User talk:Bluerain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Bluerain, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Terence Ong 14:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Internal links

Any particular reason you're using external links rather than internal links in some of the links in your edits? Ëvilphoenix Burn! 07:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how to internal link when the name of the link isn't the same as the page on Wiki. I'm assuming you're referring to my ext-linking 'book five' and 'pure-bloods', rite? --Bluerain 07:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I fixed it. Anything else? --Bluerain 08:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh no, I was mainly just curious. I think what you're looking how to do (which you may have figured out by now) is called Pipe linking. Basically what it does is allow you to say one thing, but link to another. For instance, if I wanted to say "come visit my Talk page", and have Talk page link to my Talk page, I would type in the browser: Come visit my [[User talk:Evilphoenix|Talk page]], which when displayed in the browser would look like this: Come visit my Talk page. I hope that helps! If you have any other questions let me know! Cheers, Ëvilphoenix Burn! 23:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanx...that's what I was looking for. And sorry for the late reply. --Bluerain 07:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About the AfD on the Prior Speculation of HBP

I'm not sure if we're looking at the same AfD, but even on a strict vote count, I see six deletes and eight not deletes (merge and keep). Now, first I like to point out that AfDs aren't just vote counting (otherwise we could let a bot do all the work), but in any case, I like to have approximately 80% consensus to delete, and this one doesn't even come close. There are more votes not to delete than there are to delete. If you're thinking that the number of votes for an explicit "delete" is more than the number of votes for an explicit "keep", and is more than the number of votes for an explicit "merge", it's not that simple (and hence, why AfD is not just about vote counting). Note that what it all boils down to is seeing how many votes there are to delete against how many votes there are not to delete (this includes all votes such as "Merge", "Redirect", and in specific cases, "Transwiki"). With a few exceptions, only the "Delete" and "BJAODN" sentiments count as delete (yes, this includes the "Kill it dead" vote :-) ). If you have any other questions, please don't hesitate to ask. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I personally hate speculation in all forms, and if I had known about this AfD (for some reason, no-one put it on the HP Wikiproject's AfD page), I would definitely have voted to delete this. However, when closing this AfD, I was acting as the AfD closer, and I try not to let my own personal beliefs get in the way of closing these AfDs. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Bluerain, your way of interpreting the votes on AfD is wrong, and you don't discount Keep votes simply because they are "dumb". People who close AfDs don't discount votes simply because they disagree with them (and that's one of the reasons why contentious AfDs are closed by administrators rather than by non-admins). I suggest you take a close look at Wikipedia:Guide to deletion to see how AfDs are performed. A merge vote is definitely a vote to keep the content, even if it's placed elsewhere. And you cannot simply merge content then delete the former article. Doing so violates GFDL because each edit to each article needs proper attribution. On Wikipedia, proper attribution is performed by having redirects in place so we can see each article edit on the source content from before that content was merged into the target content.
As for voting on it again, to renominate an article so soon after the AfD is closed is generally considered bad form, especially if it was closed without a "no consensus" result. If you do so, you will likely be told off for doing so, as other people who have renominated AfDs very soon after the old was was closed have also been told off (and their AfDs speedily-closed). The proper way to dispute the closure of an AfD, if you believe that I did not properly follow process when closing this AfD, is to bring it up on WP:DRV, but since in doing so, you are disputing my actions as the AfD closer, I must also ask you that out of courtesy, please let me know that you have listed this on WP:DRV. To be honest, I followed AfD process as closely as I could, so your attempt will probably fail. However, there's nothing stopping you from trying. --Deathphoenix ʕ 12:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Bluerain, there's no hard-and-fast figure for renominating, but usually if something happens to reduce the notability of the article (nominating after the actual HBP book was published, for example, was a good time to nominate), that's when it's a good time. If you see another "prior speculation" article be deleted, or if, say, Book Seven comes out, that might be a good time for another kick at the can. As for not fully understanding the process of deletion, it might help to take a look at the Guide to deletion, if you haven't done so aready. If you want to take a look at how we close AfDs, take a look at the Deletion process, just for information purposes. Please let me know if you need any other help (or more reading material :-) ). --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
A merge can mean any of the situations you described. It could be merging specific content or the whole article. People voting merge usually describe what they want merged, but since content is kept in article history, it's really up to the editors to decide. I didn't nominate because the AfD is already closed. I don't nominate articles for AfD so soon after another AfD is done. Oh, and read my response above, nominating an AfD so soon after a previous AfD was closed, especially one that did not end with no consensus, is bad form. I certainly am not going to do something like that. You don't simply keep nominating an article for AfD repeatedly until you get the result that you want. People who attempted to do so often had their AfDs speedily-closed as bad-faith nominations. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hi! Thanks for intervening in the 2006 Indian anti-reservation protests. I have been trying to keep the historican background as sussinct as possibble. However, an anon is repetadly making it large. Initially, I deleted those asa there was no reference. Now the anon is supplying reference (some of which are really ggod, by the way). However, he adds unencyclopedia dramatic language over and above the references! I had tried my best to edit.(you can check the history of the article to see the continued war). But I need a second person (at least one to keep an watch). Please add the page in your watchlist so that you become aware of every changes, and can work promptly. Useful info: This anan user logs in everyday in the afternoon. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 11:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Yes, that may not be a neutral point of view. But, a reliable newspaper is publishing that, and more importantly, in an editorial-like column. It has got weightage, and it represents the views of that author, and the newspaper (also of me :)- which is unimportant!). If I made that comment, it would not have been acceptable in the article. But when a reliable source (not any forum or group where people like us may cintribute), it is very much acceptable. The author is the former director-general, National Council for Applied Economic Research. So his view, published in a national newspaper editorial page definitely has weightage, even if it sounds non-neutral. And, to end, we know it is the truth, but we cannot tell it in an encyclopedia without citing reliable source. That article is proving to be a great help. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 11:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. I removed that comment (on the basis of near redunduncy), however, retained the reference, as the reference also holds good for the preceeding line. Also, the reference was kept, as I have plans to use that reference further, later on.
Bye the way, why do not you create an user page for yourself? The interaction becomes more funnier and productive once the editors get to know each other more. (That does not mean you have to divulge your identity!). You can list some of your interests etc. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How to add talk page link

Go to "My preferences" (on the upper right panel). Click user profile tab. That will show your user id nd number and some more fields. in the field nickname, in my case, I added "[[User:Dwaipayanc|Dwaipayan]] ([[User_talk:Dwaipayanc|talk]])" in order to make people see my signature the way you see it now. Then click the box beside the comment Raw signature (no auto link; don't use templates or external links in this). That's it. Read Wikipedia:Sign_your_posts_on_talk_pages for futher assistance/ modification/style. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

Hi. I view that the consepts to be so different, that each should have its own article. Further, having different articles makes it more easly to read, to distinguishe that its different consepts and encorages the Isamili minority view article to be expanded. Having they all in the same article would have the twelver view overshadow the other views. Peace. --Striver 12:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Qur'an

Hey there. Regarding your removal of a large section in the article: While I do agree with you, there generally needs to be a consensus on the talk page for such changes to be made. Currently there are many propositions there and there is no clear consensus to outright remove the section like you did. Thus, I had to readd it. This is a technical issue: there is simply not enough input to take such drastic action yet. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 07:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I can make my position any clearer. I get the impression that what I wrote was ignored. If you want to do some further reading on such matters, see Wikipedia:Consensus. Consensus is usually taken as a good idea before changes such as entire section removals are implemented. This is in place to prevent things such as edit wars, so the appropriate action is agreed upon before it is committed to an article. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 11:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Indeed I didn't read some of the other discussion on the talk page. It would have been wise to say something like "removing section due to rough consensus" in the edit summary or something, though. The way you put it made it seem as if you had just decided arbirtarily that you did not like the section and thus deleted it, which would have been unacceptable. And no, I do not follow policy when it compromises the goal of making better articles. But you see, we as editors have to keep out own biases in mind. Even when I believe an article would be better off with the content removed (as was the case here), I have to keep in mind that I may be in the minority and thus must ensure to the best of my ability that I do not commit changes that I'm not sure would be appreciated. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 13:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I see no reason why not. Just remember the edit summary explaining that this is the community's decision, not something you alone thought up. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 08:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Care to comment?

There is a discussion on Roles of non-combatant State and non-State actors in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict talkpage about the inclusion of detail for Israel. I am of the view that Israel should be included but the detail is being continually removed by User:Tewfik.

Tewfik's argument is what he considers the illegality of Hezbollah under UN 1559. How this has a bearing on a balanced representation of aid to the combatants is never made clear. Tewfik has not removed recent requests of arms sales to Israel such as jet fuel and GBU-28's but removed the history of such arms shipments. I believe he is pushing the POV that aid to Israel is only in response to the current crisis or the illegality of Hezbollah under 1559. US aid to Israel is in fact a long standing agreement responsible for the size and makeup of the IDF. Without the aid they would not have a military capable of engaging in conflict. This is a question of balance in the article and if you can take a look and support my position (was working under 82.29.227.171) that would be great. RandomGalen 17:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand, thanks anyway. RandomGalen 20:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad

Thank you for your editing of this page. I really like the first sentence that you changed to. However, I should warn you, that this article is being heavily censored by a specific group of Muslin users who seem to be gaming wikipedia. This page seems more of a battleground than a place for collaboration. In fact there is none. Unfortunately, because of this there is a very high probability that your edit will be censored/reverted shortly. Thanks again for a well put intro sentence. Nodekeeper 05:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Translation: Avicenna

I signed up to do the translation you suggested over at Wikipedia:Translation into English/French. Thanks for the suggestion; it looks interesting. Just thought I'd let you know, in case you are interested. -- FaerieInGrey 01:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I looked into the FA status, and yes, it used to be. It seems that there was a lot of edit warring on the page, and violations of NPOV. I'll make sure not to translate POV into the English. --FaerieInGrey 16:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Done. There was surprisingly little to translate; I didn't want to add the contested controversy about his mother possibly being Jewish (would likely incite an edit war even bigger than what happened on the French), and much of the rest of the article was just divided differently than the English. However, I did find some very usable information to add to the "Medicine" section, so thank you for suggesting the article =). -- FaerieInGrey 19:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/l/u/User_talk%7EBluerain_6f20.html"