User talk:Siroxo/Archive 2

This is an archive of User talk:Siroxo of edits made from October 2004 through August 2005.

Re: Margin of error

Hello, Siroxo, I wanted to let you know that I made the changes you suggested regarding the conversational tone of the article. In general, I prefer a light tone when writing about Statistics to a general audience, and I am less enthusiastic than you are about keeping an encyclopedic tone across all disciplines. As you probably know, it is common in Mathematics and Statistics to use "We have..." and "Let us..." in both proofs and pedagogy, and I don't think that this diminishes from the austerity of Wikipedia in these cases. Math and Stats are daunting enough as it is... I guess I just feel that we might want to allow for a lighter touch. On a feature article candidate? Sure, maybe not, but generally speaking...

You noted that there is a distinction between textbooks and encyclopedias, but I would make the case that this is less true in fields like Statistics. Statistics and their use are complicated business, and certainly Wikipedia would be doing a disservice to its users if it didn't present a comprehensive picture of the statistic. In practice, the best test of understanding is whether the user can use the statistic responsibly on their own. I would advocate strongly for tutorials in the body of articles about Statistics, though I understand that this would also be a good opportunity to link to Wikibooks.

Respectfully, Andrew (Fadethree) 08:38 Oct 04, 2004

Re: Margin of error 2

Thanks for the reply. I think I see what you mean about the do-it-yourself section. It really doesn't fit with the tone of the rest of the piece, and it is a tangent off the Margin of error topic as it is. I was happy to move it to Wikibooks, and I'm happy to leave it there. In the future, I don't think I'll be using "Do-It-Yourself" in a section heading... that certainly doesn't sound professional. Best, Andrew

Margin of error Picture Idea

I know I could probably look this up somewhere, and I've checked Wikipedia:Copyright_FAQ, but if you have the time, can you let me know if a screenshot of a graph that I've created with Microsoft Excel would be acceptable vis a vis copyright issues? I already have some ideas, and I'll probably post them soon. Thanks, Siroxo.

Speedy delete comments

Good evening. Thank you for explaining your reasoning for pulling the clause about prior deletions from the speedy delete case list. I'm not sure I agree with your conclusion that it is a tautology in all the scenarios we need to worry about. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, though. When you have a minute, would you mind looking at my reply? Thanks. Rossami 01:50, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

tenacious-d

why did you forget about them they made their own rock and theur famous. (hum wassup wit dat) (:

I've made one edit to Tenacious D if you're worried. —siroχo 23:32, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

Meals

Wow, the "meals" image (Image:Meals title.png) is terrific! Did you make it? I'm putting image copyright tags on images that don't have them, so I was wondering. . . Do you release this image into the public domain, or do you want to use the GFDL, or what? Thanks, – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 00:49, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the update! Public Domain means that the image is not copyrighted at all, and anyone can do anything they want with it (except claim copyright on it). It's the freest an image can be. As a different option, you could keep the copyright, but state that you allow anyone to use the image for any purpose. (The difference is, you could hypothetically change your mind later, and the image would still be © you.) The GNU FDL is a license that allows anyone to use or modify your image for any purpose, so long as they release their product (the one that uses your image) under the GFDL as well. So if I cropped your picture, I couldn't forbid anyone from using my cropped version. And if I used your picture in a videogame, I would have to make the sourcecode to the videogame available. Hope this helps! – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 21:23, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

A question

Dear Siroxo, I have a question for you, with I redirected to the Category talk:Science, because I would like a open debate about the power of efficiency, and the use of redundancy to make a classification more effective... These may seem abstract words, but there is more to it... Mdd 8:39, Oct 6, 2004

Salute, I've responded on Category talk:Science... Mdd 18:57, Oct 7, 2004

SCOTUS case article project

I took your advice and looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject US Supreme Court Cases; however, it seems that this project was a passing thought by the creator who has not made a contribution since July, 2004. I wasn't aware that there was a place to list WikiProjects. My current page seems to cover everything the current WikiProject page covers and more, so I don't see much need to merge.

My main goal is to gain more contributors. Personally, I would like to get rid of the current WikiProject page and add mine to the list instead, but I'm not sure on the etiquette of that move. If you have any advice on this or the running of the project, in general, I would be appreciate you sharing them with me.

Unlike the previous WikiProject creator, I have put a lot of work into cases already and am willing to go it alone (now with User:Jacob1207 who recently joined on), but collaboration is what makes articles great on Wikipedia. And I think the same is true for projects. The more collaboration, the better the project will be.

Thanks in advance for any advice you have.

Skyler 16:36, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Just curious: That is a chi, right? So is it pronounced like a chi (kh) or as an x? [ alerante | “” 23:08, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) ]

Something Awful

What irks me tremendously (though I assure you it has nothing to do with why I nominated SA forums) is that the exact same controversy erupted over the GameFAQs articles, and some of the users currently wanting to keep SA voted against keeping GameFAQs (this is a vague vague recollection, no formal accusation). GameFAQs was split; its board histories were then put up on VfD, upon which they remerged it with GameFAQs, and it was later completely chopped out of the article. The primary reason no one protested was that there was a dearth of GameFAQs users on Wiki at the time. But SA forums has a large base of SA goons on Wikipedia that will inevitably support its own article.

The SA Forums article is unencyclopedic for the same reasons a vanity page on myself is unencyclopedic: no one really cares about FYAD 2.0, a forum that lasted all of one day. This is obscurity painted as something that actually matters to Wikipedia. I have no vendetta against SA; rather, the SA goons have a vendetta against anyone remotely anti-SA.

Back to Golbez's point. SA was split, but that doesn't mean the material in the child articles was good. The material in SA forums is *inherently* unneeded and should have never led to the split of the original SA article in the first place. Golbez presumes that the material that ballooned the original SA article was needed, when in fact it should have led to it being removed rather than splitting the article in two.

SA then argues that the main reason it belongs on Wiki rather than GameFAQs is because they are more "intellectual", they somehow are "better" than a bunch of "12-year-olds". I claim that using that argument in and of itself disproves their theory, but the real point is that you should only measure importance by objective factors. Objectively, SA is less important than GameFAQs due to its much lower Alexa rating.

In short, either all of these forum articles ARE encyclopedic, upon which any remotely popular internet forum deserves a Wikipedia article devoted to its history and traditions and fads, or all of these forum articles are NOT encyclopedic, upon which the SA forums deserve no more than a mention and some objective material about when it was created, etc.

cc: VfD --Etaonish 21:08, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

Baseball field image

Could you modify Baseball field overview thumbnail.png a bit more? My ideas is that the max distance to the outfield wall need not be specified; e.g. both Fenway Park and Comerica Park have a 420-foot wall; Polo Grounds had a 550-foot wall; and my alma mater highschool had a center field in play more than 700 feet out. Perhaps just say, "at least 290 feet" or something of that nature

Also, you could also draw a dotted grass line to show where the grass is inside the 1-2 and 2-3 baselines, a cutout around the bases, and a dirt path along the home-1st and 3rd-Home foul lines. I would do it, just don't have the right image editing programs (MS Paint, anyone?). If you do this, the "baselines" between 1-2 and 2-3 can be removed, as they don't exist anyway.

Also, you might have room in the bottom left and right corder to draw the backstop fence on your diagram and show the minimum distance there (60 feet).

Anything you choose to do (or not to do) with my requests is okay with me, thanks for all your contributions! --Locarno 15:06, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

question/ comment

Hi, thank you for your input. Since you took the time to give me some input, and upon review of your files I feel satisfied that I can get an unbiased response, I am going to put some feedback in your mailbox and see what, if anything, it stirs up. The problem is that I'm not publishing "original research," although I did just write a manuscript on the topic that contained quite a bit--it was not my direct intention for the Wikipedia articles I authored. You would think that I would be able to write one article to help people understand theoretical physics a little better, but I continue to fail...What I have is a solid understanding of how modern theory attempts to describe the universe (additionally, I also know of a cutting edge theory that is, shall we say, beyond "String Theory," but it is "original research" and not all of it is mine…Basically, all I am trying to say is tha tI know what I am talking about when it comes to theoretical physics and universal philosophy)--instead of pounding theory into peoples heads using VERY complex mathematics, I can do it simply and concisely using VERY simple mathematics and philosophy. Is that not a worthy subject to write on for a free encyclopedia? Should an encyclopedia have an article that simplifies the universe without losing substance and fact?

That is all that I am trying to do, but people keep rejecting my articles even though they are fact (granted, I completely understand why my first few articles were not of encyclopedia quality, namely because each was written in about 20 min). The ideas I have published thus far (on Wiki) are not even mine (really they ought to be everyone’s), they are just my way of describing them, which from experience, I have found that people do quite well with if they simply take the time to actually read each sentence and each word in each sentence. Alas, sigh(*^%.

I think, and I hope that you will agree (assuming that my ideas are as valid as I claim them to be), that if I take my time, remove all "original research," and fix syntax problems, I should not have trouble making permanent articles. Did you not understand exactly what was being conveyed in the article entitled "Simplify Universal Physics?" That is really about as simple as theoretical physics gets, you could let a 12 year old read that page and he/she might raise their eyes a wiser person for it--does that make an article worthy of publication in an online encyclopedia (a collection of articles that focuses specifically on various topics)? If it does not then I am very confused.

I guess I just fail to see how articles of this nature could and would be viewed as anything less than good additions to a book that is intended to know everything it can about everything there is.

With My Best Regards,

JeD

Notice to Template:Sep11 revert warriors

Your thoughts on Template talk:Sep11#Proposed compromise are eagerly awaited. —No-One Jones ^(m) 02:55, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Food articles

Thanks for your message on my talk page. It was the right thing to do, leaving a message for me. I work on the night shift (United Kingdom time) so I'd already gone out to work when you messaged, but I came in this morning after work and found that a deletion debate had sprung up around a few short articles on food. I'm amazed that people can have debates about such trivial matters. Your message was appropriate to such a small required change. Thanks. --wayland 10:38, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Joan of Arc (cross-dressing)

I'm confused. The votes were for delete or 'merge and redirect'. Nobody had bothered to do the merge, so I'm doing it at this moment. The VfD decision wasn't implemented correctly, therefore it's a speedy, n'est pas? [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 12:00, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You're right. I'll put the redirect in place. [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 12:23, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Turns out the material was already in the main article. Sigh. I did some more wikifying, anyway. [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 13:18, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yet more research (after a nice lunch) and it seems I was right in the first place. Even the author wants it deleted. [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 15:13, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Poll

I have created a preliminary version of Wikipedia:VfD decisions not backed by current policies/poll. Your comments would be much appreciated. - SimonP 17:12, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

Revisionism in the Israel-Palestine Conflict, Zionist Revisionism and Israeli-Palestinian history denial

To purge your page to see what others have added, click here

What we have here is a very complicated situation. There appears to have been a copy and paste move done between Zionist Revisionism and Revisionism in the Israel-Palestine Conflict. I am quite happy to merge the two and setup a redirect, however because Zionist Revisionism is on VfD at the moment I don't want to do anything like this right at this moment. Also, it is further complicated by the fact that there is another article called Israeli-Palestinian history denial, that's almost exactly the same as the other two. I'm sending a message to all participants so far, requesting their comments on what they think we should do. My own preference is to merge into a more appropriately named article, something like Historical perspectives of Israelis and Palestinians (as that's what this is all about), but I'm flexible. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:16, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Hi Ta bu shi da yu, Zionist Revisionism was the original article. I had moved it to Revisionism in the Israel-Palestine Conflict in an attempt to NPOV it, but Alberuni undid the changes and the move, without redirecting the other article. I have since redirected the 2nd article to another page.--Josiah 19:35, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Good idea, or you could just merge all three into Revisionism in the Israel-Palestine Conflict. As long as you merge information rather than deleting it, as some have a habit of doing. Don't worry about the VfD entry for Zionist Revisionism; it is invalid. Josiah has, yet again, failed to provide valid reasons for the listing. --style 13:01, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)
  • Yet again? You obviously don't watch anything I actually do, as 1) That was the first page I had ever put up for deletion - the fact that I had done it wrong should be proof of that, and 2) I and others listed perfectly good reason on the VfD page.--Josiah 19:35, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I would avoid POV titles that are bound to be challenged. As for the VfD entry, it is perfectly valid to list the article for VfD, and the entry will be dealt with via the usual VfD process. Jayjg 15:18, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• I would suggest not to use the word "revisionism" in the title at all. It it nothing but an allusion to historical revisionism (a.k.a. Holocaust denial). Since none of the holders of these views on either side consider their views "revisionism", it would be better if the title did not contain this word. Finally, the potential for confusion with te unrelated Revisionist Zionism is enormous. More seriously, I also cannot see how any such page would contain anything but POV fights. Is that really what we need? Does it make sense to keep a list of historical points were Alberuni disagrees with Jayjg? Is that encyclopedic? Gadykozma 03:14, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • You have neatly summarized exactly what is wrong with the word "Revisionism", thank you. Jayjg 03:21, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

• OK, I have merged most of the information in the article Zionist Revisionism into the article Israeli-Palestinian history denial. I have not attempted to NPOV it, I just merged it. Please feel free to NPOV the Israeli-Palestinian history denial article. Please do not think I am endorsing the views of either side. I'm not. I'm just trying to sort out merging of articles. I would next like to merge page histories, if that's OK with people. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:53, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• I have now merged the edit histories of Israeli-Palestinian history denial and Revisionism in the Israel-Palestine Conflict. At least this bit is sorted out now. If someone wants a better title, please use the move tool in future! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:08, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

RfA nomination

Hi Siroxo,

Just wanted to say thanks for the vote of support at RfA. It looks like I've been promoted, and I look forward to helping you out with admin tasks. –spencer195 17:35, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Libertarian Capitalism on VfD

• I'm wondering if I might convince you to vote to swap the pages, as per my proposal, on VfD --Improv 17:19, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Schools/ notability

(comment moved from User talk:Jmabel:) Jmabel, I want to apologize for jumping on your comment about notability. I took it too far and replied with a blanket statement, which was unfair of me. I want to let you know that I am not plotting to make Wikipedia:School articles needing evaluation into some inclusionists' collection of nonverfiable substubs. My prime reasons for creating this page were to divert the hostility of VfD away from these school articles, and to give us a better way of evaluating them. I am against school (or any) substubs in principle, and would not advocate keeping them as such. In fact, I think that merging schools into their related city articles is probably the best idea for most school articles. I do, however, think that there are some very well written articles about schools, (ex. Moanalua High School, Saint Louis School). and I don't want vfd to make it impossible to achieve that. Lastly, I do not support inclusion of articles about all people who have met thousands of other people. A person who has not had a profound effect on all of those people, an effect that has a verifiable paper-trail and possiblility for an encyclopedic article, rarely deserves an article, if ever. I don't support including unverifiable advertisments about businesses, products and websites either. I merely want to be able to give better evaluation to school articles than VfD currently does. Hope that helps to clear stuff up. —siroχo 01:45, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

Glad to hear you may not have meant what you said. I was responding mainly to older≠wiser's statement that began by asserting that notability has nothing to do with it, which seems to me to be a statement of the extreme inclusionist position. You said you "agree entirely" with that, which I took at face value. Looking at your two examples, the article on Moanalua High School clearly makes the case for notability. Saint Louis School seems iffier to me: I'm not sure anything I see there really establishes it as something that belongs in an encyclopedia, but I can certainly imagine more research leading to clearer notability.

My main concern with adding schools (and the case gets stronger as we move down in size and age -- I assume you would agree that very few one-classroom preschools deserve any sort of mention in Wikipedia, let alone an article on each one) is that, as with fancruft, the inclusion damages the credibility of Wikipedia. I also suspect that multitudinous articles on schools will be magnets for subtle misinformation and outright vandalism. What worries me most is what these articles will be like in their stubby phases.

And, yes, unlike some people, I think that sometimes an article on a marginal topic is fine to keep if it's a good enough article. If we come up with a mechanism by which these articles, once started, will rapidly advance to something like the quality of the two you've shown me, then I think this would not damage our credibility. Perhaps the solution may lie in an "incubator" namespace for articles like this to be built up to a certain level before becoming part of Wikipedia proper? I'm not completely sure.

Anyway, I'll put the page back on my watchlist. My fear (and I don't think I was unreasonable on the basis of what had been said) was that the two apparent prime movers of this were trying to say this was an area in which an extreme inclusionist approach would apply.

Would you mind if we copy your remark an my response to Wikipedia_talk:School_articles_needing_evaluation and continue any further exchange there? Jmabel | Talk 02:42, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

Your vote on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Rune Mysteries

You cast a vote on this VfD, recommending "Keep, cleanup, merge when appropriate." However, you should be aware that your vote came after the author of the original articles under discussion altered the subject of the VfD, adding 24 articles that were not his -- the message being "If you don't want these to be deleted, you have to keep mine too." This may change your vote. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:27, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Knaggs - WfD - How does it work?

Hi there! A little while ago you kindly posted a "Keep" on the WfD Votes page for my little opus. Well, more than 5 days have passed since it being WfDed and nothing seems to have happened. I am a newbie and can't figure out who actually makes the decision, and what happens when they do. Would it just silently disappear, or would the WfD part of the page be removed? I keep going round in circles in the Help pages. Cheers Jeff Knaggs 08:37, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Question on creating subcategories

Hello again. I edited a page Knebworth and then added it to subcategory Villages in Hertfordshire. This subcategory did not exist, so I created it using the existing Villages in Somerset as an example. However, in the Knebworth page this subcategory is still red-linked, and when you click on the red-link the subcategory opens in edit mode to show the proper contents. I'm confused. Jeff

• • Fixed it! (not sure how)

Your user page

Hey Siroxo. I was fooling around with your user page (basically because I want to use something like it for my own :p), and noticed that I could get rid of the automatic white background in the table which shows up in monobook (and maybe other styles, I'm not sure).

{|style="background-color:transparent;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" align="left" width="100%"

That's basically it. The first (and only? I didn't check) table in your code just gets an extra style="background-color:transparent;" tag, and you're done. I didn't want to go in and do it myself in case in had side effects for other style systems, but uh, yeah. - Vague Rant 11:01, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

The cleanup you reverted

You reverted a revision of {{cleanup}} which I had done resently saying that the message I altered was too Arkward and redundant and so reverted it. In my opinion the alterations I did was neither of those things since it was phrased properly and didn't repeat itself any number of times.

Infact the edit actually gave out some kind of instruction on what a user could do to improve an article. I don't mind being flamed or getting into trouble for this but I'm reverting your revert. Someone else on the talk page kinda agrees with me on the fact that the current cleanup page is too bold and vague in its current state and doesn't give any type of clue on how you would be able to fix the article.

No hard feelings or anything but my decision is final. <Reverts Template:cleanup> Louisisthebest 007 (unsigned)

vfd format

The reason for the format is to more clearly count the votes and describe what is going on. On VfD, the result is either Delete the article and it's edit history, or Keep it and make the suggested changes (merge, redir, move, etc.). -- Netoholic @ 20:18, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

re: your vote - I am the last person to want to "give up" on the article, but I really think there is a danger in leaving the page histories visible. What's your take on it? -- Netoholic @ 20:25, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

Wikinews demo up and running

Hi!

I'm writing to let you know that the Wikimedia Board of Trustees has approved the first stage of the Wikinews project. There's now a fully operational English demo site at demo.wikinews.org. This will be used for experimenting with various review models and basic policies before the site is launched officially in about a week. demo.wikinews.org will become the English version later.

You voted for the Wikinews project, so I'm asking for your participation now. Everything is open, nothing is final. What Wikinews will and can be depends in large part on you. There already is a global Wikinews mailing list for discussing the project. If you are interested at all, please subscribe -- coordination is of key importance. There's also an IRC channel #wikinews on irc.freenode.net. Realtime discussion can help to polish up articles.

If you're looking for something to do, check out the articles in development and articles in review. Or start a new story in the Wikinews workspace, or ignore the proposed review system - it's up to you. I hope you'll join us soon in this exciting experiment.--Eloquence* 01:59, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Get out and vote!

In case you missed it, User:Taxman has proposed User:CSTAR for WP:adminship. You can vote on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CSTAR. ---- Charles Stewart 09:31, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Requesting Your Expertise

I just want to direct your attention to the talk page behind Chess piece point value where Camembert and I have an important theoretical question about chess. --BadSanta

Tips page

Very Belatedly moved from User talk:Siroxo/Tips and moved here to centralize my talk page discussion

Thanks for the bookmark tips.

As for Firefox, I'm a huge fan (see my page of extensions), but I don't see why tabbed browsing is any better than windowed browsing at wikipedia. It's just a matter of taste. ··gracefool |☺ 12:00, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Vergennes Union High School

Thanks for notifying me about the change inthe Vfd page. Take care of You and Yours - Skysmith 13:29, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Franklin Income Fund

Great work on the FIF article. Hopefully it will survive the VfD. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 15:30, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Transroentgic elements

Thanks for nuking the VfDs on the transroentgic (oooh, a neologism...) elements; I suspect I wasn't the only one getting a bit irritably worked up there... Shimgray 22:08, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please do not abuse vfd process

There is a process of community voting, your lone-rangerism is not appreciated. If you want an article kept, then vote for it, don't abuse the process. Thank you. Trollminator 22:16, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am also opposed to deletion trolling

but please, this is very damaging. Mark Richards 22:33, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi - we have a deletion process. I do not like it, lots of stuff gets listed on it that I think is trolling and should not be deleted. But, it is a community mandated process, and I accept the results of it. If that agreement by all of us to follow the rules breaks down, then we loose something very important. Yes, these listings annoy me. Many others do too. Do I removed them because I don't like them? No. It does not look like these are going to be deleted. Let the process run its course or propose that people be allowed to remove any vfd nomination they don't like. Mark Richards 22:38, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the process needs to be changed, but right now, much of what is listed on vfd does not comply with deletion policy. Things like 'non-notable' are frequently listed as reason for deletion. Do you want to help work on a way to help get vfd back on track? I'd be interested in doing that systematically, not on an individual case basis, Yours, Mark Richards 22:50, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I actually don't think these are any more inapropriate than many, I agree that we need to educate people and enforce the vfd regulations, perhaps this is something to bring up on Talk:vfd? I think the problem is that what is 'obviously inapropriate' is quite different for different people, that is why we end up voting, and why premature removal is such a bad idea. Mark Richards 23:13, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Good luck with the airport if you are in the US! Let's chat about this, because it's something that pains me too. Mark Richards 23:21, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

VfD

I appreciate your comments on the VfD page, however wouldn't it be wiser to put in a policy ammedment rather than just remove listings? I, for one, would appreciate clarification of procedure for Votes for Deletion. Modifying the VfD policy could only be a good thing and would help a) decide on what the vast majority of those who care about VfD would like done, and b) help stop confusion on a highly controversial page like VfD.

Would you be willing to do this?

Ta bu shi da yu 03:09, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

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

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

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:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Soda fountains

Are hot beverages, iced beverages, baked good, snacks, and light meals served at soda fountains. If so answer me at my talk page. Heegoop

SoIaF

I see you have some ideas about fancruft and overseparation and related manners. I have been a bit concerned about the explosion of stubs for Song of Ice and Fire. Could you check Talk:List of characters in A Song of Ice and Fire? Your input would be much appreciated. Thore 09:52, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

expos/nationals debate

There is a major debate going on, and I wondered if you might want to chime in. The debate involves how to deal with franchise moves in baseball. The question is whether Montréal Expos should be its own article or if it should redirect to Washington Nationals. All other instances of franchise moves in MLB redirect the old team name to the new team name, and the history of the franchise is covered within the new team name (for MLB, NBA and NFL examples, see here. Some people are confused and think the Expos and the Nats are different teams. Some people don't want to upset Canadian readers.

Indeed, the Washington Nationals are not a new team - the Montreal Expos franchise has moved to Washington, and the old franchise name should redirect to the new franchise name, just like the 20+ instances of this occuring in Wikipedia. For example, Brooklyn Dodger history resides in the Los Angeles Dodgers article. New York Giants history, including the Shot Heard 'Round the World, resides in the San Francisco Giants article.

If you have the time, maybe you could chime in on the conversation there, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Montréal Expos. Kingturtle 23:21, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

W. Mark Felt

Salve!
I nominated W. Mark Felt as a WP:FAC. As you commented on the article's talk page, I'd appreciate your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/W. Mark Felt/archive1. PedanticallySpeaking 15:01, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

administrator?

Hi - I'm going through WP:LA moving inactive and "semi-active" administrators out of the "active administrators" section. Based on the comments on your user page, I don't quite know whether to move you or not (the point of what I'm doing is to have the "active" list actually be active administrators). How about if you look at the list and move yourself wherever you feel is appropriate? If you don't want to be an administrator at all anymore (I'm not suggesting you should or shouldn't), I'm sure any bureaucrat could help. -- Rick Block (talk) July 4, 2005 18:12 (UTC)

Done, moved myself to semi-active, since I tend to take long breaks without notice these days. I use admin tools quite often when I do rc patrol though, so I'll continue being an admin. Anyone, of course, can still contact me for something they need done, but I may take a while to respond.  —siroχo

Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball players

Howdy! I'm contacting you because your name is listed as a participant in Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball players. The project seems to be dormant, but I'm interested in starting it up again. I've worked on a new infobox template (see it in action here) and have many ideas for increasing Wikipedia's coverage of MLB players. If you're interested, please leave a note at the project's talk page. Thanks! AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 22:54, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Vandal tags

Thank you for reverting vandalism on Wikipedia!

Be sure to put warning tags on the vandal's user talk page (such as {{subst:test}}, {{subst:test2}}, {{subst:test3}}, {{subst:test4}}). Add each of these tags on the vandal's talk page, in sequential order, after each instance of vandalism. Adding warnings to the talk page assists administrators in determining whether or not the user should be blocked. If the user continues to vandalize pages after you add the {{subst:test4}} tag, request administrator assistance at Request for Intervention. Again, thank you for helping to make Wikipedia better.

Wikipedianinthehouse 04:25, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I forgot the subst'. It helps that you are admin; I didn't notice before I put the tag here. I've had admins refuse to block someone just because they don't have each of the test tags on their page (evne if they've vandaled a lot. Wikipedianinthehouse 05:00, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Hi!

Hi! I saw that you've reverted at one point the Jodie Foster article. Unfortunately it was all in vain. You are not the only one who's done it. There is a very persistent anonymous person who is inserting many personal views (mainly negative ones) in the article, especially some regarding Foster's commercials in Japan. Because of this situation, on the talk page of Jodie Foster's article there is a Final vote about including/not including the advertising info. If you have the time, please state your opinion there. Best regards! Tavilis 18:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

back

Nice to see ya back. =Nichalp «Talk»= 03:46, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Malcolm X

Thanks for jumping in there; I was treating it like vandalism, but suddenly realized it could also be construed as a content disagreement, and perhaps I was in violation of 3RR. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)