User talk:User F203
- 1 Larry French (business)
- 2 Ireland (state) is disrespectful - a question
- 3 Your vote on Ireland name
- 4 Thanks
- 5 internal thought process
- 6 Croatian language
- 7 Ireland
- 8 Alaska Airlines HQ
- 9 August 2009
- 10 hi
- 11 Notice of when election was ending
- 12 Willyonwheels1969
- 13 Willy on Wheels
- 14 Archiving
- 15 2010 Dramaout?
- 16 The Great Wikipedia Dramaout
- 17 Articles for deletion nomination of Courtney Collins
- 18 Nomination of Jazella Moore for deletion
- 19 ArbCom elections are now open!
- 20 ArbCom elections are now open!
- 21 Moving forward (slogan) listed at Redirects for discussion
Larry French (business)
I'm having trouble finding refs to support an award for Larry French (business). Does the award apply to the other person you meant to write about, in which case we should delete this? If it applies to this one, can you give me a clue about the award? Thanks!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Summary for others: Answered on other user talk page. He did win an award but article created by mistake (was thinking about the other Griffon Corp. CEO). IAR deletion done. User F203 (talk) 22:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Ireland (state) is disrespectful - a question
Hi, I hope you don't mind me asking you this question here. You made a comment that you believed option E should be divided into 2, and that Ireland (state) is disrespectful. Why is it disrespectful? Is it because "state" might be taken to mean something other than a "sovereign state"? Thank you! --HighKing (talk) 23:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hiya. Thanks for responding on my Talk page, hope you don't mind if I respond here? Now I'll state straight up that I have definite preferences in terms of what the article should be called, so bear that in mind!
- First off, there's a page for position statements that outline the pros and cons of options. If you haven't already read them, I'd definitely stick to the ones marked as generic first, to get a fair and reasonable background.
- On my Talk page, you say that a country name must be the most formal and respectable possible. Well I agree with that, but many people make the assumption that "Republic of Ireland" is a correct, formal, and respectful name. But it's not. The name of the country is Ireland (legally, formally, and internationally recognized - there's nobody arguing this point) - which is also the name of the island. Historically, the island was a single country. Today the island is divided into two, Northern Ireland (6 counties), and a country called Ireland (26 counties).
- Most editors recognize that there's a problem with referring to "Ireland" - sometimes it's not possible to tell if we're referring to the island or the country. It's not clear if the island or the country qualifies as the "Primary" article - so a disambiguating term is required.
- This is where the problems start...which dab term to pick?
- So what's the problem with using "Republic of Ireland"? Well, for some editors, none, but for others it boils down to two related issues. The first is that the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 made it the official "description" (not a name or title) when Ireland severed the last ties with UK. If it had stopped there, we wouldn't be having the vote. But in 1949, the UK passed the Ireland Act 1949 which legally (only from a UK point of view) named the state as "Republic of Ireland". This caused some minor political tiffs and it became a small but not insignificant annoyance to some people that the UK refused to use the official name. Then in 1998 for the Good Friday Agreement, the UK used the official name "Ireland" - and have used it since.
- As to the choice of "Ireland (state)" - Ireland commonly refers to itself as a state. There's nothing disrespectful about that.
- My own position statement doesn't go into the reasons for and against every option. I'd just like to see an end to the 7 years of edit warring.
- I don't know if you found this short summary useful. It's a complex topic. Just that I found your comment curious. I'd encourage you to read the position statements and see if it affects your choice. At the very least, you'll know more! --HighKing (talk) 00:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- I saw what you wrote on High King's Talk Page. You're right, "Ireland" is a controversial name for the article about the State. But so is "Republic of Ireland" – and this is the crux of this seven-year-long debacle. That's why Ireland (state) is a good compromise. It's accurate; it uses the formal name of the State; it contains a disambiguator. The best solution, I have come to believe, is to avoid trying to name the article either Ireland (my own preference) or Republic of Ireland. -- Evertype·✆ 06:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- But "Irish Republic" is not, Evertype. Making the island topic secondary is a most ridiculous idea, is it not? Highking and Co. portray the term Republic of Ireland to be offensive or derogatory. I am Irish and I am particularly offended by these portrayals. See Irish Republic to get a keen idea of how misleading this portrayal of "truths" really is. ~ R.T.G 14:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Your vote on Ireland name
Don't think because you don't know a great deal about Ireland your vote should only count as half. I'm sure there are more than a few voters who don't know too much. Have a look at the position statements here and click on the names. It might give you a better idea of the options. Cheers. Jack forbes (talk) 23:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your kind and informative comments. I have removed my vote and will study the matter for at least 24-72 hours. In a real election, this isn't possible (reaching your hand in the ballot box and taking it). I hope in doing this, it will not be controversial. Imagine user 1: "that's vote tampering, take your hand out of the ballot slot", user 2: "changing votes is not mentioned in the rules", user 3: "it's not prohibited", user 4: "an idiot voting is worse than not voting", user 5: "let's blank the page", etc. User F203 (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
|The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar|
|Thanks for the complement about my article Smb1138 (talk) 02:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)|
internal thought process
Others may comment but are not asked to do so.
- What is given priority? Geography or politics (countries)?
- Should a country be given a name without artificial modifiers?
- If there is compromise, should concessions be assigned to a geographic name or a country's name.
- Should a compromise be based on logic or based on majority?
- If so, should one ethnic minority's opinion be discounted in favor of the majority? Or should taxpayers who pay more receive more weight? Or should the majority of taxpayers, who pay less than their percentage of the population that they represent, be given less vote?
- Does an ugly title carry any weight?
- And if I can add one. Is putting an end to edit wars on Wikipedia a fair price for compromise and should this even enter the equation? --HighKing (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Strive for equality first. Do not weigh seperate priorities without acknowledging that equal weight is the goal unless something is irrelevant.
- I think it is vague but all articles about states or other topics could be given such as (state), (island), (stream) or (mountain) in the title. Only in that case (all) should we do so without other reasoning.
- Concessions should be provided for both if possible but that is not the full picture. What of the description? What of Ireland north of the border? Weigh those fairly and then talk of compromise.
- It is well established that Wikipedia be based ultimately on logic instead of voting. Regardless of that majority rules signifigantly (and will do so until a crisis arises from it perhaps).
- No, of course, it should not. The minority in this case are folks from North Ireland. They should not be shuffled out by what ultimately amounts to claims of a foreign state/s. Some of these claims are that the Ireland state is foreign to Northern Ireland, that by weight of numbers the north will no longer be an important part of that which is Ireland. The primary concern of the debates should be to study and safeguard this but so far it is not considered particularly important.
- Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Perhaps you believe that the worlds most important artistic prizes should be given for truly fantastic works of beautiful art. The judges of such competition would usually not agree and, most likely, give the prize for anything they were surprised to see be it dead cows or stripey colours... I often wonder if an artist dumped a heap of smelly rotten turnips in their section or a used pig trailer, would the Turner Prize judges be inclined to award the artist top prize? You can be sure they would consider it.
Thank you for your kind thoughts. If and when you are willing to receive additional linguistic background on the issue, I am willing to provide it. There is no rush, this is not such a big deal anyway. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
My vote is subject to change. You may discuss it if you wish.
All of the choices have problems, many of which are listed in the position pages written by others. Some problems that I identify is that there is no provision for a rotating choice. There are no provisions for one choice from 2009-2011 and another choice from 2011-2013. Every choice offends some people. It is better that they offend some people some of the time and not all of the time.
Although I voted for "Ireland (state)", I do not like it in that form. The Irish government website list (http://www.ie.gov/en) states "Information on the Irish State", not Ireland (state). The WP title "Ireland (Irish State)" would be more acceptable to me.
I give priority to the land, rather than a government entity. I also give lesser priority to the government's official name. Although some people do not consider the name "Republic of Ireland" to be offensive, some do.
Since I am not from the UK or Ireland, I have offered to have my vote count as half but this is not allowed. My request for a half vote was removed.
In the interest of disclosure, I have been to Ireland and the United Kingdom. I applied to university in Ireland and was admitted but not not accept the offer. I did not apply to any universities in the UK. However, I have visited the UK more times than Ireland. User F203 (talk) 19:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Alaska Airlines HQ
Wsiegmund has already photographed the Alaska Airlines headquarters, as you can see here: Commons:Category:Alaska Airlines headquarters - Also I must add that I created the article about the pop star because I felt like it. Nothing else, really. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from United States. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the . Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. TastyCakes (talk) 17:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
|The Hello Barnstar|
|This is to say hello to a fellow Wikipedian User F203 (talk) 19:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC))|
Notice of when election was ending
Hi User F203, thanks for your message on my talk page. The watchlist notice was updated approximately 44 hours before the end of the election in a way that deactivated prior dismissals, and it was the primary method of notification. I added several other "last chance to vote" notices about 6 hours before the election closed yesterday. The watchlist notice was in place for two weeks.
I think you may be right, that there may be more places or more timely notices to be placed during the course of an election. On the other hand, the Arbitration Committee election notices are only made on the watchlist, as are the election notices for the WMF Board. What suggestions would you have for finding the balance? Risker (talk) 20:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I saw your note on PMDrive1061's talk page. The reason that "Willyonwheels1969" or any derivate thereof is inappropriate is due to the fact that in the early days of Wikipedia, there was a very annoying page-move vandal (user:Willy on Wheels). Trying to edit this encyclopedia with a username that is so similar to that of a well-known vandal is inappropriate. Hope this helps. →javért stargaze 23:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Willy on Wheels
Hi! The problem is this: I am firmly convinced that this guy is an internet troll. User:Willy on Wheels is a hard-banned page move vandal with several years of copycat accounts to his credit. This guy just wrote a letter of apology to himself on his latest IP page. I and another admin had explained that the name "Willy on Wheels" or any variation thereof was unacceptable as being the name of a banned user, yet he kept on with threats of "complaining to the Foundation" among other things. In short, he's another WoW copycat with a new angle, this time as a troll instead of page move vandalism. Thanks for asking. :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
You're absolutely correct, which is why I tried to explain to the individual in question why his username wasn't acceptable. Politely, of course. I went so far as to suggest that when he chose a proper username to please let me know and that he would be welcomed, but to no avail. The letter on the IP was one claimed to have written to the Foundation and the answer he received was the same as what I told him regarding the name, yet he still kept on pressing for an apology from me and another user. That and his dogged insistence on recreating variations of the name told me I was dealing with a copycat troll. Even given that there may have been a misunderstanding regarding the letter and that it is in fact genuine, he still refused to comply. The original WoW was based in England and the copycats from all over the world. This guy happens to be in Georgetown, Kentucky. The talk page with my final attempt and the copy of the letter is at User talk:22.214.171.124. I appreciate your concern and the last thing I'd want to do is to block a well-meaning user, so I gave this guy every benefit of the doubt. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
PS: "PM" does not mean "pre-menstrual." :)
- All done. Hope you like it. I won't touch your user page, thats your domain ;) --ScythreTalkContribs 14:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
(See WT:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout#2010 Dramaout?) -- 12:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi! As you have expressed an interest in the initial The Great Wikipedia Dramaout, you're being notified because we are currently planning another one in January! We hope to have an even greater level of participation this time around, and we need your help. If you're still interested please sign up now at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! JCbot (talk) 04:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Articles for deletion nomination of Courtney Collins
I have nominated Courtney Collins, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Courtney Collins. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Nomination of Jazella Moore for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jazella Moore until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Spartaz Humbug! 08:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Moving forward (slogan) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Moving forward (slogan). Since you had some involvement with the Moving forward (slogan) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 20:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)