments, or reworded yours, on the 70 LoPbN pages with index-only templates, and checked that count a couple of ways.

I've added the comment to the cut-and-paste template that i use when i do the kind of split of a page that creates a new "index-only" page, so the new index-only short pages you'll see will be commented ones. (I've averaged about 1 such split a week over 14 months.)

My best number for pages with either names or the potential to receive them is 617, tho i don't want to promise it's correct. I don't have anywhere near as good a way of locating the "temporarily empty" ones (which BTW in many cases have only a theoretical potential for acquiring names, tho we don't know which they are), and i think i noticed that there are some that actually have one or two names without being as long as some of the empty ones. Your size info offers the best handle on how many of them have more than a name or two. IMO you are in a better position than i to comment the existing ones efficiently.

Splits often produce new "temporary empties"; it would not be a significant burden for me to paste in the "temporarily-empty" comment in new pages of that kind as well; it seems like that should be more efficient than leaving them for you to worry about.
--Jerzy(t) 03:55, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)

Image Tags[edit]

Thanks Simon for the tip of adding tags to my photographs. I am in the process of adding them to all photos I have uploaded. I'm quite new to Wikipedia and am still learning things and grateful for any help. Mick Knapton 16:21, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC)

Cat moves[edit]

Yr mv of Talk:List of Born-again Christian Laypeople has a lot of earmarks of a "Move tool" move rather than the "manual" edit-the-link-every-cat-member ones i've done. I tried one again recently, which still failed, & i don't see anything on Special. Do you know something i don't? (Couldn't help noticing, since i needed yr contribs page to find the LoPbN "indexes" that i think i just finished editing!) --Jerzy(t) 21:51, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC)

Duh. I guess i've looked at too many Cats in the last 24 hrs, including discussing at least one religion related one. [blush] --Jerzy(t) 22:31, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC)

Article Licensing[edit]

I've "started" the Free the Rambot Articles Project which aims to get users to release all of their contributions to the U.S. state, county, and city articles under the CC-by-sa 1.0 and 2.0 license (at minimum) or into the public domain if they prefer. A secondary goal is to get those users to release ALL of their edits for ALL articles. I've personally chosen to multi-license all of the rambot and Ram-Man contributions under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License so that other projects, such as WikiTravel, can use our articles. I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all your contributions (or at minimum those on the geographic articles) so that we can keep most of the articles available under the multi-license. Many users use the {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} template (or even {{MultiLicensePD}} for public domain) on their user page, but there are other templates for other options at Template messages/User namespace. If you only prefer using the GFDL, I understand, but I thought I'd at least ask, just in case, since the number of your edits is in the top ten most. If you do want to do it, simply just copy and paste one of the above two templates into your user page and it will allow us to track those users who have done it. For example:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:


Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain (which many people do or don't like to do, see Wikipedia:Multi-licensing), you could replace {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} with {{MultiLicensePD}} -- Ram-Man 14:34, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:People by year[edit]

You might find Wikipedia:People_by_year/Reports/Canadians of interest. -- User:Docu

Hockey Players NOT Formatted[edit]

Why did you removed the hockey players not formatted tags I've placed for them?! are they correctly formatted? NO. Do you intend to fix that?? NO. Well I do, and if you are not doing anything constructively for those pages then please keep off. Thank you. — LegolasGreenleaf 02:15, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Uhm i didn't know that >.< I just thought if everybody who came across that page saw the sign, the chances of the pages being corrected would be higher than just keeping the tag on one page. =/ — LegolasGreenleaf 02:24, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)



Korea is going well, thank you. I am still interested in redesigning CSB, although I have been momentarily side-tracked for the last day on a slight red herring. I've been somewhat intimidated to do anything about CSB since it is so expansive, and its always harder to reform a project than starting a new one. So, I have just been tinkering a little bit with a guide to Danish articles. Whether it will lead to anything or not, I don't know, but it has been interesting for me to see.

Any rate, yes I am quite interested in CSB, and I do concur that it might be quite a good idea to break up the project into seperate pages for geographic, political, or whatever types of articles we see fit, mostly for simplicity's sakes, although we should certainly be sure to make them all "aware" of each other to give everything the attention it deserves.

I am intrigued by your idea of an analysis of the extent of the bias, as I think it could be quite astounding. How that would be done I do not know, but there must be some sort of way of making surveys of categories and such? I would like to see general ruminations on the main pages, as they could make good reading!

Overall the most important is a list of open tasks, as most people seem to be clamouring for such. I am just uncertain of the best way to format one, I've tried one way on the DK list above, but I fear it may become/be unweildly for a large project. Peregrine981 04:15, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Do you want to do a test run at changing the page, somewhere else? Like here User:Peregrine981/Testing2 or would you rather just break right and do it?

Peregrine981 04:27, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Looks good. Its a nice simple format, readily expandable by people with other observations. Do you feel confident in inviting the CSB community to view the subpage? (Geography) I think that is a fairly clear demonstration of what could be done. But if you wish to fine tune a bit, that sounds good too. Peregrine981 12:05, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Hockey Player Templates[edit]

Hello SimonP,

I have no problem with the changes that you made by removing the "hockey player not formatted" template from the hockey player's names and instead putting a link at Wikipedia:List of unformatted ice hockey players. However, now the information at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey is out of date. Next time your going to go and unilaterally change something that is related to ice hockey please note it at the Ice Hockey wikiproject. In fact, if you're interested in hockey, I'd encourage you to join the project.

Anyway, like I said, I have no problem with taking the templates out as some people don't like having templates in the article namespace (why stub templates are ok, and others aren't is a mystery to me). The list you made is just as good and does the same thing. Have a good day. Kevin Rector 03:03, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Peru + OAS[edit]

Why did you remove {{OAS}} from Peru? Neilc 03:02, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Move Gulf States to Persian Gulf States[edit]

"Gulf states" is too generic. Unless someone knows the context, it doesn't make sense to omit the proper name. It is also confusing, I can never imagine calling Italy a "Sea State", or India an "Ocean State". I'll add my objection to the talk page, and unless there are sound arguments as to why "Persian" is dropped, I expect the page to be moved back. Kaveh 04:45, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Arab League[edit]

Why are you removing the {{ArabLeague}} tags from Arab League countries? Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 04:32, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Tags for Own Photos[edit]


You recently mentioned on my talk that I should add copyright tags to a bunch of my uploaded images. What tag would I use for my own photos? (Ones that I am the copyright holder of)

Reform Party of Canada[edit]

SimonP, I notice that you are helping fend off the "Reform Party was not right-wing" Brigade. Since this issue seems to pop up regularly, I have proposed a compromise at Talk:Reform Party of Canada that may stop this nonsense from continuing. Please let me know what you think. Thanks. Keep up the good work. Kevintoronto 14:28, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Nowhere in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries does it say that templates other than geographical ones can be added to articles. The templates in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Templates/Navboxes have been created for a reason. Please stop removing the templates from the articles they have been added to.

There is no policy for me to change. Repeatedly deleting things will not achieve anything either. --TintininLisbon 07:30, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Only a very limited number of memebers participated in the discussion over the templates. Not using the templates is far from being the "general consensus," and as such I reserve the right to use them as I see fit.


Heya, I just wanted to thank you for janitoring VfD. It's not the nicest of jobs, but someone's got to do it. Keep up the good work! --fvw* 06:01, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)


Consolidated from User talk:IFaqeer

I noticed you removed the {{Commonwealth of Nations}} tag from both Nigeria and Pakistan (that's the two that turned up on my radar). Why's that?iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:43, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

The general consensus at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Countries is that too many templates are unnecessary clutter. It was decided that, in general, international organization templates do not belong in country articles. - SimonP 19:47, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
In that case, shouldn't there be a category for Commonwealth Countries? Is there? Haven't found it yet. Will keep looking—or create one.iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 20:32, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
Personally I find the list at Commonwealth of Nations perfectly sufficient. - SimonP 20:36, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
There is more than one case of a list within an article also having a Category. And the Categories are conveniently and automatically alphabetical...iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 20:39, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
In general categories are meant to be for fundamental characteristics, not for trivia. For me being a Commonwealth country is not a defining characteristic of Canada, Sri Lanka, or Niger. (being former British colonies would be a far more relevant characteristic, and this is how Francophonie/Ex-French colonies are categorized). Also remember if you are creating such a Commonwealth category it belongs not in the country article but in the country category, i.e. in Category:Canada, not in Canada. - SimonP 20:47, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
Hmmmm. There really isn't much of a difference between saying "former British colonies" and "Commonwealth country". The difference with the Francophone countries is that there isn't an organization that brings them all together—at least not one as significant as the CW.
And I guess the importance of one or other characteristic of a country varies with the reader. Imagine a kid in, say, downtown Columbo or downtown Birmingham using the Wikipedia for a school project. For him or her, it will be pretty significant—especially if the project is about or for Commonwealth-related issues.
And why not put countries in the Category? Take a look at: Category:South Asian countries. Works okay; provides direct links to members of the category and sub-categories...iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 21:00, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

There is a difference between Commonwealth countries and former British colonies. Countries often move in and out of the Commonwealth, e.g. Zimbabwe, Pakistan, South Africa. Being a Commonwealth member is a far more ephemeral quality than having been a British colony. I still think Commonwealth membership is a pretty trivial factoid. Your example of a child doing a project on the Commonwealth proves this point. For this child the useful page would be Commonwealth of Nations, not the dozens of pages on member countries. Also there is an organization for French speaking countries the Francophonie, that is essentially identical to the Commonwealth in scope and import. That you, and most people, have not heard of it is further illustration that these post-colonial organizations are of little importance. - SimonP 21:13, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

We're not going to agree on the importance, or otherwise, of the CW—which is as it should be for an encyclopedia that, hopefully, will become a universal resource.
Would you be against my creating the Category?iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 21:28, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
I don't like the idea of a Commonwealth category, but there is no rule against it and if you proceed with creating the category I will do nothing to stop you. - SimonP 21:32, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thanks.iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 22:47, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Consolidated from User_talk:Davidcannon#Commonwealth_and_Shagari[edit]

You might find the following earlier discussion I had with SimonP interesting:


Though, let's not call what he's doing vandalism. It is ill-advised and most probably against WikiRules, but it would be easier to handle him, if we kept it low-key. It's good to have someone helping in the discussion, though. Thanks.

Also, you uploaded the photo of Shagari? Please accept WikiThanks for that, too. I recently started Wikipedia:Africa-related regional notice board for reasons similar to what you say about smaller countries on your user page. It would be great to work with you on these issues.iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 02:38, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

I'm just following the consensus that has existed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries since May of this year. If you disagree with this conclusion you should bring the issue up there, not go around reverting people. - SimonP 04:31, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
I am sorry, SimonP, I don't see a decision on that page—just a lot of different views. Yes, there are most probably more people saying "remove them" or "reduce them" than not. But the consensus I seem to see there is to not have too many of them on the same page. And for most of the Commonwealth countries you edited, it was one of two such boxes. Is that too many?iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 04:58, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
PS: You kept referring to the Talk page and I kept trying to tease out a consensus there. But I finally I just (re-)read the actual recommendations page for "WikiProject Countries": Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countries#Footers again. Though that page is not put forward as binding in any case, even that says:
Country pages generally have footers that link to pages for countries in their region. Footers for international organizations that are central to that countries character, such as the EU, may also be placed on country pages. It is generally discouraged to place templates for other international organizations in country articles. These can, however, go on country subpages such as "foreign relations of..." or "economy of..." A list of the footers that have been defined can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Templates/Navboxes.
And you are definitely the wrong person to make the call about whether the Commonwealth is "central to that countries character" for a lot of the countries you removed it from. And please don't take that as a person comment, much less attack. I am just expressing an opinion on your familiarity of the topic. You have yourself said that you "think Commonwealth membership is a pretty trivial factoid" and that "For me being a Commonwealth country is not a defining characteristic of Canada, Sri Lanka, or Niger." Both of which a lot of citizens of such countries—including this one—disagree with.iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 05:10, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
PPS And notice that the Policy/recommendation above repeatedly says "footers"; "Country pages generally have footers", meaning that more than one can be expected. You removed all but one in most cases.iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 05:12, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)


Hi. I noticed you tagged Interscan as a possible copyright violation. However, you didn't identify the source of the material or list it on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. both of these things would help with making a considered decision on whether Interscan needs to be deleted as a copyright violation. I have done a quick google search for phrases in the article and found only a Wikipedia mirror. Please amend copyvio template, either using {{copyvio|url=}} or {{copyvio1}} (detail of sources) {{copyvio2}} to identify whoe copyright may be being infringed. Thank you very much. --rbrwr± 19:58, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Trinidad and Tobago[edit]

Just wondering why you deleted the "Commonwealth" tag from the Trinidad and Tobago page. thanks Guettarda 22:20, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, read your page (somehow missed that the first time around). Guettarda 22:50, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion[edit]

Regarding Category:U.S. campaign managers, I hate to bug you, but could you provide some citations referring to people like Karl Rove or Karen Hughes as campaign managers? I'd like to resolve the question. Thanks a lot for everything, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:59, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)


Have you yet checked whether the consensus of Boyfriend and/or Girlfriend was to delete?? 01:42, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Usman Dan Fodio[edit]

You don't think the Usman Dan Fodio article is a stub? Though I might agree with you that Fulani Empire, while incomplete, is not really a stub. Maybe it just needs attention.iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 18:07, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Removal of Arafat's Role in the Iranian Revolution[edit]

I can understand how one might perceive the subject of Yassir Arafat's role in the Iranian Revolution as a biased POV, however I believe that these are historical facts worth mentioning. Readers need to understand that there were other forces behind the Iranian Revolution. Arafat's role in the revolution is hardly irrelavant. I will re-evaluate my contribution and revise it so that it's presented without a biased POV. TheSunTheSea 18:40, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)TheSunTheSea

Africa stubs[edit]

Wikipedia:Stub defines a stub as "a very short article, generally of one paragraph or less." Stub messages are not for any article that needs expansion, but rather for articles that are so short they aren't even real articles. I see what you are trying to do with Category:Africa-related stubs, but I feel a better solution would be a list at Wikipedia:Africa-related articles in need of expansion. Such a list could be broader in scope than just stubs, and could also be annotated so that exactly what is missing can be pointed it. - SimonP 18:16, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the detail. I did wonder about that a wee. Great idea for the list.
BTW, why did you also take out Category:Sultan of Sokoto from the Usman Dan Fodio article? That's going to have a lot more members than Category:Kings of Iran, for example.iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 20:06, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
Sorry I took out Category:Sultan of Sokoto because it was linked as an article and not as a category and I felt that the link in the article to Sokoto Caliph was enough. It would be great if you could create some more articles on the Sultans of Sokoto. I have been trying to fill some of these massive gaps in Wikipedia's coverage, but my knowledge of these matters is very limited. - SimonP 20:20, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
Ah, I figured you did it by mistake. Just wanted to know if you had a reason. It is for reasons like the one you refer to that I am trying to shake things up on Africa-related topics. Thanks for the "supervision"; it helps the quality of the work.iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 20:35, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Template: Reqimage[edit]

I see that you have decided to delete Template:Reqimage from every main namespace article that it was listed in. Your reasoning was "This template belongs on the talk page not in articles. It is information strictly for editors, not readers." However, you apparently didn't bother to then add the template to the discussion pages in question, which one would have expected you to do at least out of common courtesy.

In fact, there are plenty of other templates "strictly for editors" such as Template:attention and Template:cleanup (they are "strictly for editors, aren't they?) which have literally hundreds, perhaps thousands, of links in the main article namespace. Can you show me where the "consensus has emerged" regarding this?

The fact is, in Wikipedia the line between editors and readers is (and ought to be) a fuzzy one, and adding a small, unobtrusive template to the bottom of an article's main page is far more effective in catching people's attention (leading to swifter improvements) than relegating it to the talk page. -- FirstPrinciples 01:55, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

Because you are apparently too arrogant to clean up the messes you leave, I have taken the liberty of fixing the templates you deleted. Best wishes, -- FirstPrinciples 04:46, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

A more wiki way of deleting[edit]

Heya, seeing as you're one of the editors who's been active trying to improve our deletion system, I wonder if you could have a look at my proposal. It still needs some fleshing out, so I'm not quite moving it into Wikipedia: or announcing it officially yet (it's hard enough to get people to eyeball these proposals once, I'd rather they do so when it's done), but I would like to get some comments from other people working with the current deletion system. Feel free to edit to your hearts content, as long as you leave the general idea behind it intact. Thanks in advance! --fvw* 20:15, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

it was an user([edit]

That user re-moved social democratic out of the Belinda Stronach page. In Newmarket-Aurora most moderate, socially progressive and social democratic voters did voted for Belinda Stronach and some people hope that Belinda will walk across the floor to the NDP not only that Belinda will keep the NDP sharply to the left but a better vote turn out for the NDP by next election. There is a strong posabilaty if Belinda is in the NDP Cabinent Then Jack Layton will be the Leader of the opposition or maybe Prime Minister (A 1st in the history for the NDP)- michaelm.

  • For full information, that was me (Samaritan), accidentally logged out at the time. See Talk:Belinda Stronach of course for considerable discussion. Samaritan 23:10, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


great job of cleaning that up. I learned some tips Jasonnolan 15:02, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Entry on Mercantilism[edit]

I must question why you got rid of my concise definition of mercantilism. I said, "Essentially, mercantilism is an economic concept of self-sufficiency of a single nation." Obviously you do not agree, as you deleted that in the next version of the page. Please explain.--Seth Goldin 20:56, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Greatest Canadian[edit]

I just learned after it was decided to be deleted that the Greatest Canadian Category was deleted. I spent the last hour trying to revert edits on the pages until I was confronted with the issue. (I found only a blip about this on the VfD page) Apparently there was indeed a discussion that I had no idea about. (I guess next time I created a category I'll watch the page!) Anyways, my point is, why was this not listed on the Canadian users page under "Canadian related pages under VfD"? Anyways, thanks for your time. Earl Andrew 01:21, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


As you add to your biographies, would you add each one to the list I started at Montaillou, so they won't be lost? Ladurie's picture of Cathar beliefs and customs need to be added to the Wikipedia entry for Cathar, if you're interested. --Wetman 06:17, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

!!beyond my wildest dreams!! --Wetman 06:45, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

link spam[edit]

I see you've been diligent reverting's book-selling-link spam. I just blocked him/her/it/them for 48 hours, although I see from the history that this IP shows up every couple of weeks and does the same thing. Sigh ... - DavidWBrooks 19:59, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Had you actually looked at that link, you would have seen that it is indeed a transhumanists weblog. Now I hope we can put this behind ourselves, have a cup of tea and be friends :) . --Taylorsimpson 21:25, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But those links are for transhumanist's blogs --Taylorsimpson 21:28, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Stephen King (paedophile)[edit]

Why did you remove the deletion notice on Stephen King (paedophile) when there was a concensus to delete the article? Susvolans (pigs can fly) 11:29, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Country footers[edit]

Hi SimonP, just noticed that you had removed all but one of the footers for Malaysia and Singapore, I personally think that even the footer "countries of SEA" shouldn't be placed on the main page. My suggestion in Malaysia's talk page was to move all of the "countries of _____" footers to the geography articles, as it is related to the geography of the countries. Meanwhile about the ASEAN, Commonwealth and OIC footers, I support the keeping the footers in the main page, as they are often an integrated and important part of the countries relations to the rest of the world. The reason I'm not proposing to move the footers to the foreign relations articles is because I believe that the footers tends to give an article part of its identity. Besides, why are there footers if we were not supposed to use them? --Andylkl 20:11, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Commonwealth of Nations template[edit]

Stop removing the Commonwealth of Nations template from Commonwealth pages. There is no consensus to remove this template, which was added for a reason. You may have reasons of your own for removing it, but discuss them on the appropriate talk page first. I now have to spend a whole morning reverting your edits - and believe me, I don't enjoy reverting somebody else's work. David Cannon (administrator) 02:25, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

What the hell? I've just found that the Commonwealth of Nations is only one of a MULTITUDE of templates you've ripped out of articles right across the project. Because others have edited the articles after you, I cannot just hit the rollback button without destroying their work as well as yours. Moreover, most of your edits are not even properly tagged. This is completely unacceptable. I - and a lot of other people - have to MANUALLY go through and reinsert everything you've butchered. I would strongly advise you to EITHER take a wikiholiday (indefinitely) OR get a mouse in your hands and start cleaning up the mess you've made. This isn't funny. David Cannon (administrator) 02:25, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


Why am I "definitely the wrong" person to judeg this? My opinion is just as valid as your own. As to the consensus back in May, it was strong enough that that almost all of these templates were purged from country articles [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] . Since then some of the templates have occassionally been readded by new users or those unaware of the previous discussion. - SimonP 05:30, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

Because your opinion on the topic—namely, the Commonwealth of Nations and how "central" it is to a country's character—seems, at least to me, to be at odds with that of almost all of the people I have met in living for 15 and 10 years, respectively, in two of the largest (by population) of these countries: Nigeria and Pakistan. (As far as I know, only India has a larger population, and I have spent months at end in India, too. And the Commonwealth is pretty onstage in the "character" of that country, too.)
As for the edits you listed: The one for Ireland left in two boxes. Believe me, Canada considers its status as a "self-governing Dominion within the Commonwealth" more than just "trivial". (See [7] and [8].) And on the political situation in Nigeria some years ago, (and on the current one in Zimbabwe; and Pakistan) the Commonwealth is front and center.iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 05:52, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

Fair use images[edit]

I will do that, thanks. Spinboy 06:19, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Templates ...[edit]

I'm sorry I flew off the handle earlier. I was just upset that I had to go to so much extra work, after noticing the template's disappearance (without explanation) in the Fiji article. Still, I should not have called your edits "vandalism" - such language was far too strong and I apologise for it.

Anyway: Most of my fellow-New Zealanders - including republicans are passionate supporters of the Commonwealth, and consider our membership of it much more than a factoid. No matter how opposed to the monarchy they are, no matter how left-wing they are, almost all New Zealanders consider our Commonwealth membership to be of supreme importance. Symbolic, yes - but symbols have powerful meanings. By working as a group, for example, the commonwealth was able to force Fiji to restore the 1997 constitution after the 2000 coup. (Other joint ventures were less successful, but at least they tried - and did so together, as a united force). It influences our foreign relations, too: Commonwealth-member countries exchange High Commissioners, not Ambassadors. The distinction may seem trivial (and for practical purposes, it almost always is), but it is real nonetheless. David Cannon 09:22, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


I removed some articles from VfD early because they were already deleted. I also removed Zoophilia early because consensus was overwhelmingly on the side of inclusion (something like 20-1). Vacuum c 18:07, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

Largest mobile phone companies[edit]

The article still needs expansion. For example, the number of subscribers that mm02 and TIM have are not shown, so there is no proof that they actually belong in the list of largest mobile phone companies in the world.

Also, I think it is rather unfair to only have select countries listed. I think that China, France, Italy, and Japan should be listed there too. Andros 1337 03:39, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Tag removal patrol[edit]

Seriously, SimonP, what are you up to? Would you mind reading either the article or the talk page of NPOV disputes before you remove the tag, or, if you cannot tell, leaving a message on the talk page inquiring? In the case of Syngman Rhee, the talk page makes very clear why it is disputed, and had you read my message and then gone back to read the article, you would have agreed with me. Perhaps you would like to volunteer to fix the page, and see yourself jumped on by all sides in an edit war. If you come up with something neutral, I’ll back you up. But the tag was added (by me) as a statement of fact. The article contradicts itself. It could not be more obvious. This is at least twice that you have untagged an article without examination. You are not fixing any problems; you are apparently attempting to portray to the world that they do not exist. This is a wiki, my good man. There will always be disputes. So you cannot just go to the NPOV page, follow the links, remove the tags, and congratulate yourself on a job well done.
Ford 12:02, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC)

History of France[edit]

Look, I don't really care about this, I was just adding the Edit link and I thought about the Fourth Republic. But don't you think there's a little bit of a GAP between the Second Empire and the Fifth Republic? Honestly, that is so stupid.--naryathegreat 01:04, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

OK...that was rather quick...anyway, I didn't really mean that, I just meant that there is quite a gap. It's way too big. Anyway, why are the French articles so SHORT anyway? There are loads of information on this stuff.--naryathegreat 01:08, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)


I notice everyone running around deleting vandal redirects. But it doesn't seem like anyone has bother ed to block the vandal. Unless I misunderstand something, that would be User:Goplat. contributionsMichael Ward 01:00, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Correction, I did misunderstand. Recent changes had Goplat listed as creating the New articles. But in fact, he was undoing vandalism. Very confusing. Michael Ward 01:27, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Why did you delete my edit of adding a product that is rated at 16,000,000 Scoville units? -- 23:16, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I like the fact that you seek to improve edits, but please look up the material before you decide it is 'dubious' and delete it. Just because something doesn’t look right to you doesn’t mean its fact, it’s a strange world out there.-- 23:22, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Songs by name[edit]

They were blanked for a reason. This whole discussion about the songlist has been done ina previous Votes for Deletion. Unless the song is notable or has an article they are deleted. Thus those songs were deleted. It has been voted on before. Megan1967 00:14, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Convergent space[edit]

Thanks for removing Convergent space from the requested articles. I had removed it from the list of articles requested for more than a year, but forgot about the other list. One mention I have, is that when you add or remove something, put a comment explaining what you did (edit summary). I figurered it out by looking at the diff, but that was an extra click or two :) --Oleg Alexandrov 23:19, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Blocks are not expiring[edit]

I'm posting this message on every admin who has made a block in the last few days. The title says it all really: because of a bug in the new software blocks are not expiring when their time is up. Until this is fixed can you get in the habit of manually unblocking a few everytime you block one. If everyone does this we'll be able to keep on top of things until the bug is sorted out. Note also that another bug is displaying indefinite blocks as expiring at the current time and date. obviously you don't want to unblock those. If you want to reply please do so here Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 09:37, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Expansion template[edit]

The "expansion" template belongs in the article page, not in the talk page, of Compound (linguistics). How is anybody supposed to know that the article needs expansion, if the text requesting it is elsewhere? --Pablo D. Flores 12:51, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC).

Same oes for the IPA_notice and ConvertIPA templates, altthough with the new IPA tempalte, we might want to supress the notice from articles that have been converted--Circeus 17:16, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Image Copyright Status[edit]

Hello, and Welcome to Wikipedia. You have uploaded a number of images, but gave no indication as its copyright status. What is the copyrigth status of these images? If you do not own the copyright to the images you need to obtain permission from whoever does own it to use it in Wikipedia. - SimonP 04:15, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Hi there, what better way to enter the new year as to talk about formalities :-) I have all the copyright permission in emails, how do i amend the images as to their copyright status? --Craigy144

Happy New Year. Image copyright status is indicated on the page for each image by copyright tags. For instance if you have received permission to use these images in Wikipedia, but nowhere else, simply add permission to the page for each image. You can quickly find the pages of all the images you have uploaded by checking your user contributions page. It is also a good idea to list who gave you permission to use the images. Ideally you could also include a copy of the e-mail giving you permission. - SimonP 05:30, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

No problem, I'll edit each one accordingly. Thanks Craigy 06:40, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)


Could you not move the userspacelink template behind the redirects? The interruption of the redirect is intentional, it informs those using it that it is going away and makes cleanup easier by not having to click back to the redirect. --fvw* 17:44, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

Ah ok, that is a nuisance. --fvw* 17:49, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

Glad to hear that they arrived. I can't imagine what took so long. I'm happy you enjoyed them. Danny 02:57, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Voice actor links?[edit]

Hi! A friend of mine runs the web site, which has been up since 1996 and which has lots of information on hundreds of voice actors and productions... and she spent today adding links to it from voice actor articles here on Wikipedia, but then she saw that you went through and reverted them all without comment. I'm just curious, why do you feel that the articles here should not link to I can understand removing links to fan sites, but this site is a longstanding source of information which is supported by many voice actors themselves, and there's precedent for allowing links from Wiki articles to such sites which have established themselves as important. Is there anything that could be done differently to convince you that the links should stand? (Yes, I recognize it probably looked suspicious that she came in and edited dozens of articles in a single day without registering - I've asked her to register before she makes any more edits.) - Brian Kendig 04:17, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

American hegemony[edit]

You re-added "In recent years this view has lost popularity, however" after "It was argued that through economic and military pressure the United States pursued hegemony just as aggressively as the Soviet Union" in History of United States imperialism. It's not a satisfactory line. It's not even clear what it means - do people now think that American pursuit of hegemony in Europe was greater than that of Russia during the Cold War, not as great, what? What people? The idea certainly isn't less popular now than it used to be in academia in Europe, nor in popular culture, nor in general attitudes. If anything, more people now acknowledge it than used to, probably because America is seen as having succeeded. 12:32, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Oh, dear. Sorry for my absolute lack of copyediting of my own edits to Jan Brown. Samaritan 04:14, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Canada and the Napoleonic Code[edit]

If I read the history of the Anglosphere article correctly you added the information that, in addition to Louisiana, parts of Canada were under the Napoleonic administration.

Can I express skepticism? Quebec was captured by Britain in 1760. Before the French revolution, well before Napoleon came to power.

From our own Napoleonic code article: "The term Napoleonic code is also used to refer to legal codes of other jurisdictions that are derived from the French Code Napoleon, especially the civil code of Quebec." It should also be noted that Louisiana was sold a year before the code was introduced. Both areas adopted modified versions of the code while not under the rule of France. Feel free to make this clear in the article in question. - SimonP 04:04, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

J.I. Packer[edit]

Simon, why did you remove the substub notice from J.I. Packer? Other than the list of other books, we have "James I Packer is best known for his book Knowing God.", which looks like a substub to me. Even with the list of books, that's essentially equivalent to another sentence saying "He has also written Concise Theology, Knowing and Doing the Will of God..." - RedWordSmith 23:13, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles requested for more than two years[edit]

After clicking on your reference link to 17 September, I notice not all requests this old are included. Why is this? Please reply on my talk page. --Oldak Quill 03:08, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hey Jealousy[edit]

What's with Hey Jealousy? I count 10 deletes, 3 redirects and 1 keep. Should be a delete by any standard I think. --fvw* 16:56, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)

The difficulty with this one is that while it had a strong consensus in favour of deletion, many of those votes were because on it containing copyrighted lyrics. By the time I got to it those lyrics had been removed, and there is no certainty consensus in favour of deletion exists for the lyricless article. If you still feel the article should be deleted the best option is to relist it on VfD. Alternatively feel free to merge and redirect it somewhere. - SimonP 17:09, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
I understand your problem, but please don't just take as "voted for keep". ReVfD it or at least message the nominator. Apart from that, great work on cleaning up VfD ofcourse. --fvw* 17:12, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)

Suggested Reading re Ollieplatt[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you've encountered Ollieplatt and I thought I'd offer a bit of background:




Note that Ollieplatt is Libertas and about a dozen other user IDs.

— Davenbelle 01:09, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Reform Party of Canada / NPOV[edit]

Re: your comment that "calling something corporatist" is not NPOV, my contribution merely made a factual statement that some of the party's critics called it that. Stating that other people have had such-and-such POV is not POV, especially when it's balanced (as my statement was) against the fact that other people had different POVs on the subject. A factual summary of other people's POV opinion is not POV; it's reporting. Bearcat 01:46, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

VFD closing templates[edit]

Has something gone wonky with the top template used for closing VFD discussions on WP:VFD/Old? There's a line break in there that moves everything from the "keep/delete/merge" statement onward down to another line. Take a look at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Alexander Gordon, b 1635 in Aberdeen, Scotland, for example. Feel free to tell me if I'm screwing something up myself. Joyous 03:13, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I can find any number of ways to mess things up myself; it's such a pleasant surprise when it seems to be Someone Else's Fault. Joyous 03:26, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Archiving of VfD/Old discussions[edit]

Good afternoon, SimonP. I noticed that you are still pasting a link to each discussion thread on the Archived deletion debates page. I've come to the conclusion that that is a redundant step. It's useful for a little while but those links are soon consolidated into an archive page. By archiving the day-page, we still preserve the ability to find the discussion thread and it's already in an archive page. We'll still have to consolidate the day-pages into a month-page every so often but I think it will be a lot less often.

The only thing that changes is that the deletion debates will now be preserved by nomination date rather than by deletion date. Your thoughts? Rossami (talk) 22:33, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Good evening. If the Deletion process is too burdensome, then we should fix it. I'd be interested in your thoughts.
In the meantime, can I ask for one change in your process? When the article is kept, can I convince you to leave the VfD discussion page intact rather than moving it to the article's Talk page? I've laid out my reasons at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process#VfD process when article is kept. The most compelling reason to me is # 2. I've had a couple of bad experiences with VfD discussions on the Talk page. As you know, some of the VfD discussions can become very confrontational. After the decision is made, we want the participants to get back to improving articles. Even though the decision was to Keep, when the discussion is archived right on the Talk page it seems to reinflame partisan emotions. By providing a link to the deletion discussion page but not directly including the content, we allow those thin-skinned folks some emotional distance. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 06:17, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi Simon. On the same subject - I don't quite understand what you were doing on VFD/Old. You blanked Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/2005 January 9 (which was then restored by someone else), and removed it form Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Old, in spite of remaining unhandled entries on it (such as Edward wild, Economics & thermodynamics, and more). What's going on? -- uriber 09:48, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

YA- VFD question[edit]

Could you put the keep or delete in there when you do the finishing templates, per the instructions? Otherwise it doesn't make any sense. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 02:04, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Bangladesh Liberation War[edit]

I will add material to clarify nomenclature confusions. For the time being, I am removing the name Pakistani Civil War. Please avoid adding it for now at least.

Bingo! Done! I tried to avoid a POV, but it would be awesome if you could check.

Left a little note on the talk page.


I think newspaper categories by continent are efficient. One thing is that they make sorting easier. And, for example, there are hardly any African newspaper articles. If three articles are added for a newspaper in each of three different countries, it doesn't add a lot to have categories with just one item, but they still have something in common. Maurreen 03:13, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any harm in it. I see that we also disagee about categories having to do with reporting. If you feel strongly about it, why don't we just split the difference? That is, you can pick one of these two areas to go your way, and the other would go my way. Maurreen 05:15, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Also: Are you sorting the newspaper articles? And "journalism" and "reporting" are not synonymous. There is a subcategory for copy editing and visual journalism. I see no reason not to have a subcategory for reporting as well. Maurreen 07:15, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

ADRA Article[edit]

The article as it stood at the time of its temoval has had much added by other copntributors. Some is obviously copied.

How can I revert portions to the original (non-copyright) text?


Hi Simon,

I noticed that you moved Butler(servant)->Butler, which I have no objection to in principle, but next time can you check the 'what links here' as well? I spent a lot of time after fixing the redirect (which used to be Butler->Domestic worker) to make sure that everything that linked to Butler(servant) was correct. Quill 21:48, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Boy sent back to Cuba[edit]

Nice work on Elián González article. Your writing style is more encyclopedic than mine. --user:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed (talk) 19:12, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

India-pakistan war of 1971[edit]

I have hesitated to revert anonymous recent changes , because of my ignorance about this war, bit it looks as if your last edit is the last proper version. Could you check and revert if you think appropriate. Rich Farmbrough 21:48, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

VFD Page change[edit]

I have to apologize that I boldly changed the VFD format. It was based on a suggestion on the discussion page, suggesting that days should be placed on subpages, so that if the VFD page were changed around from newest day to oldest day, it would be a lot easier to do. I do apologize if this has created more work for you. However, the other reason why it was done was that it got more and more difficult to try to add a new vfd to the main VFD page. To me, I believed that an automatic link was required, one that would allow me to quickly add the VFD to the page, without having the trouble to go through the entire VFD just to add my vote. Mind you, Wikipedia has enough problems of page loading... loading the whole VFD page with all the votes just to add one just got really annoying. I felt that if each page was subsectioned, then the new VFD would go on a per day basis, showing the VFD subpages for that day, rather than 5 or 7 or more days. Well, I don't think a bot would be that extremely difficult to program, since it would just need to figure out how to visit each day's page and process it like before... -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:27, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Metal Box[edit]

Hello. I noticed that you closed the VfD discussion on Metal Box, but didn't delete it, although there was a majority vote do delete. Could you please tell me why? Another user suggested me that this wasn't a consensus. I'm a newbie in Wikipedia, and I wanted to understand the criteria on consensus for the deletion of articles. JoaoRicardo 03:48, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Thank you for telling me those articles already existed, I had searched for them but didn't see any results, perhaps I spelled the names wrong. Thanks again. User:Kingsean1

1968 Liberal leadership thingy[edit]

Simon, I moved that page to Liberal Party of Canada leadership convention, 1968 for two reasons:

  1. The standard format for elections that has been settled on after lengthy debate is: "Canadian federal election, yyyy" or "Province general election, yyyy". It makes sense for the party leadership conventions to follow the same format.
  2. "Leadership race" is far too colloquial for an encyclopedia. I have been converting the various articles to "leadership convention" if it was a delegated convention, or "leadership election" if it was a one-member-one-vote type of arrangement.

Please explain why you don't think that these conventions should be followed. I am not interested in a revert war with you. Thank you. Kevintoronto 19:12, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oops. My apologies. I thought that's how one would redirect. I will read up on redirecting before I do anymore. I did not mean to take credit for your work or anyone else's. As you may know, I have created a fair bit of content on Canadian political pages, and I wouldn't want anyone to take credit for my work. Again, I apologize. I will also see what I can do about correcting the record on other pages I have redirected.
As far as "race", that word usually refers to sporting events and has only been brought into politics by analogy. A better word would be "campaign", but a campaign culimnates in a convention or an election, which is why I have been using thsoe two words. Regards, Kevintoronto 19:45, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm... the advice provided at the community portal on "redirect" does not mention "move" instead of redirect, so I had to search around a bit, but now I've got it. And moving is considerably easier than redirecting. So I've undone the baaaaad redirect I did on "2003 Liberal Party of Canada leadership race" and tried to move it, but since there is now a blank "Liberal Party of Canada leadership convention, 2003" page, I can't move the old page without the assistance of an admin. I don't want to take up an admin's time until we agree on a naming convention. I have reviewed the naming conventions pages, and the "Canadian federal election, yyyy" format is there, so I think that is something we should stick to. Your comments?Kevintoronto 20:06, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for being so agreeable and patient. Kevintoronto 13:45, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Nation state[edit]

I've made Nation-state a redirect to Nation state, since all text has already been re-edited there, and the Discussion is moved there as well. Was this a clunky way to do this? --Wetman 04:12, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

John 20:16[edit]

Please notice that your article is on VFD [9]. Maybe you would like to comment/vote there? Stereotek 08:32, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[Seperate comment on the same issue] Good work on this article! Some of the VfDers are claiming "original research" as a legitimate reason for its deletion - I don't suppose you have any further references (particularly secularly written ones) to pacify them? --Oldak Quill 10:06, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Everybody has forgotten their Latin - the article noli me tangere has been there since 13 September 2003 without ever suffering a VfD debate. I think these articles will be allowed if we allay people's fears about "an article for every verse of the bible". I recommend a speedy merge of John 20:16, John 20:17, and noli me tangere into a single article covering John 20:11-18. Would do it myself but I have to go out and earn money. (Can we assume the P of your user name stands for Peter?) -- RHaworth 18:48, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)

Bible Chapters[edit]

What's your rationale for creating a "Bible Chapters" category? Do you think Wikipedia needs an article for each chapter of the Bible, or for each verse? Just trying to tell where you're going with this. Wesley 21:57, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Crown corporations Canada[edit]

Hi Simon. Re Federal departments and agencies. This is broad enough to cover federal crown corporations. Believe me, as a retired civil servant, any idea that most crown corporations operate "at arm's length" is a fiction. The money comes from Parliament, the capital for building and renovations comes from Parliament, the board is appointed by order-in-council, the PMO adds and removes board members at pleasure, and employees are usually subject to most of the benefits and disadvantages of being a civil servant, even though they technically are "separate employers". Most if not all have to follow the Financial Administration Act and are subject to the Auditor General. There are differences between crown corporations, particularly those which were very business oriented like Air Canada or CNR, but most of the cultural ones have little autonomy. I notice that the main article Crown corporations has not been categorized yet. Federal crown corporations are not all businesses, so that is not always appropriate, but every one of them is a "creature" of the federal government and created by statute, which is not true of most federally-incorporated companies. The Museums Act (SC 1990 chapter 3) governs the War Museum. By the way, in the Ottawa of today, "Crown" is a dirty word just as "National" is a dirty word. Only three laws now contain the word Crown according to the Dept of Justice website. I could not find the expression "crown corporation" in the Canada Post Corporation Act or the Canada Council for the Arts Act. You will notice that whenever a new institution is created e.g. Library and Archives Canada, the word "National" is dropped (National Library, National Archives). Similary the "National Museums Act" was repealed and replaced with the Museums Act in 1990. It seemed to me more useful to group all "Federal departments and agencies" together rather than create a separate category for "Canadian crown corporations". Do you not see any advantage in grouping all federal "agents" together in one place rather than scattering them? The advantage of categories is that they group like things. Perhaps it hinges on your definition of what an "agency" is. I take "agency" in its broadest sense. The "agent" acts on behalf of the government of Canada to achieve some statutory purpose defined by the Parliament of Canada. You may have noticed that "Agency" is now the popular term with new federal creations e.g. Canada Revenue Agency, Parks Canada Agency, Canadian Food Inspection Agency. These do not seem very different to me from the old crown corporations of C.D. Howe's era. C.D. Howe is dead and the crown corporations are heading that way. What alternative do you propose? --BrentS 01:48, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to shock you. Before you create a new sub-category (of what?) for Canadian crown corporations, throw that proposition open to comment from other users. The Canada Council for the Arts RS 1985 c. C-2 is indeed a "corporation". The chairperson and board are appointed by order-in-council. The Director is appointed by order-in-council during pleasure. The act appears to exempt the council from the Public Service Employees Act (but warning, not all so-called crown corporations are). Employees are part of the Public Service Superannuation Act. The Council is "not an agent of Her Majesty" but this particular wording is quite different for new creations e.g Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. "The Agency may enter into contracts, agreements or other arrangements with Her Majesty as if it were not an agent of Her Majesty." which of course implies that it is an agent of HM for other purposes. So, you may be right about the Canada Council for the Arts, but you would have to carefully examine the law creating each so-called crown corporation to determine if it is specifically excluded as an agent of HM before lumping them all together. Crown corporation was an invention of C.D. Howe. Like national, it has had its day, and the government is creating "things" which do not neatly fit under crown corporation. I see no useful purpose in scattering material. Anyway, throw the question open for discussion and advance your arguments.--BrentS 02:23, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bible verses[edit]

Good idea, however I don't think it will work for all Bible verses. Why? because when I say a sentence, I put it in the context of a paragraph and a larger overall framework. Unless, of course, you are going to note the verses. I think you should perhaps think that through a little. Good idea though, I just thing it needs some futher thought! - Ta bu shi da yu 09:43, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I was just coming here to say exactly the same thing. If I was you I would create one article for Matthew 1:1, with a redirect from 'Matthew's genealogy of Jesus' and the 'next' in the box being Matthew 1:18, maybe with a redirect of "Matthew's account of the birth of Jesus". DJ Clayworth 17:45, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This issue is also being discussed at Talk:John 20:16. Lumping verses together has its advantages, especially for those like the genealogical lists that don't have a great deal of exegesis. The disadvantage is that how to arrange them is not always obvious leading to debate over what each article should contain. - SimonP 19:13, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
One would be to do it by chapters, with an arbitrary subdivision as necessary. So Matthew 1 would say something like "Matthew chapter 1 contains [[Matthew's genealogy of Jesus]] and [[Matthew's account of the birth of Jesus]]". DJ Clayworth 19:17, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the photo to Notre-Dame Cemetery (Ottawa). Poirier?

Great job on these—I was especially impressed with how much content you put together for Matthew 1:13, because the geneology lists are the stereotypical Biblical droning filler material. Please resist the urges to merge these together. There is obviously enough to say about individual verses that merit each having their own article. Don't worry about the loss of context, because that can be provided to some extent in the introduction to each article, and articles on the chapters, or on particular passages that form discrete stories can place each verse in context. We don't worry about articles on individual battles losing the context of the wars in which they took place. I'm very glad to see that John 20:16 is going to survive VfD. Keep up the good work! Postdlf 21:53, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations, John 20:16 has been voted to keep by a nine keep majority. This bodes well for the rest of the excellent work you are doing, keep it up. --Oldak Quill 20:39, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Al-Ahly page[edit]

Hi. I saw that you had copyvio'd the Al-Ahly page, so I rewrote a new page on Al-Ahly/Temp. Can this be moved over now? - Master Of Ninja 20:49, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Transitway photos[edit]

Yes, you may replace *one* of the images (I think the bottom one) on the Billings page. I have some more transitway photos that i haven't uploaded yet. I also have eagleson (just the bus stop on eagleson rd) Bayshore, Dominion, Tunneys pasture, Lebreton, Kent, Metcalfe (both Albert & Slater for both), and Laurier. Earl Andrew 19:03, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC) linkspam[edit]

Your reversions of User: on some pages are simply restoring a different version of the spam URL rather than removing the link entirely. It appears that he has managed to slip these links in quite a while ago without them being reverted, and is now "updating" the links. I think you're intending to remove them—just a heads-up to check what his edit actually did before doing a simple revert.  — Saxifrage |  19:19, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Can I have your assistance please?[edit]

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ta bu shi da yu. I think that speaks for itself! - Ta bu shi da yu 20:20, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

copyright issues[edit]

You've removed the page George W. Dailey because of "suspicion of copyright infringement", I would like to point out similar pages:

I don't really agree with the "copyrigth infringement", but I do think that all these pages should be removed (deleted). -- 17:26, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

External links[edit]

I see external links all the time in the body of Wikipedia articles. There is not a single article now on wikipedia that defines and describes mixed government and your compatriots have erased all of my edits from the republic article and any mention of "mixed governments". So...WHEELER 18:08, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please see User_talk:Sam_Spade#Having_trouble. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 20:30, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Federal elections charts[edit]

I’d like to get some consensus on what to do about colours in the elections charts, but I don’t want to get into a revert war, so I’m asking people to express their opinions here before any changes are made. Since you have contributed to these pages, I’m inviting your comments. I am initiating this discussion because some of the colours that are currently being used are too dark for some monitors so that it is difficult to read the text. The point of adding colours to the charts is to make it easier for readers to derive information from the charts. This goal is foiled by using colours dark enough to obscure the text. The Wikipedia style guide is clear on the issue:

Use colour sparingly. Computers and browsers vary: you cannot know how much colour is presented on the recipient's machine if any. Wikipedia is international: colours have different meaning in different cultures. Too many colours on one page make them look cluttered and unencyclopedic. Use the colour red only for alerts and warnings.

So let’s choose some colours that are light enough that red Wilkilinked text and blue Wikilinked text are both easy to read through.

Please join the discussion at: Talk:Canadian federal election results since 1867. Thanks, Kevintoronto 17:21, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Discussion of links[edit]

At Talk:Yosemite National Park#Compassmonkey links. An anonymous user reverted my deletion of one of the links, and challenged my assertion that there was a consensus that the links were spam. Since you deleted 28 links two days ago, you may wish to comment. Thanks! -- hike395 06:45, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

CSB bias[edit]

Can you tell me how you calculated the numbers here: User:SimonP/Geography#Does_a_geographical_bias_exist.3F about Canada, Nigeria etc? - 16:05, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No reason[edit]

What rules are you following there is no such thing as deleting external links. From where do you get the reason for your actions? WHEELER 20:37, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Point it out to me please. direct me please to your specific rule please.WHEELER 20:52, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Here is a quote from the External links: "Pages that are linked to in an external links section should be high content, with information that is not found in the Wikipedia article. This restriction does not apply to sites used as references.". My article is information with high content not included in the republic article. Sparta, Venice and america and others are Republics. Britain didn't call herself a republic but she had mixed government. WHEELER 21:16, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Protected Page: Please join the debate[edit]


Protected. Maybe this will get WHEELER to see reason, but don't hold your breath. :-) —Charles P. (Mirv) 15:46, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I considered that, but since the only substantive edits since the last stable version were the additions and removals of one link, I was concerned that it might be seen as favoring one version over another. If WHEELER refuses to discuss, I suppose we should just unprotect the page and continue deleting the link. —Charles P. (Mirv) 22:44, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)


  • Wikipedia talk:Requested moves - help save Requested Moves, bring friends. I'd hope you vote to keep voting at RM instead of running away to cabal at distant talk pages. —ExplorerCDT 19:03, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Iraq election criticism[edit]

Anyone that advocates violence is not being critical. Including quotations from Al-Qaida only serves to tarnish the other truly critical and insightful reactions to the Iraqi elections. I removed it because I realized only those that supported the Coalition Provisional Authority's position about how the elections went were the sames ones that felt the need to include the Al-Qaida quotations. If you think that info really belongs in the article then feel free to move it somewhere out of the criticisms section where it does not belong. zen master T 21:15, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Criticism implies constructive criticism, those adovating violence are not being constructive. I am not saying that info does not belong somewhere in the article, but it definitely doesn't belong in the criticisms section because it detracts from the other much more reasonable (non violence advocating) criticisms. The users that added those paragraphs to the criticisms section have no intentions of actually being critical (they support the Coalition Provisional Authority's position about the iraqi elections and the occupation). I could argue that those first two Al-Qaida/Zarqawi quotation paragraphs in the criticisms section were actually supportive of the occupation of iraq in a reverse-psychology sort of way, which seems like the plan by the user(s) that put them there. A red flag should be raised whenever those supportive of an article's POV are the very same ones framing the criticisms section. zen master T 21:40, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

File:Brennan Hall.JPG[edit]

Hey Simon, did you take this photo? If so, where did you take it from? It looks like the same angle as the apartment building I used to live in. That would be pretty bizarre if we lived in the same place. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah...yeah that's where I lived, at 57 Charles anyway. 55 Charles was supposed to be turned into condos but I don't know what came of that. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)