User talk:SimonP/Archive 3

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

Contents

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? - XED.talk 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]

Republic[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)

PLEASE VOTE[edit]

  • 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)

Republic[edit]

Please go to Talk:Republic and discuss your reasons for not wanting the link to wikinfo since the lock cannot remain indefinitely. AndyL 00:05, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Iraqi election article[edit]

How is it possible to have a "criticisms" section without quotations/citations? You left in *just* the al-Qaida quotations which seems inconsistent? Perhaps we could paraphrase what the reasonable critics said and just not include full quotations? But anyway, thanks a lot for your other clean ups to that article, they were good. zen master T 06:52, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

But what about conservative critic buchanan's very relevant statement that I believe added balance to the article, "the people of the middle east don't hate our values, they hate our policies"? Also, if a critic is saying the election was fake would you consider that acceptable? Perhaps we should just create a new section for info on critics that claim the election was somehow faked and not include verbose quotations? zen master T 07:20, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

SimonP[edit]

Who are you? You make up the rules all the time. WooooWW!!! And now you charge me with spamming? What in God's name do you have against me and information. If you look at the external links of the Nazism you will see external links that say "Hitler, a rightist" and "Hitler, a leftist". There is no problem except that you are making one. What is your expertize? Anything about the Classical, Medieval or American politics? You are making a problem out of many things. Information goes where it is required. Everywhere like the Dorian page, the Spartan page, the JBS page, the Venetian page all require information on a Classical republic. I will put pertinent information there for people to learn.WHEELER 14:48, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Could use your help with Wikipedia:2004 Encyclopedia topics. Danny 14:07, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

personal Wiki record![edit]

The change you made last night to Appalchian Mountain Club set a record for me: Longest time after I created an article before it was edited by somebody else. (From March 2003 to Feb 2005 - almost two years!) Isn't that fascinating? (Wikipedia is definitely rotting my brain) - DavidWBrooks 17:04, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Canadian federal election, 2005 / 39th Canadian federal election[edit]

I am a little concerned that you made the move of the article when no consensus had been reached despite the fact that Canadian federal election, 2005 is not entirely accurate. I would point out that UK general election, 2005/06 provides something of precedent. Also, the format "political division, date" is the established Wikipedia naming convention. - Jord 04:30, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

SimonP, I would appreciate hearing your comments, I think that the page should be moved back to Canadian federal election, 2005 but I would like to hear your point of view before making such a request. - Jord 16:21, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
That is not necessarily the case, there are other matters of confidence that could come up that would force an election in 2005 and Martin could well go to the polls willingly should he be on the right side of a major issue. I am not arguing though that there will be an election in 2005, I am pointing out that 39th Canadian federal election does not meet Wikipedia naming convention standards. I would suggest Canadian federal election, 2005/06, Canadian federal election, 200x or perhaps even Canadian federal election, 2009 with the article stating that "though it is likely there will be an election before 2009, the 39th general election must be held by that time". - Jord 18:08, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What do you mean you changed the convention!? I don't think the solution to your having named something that contradicts a convention is to change that convention! - Jord 20:44, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I've responded on Talk:39th Canadian federal election - Jord 22:00, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

District of London / Districts in London[edit]

Hi Simon. Hope you are well. I see you have moved all Category:London Districts to Category:Districts of London. I wonder if you noticed that a fair few articles are hiding in Category:Districts in London - Bethnal Green is for example - so you might want to move those too! All the best. Mrsteviec 07:15, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wiki requirements[edit]

Hi there! In reaction to your remark on VfD that Wikipedia does not have a notability requirement, I'd have to say that to my knowledge, it does. The Wikipedia:Verifiability page lists two other parts of policy, Wikipedia:Neutral and Wikipedia:Informative. The latter mentions notability. Also, the deletion policy lists Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not as one of the arguments for deletion, and under 'Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base' a notability requirement is mentioned. Yours, Radiant! 11:03, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

  • Ok, we can always agree to disagree. However, how is 'informative' defunct if it has had about a dozen edits this year? And WWIN does state that certain classes of items are not suitable for inclusion - and the Deletion Policy page does state that being unsuitable is grounds for VfD nomination. I do agree that the word 'notable' isn't always used, but the words 'informative', 'interesting' and 'notorious' are. And for purposes of VfD discussions, 'not notable' and 'not interesting' can probably be considered synonymous. Radiant! 16:08, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Lower Morden[edit]

Poor old Lower Morden. It is still listed in Category:London Districts even though it has been correctly categorised. Its Special:Whatlinkshere/Lower Morden is empty even though Beverley Brook and Morden both link to it. Do you know how to fix the database? -- RHaworth 20:50, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)

It should now be fixed. - SimonP 00:34, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
Category fixed. Special:Whatlinkshere/Lower Morden not fixed. But I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. -- RHaworth 05:13, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for "spotting" me on my new wikis. --AStanhope 00:32, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. - SimonP 00:34, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

History[edit]

The template is the only continuous history described at History. Hyacinth 04:04, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What comes after prehistory? Just history? Hyacinth 04:13, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Kudos for your recent edits. The history and ancient history articles are much clearer now. Are you aware of Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias? Hyacinth 04:53, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What do you think of Template:History by continent? Hyacinth 05:18, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Great! Thanks. Hyacinth 05:46, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Category:Barnet[edit]

Should an article such as Hendon or Edgware be in Category:Barnet and in Category:Districts of London or just in the former? Please post your answer at Talk:Hendon#Category:Barnet. -- RHaworth 11:08, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC)

Dead End Pages[edit]

Hi there! I noticed over a hundred new DEP articles appeared last week, but only in the P and R sections. Since you're working with that list a lot, do you know what happened? Yours, Radiant! 15:44, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)


Schools on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion[edit]

As of March 4, 2005, the following (7) articles are currently listed for deletion under the POV suggestion that schools are not notable (even though this is invalid reasoning as per the Wikipedia deletion policy. Whether you agree or disagree, please be aware that the following schools are actively being voted on:

Thank you for your time. --GRider\talk

Template:VfD criteria templates[edit]

I would suggest getting some consensus that all those templates are really a good idea before creating any more. -- Netoholic @ 06:57, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. Personally I think they're a good idea (forces the nominator to actually explicitly state where the page fits within the deletion policy), but you know how things are with VfD.
Also, I didn't realize you were in the process of creating them when I started messing with the style. Sorry about that.
One minor problem with them is that with short VfD entries, they run into each other.
– flamurai (t) 15:10, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • They are stinkingly ugly and make that already difficult page very hard to read, without making the page more useful. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:03, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Would you please stop adding all these templates to VfD pages, at least until some consensus has been reached in the VfD discussion David Gerard started about eliminating all VfD nominations that don't follow the exact criterium of policy-as-written? Thanks. Radiant! 17:27, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • It seems to me a good idea to test those template in the VfD page. If they are not tested in vivo, I don't see how to make an opinion on them. And it is important that VfD criteria be clear, in order to limit exhuberant deletionism, even if it still might be insufficient to reduce it to a reasonable number. We need speedy un-VfD, it seems good to me that David Gerard took the initiative to test it also --Pgreenfinch 17:43, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Stop vandalizing my VfD nominations with YOUR interpretations of my motives in listing them. This is verging on vandalism. RickK 05:18, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

There is now a policy discussion underway at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Policy consensus/Deletion criterion boxes on whether the boxes should be retained and used. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 20:27, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Classical Republic[edit]

I am sure there is a reason WHEELER is telling me that you told him to relist his article on VFU. What reason that could possibly be eludes me, however. Snowspinner 21:31, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Image:Al-Idrisi's world map.JPG[edit]

  1. Image:Al-Idrisi's world map.JPG - using the ' character
  2. Image:Al-Idrisi's world map.JPG - using the &27 characters
  3. Image talk:Al-Idrisi's world map.JPG
  4. Special:Whatlinkshere/Image talk:Al-Idrisi's world map.JPG - "OK"
  • Best regards Gangleri | Th | T 09:09, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)
  • Additional tests:
  1. Special:Recentchangeslinked/Image:Al-Idrisi's world map.JPG does / did not work properly
  2. Special:Recentchangeslinked/Image talk:Al-Idrisi's world map.JPG - "OK"

Re: NIV[edit]

Hello, I appreciate the effort you are putting into the Bible verse articles. However as to fair use, it seems that you are writing your way through the whole Bible or at least the Gospels, and whether you complete it or not yourself you are providing a template for the rest of the Bible. I say this because you have been writing these articles sequentially through chapters of John and Matthew rather than highlighting isolated verses.

By the NIV guidelines you cite, it is forbidden to quote more than 500 verses, which would limit you to 500 of these verse articles. Or less, if you wrote up an entire short book—they specifically count TOTAL usage in the whole work, i.e. Wikipedia, regardless of how much "commentary" there is.

More importantly, including the legally problematic NIV translation is completely unnecessary, as your articles already include the KJV translation. For these Gospel verses the KJV seems easy enough to understand, but if you feel you need to include a modern translation there are plenty of other alternatives like ASV or the contemporary World English Bible [1], which are public domain. Therefore in the interim I will be substituting the WEB in your articles where NIV presently occurs.

Lastly I would ask you to consider, if it is your intention to make these articles for a large portion of the Bible, transwiki-ing to Wikibooks, because these seem more in the realm of Bible commentary and original research than encyclopedic articles. I do not say this to deprecate your writing, which is good, and I don't intend to press this point, but I do think that is a better venue for a line-by-line analysis of the text, especially if you wish to have more editorial control over the articles. However that aside I do strongly believe we should avoid using quoting large portions of the NIV. You will note that even most articles on popular songs in Wikipedia do not quote more than fragments of the lyrics. NTK 01:15, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

              Contact me through my talk page about Modern Translation alternative. Athrash | (Talk) 00:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Another Please Vote[edit]

Please vote at Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Teletraffic Engineering. Not on the technical merits of the articles but on users intentionally creating parallels/forks of existing articles as declared in Ian Kennedy's email. -- RHaworth 03:30, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)

Economy of Africa[edit]

Hi SimonP, I remember that you've been doing a superb job at Economy of Africa last year. These days, our general article on Africa is the CSB Collaboration of the Week and I figured the best I could do for its Economy section is ask you to tune in and take a look at it. If you have time and if you feel like it, that is :). Cheers, mark 00:11, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Alliance Airways[edit]

Hi. recently you added some material to Alliance Airways - unfortunately it is a duplicate article and the correct and substantial article is Alliance Airlines. Would it be possible to delete Alliance Airways?? Ardfern 23:15, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ensoniq EPS[edit]

Hi Simon: Thanks for the compliment of removing the cleanup tag from Ensoniq EPS after my last edit. --Theo (Talk) 22:02, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Transwiking[edit]

Removing any article from Wikipedia requires the consensus of the community. Please stop unilaterally redirecting Star Wars articles off site. - SimonP 23:24, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

If these articles are to be deleted anyway, I am simply putting them where they need to be, as many members of the community have agreed on before. A Star Wars Wiki was needed because of the many articles regarding the subject could not stand on their own on this site. Deletion already happened for one article today which I had to ask to be reinstated temporarily so I could move that to Star Wars Wiki. Normally it would not have survived in Wikipedia. As for the ones that have been voted to keep or merge I have left those alone to see what happens. But I believe this action is justified. -- Riffsyphon1024 23:39, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
But none of there are going to be deleted. GRider nominates dozens of articles per day in an attempt to prove a point, but hardly any of them ever get deleted. - SimonP 23:45, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
But some like Order D6-66 would be deleted if not merged, however for the Star Wars Wiki, this article could reasonably hold up by itself as a stub there. -- Riffsyphon1024 23:50, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
It's fine to copy articles to the Star Wars wiki, but VfD results should be respected. If an article is to be merged it should be left as a redirect to where it was merged, not to an external site. If the vote, as in this case, is to delete the article then it should be deleted. However, I am certain that if this article was ever rewritten as a stub or longer it would be kept. - SimonP 00:05, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
This Order D6-66 is only a stub as best, and because it is not of importance to the Wikipedia, only to the SWW, it would be deleted for sure. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:15, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
Plus, might I ask why you are moving all the templates for SW Wiki to the talk page, no one will see them there. Plus various SW articles under Vfd were dealt with the same way. Care to explain? -- Riffsyphon1024 03:32, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
I think that if the fans had a site to which they could add articles like this (1) the articles may not show up as much in the general Wikipedia, (2) when articles do show up, Wikipedians have a place they could easily move them, (3) the VfD's would pass much easier as a Transwiki than a Delete.
This is what I am worried about. Anything that discourages people from creating Wikipedia articles or makes them more likely to be deleted is a bad thing. - SimonP 16:51, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
But this doesn't discourage people from making good Wikipedia-worthy articles. Articles on a fictional universe with no relevance to the real world (i.e. something no one outside the fans would care about, and labeled cruft) need to go to a specialized place. Now currently we are deciding what is major and can stay on Wikipedia and what is minor and needs to be exclusively transwikied. Anything that remains on Wikipedia will simply be a copy of it on Star Wars Wiki. I was to start with the articles that had the possibility of being deleted. Sure I could have copied the text and saved it in case an article went, but then that meant correcting all the redlinks that would go to nowhere if it was deleted. I admit, I'm still new here, you still learn things even after 3 months at it. Do not take these actions as anything personal, as I was only ensuring the safety of the existing articles, and thanks to GRider, has forced me to take charge. -- Riffsyphon1024 17:16, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
I understand what you were trying to do, but you should be aware there are many of Wikipedians, probably the majority of us, who see no difference between "articles on a fictional universe" and "good Wikipedia-worthy article." - SimonP 17:20, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
I will just copy articles now rather than transwiki them. If you have any further questions, contact Cbarbry. He is running the Wiki and deciding how this should all be done. -- Riffsyphon1024 18:00, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
Actually, it's user-run - just like Wikipedia. I just happen to be the first user and the one who initiated it.  :) Cbarbry 05:51, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am joining this debate on SW articles, I have mostly voted to merge. Anyway I suppose the point is that if you blank articles before the VfD is over or vote to "transwiki" to the Star Wars wiki then it's means the content is lost to Wikipedia and judging by how a lot of the votes are going, this is not where the VfD debates are going... most of them are moving toward merge. Also, no offence, but I don't really see why you are even mentioning that the content is being copied to the SW wiki, it's a seperate webpage, so moving stuff over there isn't really relevant to the VfD debates -- Lochaber 18:47, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You're right. The word "move" can have more than one meaning. Copying is what will be done now, and to the articles facing Vfd. Whatever happens to them here won't matter if we still have it on the SWW. But then redlinks start forming here. -- Riffsyphon1024 23:52, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
As I said above, I think it is relevant to the VfD debates because (1) the articles may not show up as much in the general Wikipedia, (2) when articles do show up, Wikipedians have a place they can recommend to put the fancruft, and (3) the VfD's would pass more easily as a Transwiki (i.e. the information isn't lost, just put in a better place) than a Delete. WhiteBoy 10:54, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

See also[edit]

Revert link on Ashland, Oregon[edit]

Hi! You recently reverted an addition to Ashland, Oregon, can you please discuss on its talk page? Thanks! Demi T/C 06:57, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)

About RickK, me, and user blocking[edit]

Note: Please read this carefully and thoroughly, as this is important.

RickK, one of the admins, blocked my former accounts "User:Hil Duff" and "User:Hil Duff star". He didn't give any reason why and totally ignored my comments on my talk page just because he thinks my user name would be something like imposting or vandalizing. I wanted to discuss things over with him, but he just deleted my account immediately without reason. I just want to be a happy Wikipedian here.

I AM NOT A VANDAL, and I won't be Hilary Duff, just Cool Cat886. I won't tell anybody that I am famous or a pop star. I just want to contribute in peace here, and YOU CAN BLOCK ME ONLY IF YOU SEE ME VANDALIZING OR ACTUALLY DOING SOMETHING BAD, BECAUSE I DIDN'T. Would you support me and be my good friend, or should I just get blocked for eternity because I didn't do anything? Cool Cat886 07:19, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Uncategorized pages[edit]

Thanks for letting us know about the "Au" section. They are now categorised. Alphax τεχ 15:40, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Ottawa Wikipedia Meetup[edit]

Hey, just a quick note to let you know there is an Ottawa Wikipedia Meetup coming up this Saturday @ 2pm. If you can make it, please drop by the Meetup website and RSVP. If you can't, join up anyway, so you can find out about future Ottawa Wikipedia Meetups! --Spinboy 20:54, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)


More schools on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion[edit]

As of March 25, 2005, there are an additional (6) articles listed for deletion under the POV notion that schools are non-notable (even though this is invalid reasoning as per the Wikipedia deletion policy). Please be aware that the following schools are actively being discussed and voted upon:

In response to this cyclical ordeal, a Schoolwatch programme has been initiated in order to indentify school-related articles which may need improvement and to help foster and encourage continued organic growth. Your comments are welcome and I thank you again for your time. --GRider\talk

Embassy pics[edit]

I like all the pics of the embassies in Ottawa that you've taken. Well done! --Spinboy 02:17, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Toronto roads[edit]

I recieved the following from SimonP on my talk page: Please stop moving Toronto streets, many of them do not require disambiguation. - SimonP 05:05, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

I have posted the following on SimonP's talk page:
I'm not subtracting information am I? I just noticed that some of your street names were familiar to me, but not in Toronto. Anyone who looks up the un-ambiguated street name will go directly to the Toronto street article unless there is another street with the same name at which time they will have the opportunity to choose which street they intended. Do you have a problem with that? If so, please explain because I'm trying to avoid confusion and not create conflict. hydnjo talk 05:53, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Image request template[edit]

If {{image request}} belongs on the talk page, why does the template text tell you to go read the talk page? --Vik Reykja  18:36, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good point, I have changed the template. - SimonP 01:01, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Local politicians[edit]

Hi there! I'm afraid I must disagree with the conclusions you've drawn from the discussion on local politicians. Since there haven't been many edits to the discussion in the last couple of weeks, I believe it would be best to conclude that there is no consensus, and mark the matter as closed for the time being. Yours, Radiant_* 11:18, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Local politicians again[edit]

You keep adding the pure vanity autobiography of Stig Olai Kapskarmo to the categories category:1980 births and category:Norwegian politicians. I think this reflects very badly on Wikipedia as a serious encyclopedia, and really reflects some of the real problems of Wikiedpia. This biography fullfills none of the criteria in Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies by a long run. It is bad enough that it exists as an orphan, but it certainly should not be categorized also. -- Egil 15:31, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This article has been listed on Vfd, and regretfully this reflects one major problem of Wikiedpia. Of one person declines, the article seems to be kept. In this case, we are talking about a totally unnotable local politician. The one and only reason the article exists is that the guy write hos own biography. There are more than ten thousand people in Norway alone that fullfills the criteria of having been elected to a municipality board. There is no way that Wikipedia should or even attempt having biographies for these. The fact that one of these tens of thousands of people have written his autobiography in Wikipedia is not reason for inclusion. It is of no interest to others than this person himself, and inclusion of such articles only serve one thing: to degrade the quality of Wikipedia. Is that your aim? -- Egil 16:35, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Curses, you have uncovered my fiendish plot to systematically degrade the quality of Wikipedia one Norwegian city councillor at a time. - SimonP 16:57, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Ontario Coalition Against Poverty[edit]

I was under the impression this was an anarchist organization, or at least closely related enough that the template made sense. Do you disagree?--Che y Marijuana 14:37, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Closing Charlie Beresford VfD[edit]

Hi SimonP,

I was wondering if you'd mind having another look at the Charlie Beresford VfD. Briefly, I see nine votes to delete (including the nominator) and four to keep. I don't think any of the editors there are sockpuppets. My understanding is that two-thirds of voters is usually taken as sufficient for consensus, but of course that's open to some interpretation. This one could always be handed off to another editor to close, too.

I would also encourage you to refrain in future from closing VfD discussions in which you participated, if only to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest. There are always lots of other VfDs to close. :)

Cheers, TenOfAllTrades | Talk 15:42, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

VFD/Rance - what???[edit]

On Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Rance there are 5 votes for delete and one keep. How the hell the result of debate is keep. Just because one votes Strong Keep doesn't mean he is more influential on the result than five other people! This is just ridiculous. I hope it's just an April fool prank and the article would be deleted properly. Grue 05:00, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I had the same question myself. Now, it happens that I made a smartass comment on the nomination which I thought clearly expressed no vote. Did you count it as a "keep" vote in order to discourage me from making vague smartass comments, or something like that?

How the nomination should be counted is a judgement call, but clearly someone who believes an article should be kept should not nominate it for deletion, so a nomination should never be counted as a keep. This one looks to me like "no vote."

So, I see five explicit "deletes," one "strong keep," one nominator's implicit "no vote," one explicit "no vote," and two smartass comments. What do you see? Dpbsmith (talk) 13:45, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • No, I have no particular objection to its being kept and I'm not going to renominate. If I had cared it was my duty to vote an explicit delete and give a reason. I do think your call was a bit iffy but it was your call, and everything about that particular nomination was iffy. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:22, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Correction... on reading the Reuters article I agree that the delete votes said little of relevance and that the "keep" made a very relevant point that was not rebutted, ergo there was doubt, ergo keep. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:43, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of deadly cults[edit]

Please explain why you did not delete the article and chose to redirect instead?. There was only one vote for redirect, 3 votes for merge and delete and 3 votes for merge. The title List of deadly cults now redirects to a List of purported cults, meaning that a reader searching for a list of deadly cults will be presented with a list of groups which are not. Inherently POV title. Please delete. --Zappaz 16:09, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank for your prompt response. Then we have to re-open the VfD. Leaving it as is is inherent POV. We cannot have an article that includes a variety of groups some of which are totally harmless that can be reached by typing of the search box at WP "List of deadly cults". That is inherent POV. How do we re-open the VfD? Or should just simply start a new vFd? --Zappaz 19:45, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OCDSB[edit]

SimonP wrote: It's silly to only have one high school merged into this page while the others have seperate articles

Sigh. I know it is, but consensus from Vfd was to merge the school into a list. I actually created this article as a better place than the List of Ottawa, Ontario schools for it and other deleted school material. I suspect the article will have to be vastly improved or it will be deleted, and then we're back to putting the material here. Truly, I hoped to bypass vfd completely by aggregating schools until such time as the subject matter is mature enough to be an unquestionable breakout article. Other schools are also in danger of deletion.  ThStev 19:01, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Invitation to join Wikiproject for business world[edit]

Based on your interests and contibutions, I'd like to invite you to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Business world. Thanks in advance, --Leifern 19:10, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

Invitation to join Wikiproject for business world[edit]

Based on your interests and contibutions, I'd like to invite you to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Business world. Thanks in advance, --Leifern 19:21, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

The Sage School[edit]

I think it's inaccurate to say the result of the VfD debate on The Sage School is keep. That implies the rough consensus is to keep. But by my count, the votes were 19 to keep vs. 18 to delete, which is not consensus. The summary should say the result is no consensus and therefore the article is kept by default. --Angr 21:37, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Zeros and Ones[edit]

I'm curious to know why you added a new link to the VfD. Please understand it's quite alright with me if you do; it doesn't do any harm whatever. But after moving the page into my user space, I did add the entire debate to the article's Talk page, "as advertised".

WP sometimes seems to be a battleground and when not openly confrontational, sly and snarky. Be assured my question is neither. I just think I might learn something by asking. — Xiong (talk) 17:52, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

Well, that's clear enough and, looking back, I should have figured it out. Perhaps I need not have archived the debate on the moved Talk page at all, but it seemed the Right Thing to preserve it. I assumed that both the mainspace article page and its talk would go into the Bit Bucket after the move.

Netoholic and TfD[edit]

Since you seem like a rational guy and I hope you consider me rational, too, I'd like to call your attention to the recent dust-up over "metatemplates" -- templates that call other templates. (I would call them "macrotemplates".)

Netoholic has written an opinion opposed to metatemplates and attempted to railroad it into policy over the objections of several users, repeated on the opinion's Talk page. He has done some questionable things, too, such as reverting user's attempts to improve his "candidate policy" -- this is not seeking consensus.

I wrote, on that Talk page, a lengthy rebuttal which he is completely unable to answer; he has retaliated by nominating, en bloc, nearly every template I ever created. He and his sparewheels are jumping all over these templates, not omitting personal attacks.

These templates fall into two groups: the second is a number of trivial templates which I'd be happy to remove, just for the asking -- though this non-confrontational route was not tried. The first is a set of carefully designed box templates, including a general-purpose master template -- exactly the sort of thing which so upsets Netoholic in the first place. His characterization of them is misleading at best. Far from being a vector for my personal idiosyncracies, they are a tool intended for the most general use. Nor have I gone mad using them.

I feel Netoholic is acting in very poor faith and has dragged in friends to escalate this dispute into a war. Failing to suppress, in the designated forum, templates he dislikes, he has resorted to policy change. Now that the policy change has stalled, he is picking on a new user who represents the opposition, returning to TfD to make bad-faith, confrontational nominations -- apparently to annoy or discredit me. He is in any case unwilling to answer any of my objections or respond directly to any of my comments.

TfD is a very lightly trafficked forum; Netoholic can do a lot of damage there without arousing general interest. I would like to bring in more voices, but I wish to do so properly. I am new here; I do not have a gang of my own to toss into this fight -- and I hope I never have to do business here in that way. I would highly appreciate it if you would take the time to check out the sources I've noted, and get back to me with your suggestions.

Thank you. — Xiong (talk) 04:40, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

Now I see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Netoholic 2. Why don't I find out about this before, or at least when, he runs roughshod over me? — XiongXiong2char.pngtalk 12:08, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

WikiProject Ottawa[edit]

I wanted to invite you to join me and Earl Andrew in the new WikiProject Ottawa. We created it today, and have been hard at work with it, and we'd love to have you aboard! --Spinboy 02:04, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My adminship[edit]

Hi SimonP, Thank you for your vote of confidence and kind words in my nomination. Your support means a lot to me and I look forward to helping out as an admin. Cheers, BanyanTree 03:44, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Waking the Tiger[edit]

Doesn't exist? I thought the vote was keep? --Jondel 05:55, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Thank you for your work on it.--Jondel 00:38, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

VfD closing[edit]

Hi there! When you close a VfD discussion that yields no obvious consensus, please mark it as 'no consensus' rather than 'keep'. Obviously the article still should be kept, but for bookkeeping purposes, a discussion that yields no consensus is very different from one that yields a 'keep' decision. Radiant_* 11:58, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for supporting my adminship — I vow to use my super powers for good not evil. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:40, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Images and media for deletion[edit]

  • I am contacting people who previously helped to vote to delete a generally objectionable photograph by a vote of 88 to 21, and who might be unaware that immediately after that image was voted to be deleted someone posted another which was very similar in content. My objections to this, and the previous image that was voted to be deleted might be based upon reasons far different from any that you have, but I do object to it, and consider the posting of such images to be acts of asinine stupidity, which burdens the project and its major educational aims in ways that they should not be burdened, and can be extremely detrimental to the acceptance and growth of WIkipedia's use and influence. Thus far those who I believe to be in the extreme minority of Wikipedians who would like to include these images, many who have been channeled to the voting page from the article with which it is associated have dominated the voting, 23 to 12 (as of the time that I composed this message). I would like to be somewhat instrumental in shedding a bit more light upon the issue, and if possible, helping to turn the tide against its inclusion. It might also be necessary to begin making an effort to establish an explicit Wikipedia policy against explicite photographic depictions of humans engaged in erotic, auto-erotic, or quasi-erotic activities. To my limited knowledge such images have not been accepted as appropriate anywhere else within this project, and frankly I can agree with those who are casually labeled prudes for opposing their inclusion, that they should not be. Vitally important information that might be unwelcome by some is one thing that should never be deleted, but un-needed images that can eventually prevent or impede many thousands or millions of people from gaining access to the great mass of truly important information that Wikipedia provides is quite another matter. There are vitally important distinctions to be made. Whatever your reasons, or final decisions upon the matter, I am appealing for more input on the voting that is occurring at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion. ~ Achilles 01:44, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"The X is the X"[edit]

Hello. This diff shows my attempt at a little manicuring of one of your latest articles. I realize that it's customary to start an article on X by saying '''X''' is blah blah, but The '''Estonian Embassy in Washington''' is the [[embassy]] of [[Estonia]] in [[Washington D.C.]] seemed curiously uninformative: after all, few people would have otherwise supposed it was the embassy of Belize, etc. But I then noticed that you'd started Croatian Embassy in Washington in the same way, so it must surely have been deliberate. Well, revert my change if you like, but I think this is an instance where Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Introduction might be better interpreted flexibly — a possibility that's suggested at the top of that very page. What do you think? (If this merits a reply, please reply here rather than on my page. Thanks.) -- Hoary 03:39, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

There is an unfortunate choice between dopey phrasing or ugly formatting. The opening line of the article should contain links to Estonia, embassy, and embassy and it is also important that it contain the title of the article in bold, which is one of our most basic stylistic conventions. I thus generally pick the weird phrasing over the weird formatting but it is a matter of preference. - SimonP 12:20, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
It's certainly a stylistic convention that's very widely observed, but I see no intrinsic merit to it. Since there's also usually no drawback to it, I usually observe it myself; and if the result is a little odd I generally still observe it. But here ... I think not. There may be some compromise: title restated in bold, as the start of a non-tautologous statement. But right now unfortunately I'm too sleepy to think of it. Over to you! -- Hoary 13:21, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

Templates[edit]

Good work on keeping the templatemonger at bay, S. Kevintoronto 22:40, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

{{Commonwealth of Nations}} and friends[edit]

i agree that we should cut down on the number of templates on the main country pages, like you did at Australia, however i think they do some useful purpose on other pages, like i suggested at template talk:Commonwealth of Nations, i think these ones should go as footers Foreign relations of <COUNTRYNAME> articles. we also did this on the Economy of Australia article with the {{APEC}}, {{OECD}}, {{WTO}}, {{South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission}} templates. but they should either go on all of those pages, or none. it's inconsistent to have them present as footers on some country pages but not others. clarkk 01:11, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good idea - SimonP 01:57, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
you might want to check out the discussion at User talk:Cyberjunkie#Australia. since templates issues span articles, it easy for people to get confused about what's going on. clarkk 02:14, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Simon - not sure if you noticed, but CaribDigita raised the question (at Talk: Caribbean Community and Talk:Barbados of why you removed the {{Caricom}} templates. I think the Commonwealth templates should be there too, but I definitely think that Caricom is the most important regional grouping. It would also be nice to see some discussion of this stuff - I remember there was a dispute over this a few months ago. Regardless of the "Commonwealth" issue, I think that the Caricom tags should not be removed. Guettarda 16:09, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

24.131.157.99[edit]

He must surely have a dislike of Tom! I blocked this character. JFW | T@lk 18:04, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good work. - SimonP 18:08, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

commonwealth template[edit]

why are you removing a perfectly fine and necessary template? the edit summary makes no sense as there is little or no recent discussion on the Australia talk page that discusses this. Xtra 22:49, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC) i'll read those, then get back to you. Xtra 23:09, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

i still support keeping the commonwealth of nations template, but i am not to fussed about the commonwealth realms, it appears to double up content. Xtra 23:17, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I wish you would stop vandalsing these pages by removing these templates, as you can see from above, they are supported. Astrotrain 22:23, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Please stop deleting them then! Just because you don't like templates, doesn't mean all should be deleted. You have already been reverted by others for unilateraly deciding to delete various templates.Astrotrain 22:28, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Stop deleting the templates. They are all agreed to, factually correct and necessary. If you keep deleting them when there is a clear concensus for them the page will have to be protected and you make be reported as a vandal or blocked. FearÉIREANN 23:36, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is no consensus of the sort you claim. You appear to be the main person pushing the issue. There is however consensus for including those templates on that page. FearÉIREANN 00:05, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see no evidence of that supposed consensus reading the debates. It is standard to put the EU template on all EU states. And it makes perfect sense to but the commonwealth realms template on a page about a country that is one of the commonwealth realms. I cannot see how putting relevant templates on the correct page is a problem. And I cannot see any evidence in the debates that there is a consensus to leave out relevant templates from pages. If it was some nutty and irrelevant templates about islands off continents with more than 50 million people, or countries with a queen and an heir called Charles, then you could justify their removal. But what is the point in removing 100% relevant templates that link the UK with 2 key aspects of itself - being in the EU and being in a commonwealth realm. Countries in Europe is I think much more dodgy. Many people would regard the UK as an island off Europe, not part of Europe, certainly not part of continental Europe. But EU and Commonwealth Realms are 100% relevant. (In fact, Commonwealth realms is perfect for me. I'm currently researching them so having a template linking them together is ideal. It is the sort of information wikipedia should be giving.) FearÉIREANN 00:36, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with FearÉIREANN, you are the only one deleting these templates, and it is you who have reached the 3R rule, as I have only been inserting the templates once, then reverting your deletes. Your actions are very aggressive, and have annoyed many editors including me, and the others from posts above. Astrotrain 11:57, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Poll: Inclusion of Biblical figures at List of occultists[edit]

I have put up a poll concerning the inclusion of Solomon, Jesus, and the Three Wise Men at Talk:List of occultists. As someone who has contributed to the talk page in the past, your input is invited. -- Smerdis of Tlön 04:54, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Potential nominees to the Supreme Court of the United States[edit]

I have some problems with your resolution of this VfD. How was there not a consensus? By your count, the deletion votes outnumbered the keep votes by an exact 2 to 1 margin, plus the merge vote makes it 17 votes to 8 against the content surviving as an independent article. I also don't know how the merge and delete vote by User:Lochaber could be invalid. Postdlf 23:26, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As for the result, it's borderline and I won't question your call. But I was going to ask myself why you said "merge and delete" is invalid. It's extra work for the acting sysop, but perfectly feasible. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:09, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually I'm here to ask why my vote to merge and delete is invalid as well.. Basically my position was that the article title was too vague, it could refer to potential nominees at any time in the future, past or present, so even though I thought the content was worth merging somewhere there was no point in redirecting the title. -- Lochaber 09:23, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was one of those who supported keeping the article, but I also proposed that it should be renamed, on the theory that it should not be about who will be the next Supreme Court justice, but about the recent phenomenon of popular speculation as to who will be the next Supreme Court justice. Is it appropriate to make such a change now? -- 8^D BD2412gab 16:06, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

Feel free. Actually, considering that there was no consensus to keep it, only (at best) a lack of consensus to delete, you could still merge the content elsewhere and leave it as a mere redirect if you wanted to. List a couple of the top proposed names on Rehnquist's and the Supreme Court's pages in the proper sections. Postdlf 17:15, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, I shall. -- 8^D BD2412gab 19:05, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

issues over school articles[edit]

In November 2003, there was a VfD debate over Sunset High School (Portland). The debate was archived under Talk:Sunset High School (Portland). What to do with the article is still being contested and has been recently re-nominated for VfD at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sunset High School (Portland).

I am writing to you because you have participated in such debates before. There still does not exist a wikipedia policy (as far as i can tell) over what to do in regards to articles about specific U.S. public school. My hope is that a real consensus can come out of the debate, and a real policy can take shape. Take part if you are so willing. Kingturtle 02:19, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome.[edit]

Ground Zero 13:18, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

One-sentence paragraphs[edit]

Are bad, yes, in a finished product. But they also show where more information is needed... in the case of Diane Deans, the information about Guelph and CFS is clearly a separate topic (i.e. "pre-political life") from the information about elections. The one-sentence shows that we need research to be done...


Three revert rule[edit]

You have been blocked for 24 hours under the three revert rule. If you wish to appeal please contact another administrator or the mailing list.Geni 01:36, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda[edit]

Could you please vote on the proposed move Links between Iraq and Al-QaedaAlleged links between pre-invasion Iraq and Al-Qaeda? The vote is here . Thanks. ObsidianOrder 17:17, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Graphs in Free trade[edit]

I'm working on the free trade article, and traced back creation of the graphs currently in the article to you. The graphs are beautiful... I assume you have some kind of special graphing software. I tried to create some graphs to illustrate the concept of PPFs under autarky and free trade. If you go to Category:Graphs (images), you'll see my ugly attempts at graphs in Excel. Can you offer any advice on how to make my graphs more appealing? They convey the concept, but they're quite ugly to look at. Feco 07:30, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

COTW Project[edit]

You voted for Decolonization, this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. Tony Jin | (talk) 02:20, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Are you interested in being a Bureaucrat?[edit]

Hi, I am considering nominating you to become a Bureaucrat. The role would involve giving administrator or bureaucrat access to other users following consensus on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Although there are currently 18 bureaucrats, it may be helpful to have a few more. If you would accept a nomination, please let me know. Kingturtle 04:28, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your photos[edit]

Just wanted to say I really like your photos of Toronto buildings including Avenue Road Church, Hummingbird Centre and others! Paradiso 12:17, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, you have also done some great work especially on U of T buildings. Some of my pictures also aren't very good. I would be delighted if someone could get better photos of places like Holy Trinity and the Princess of Wales Theatre. - SimonP 16:33, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Decade pages (IE 1920s (LDS)[edit]

I created the skeleton so that we can begin adding content. Over time it will accumulate content. I am sure there is precedence in the wiki-wide decade/year pages that are either blank or mostly blank but will be populated over time. Jgardner 21:50, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also, I would prefer that you don't move the pages from '1820s (Mormonism)' to '1820s in Mormonism'. If you visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Latter_Day_Saint you can get familiar with some of the issues the project is facing. The term "(Mormonism)" in page name marks it as shared between CoC and LDS churches. The term '(LDS)' marks it as dealing primarily with LDS church, etc... Also, what would we name the '1950s (LDS)' type pages? '1950s in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints'? I don't think that's a great idea. Jgardner 21:57, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Arben Xhaferi[edit]

Was there a reason why you removed the quotes on this page? I restored them and kept your NPOV changes. freestylefrappe 03:56, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

Templates[edit]

Your aggresive editing is really pissing me off. These templates are on the other Commonwealth pages, and should be on the other articles too. These have been supported by others, as you well know. Astrotrain 16:50, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Look yourself for them. I support these templates, along with many others. If you keep deleting them, others will keep adding them (including me). So unless you want to be in a constant delete mode I would suggest you leave them well alone. Astrotrain 16:58, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
I find your editing very offensive. Why do you keep reverting my edits, but when someelse reverts it, you don't? It is clear that in articles most edited, your deletions of templates is reverted quickly by others, but in less looked at articles, you can get away with it. Your actions are disgraceful. Astrotrain 18:11, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
I wouldn't class your suggestion as an offer. It is asking for me to agree to your deletions, which I and many others have not. Your removal in the UK page was reverted by others, and some other pages too. Stop trying to push through your edits by constantly removing other people's valid work. Astrotrain 18:18, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
OK, I see you won't be reasonable. I can't waste my time reverting your vandalism every time you decide what is right. I have already stated my case for the templates before. Others have backed me on this, including above in your talk page, on the UK page and NZ pages. You are the worst sort of Wikipedian I have ever come across. Astrotrain 18:26, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Volute[edit]

I noticed you replaced {{struct-stub}} on that page with a category. I would have thought that this one sentence article is still a stub, no? Rl 06:45, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Chilango[edit]

Why did you remove the stub templates from chilango? The article is a stub since there's a lot more to be said about it: etymology, history of the term, references in popular culture, and others. At its current length and scope makes it more adecuate for wiktionary, which shouldn't be since the word is an important part of Mexican culture. I'm replacing the templates. -- Rune Welsh 18:14, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Moving expansion template[edit]

As I understand it there is currently no widely accepted policy on moving this template to talk pages.

So please try to restrain yourself when you feel the urge to do so because there are people who might not agree with you.

An article either needs to be expanded, or it doesn't. The expansion template becomes almost invisible when placed on the talk page. Should you encouter this situation again, there are three options to consider:

  • Article is OK → Remove the template.
  • Not bad, but not optimal → Move the template to the bottom of the page after discussing this on the talk page (and please give folks the time to reply).
  • Lots of expansion needed → Expand the article, or leave it alone if it's not within your field of knowledge.

I'll give you some time to explain yourself on the talkpage of Windows Control Panel. After that I'll move it back. By the way, letting folks know the reason after changing stub/expansion/pov and other important notices is not a bad idea in general. Regards, Shinobu 20:29, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually there is strong consensus that the expansion template belongs on the talk page. All information in the article namespace must be for readers. Information only useful to editors, such as this template, belongs on the talk page. See Wikipedia:Template messages and especially Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages#Moving_templates_to_talk_pages. - SimonP 21:11, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

The discussion is still ongoing — jumping ahead of things is not a good idea. As for the guidelines on Wikipedia:Template messages — I quote "These can include navigation aids, or warnings that content is sub-standard." Again, either it is or it isn't.

Any template on the talk page is essentially just as useful as adding a cat-link. The text on the template effectively becomes invisible, thereby nullifying the encouraging effect, both on readers and on editors who happen to just read an article.

I'd appreciate to read your opinions on what still needs to be expanded on Windows Control Panel by the way. Regards, Shinobu 21:53, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Windows Control Panels, so I cannot comment on them. I do know Wikipedia policies fairly well, and I don't see where the discussion is ongoing. It seems to have been fairly firmly settled some months ago. The expansion template is neither a warning that content is substandard nor is it a navigational aid so it fairly clearly belongs on the talk page. - SimonP 22:18, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

On the "settledness" of this discussion... I have read it in its entirety before. I can only say that I disagree with you.

Apart from that, "expansion" is a template that warns for a substandard article — otherwise the article would need no more expansion than any other.

As a closing remark, I think it safest to use my own best judgement when handling these kind of messages. I think I'll remove the "expansion" from W.C.P. altogether as after re-reading said article I don't feel it's needed anymore. I think that about settles our difference of opinion on W.C.P. Yours sincerely, Shinobu 22:57, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Ugandan ethnic groups[edit]

You may have noticed I have re-done some of the categories. This is because the kingdoms of Uganda each have their own ethnically distinct peoples. The kings of a kingdom is also (nominally) the leader of this ethnic group - this is why some articles can be in both geography and ethnicity categories. The Buganda tribe is home to the Ganda, Nkole to the Nkole people etc. TreveXtalk 23:20, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Multiple boxes[edit]

In regard to you changes to Uganda, multiple boxes may generally be considered a blight but I think they are important for country pages dealing with that kind of information. The benefits for this kind of situation may outweigh the disadvantages. Is this official Wikipedia policy? TreveXtalk 23:31, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I have undone your change to the Uganda article. There really doesn't seem to be much concensus about the removal of boxes for countries (see various complaints above) TreveXtalk 02:43, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that it's agaisnt wikipedia policy to just rmeove the tempaltes like Simon has done. We have Wikipedia:Templates for deletion for getting rid of unecessary tempaltes. Jeltz talk 10:06, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Hey Simon, since you're so keen on enforcing what you consider to be 'official wikipedia policy', you might want to have a look at this: "If you have a disagreement over an article, try to reach a truce and stop editing until you can resolve the issue. Please do not engage in edit wars with other users; this is not a helpful way of resolving disputes and does nothing to improve Wikipedia."[2] TreveXtalk 11:40, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Lucky for you I found some more official Wikipedia policy. Perhaps if you were even a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries you would have noticed that it says (in bold): This structure is advisory only, and should not be enforced against the wishes of those actually working on the article in question. [3] Perhaps you will now explain your claims on my talk page that the countries project "is one of the most rigourously enforced Wikiproject guidelines" and what gives you the right to maintain edit wars (Uganda, United Kingdom, New Zealand) with the Wikipedians who have been editing a particular country page for months?
It's not the change per se that I disagree with - it's your attitude to other users. Perhaps we can work together constructively to find a better way to represent membership of international organisations on country pages? If one can't be found, then perhaps we should find some consensus on the issue before unilateral deleting a popular template box? TreveXtalk 12:17, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree that multiple boxes aren't great, but the way in which you went about deleting all the templates and your refusal to engage with other users on the matter was a disgrace. I'm not going to go round and round in circles with you on this, but previous complaints about your behaviour by other users should give you food for thought. On a more constructive note, perhaps a category is the best solution for the Commonwealth of Nations. One already exists (category:Members of the Commonwealth of Nations). Would you please give me a hand in filling it up? TreveXtalk 18:55, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
No! Add the country page - not the category! Otherwise users can't see the membership directly from the country page TreveXtalk 19:08, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
The country pages need to be in category:Members of the Commonwealth of Nations to allow the category to be listed at the bottom of each country page. If this isn't done, then the functionality of the removed Commonwealth template won't be replaced by the category. When the lists, categories and templates page has a discussion about the relative advantages of boxes and categories, it is talking about boxes and pages belonging to categories rather than subcategories. I would prefer for only the pages to be in category:Members of the Commonwealth of Nations. I will ask here TreveXtalk 19:38, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
OK, the question which was asked on that page was whether inclusion of article x in set X should mean that x also appears in set Y, which is the parent set of set X. This is a different issue relating from how you get from a country page to a list of other countries for a group to which the first country belongs. What I am wanting at the end of the day is a standardised way for membership of international organisations to be listed in the same place on country pages, whether that is through a template box or a category membership at the bottom. We can't simply rely on people to mention membership of the EU, or G8 or commonwealth somewhere in the article. I think we should just copy the EU category and have both country categories and articles. Agreed? TreveXtalk 20:07, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Great. Really pleased we've managed to reach agreement on this! In regard to future developments, I know that there are too many international organisations to list them all on country pages, but the main ones: WTO, G8, EU etc should be managed somehow. TreveXtalk 20:29, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Brandenn Bremmer rises from the dead, perhaps.[edit]

Simon, a month or so ago you zapped Brandenn Bremmer as the result of an unfixed copyvio. A (non-copyvio) article on him has just reappeared. As the copyvio charge followed a vigorous (indeed somewhat acrimonious) VfD, I've resuscitated the VfD process. I hope I've done the right thing; anyway, lacking precise directions on what to do about resuscitating an abandoned VfD, I've tried to be sensible and transparent about what I've done. The result of course is at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Brandenn_Bremmer. -- Hoary 02:49, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

Nobiin language[edit]

Hi Simon, I'm a huge fan of your history work. Recently I've been working on Nobiin language and I wonder if you would have something to add to the History section. I've been reading articles like Nubia, Makuria, and Lower Nubia, and I think the linguistic evidence that the Nile-Nubians originally came from the south-west meshes with those articles, in some way, but I'd like to hear your opinion on the matter. Incidentally, one of the most cited articles presenting this evidence can be found (in a badly OCR'ed version) here. Kind regards, — mark 21:22, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

(P.S. isn't it time to archive your talk page? This is the 149th entry...)

AfD nomination of Cymophobia[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Cymophobia. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cymophobia. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)