User talk:Golbez/Archive San

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to my talk page.

Contents

[edit] Authentic Matthew

Hi, It is confusing.Ril keeps removing Authentic Matthew even though his VfD failed. --Melissadolbeer 08:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Hooray!

[edit] Ali Sina

Hey Golbez, You reverted some edits by anon 209.67.*.* back to me, and he and White Knight keep trying to reinstate those edits. I don't care about the textual edits, though on first glance they don't seem at all neutral, but changing all the URLs on the page to redirect through a third-party server that both screws up the destination and prolly does some tracking is simple vandalism, in my opinion. I've said that I'll revert such edits on sight as vandalism (in my edit summaries), but they keep asking me to explain. I don't really think this warrants discussion, but I'd like another opinion. Could you also keep an eye on this page?--MikeJ9919 18:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Fine with me. Thanks. --MikeJ9919 18:43, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Help Me

I'm confused. I'm trying to upload a picture and so I get to the upload page, type in the stuff they ask me for (source, destination, and summery of the source). I click Upload File and nothing happens. What's up with that?

Thanks, E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 21:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm using Internet Explorer. It acts like I didn't even click anything.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 17:10, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

It works fine on all other instances, so I doubt it's my browser.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 17:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I've never uploaded a picture before. I haven't brought it up on the Village Pump yet. Should I?

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 18:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Seasons

Well, that was obviously a typo...oops...

Anyway, yeah, no problem. I can change it. I was actually thinking about that...I just figured I wouldn't bother with it if nobody noticed. But someone did notice, so I guess I'll change it...bob rulz 17:25, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] rollback

Please don't use rollback except when fighting vandalism, since that is it's only intended function. -- Netoholic @ 20:20, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Good job trying to get the NHL Lockout a mention on the headlines. --Madchester 20:28, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] doppleganger

You might jump on IRC and contact David Gerard or a developer (Tim Starling). Obviously you can, and should, block the impersonator indefinitely. Happy hunting. -- Netoholic @ 20:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi! My younger brother did this as a stupid prank. My parents have revoked his computer access for the rest of the month. I'm very sorry for the trouble. 4.250.0.180 21:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anacostia Station

Basically, take the top two coffers of the six-coffer arch design, turn them perpendicular to the normal direction, and set them in rows. I should mention the architecture for Anacostia in the article, but I'm trying to figure out a good way to say it. Schuminweb 22:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WMATA arches

As far as sites that list what kinds of arches the various stations use, nycsubway.org uses the term "waffle" for the most familiar style of arch, "Arch I" for the four-coffer arch found in seven stations along the western Red Line (Medical Center to Woodley Park-Zoo), "Arch II" to denote the six-coffer arch found at several more-recent stations (Columbia Heights, Georgia Avenue-Petworth, Mt. Vernon Square, Congress Heights, Glenmont), and "Arch III" to denote the smaller four-coffer arch that is based on the six-coffer arch's design (Forest Glen, Wheaton, Fort Totten Lower Level).

My site also uses the term "waffle", but I stay away from the arch-number term, preferring to say "four-coffer arch" or "six-coffer arch". But my site lists the different styles as well.

Schuminweb 02:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


[edit] WP project subnational entities

thanks for your last post on my talk page. It's a mess with all this distribute talk, he? Maybe we should better work on a naming conventions page. Some arguments I allready heard hundred times and answered them hundred times. Structured page for the arguments would be fine. I myself am not sure whether uppercase is good in some cases. Especially bracket disambig looks fine if something is not part of the official name. Most talks I had, were like: "My country is different". I think a general rule like "if it is not part of the official name" use lowercase or brackets, would be different. This actually would be a global approach. May other people do this. ... The whole thing is really not easy. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hurricane Emily

Sorry for the edit conflict. I wasn't expecting the 2300Z position to be published as early as 2248Z!--Keith Edkins 22:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] United States

Just a friendly reminder to assume good faith when anonymous users edit articles. In the case of your reversion of United States, it would have been very easy to take a quick look at Google News or another news home page to verify that the edit was, in fact, true. Remember, not all anon users know what that "edit summary" field is for.—chris.lawson (talk) 15:35, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I was assuming good faith -- too much of it ;) I know I can have a quick trigger finger at times on anonymous editors myself, and I had just seen the story three or four times in my RSS reader, which is why it struck me as a mite odd that it got reverted so quickly. At any rate, it's fixed now. I'll be seeing you around, I'm sure. Happy editing! —chris.lawson (talk) 23:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking messages

Hi, Golbez. With regards to this block and attached comment, please ensure more moderate language in the future. Thanks in advance. El_C 00:19, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Chat

  • thx for liking that I'm focussed.
  • calling something stupid or a person is different, and actually you said I called someone stupid because he simply had another opinion.
  • I called the poll stupid. may this was not political correct. but I felt a lot of work would be done without deeper analysis. what I did on Italy was up for one or two month on the talk page. 3 person discussed it. one neutral, me in favor, the other at first unclear than opposed. And this very third person User:Docu did not respond when I asked him who are the 2 persons oppsoing that he mentioned. And there was none. so it was 1:1:1. And Italy being the only system together with switzerland having "Province of X". So I moved the stuff. Then one person changed one province back and the discussions started. Other people came in, and said, oh but italy is different. Don't care what is done in the rest of WP-subdivisions. ... well one day we could create a poll with users from ALL subdivisions and maybe revert italy again. that's why i called this poll stupid. Polls are not analysing situations.
  • "Well you don't like that, I don't care" - I admit I sometimes have this attitude. Might be good, might be bad. I want quality and facts. Just feeling from the stomach is not all. ... Nevertheless I might take more care in the future here. But I don't promise anything here. Just to avoid to disappoint you.
  • thanks for having come to my user page. best regards Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:38, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] [[Blackface]

Hey. Long time no talk. Thanks for the kind words. Glad you liked the piece. :) deeceevoice 15:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] George Bush vandal blocking

Yeah, maybe. I don't know. I don't think it's right of us to make exceptions to the blocking policy for some special articles. Allthough, if exceptions were to be made, the GBW article is indeed a good candidate. Shanes 20:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, you may have a point. And I'm also a fan of WP:IAR from time to time. The problem, as I see it, is that this could create precedence and encourage people to put in that "one strike rule" in the header of all "their" articles, and then we'd be off to have created a new pollicy with this exception. But, I'm not fanatic about this at all, and I'm not going to go against you and remove your comment or anything. I guess it can be up to each admin to decide. And I definetely agree with you about keeping the article unprotected. Cheers. Shanes 21:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AH

I agree with your rv [1] of user:Deus Ex's edit. I think it doesn't "feel" right because it's a) wordy for a header and b) seems to contain a bit of PoV creep. I'm also uncomfortable with the cult of personality reference. It's non-standard, and used in this sort of context could be applied to most successful politicians. Wyss 00:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

"i explained my changes, you would do well to explain yours". I'm not sure what you mean by this-your rationale for revertion originally was the presence of "however", which I removed. Too me, "there's just something that doesn't work about deus ex's changes", is not an explanation, it is an excuse which I cannot decipher into meaning anything specific. Reverting to the original "in the name of "flowery prose"" is not an acceptable reason for revertioin. What specifically is wrong with my changes?

Since I've now noticed Wyss's post above, I'll respond to that and explain the intro changes. I was trying to make the intro less POV, not more. "Under Hitler's leadership, Germany ascended from the depths of post-World War I defeat and economic crisis to become one of the world's most powerful nations" is a vague and POV sentence, so I figured to replace that with summarising (few briefly) Hitler's major accomplishments. Maybe the wording wasn't perfect, but that was not a reason simply to revert back something along the lines of "one of the world's most powerful nations". Deus Ex 00:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy respnses. Shall I revert to my version then? If you don't have any major objections of the changes in principle, then I can revert-and subsqeuently the details of the wording of AH's 'accomplishments' can be changed (which I assume is what you and Wyss disagreed over). Deus Ex 01:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, to be honest I don't see why "Under Hitler's leadership Germany ascended from the depths of post-World War I defeat and economic crisis to rebuild its decimated military" is better than "Under Hitler's leadership, Germany's massive unemployment was vastly reduced, and the country undertook a huge programme of military rearmament." Isn't in better to state that unemployment was reduced (by far the most important economic accomplishment) rather than vaguely say "ascended from the depths of post-World War I defeat and economic crisis". Concerning the military, it was an economic programme (a Four Year Plan) so isn't it better to say "huge programme of military rearmament" instead of "rebuild its decimated military". I also don't see the reason for not using my version of the first paragraph-why isn't it an improvement on the original version. Deus Ex 01:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I've only just noticed this now, but why were the other (not from the lead section) edits reverted? Deus Ex 01:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

OK thanks Golbez. I'll let you restore the non-intro changes if you don't mind, its in the small hours of the morning here in England! I still think at least some of the intro edits are an improvement though, but I need some sleep now.Deus Ex 01:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Commas... the ones I removed weren't needed. Some see this as esthetics, but in general fewer commas are needed for clarity than we think and it can help the flow. This is not a big deal to me btw ;) Wyss 01:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Question

I'm curious to find out what you're implying here. [2] 172 | Talk 00:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Page protection request

Please protect Creation science. See here for more details. -- BRIAN0918  04:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for blocking me

Though I'm not sure why you blocked me. I wasn't "vandalizing" as you say. On the contrary, I was attempting to add some neutrality to the Bush page. I guess I'll be more careful next time. And by the way, the supposedly one hour block you handed down turned out to be a lot longer than that, which is unfair. Reynoldsrapture 05:13, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

No problem. And in the future, if I feel it nessecary to edit something, I'll be sure to explain why. I can imagine how many people go after GWB. Maybe the administrators should just put a lock on that page and allow a few select people to edit it in a balanced fashion. Reynoldsrapture 05:50, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] {{Test3}}

Header, yea sorry about that, I was trying to figure out why you would post there, then it came to me. I see you removed the header, it's probably for the best. Sorry for the mishap. Thanks. ∞Who?¿? 05:47, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zap a category for me?

Could you please delete the "Fire alarm stubs" category? I created it for stub articles about fire alarms, but then realized that the "Fire alarms" category that I also recently created would be a better fit for it. So "my bad". Schuminweb 00:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GNAA FAC

I am not here based on the long comments you have made, but I personally wish to ask you if the nominator was different, would people's feelings be different? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, I am very sorry if Brian and others are making it a living hell for you and others for trying to tell me suggestions on how to fix the article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Argentine province naming convention + Tobias

Thanks for the offer. I get pissed off very easily these days. I replied to Tobias in my talk page and then I got a message from him saying I was treating him as if he were stupid. I told Tobias I was tired of pointless debating and "quit". Then he replied to me in a completely different tone. I'm not sure what he read first. In any case, I'm keeping my word. If I can resist it, I won't touch the issue of naming conventions with a stick from two meters away in the foreseeable future.

The thing is, I believe that naming conventions should be decided on a country basis. I don't believe a province is the same thing in any two countries, even though the structure might be similar and the name of the administrative division is the same, or a cognate. And I think the word "province" should be strictly disambiguational in the title (the article of course has to give the official name). This is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Argentina-related regional notice board. You're welcome to give an opinion.

--Pablo D. Flores 14:50, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Afghanistan

With respect to naming conventions for those articles, I agree that it's currently inconsistent but I'm not sure I'm qualified to define policy. I would suggest that we remove 'Province' from the article names but leave the full names in as redirects. That would seem to be most consistent with the US and Canada naming conventions. The only question is how many conflicts there will be if the top-level administrative districts (states, provinces, etc.) of each country in the world is all in the same namespace without disambiguation (Province, Country), but that's really no different whether or not the "Province" qualifier is in the name.

What I don't know is whether this actually makes sense when you look at the province names in the local languages. Let's pretend for a moment that the US had a state with an ethnic name. Say, Cherokee Territory. Obviously we would reduce that to just "Cherokee" as a name, but that will then be both a name for an ethnic group and for an administrative district. The same thing happens in Canada with Northwest Territories. I don't know whether, in the local Afghan languages, any of the province names cause that same problem. Probably not, but useful to think about before setting a blanket policy. JRP

[edit] The Moon

Thanks for adding that information about the moon. I mean seriously - what I added, what you added, or what anyone could add that simply refers to a 'higher being' and 'creation' is so benign - they can't be mad!

It is totally unfair to remove religion from everything. A specific faith doesn't have to be endorsed, but geez, these people flip out if you say 'diety' or anything referencing to a religious belief!

It is disgusting and makes Wikipedia very similar to Communist Russia or China. If you can, please protect that tidbit of info, b/c they will revert it all day long. So many who landed on the moon, including the 2nd person to walk on the moon Buzz Aldrin, believe that the moon was created by a higher being.

So, yeah. I'm done now. Thanks for the help, and if you can use your admin powers, protect it! THANKS!

[edit] kmccoy's RFA

Hey, Golbez,

Thanks for your support on my RFA, cabalmate. :) kmccoy (talk) 05:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Guatemala

I know Guatemala a bit (more than other CA countries and Mexico, less than Honduras), all in all about 7 months, but I am not sure that helps as I never talked much about departments to people. It is department of Escuintla (departamento de Escuintla), but when one talks about Escuintla one is talking about the city, which is where we have problems. Sacatepéquez is easy because only the department isa called that. I don't have any easy answers, and mostly think it should be department because wikipedia tends to follow this rule, eg Rastafari movement not Rastafari Movement. Spanish does use the non-capitalisation much more extensively than English, so it would be En el departamento de Escuintla. Maybe we should find something that doesn't directly incorporate department such as Escuintla, Guatemala or Escuintla (department), I prefer the latter, SqueakBox 17:18, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

on the other hand it is not "new York city" and not black river and not "county of orange" but "County of Orange" (official) and Orange County (more colloquial). Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Revert to Air France Flight 358 crash

Thanks, I didn't know if I (non-admin) was allowed to rv this or not. hydnjo talk 18:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Schwarzenegger

First, Google is your friend. The governor's nickname is an easily confirmed fact. Second, your stated objection was lack of any boob-grabbing allegation, for which you demanded a cite. That's not particularly relevant since I wasn't saying he was accused, but rather that he had a particular nickname. Nevertheless, I pointed out the name of the boob accuser and the fact that it was stated in the self-same article. That should have given you pause before deleting again. At the least, you could have had the grace to acknowledge your error. Third, I specifically asked you to take it to talk if you still had a problem, and you refused. That's lame.

The article has (mostly uncited, by the way) the nicknames Austrian Oak, The Governator, Conan the Republican, Ahhnold, and Herr Gröpenführer. Der Boobengrabber is factual and of the same relevance. It's used about 73 times a day on talk radio.

The decent thing for you to do would be to restore the deletion and engage in some kind of discussion if you still have a problem.

(Squib 20:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC))

[edit] 1926 hurricane

The damage figure in 1926 was $100 million and was published in the Monthly Weather Review. The inflation figure of $98 billion was reported on a NOAA site [3]. How is that speculative? These figures exist and should be reported. That revert you made bordered on vandalism in my opinion, because you removed valid information. The only reason it wasn't was because there were good intentions behind it.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 20:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Telling me to 'read up on it' doesn't tell me crap. I need to know where you got your information and why you arrived at this conclusion. If the figure of $98 billion is 'worthless', why was it published on a site from a no-nonsense organization like NOAA? That new figure you put on the site looks like one you just pulled out of a hat. The wealth normalization figure gives a great idea of what $100 million meant to people in 1926. Your rash, extremely opinionated reasoning makes no sense to me.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 21:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hurricane Cleo

You might want to be aware of this. I put the article Hurricane Cleo (1958) up for deletion because someone just copied and pasted a section of an article I wrote, (Catastrophic Florida Hurricanes: 1961-present), into another article. I've got people blindly just looking at the article's title and saying "Keep!". The section was on the 1964 storm named Cleo and it was put into an article that labeled it the 1958 storm. It was never intended to have its own article. Cyrius might want to get involved too. I need some rational thinkers (like you and Cyrius) in this.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 02:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Do you still have the authority to speedy-delete this article now that the voting is over and no one has made a desisive conclusion? I can't believe it's still up. We had like five or six deletes, one merge and one keep. For God's sake this article needs to die a horrible death.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 22:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry

Hi Golbez, yes, there's concrete evidence. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 07:56, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Dear Golbez,

Need your help, seen you deleted on Al Gore page reference to SNS short text. I think it should be noted that during the Clinton regime Al and Bill Richardson at the time Secretary of the Department of energy now governor of New Mexico, got SNS started at Oakridge National Lab. I think it should be mentioned.

I just did not know how to word it. What do you think?

Many Thanks User:Scottfisher

[edit] Regarding Green Day page

First off, I would like to apologize, for I was unnaware of the three revert rule. I would like to ask if there is another location, besides the Green Day page, where I may post the article. - User_talk:Kerrysfrench

Fair enough, I will not repost the article again on the Green Day page, however I will post it on my own user page. - User_talk:Kerrysfrench

SNS It's entirely possible it needs to be mentioned - integrated into the text. You just tacked the sentence on at the end of the article. If you can find some place in the article where it belongs, and expand it and cite, then there's no problem with it. --Golbez 17:18, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Scottfisher"

Golbez, Thats the problem I don't know where and how to note it, LOL Man this thing is addicting! Thanks. User:Scottfisher

[edit] Albania

are you ignorant? Why do you allways revert my corrections and say WP claims Districts are first level? Three WP-pages state otherwise:

Your Albania edits are annoying. I told you five times you are wrong. Why not reading more carefully if I point you to this? Esp. if this leads to accordance with CIA and statoids. Maybe I am ignorant. Which page do YOU refer to? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 11:32, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] albania

ARROGANT NONSENS POSTER!!! STOP WRITING FALSE STUFF!!! And stop reverting to wrong versions!! WHERE DOES WP say it districts are FIRST LEVEL?????????


For the ignorant reverter:

On the first level Albania is divided into 12 qark (county or prefecture), these are further divided into rrethe (districts) and sum up to 36 of them. The capital city, Tiranë, has a special status.


ok, now but for my point of view we don't need to write about graphics on country-pages on the Naming page. maybe longer run we need other subpages like the "/Naming".

another thing: thx for fixing the break on vfd tango.info, I forgot that it is included in summary page somewhere.

[edit] Hi

I reverted Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon to the form that starts with her birthname. It is standard historical naming technique to refer to consorts by pre-marital name. The reasons are complex. Consorts don't have numbers so they cannot be distinguished by their ordinals. In addition it is normal to use pre-marital name to clarify who they were personally rather than refer to them by a title they got later in life. Hence everyone uses Catherine of Aragon, not Queen Catherine, Alexandra of Denmark rather than Queen Alexandra or Queen Alexandra the Queen Mother. In addition monarchs (regnant rather than consort) are referred to by highest title here and elsewhere. Queen Mother is not the highest title Elizabeth held. Queen was, but if we write Queen Elizabeth people will confuse her with her daughter, the queen regnant, Queen Elizabeth II.

Starting the article with her actual name, which was Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, rather than Queen Elizabeth or Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, is also easier, in terms of reading than starting with her last title and working backwards from it.

Look out, BTW for an individual who keeps doing the endless changing formats of consort pages. (He writes comments in capitals.) He has been repeated warned to stop changing consort articles to consort name rather than the standard maiden name, but will not stop. He has been warned numerous times that he faced a block if he kept doing it. I am loathe to block him but all efforts to explain to him the standard format to use have failed. He even spent ages deleting surnames from royal pages, insisting they were wrong even when aides to the Queen confirmed they were correct. He really is an annoying prat and something needs to be done about him. At this stage it is simple vandalism. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:40, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

No problem mate. The only problem that arises is how soon after the death of a consort should they be in as maiden name/title. Some publications apply a one year 'mourning' period after their death after which they revert to maiden name. Some hardcopy sources apply a two editions rule if the first editions comes out within a short time of her death. Others apply a 3-5 year wait. Usually the latter are hardcopy publications. A small minority apply a when succeeded to the title rule. As Wikipedia is constantly updated, it seems logical to have moved by now. (The BBC last week referred to her as EBL. Broadcasters usually follow two standards. In news coverage they stick for up to a decade (sometimes longer) with last used name, while in biographical programmes, etc they move to personal maiden name pretty much instantly. So on the news you'll hear "Diana, Princess of Wales" or even the non-existent Princess Diana, but on detailed programmes she now is often referred to as Lady Diana Spencer again, especially now that her husband's second wife is legally Princess of Wales even if she doesn't use the title!)
Ultimately using maiden name allows the question who was she? to be answered. She was Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. What she was is different. She was the Queen Mother for 50 years of her life, having been also a queen, a duchess and a lady. Using maiden name/title follows the logical format who, what, where, when which is why in history is generally written that way. Historians, for example, will write of "Henry VIII and his wife, Catherine of Aragon", "George V and his wife Mary of Teck", "George VI and his wife Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon" because it gives information on who there wife was, rather than the less information "Henry VIII and his wife, Queen Catherine", "George V and his wife, Queen Mary" and "George VI and his wife, Queen Elizabeth" Henry VIII and his wife, Catherine of Aragon" tells us not just who he married but where she came from, and that she was a princess. "George VI and his wife Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon" tells us her name, her family and by the form used that she was a commoner. Diana really should be at Diana Spencer by now, but every time I try edit wars erupt. Sometimes the amateurishness on Wikipedia can be frustrating. Oh well! Thanks for the message. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


you are soooooo arrogant Golbez. I am happy that not all people are like you. Did you ever wonder what ATMOSPERE YOU CREATE by reverting and reverting to wrong stuff? And you did not even say sorry!!!! YOU ARE TAKING OTHER PEOPLE TIME ? It may be good faith, but it costed much more than a vandal. because a vandal inserts wrong stuff - but he goes away. I will NOT talk with you anymore until end of august. (this means come to your talk page) HASTA LA VISTA. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Countries

I reverted your changes. Please attempt discussion first (allow me a chance to respond). It has taken me a bit of time to change all those countries, and I would appreciate a dialogue rather than discarding my changes like that. Thanks. El_C 23:16, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I sincerely hope this has nothing to do with my earlier chastisement of your conduct (here). I meant nothing sinister by it. Sigh. El_C 23:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] feel free

and joyous and happy and all that other stuff about policing this accounts actions, if you wish to. there wont be qany problems.Gavin the Chosen 13:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hello, Golbez! Thanks for blocking BunkyBoopy for me- I also blocked him, not sure who blocked first... anyways, I thought that giving him a second chance after he seemed to calm down would be good. I sincerly hoped that he had "reformed"... oh well, I guess not. Thanks for being so diligent. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 20:03, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please correct the portuguese

Hi Golbez, Hello (I love your nickname, played that game endlessly).

Main Page: Thieves steal 150 million reals ($65m) in the Banco Central Fortaleza robbery, Brazil's largest bank robbery and possibly the second largest ever.

The plural of Real is Reais; and it´s the Banco Central robbery at Fortaleza. I´m brazilian ;) Subramanian talk 21:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


It´s a pleasure to help, please count on me as a source for information on Brazil anytime you want.

  1. We usually say "Amazonas state" and "Amazonas river" or contextualize it when saying simply "Amazonas". The Amazon forest is Amazônia. So, your solution is fine by our standards. This is not a big deal.
  2. São Paulo is both the name of the state and its capital, as you know. We would write "São Paulo, SP" and "São Paulo state". The problem is, we know that the SP means the state and therefore acknowedge "São Paulo, SP" as the city, but would this be fine for the English Wikipedia? As for the Sao Paolo form, I´m sorry, but it is wrong either way. It doesn´t exist in any language. In Italian it is "San Paolo", in English "St. Paul", in Spanish "San Pablo" and in Portuguese São Paulo! Better change it. If you're felling like it, check its official page in awkward English.
  3. We would do make it "Rio de Janeiro, RJ" and "Rio de Janeiro state". Again, would this be fine for en.wikipedia?
  4. Brasília (mind the accent) is simply Brasília because we don´t have a state as in Washington State / Washington D.C. We have a district for Brasília, D.F., because we decided it shouldn´t be under any gubernatorial rule, but we don´t mention the D.F. unless when posting a letter.

The news is still a little awkward: it should be Banco Central robbery at Fortaleza, there is no Banco Central Fortaleza for a robbery to happen there.

This guy here was really powerful, you know. Image:Golbez small.gif

Best, - Subramanian talk 03:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


I'm having all kinds of reminiscences going through the Final Fantasy IV pages... You had written "Sao Paolo" back there at my talk page, and that's what I called "wrong either way". I don´t care about the tricky ã, it´s about the o/u mistake. Glad you liked the icon! -- Subramanian talk 03:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Not a problem at all. If you forgive my weird English I'm sure we'll get along fine :) Subramanian talk

[edit] Substing

Just a reminder, try to remember to to subst {{test}} templates, as it reduces load on the server. Keep up the good work fighting off the vandals. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] styles

Given the endless debate/rows etc over styles I've been thinking as to what is the best way to come up with a consensus solution. Styles have to be in an article, but using them upfront is, I think, a mistake and highly controversial. I've designed a series of templates which I think might solve the problem. There are specific templates for UK monarchs, Austrian monarchs, popes, presidents, Scottish monarchs and HRHs. (I've protected them all, temporarily, because I want people to discuss them in principle rather than battle over content and design right now.) I've used a purple banner because it is a suitable royal colour and is also distinctive. They are eyecatching enough to keep some of the pro-styles people happy; one of their fears seemed to be that styles would be buried. But by not being used they are neutral enough to be factual without appearing to be promotional. I'd very much like your views. I'm going to put them on a couple of user pages and ask for a reaction. There needs to be a calm debate on them this time. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 02:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


Monarchical Styles of
Queen Victoria
Reference style: {{{dipstyle}}}
Spoken style: {{{offstyle}}}
Alternative style: {{{altstyle}}}
Styles of
Pope Paul VI
Reference style {{{dipstyle}}}
Spoken style {{{offstyle}}}
Religious style {{{relstyle}}}
Posthumous style {{{deathstyle}}}


Monarchical Styles of
 Franz Josef of Austria-Hungary
Reference style {{{dipstyle}}}
Spoken style {{{offstyle}}}
Alternative style {{{altstyle}}}
Monarchical Styles of
James V
Reference style: {{{dipstyle}}}
Spoken style: {{{offstyle}}}
Alternative style: {{{altstyle}}}
Styles of
Mary McAleese,
President of Ireland
Reference style {{{dipstyle}}}
spoken style {{{offstyle}}}
Alternative style {{{altstyle}}}
Styles of
Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall
{{{image}}}
Reference style {{{dipstyle}}}
Spoken style {{{offstyle}}}
Alternative style {{{altstyle}}}

[edit] American Old West at the US Collaboration

Some time ago, you supported the nomination of American Old West at the COTW. I have now renominated it at the new US Collaboration. If you are still interested, you can support the article with your vote there!--Fenice 08:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Func's RfA :)

Golbez, thank you so much for your vote on my RfA! I greatly appreciate it. :)

Please never hesitate to let me know if you have concerns with any administrative action I may make.

Func( t, c, e, ) 18:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arlington Selectmen

How exactly are the Arlington, Mass. Selectment not verifiable? ;-)http://www.town.arlington.ma.us/Public_Documents/ArlingtonMA_Selectmen/index Now whether their names are important to have in the article is another matter entirely. Badagnani 18:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Punjab

I thought it would be easier to access Punjab if a comma separates them. Punjab (Indian state) [or Punjab (India)] would be fine, but Punjab (state) would not be, as the Pakistan province is also a state. PS The Pakistan part is often referred to as "The Punjab". User:Nichalp/sg 18:31, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, I prefer "Punjab, India" and "Punjab, Pakistan". "Indian state" just sounds a bit odd. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maps

Hello again, I've been trying to improve the rather skimpy Guainas pages lately, and I was wondering if you'd be willing to possibly make some regional maps. Don't do it if your busy with other things of course, but if you ever have some spare time it'd be much appreciated.

= Sdrawkcab 19:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)sdrawkcab

No problem, always like to be appreciated. :) What in particular do you want maps of? --Golbez 19:50, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Regional maps are needed for Suriname and Guyana. French Guiana also needs region maps, though it gets a bit complicated here - it's divided into 2 arrondissements (seen on the CIA map), then 20 communes (I can only find one map of these at http://perso.wanadoo.fr/redris/cartes/commune1.jpg )

But anyway, if you have time then GY and SR need maps. Thnaks for your help Sdrawkcab 14:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)sdrawkcab

thanks for the maps - I'll sort out the articles as I go along. I was wondering if that's all the countries done now, or are there still a few with no maps?

Thanks for your brilliant maps, Sdrawkcab 17:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)sdrawkcab

[edit] Notable Enough

I'm really not sure how the August 9 Shooting Kingston, Tennessee article isn't notable enough to be on the main page. I thought it was extremly notable (see Fox's Site, CNN's Site, and MSNBC's Site. That story has been extremly popular. Also, entire programs have been devoted to this story. I know this not might be a story from a world view, but there has been stories that didn't have that much of a world view on the main page. I don't mean to cause a problem, because I know your edits and decisions are for the greater good, (plus you're an administator, can't argue with that) but I am asking you to rethink your stance on this. :) --Newguineafan 20:24, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your opinion --Newguineafan 20:44, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Memory Alpha deletions

Make sure to stop by Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek to add your opinion (which I think I can guess) with regard to the Memory-Alpha link deletion matter :) -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:45, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with you. It is not vandalism, they are vandalizing WP by adding the links, when they don't link back to WP. -- Spinboy 22:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Golbez -- a virtual pat on the back for reverting the deletions. I certainly hope you had a 'bot helping you! Cheers! 23skidoo 23:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] George H. W. Bush

You've twice reverted my statement that Bush is the first Republican president to appoint an African American judge to the SCOTUS. This is an important FACT about Bush that illustrates the success of the civil rights movement throughout all walks of life. You called it inane, and I would like to know your justication for calling this fact inane. You say that the edit is "just to make a point," but it is not. It is merely for balance's sake. George W. Bush's page contains a reference to him being the first Republican president to appoint an openly Gay man to his administration. I fail to see how Bush's appointment of Clarence Thomas is any less significant.

You've obviously letting your personal feelings on this matter influence your judgement on what is and isn't appropriate. It shouldn't matter who or why placed information in an article as long as it's good information. What you need to do is step back, look at the information objectively, and ask yourself simply, "is this appropriate for an encyclopedia article? is this a fact, and is it a significant one?" If you do not believe my edit meets this criteria, please explain why. Sdauson 20:26, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

As a sweeping generalization, the African American population seems to take issue with the Republican Party, as black voters usually overwhelmingly vote Democrat. Republicans are currently opposed to things like Affimative Action. Civil rights have been a sore spot for the party, and not just because of the GLBTQ minority. George H.W. Bush got just two opportunities to appoint a SCOTUS justice, and he chose to use one of those nominations to nominate a black man. This is VERY significant, and is at the very least comparable to Bush expending one of his hundreds, even thousands of presidential appointments on a gay man. You say you do not support the sentence in George W. Bush's article, yet you do not vote against it in the survey (which does not conform to Wikipedia:Survey Guidelines, btw), and then try to use that poll as an accurate judge of support for one side of a disagreement or another. If your main gripe is then that I've failed to achieve consensus on the inappropriateness of the George W. Bush factoid, you need to consider that there seems to be very little effort to actually gather the genuine opinon required for consensus, or lack thereof.
In the end, it's not about who's right and who's wrong, what's appropriate and what's not. It's about seeking out double standards and eliminating them. If the majority of people do believe that a factoid is appropriate on one page, it should be appropriate on all other pages in which similar factoids are relevant. Anything less is a breach of consistancy and encyclopedic integrity. Sdauson 21:12, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
You seem to be under the impression that I believe the sentence in the George W. Bush article degrades the article itself. This is not true. I merely believe the sentence to be largely irrelevant to the article itself. Yes, I believe that including irrelevant information lowers the quality of an article, but I also believe that lack of consistancy lowers the quality of an encyclopedia. The difference here is that irrelevance is subjective, while consistancy is not nearly so. I appreciate and respect the fact that my subjective opinon on relevance is currently in the minority, and as such, the quality of the article is not objectively diminished. However, we ALL still have a responsibility to the encyclopedia of maintaining consistancy.
Furthermore, I believe that the George H.W. Bush remark I attempted to add to his article IS actually relevant, IS more significant than the George W. Bush remark, and DOES cross the threshold betweenwhat is appropriate for an encylopedia, REGARDLESS of what is in George W. Bush's article. Re-read the talk page on this subject if you need to, but you'll find that my first and primary argument against the statement in the George W. Bush article is that the appointment is utterly insignificant because it represents one choice out of thousands. This certainly doesn't apply to an analysis of George H.W. Bush's SCOTUS appointments, and as such, my claim of irrelevance on the gay appointment bears no weight in matters of SCOTUS appointments. Were Roberts (George W. Bush's supreme court nomination) to be an openly gay man, THAT would definitely be worthy of mention in his article. Sdauson 21:33, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
If it's "just your opinion" that Clarence Thomas is "not so much" worth noting, then I suggest you not edit pages based solely on your opinons. If you have your opinon and I have mine, then we need to take this to the next level of dispute resolution. Sdauson 21:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Based on our discussion, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you're a straight white male with really no idea of the dynamic involved in being a homosexual man today, or a black man 15 years ago. If you do understand this, please correct me, but otherwise, maybe you should think and hard before editing articles based on how "much it means" (to you) to be black, gay, or female. You've said that you're editing this article based solely on your opinion of how important you think the information is, and I disagree with you. You have yet to provide any indication as to why including this fact lowers the quality of the article-- just saying it doesn't make it so. I think in an encyclopedia you should have a good reason for intentionally omitting information. Sdauson 14:55, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
There was obviously a difference in public perceptions of race issues between when Marshall was appointed and when Thomas was appointed. But the point is that when it comes to equality for African Americans, there was still work left to do fifteen years ago. There is still work left to do to this day. I certainly hope you don't disagree and try to say that black and white stand on equal footing in today's America, because that would just be ignorant. Marshall's appointment was certainly the more progressive step, but that doesn't negate the significance of Thomas' appointment, as Thomas' appointment shows a bi-partisan acceptance of black justices on the SCOTUS. George W. Bush's appointment of a gay man to his administration does little more than show bi-partisan acceptance of gay politicians, because like with the Marshall/Thomas comparison, the real progressive step, the real civil rights breakthrough in and of itself occured befoew George W. Bush's presidency. You keep repeating your misguided notion that I'm merely trying to make a point, but listen: I am not. I will argue for the inclusion of the George H. W. Bush inclusion even if the George W. Bush statement is removed. You still have failed to provide a valid reason why this FACTUAL information should not be included in George H. W. Bush's article. Instead of trying to hide behind forcing someone else to take initiative to validate factual information, please take this to the next level of dispute resolution like I asked, and bring it up on the talk page. Sdauson 00:39, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tropical Storm Irene

Hey there.. ok about the pressure bit... i've studied hydroclimatology and weather at uni, so i guess i'm really into it... and for the purposes of coming down to a level most people understand , i do see your point. Also, have been a wiki reader for a while now, and only now have ventured into making many edits... is this the best way to talk to people? anyhow thanks for the heads up.Boort 21:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Was also curious as to how you'd think it best to do the updates on the Pacific Hurricanes. As they tend to not be a threat to land, the updates at 5am/pm and 11am/pm (EST) don't give a position relative to land. As such one would have to wait for the tropical weather outlook page for this info which comes out 3 hrs i think, after the advisorys from the NHC. I gather giving the up-to-date longitude/latitude points would be ineffective in giving the reader a point of reference... but is the only means of giving info as it happens.. Boort 21:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey there... had a question to pose your way. Seeing as how you're well established in this area of study, would like your input if possible. Wondering if putting a section of ENSO-Hurricane interaction in the tropical cyclone page would be worthwhile. I'm sure there's a wealth of research on that topic, but don't want to end up cluttering up the article. Boort 06:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Punjab

I moved the article back because I agreed with Nichalp's initial move, nor was there was no reasoning given for your move on the article's talk page, nor a request to discuss the move before it was made. If you have a look at "What links here", Punjab, India is what most of the articles link to. I have worked on a number of India geography articles, and have found that there is a general practice that, if it is necessary to distinguish between places with the same name, that the name of the article include the name of the place and the distinguishing geographic unit (usually, but not always, a state), separated by a comma. This convention is common outside the India-related geography articles as well. I think it is a pretty simple, useful, and elegant convention, and your change didn't fit with it. Tom Radulovich 22:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] International Phonetic Alphabet

Quick admin-related question for you. Are you aware of any Wikipolicy that states we must use the International Phonetic Alphabet? I just reverted a change to the article Caroline Dhavernas in which a user -- another admin, as it happened -- stated that we use IPA for denoting pronounciation of names and added a bunch of text that my browser couldn't read, so I reverted. I'm unaware of any such policy. Are you? Cheers! 23skidoo 13:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough but the thing doesn't show up on my browser and all it does is mess up the text formatting. Is this a Netscape vs. Internet Explorer situation? I personally feel phonetic alphabets don't work because it requires you to virtually learn another language to make sense of them. 23skidoo 20:19, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother

The fact that she has died makes no diffeence. She is the mother of the present British Queen and will remain the mother of Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom until doomsday.

As for the title of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth that is correct you do lose Royal rank when you die

Go to http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page863.asp The is the Memorial Site of the official web site of the British Monarchy, and I will quote this like it or not.User:Silverhorse

[edit] King

Some users have been adding in King to articles. They are usually deleted. That one slipped through. It will of course be deleted. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Oops. Probably a revert to a flawed version. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, such mistakes happen to editors who are attestedly prone to revert blindly, without sufficient consideration and thought. 217.140.193.123 19:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

I, Redwolf24 hereby award you this barnstar for several reasons: You have over 8000 edits, you're funny, any wikipedian who's been around for more than a week should recognize you, I haven't seen you being uncivil, and you are all around a great user.
Enlarge
I, Redwolf24 hereby award you this barnstar for several reasons: You have over 8000 edits, you're funny, any wikipedian who's been around for more than a week should recognize you, I haven't seen you being uncivil, and you are all around a great user.

oooo shiny. Redwolf24 22:09, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Naming conventions

Thanks, I had missed the "provinces" page. We also have

Maurreen (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Can we please consolidate the discussion about consolidation, at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions? Thanks. Maurreen (talk) 17:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject: U. S. Congress

There doesn't seem to be much happening on this project. I found the opening and closing dates for all sessions (through first session, 108th) and, following the format I found for the first (single-digit) congresses, have been going through them in sequence. I figured this was a nice, low-risk way to get started. However, I'm now up to the 34th Congress, and I see the format/template has changed (or hasn't been applied). I'm going to be mildly bold and continue with my small change (adding dates of sessions). since you seem to have worked on this project in the past: Any thoughts, comments? OtherDave 23:06, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Redwolf24/Friends

Go there, remove yourself if you see fit :P Redwolf24 04:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mexico

Yes, spanish is official, not just de facto. -- < drini | ∂drini > 19:32, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures on Main Page

Please protect images before you put them on the Main Page, as they're highly vulnerable to vandalism. If the image is on Commons, upload it locally and put Template:C-uploaded on the image page. Thanks.--Pharos 01:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Protect Ted Kennedy article

Please make sure that the Palm Beach Rape and Waitress Sandwich POV troll sections are removed, then protect the article. Thanks.Voice of All(MTG) 02:05, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] You're fast!

Well done reverting that attack as quickly as you did, much faster than I managed with my Firefox! How do you do it so efficiently? I kept making mistakes while doing the reverts, deleting the correct article instead of the redirect, I kept having to to go back and clean up by undeleting and restoring the content of a few of them. But I shot down the second vandalbot first. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:42, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Estimates

I'm not trying to start a war here. You guys seem to have the overwhelming majority. I used the standard equation for converting knots to mph. 125 knots x 1.15=143.75 mph, that rounds up to 144 mph. I'm into smaller roundings. I also though that exact information was what Wikipedia was all about. But whatever.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 22:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Golbez, I think I meant consistency with the rest of the article which makes his dictatorial ways quite clear. Coqsportif 23:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

for Racialism freedom WAS 4.250 04:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks re Pasties

Thanks for picking up my mistake. cheers Gypsum Fantastic 11:54, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sustainable energy

Thanks for having a go... as you see, it's not that easy. If you'd like to join the discussion at Talk:Sustainable energy or any of the places it links to, that would be appreciated! Andrewa 09:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see you already have! Thank you. Andrewa 09:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] imposters and other indef. blocked nonsense :)

Just wanted to let you know if you didn't already know that you can just use {{Impostor|user}} to tag imposter accounts, since using that will bring up a nice blocked user template that says this user is an imposter of (user) and has been indefinately blocked as such. Keep up the good work. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 21:56, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] N5R

Thanks for catching that vandal. Someone must really don't want me to become an admin (I an currently a candiate). Keep the vandal fighting. NSR (talk) 22:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bush vandalism

You blocked my account a few minutes ago. My idiotic brother is the one to blame! Adamwankenobi 23:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Columbine High School massacre

Hey, I notice you often moderate the Columbine massacre page and wanted to let you know its up for featured article status if you want to vote for it, or help improve it?. - PRueda29

[edit] 2005 Pacific Hurricane Season

I edited it to a.m. / p.m. merely since some guy who did a copyedit on the 2005 Atlantic Hurricane Season did it that way.. may as well have them the same. Since this is an encyclopaedia, albeit online, may as well go with proper style format as opposed to conventions the NHC simply uses. Boort 01:58, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

thanks for getting back, that is true, i guess since it is merely a timeline, thesis-esque grammar isn't necessarily needed, It's just one of those things that comes up, and one person has one opinion, and another one the opposite clarification is needed. Next thing you know - someone out in the central time zone may object to the bias of the bulk of material being listed as EDT... and we may just end up using UTC time only. Boort 22:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Congress of the United States

Hi. I'd appreciate some help over at Congress of the United States, particularly its talk page. Barberio seems to have made the obscure topic of possible cross-house officeholding his personal crusade and has made a series of strange and confusing edits to the article. I'd appreciate the remarks of a third party. Thanks. Mateo SA | talk 13:09, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits over there. Having a third party contribute seems to have calmed the problem. Mateo SA | talk 16:20, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My Signature

Thanks for the heads up, I hope I got work correctly now.

D. J. Bracey (talk)


17:06, 25 August 2005 (UTC) How's this:

D. J. Bracey (talk)


17:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC) (test)

Test!

[edit] what up homey

so universal suffrage is still an apporiate term for voting rights in the US even if some felons are excluded? I'm not trying to defame the US here as much as be honest. what are you trying to do? and did you site the US being listed on another wikipedia article as having "universal suffrage" as evidence that we have it or that's a correct characterization of what we have voting right-wise?? please help me undertand where you are coming from. thankz, Nzzl 03:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] yo

golby! what was up with this revert? this person (albeit anonymous) seems to be following the predominant stylistic convention. Crackatzzl 03:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I was referring to the convention of linking to the actual article name rather than linking to redirect. THis convention is predominant everywhere, not just with famous people like the Veep. I don't care so much what that particular link is- you just seem extremely protective of u.s., perhaps you'r getting a little carried away. Crackatzzl 04:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A Barnstar for You

I hereby award you the RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for your heroic efforts in repairing and repelling the Willy on Wheels vandal — Bratschetalk 5 pillars (KC)
I hereby award you the RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for your heroic efforts in repairing and repelling the Willy on Wheels vandal — Bratschetalk 5 pillars (KC)

[edit] Are you the Wikipedia Police?

I have not added any bias on the articles I have modified. If anything, I removed the sugar-coated, neutral bias. I'm sorry if the truth offends you. The truth of Islamic fundamentalism being used to justify violence offends me too. Perhaps, instead of completly censoring my additions, you could either stay out of the article completly, or work with the current version to meet whatever standards you think acceptable. If someone disagrees with you, I'm sure you won't mind if they make a change here or there. That is how Wikipedia was created. If that's too much to ask, then remove the edit links, and critically review each and every article before you post it.

[edit] Sensored facts

By the way, I probably should have made reference links in the article entitled "Al-Qaeda" when I added the $25 million dollar reward offered for bin Laden. I got that from the FBI's most wanted terrorist list. Even you can't say that a reward is a fact. Where is the bias in adding that a reward exists? It might not belong in a traditional encyclopedia, but then again, neither does a current event.

[edit] American Idol

Hi Andrew, I wondered if it was something like that. I only reverted your removal of the correct formatting, not the link itself. I agree the link should be removed. Angela. 07:29, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I have read it

Why is the word 'terrorist' biased? A person who kills people at random is attempting to instill terror in a population. Therefore, that person is a terrorist. Can you honestly say that isn't what's happening? I'm not even stating my opinion, only calling the 'insurgents' for what they truly are. Even the original article states this at least a couple times, just using a few more words.

What kind of 'positive and sympathetic tone' can someone use for both sides of an insurgency?

[edit] Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete

From your NPOV:

The neutrality policy is used sometimes as an excuse to delete texts that are perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem?

In many cases, yes. Many of us believe that the fact that some text is biased is not enough, in itself, to delete it outright. If it contains valid information, the text should simply be edited accordingly.

There's sometimes trouble determining whether some claim is true or useful, particularly when there are few people on board who know about the topic. In such a case, it's a good idea to raise objections on a talk page; if one has some reason to believe that the author of the biased material will not be induced to change it, we have sometimes taken to removing the text to the talk page itself (but not deleting it entirely). But the latter should be done more or less as a last resort, never as a way of punishing people who have written something biased.


If you want to see a page that reeks of bias, check out Cindy Sheehan.

[edit] Where's the POV, and who the hell are you?

Frankly, you STILL haven't said how the word 'terrorist' conveys my point of view, which is something you don't know. You can also stop playing Wikipedia God and quit removing anything I post. As far as arguing on your talk page, it's the only place I can contact you. If there's another place or another person you'd rather I complain to, feel free to let me know.

[edit] Good point

OK, maybe I forgot those things. But even you can't say that they are killing in the name of their religion. You still haven't said what the difference is between an insurgent and a terrorist.

[edit] OK

128.194.54.244 08:08, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Congress of the United States 2

Hi. Sorry it took me so long to reply to you. Also, this is probably a lot longer than you wanted, but the whole issue got very complicated. Anyway, here's the steps in the dual officeholding debacle from the beginning:

  1. Barberio posted his question about holding offices in both the Senate and House on the Congress of the United States talk page.
  2. Someone replied to his question, saying they couldn't find any restrictions listed in the Constitution or House and Senate Rules, either.
  3. Barberio made his first edit about, inserting a paragraph claiming that "their is no legal restriction" preventing someone from serving in the House and Senate simultaneously, and that "circumstance and tradition" is the reason that a member always resigns one seat.
  4. Another user commented out his edits as original research.
  5. Barberio posted a note on the talk page, saying it was "silly" to remove his edit for lack of citations. He said that the lack of explicit rules was a source in itself.
  6. I explained that it was his conclusions that were the problem: Just because there isn't an explicit restriction against that type of dual officeholding that doesn't mean the courts would find some implicit or inherent restriction (and it follows that the lack of House-Senate dual isn't necessarily because of tradition). I explained that his conclusions were OR that needed supporting cites; and argued that without those conclusions, his observation was only trivia.
  7. Barberio replied that he was in a "quandary" because he doesn’t have the cites, but he thought it was necessary to include the info in the article, because important because "most other bicameral institutions do have an explicit bar".
  8. I replied "Here's a suggestion: research the topic".
  9. He apparently e-mailed the Senate Historical Office, then posted the SHO's reply on the talk page. Strangely, that reply is not about holding offices in both the House and Senate, but about holding both federal and state offices. Maybe his e-mail to the SHO was confusing.
  10. He then put his new version into the article. That paragraph was rather confused (a large part of it was taken almost verbatim from the SHO's e-mail). Barberio mixed his original point about Senate-House dual holding with comments about federal-state legislative dual holding. He also said that "most other bicameral institutions" had explicit bans on such practices.
  11. That's when you did some revisions to his work. I made some further edits. I separated the statements about federal-state and House-Senate dual holding and reorganized the paragraph. I removed his unsourced claim that most other bicameral institutions had explicit bans.
  12. He reverted the edits back to your revision, saying that I had removed "information provided by the the Senate History Office" [his emphasis], and that I needed to add cites to support my deletions. He didn't specify which points he was talking those were. I thought, since I mentioned those points in my edit summary, that he was talking removing his claims about "most other bicameral institutions" and toned down his claims about dual House-Senate holding.
  13. Ddye then made some edits that restored a lot of my edits.
  14. I posted a response to Barberio on the talk page. I explained why I deleted the other bicameral institutions claim. I explained the distinction between House-Senate and federal-state dual officeholding. I then deleted a claim Ddye had added about tradition, and Ddye reworded his claim to mention that dual House-Senate holding has never happened.
  15. Barberio replied to my reply. It turns out he was upset that I had removed a passage he had included about some occurrences of federal-state dual officeholding happening in the 18th Century. His sentence was taken nearly verbatim from the SHO's e-mail. He then put the sentence back in.
  16. I made some revisions to his paragraph. I rewrote and shortened his sentence about the 18th century instances and moved it farther up in the paragraph. I also made some other grammar and clarity fixes. In my edit summary, I said "copyedited for length and clarity".
  17. He changed my edits, reinserting his original sentence in its original position (which made the sentence redundant) and putting in a paragraph break. In his e.s., he said "Please do not make content edits and claim they are clarity edits."
  18. I deleted his re-added sentence, pointing out in my edit summary that I had simply rewritten his sentence and moved it to a new location. I also put a note on the talk page explaining this.
  19. He then posted a snide reply on the talk page, saying "That it came out as redundancy is my fault after trying to tidy up the 'clarity edit'.". He said that the point about the 18th-cent. occurrences was important because it showed "that what is now commonly accepted practice was not always so". He said that his sentence was almost a direct quote from the SHO e-mail, and for that reason, it was the better wording. He argued that the sentence clarified that the occurrences of dual holding "applied to State legislatures, not State Offices" (actually, the SHO email is quite confusing on that point).
  20. I got very annoyed that he continued to put "clarity edit" in quotes. I replied to his post, complaining about that point. I also pointed out that the SHO's e-mail was ambiguous. I then pointed out that including the exact words of the SHO e-mail w/o explaining where they came from was "arguably plagiarism". I said out that there was nothing magical about the SHO's words that required that they be used verbatim.
  21. He then posted another reply, saying that I had made the discussion uncivil by accusing him of plagiarism.
  22. I responded by apologizing for my plagiarism remark. I pointed out that he continued to insinuate that I had concealed the nature of my clarity edits and asked him for an apology on that. That's when I asked you for some help. Barberio never did reply to this last post.

Ultimately, I think Barberio thought that he had made a great new discovery and he wanted to put it on Wikipedia, no matter what. I think he has difficulty understanding the nature of the federal system (see his edit and the responses on Liste of U.S. Supreme Court cases), and that made his edits even more confused. Anyway, thanks again.

Mateo SA | talk 16:29, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bill2000

I know you were watching this Bill2000 guy, and reverted some of his apparent-vandalism. I just thought I should mention that he's reverted your reverts several times in the past hour or so. There's no doubt about it, now, he's a straight-up vandal. 4.248.249.177 18:21, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Images on the Main Page

Please don't put unprotected images on the Main Page; I've reverted the image until I can upload the Katrina image locally and put Template:C-uploaded on it. Thanks.--Pharos 19:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Whats the image? i'm an admin on commons and i can protect it for you. Plugwash 19:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Good, so am I. ;) We resolved this. Thanks though :) --Golbez 19:55, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hurricane Katrina#Current

Sorry. Apparently I am incompetent with image work right now... :) I reverted it back to your version. Chris 21:16, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Human Rights Servey on Wikipedia (The final post of I_sterbinski)

Dear all,
Wikipedia was recently a subject of intensive research of an huge international human right organization. A team of people from different nationalities and ages were acting on Wikipedia for 20 days, investigating previously noted anomalities of Wikipedia free editing and forming a final report, which (between the others similar reports) will later be a guide to all future moves of the organization concerning Wikipedia. Acting under an account of a real person, their privacy is to be held private. Therefore, very few private information will be revealed.
Also, this is a result of the lack of final possition of the organization concerning Wikipedia and human rights, which was still not formed.
The team's final post on Wikipedia, where they explain their actions can be found on the following addresses:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:I_sterbinski
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macedonia#Human_Rights_Servey_on_Wikipedia_.28The_final_post_of_I_sterbinski.29
The team would like to thank to all the persons who took part in the correspondence with us.
We also want to appologise for keeping our identity secret for a longer period.
Best regards,
Aleksandar, Biljana, Asparuh, Christos, Valjon, Michael and Ana Luiza
I sterbinski 00:37, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] okay then

I didn't realize VP had article under his "everyday" name. that's cool. my bad on that one.

I think you may have addressed this somewhere, but- about the felons- why should they not be mentioned where I put it in?

By the by I'v now overtly categorized my three user names to indicate I'm the only user. that reminds me- I'v never denied having multiple user names or voted for anything posing as multiple users. Perhaps more transparency is needed. I'm usually not compelled to use more than one user per article, but when other people get picky and pushy it brings out different sides of me.

What POV do you think I'm pushing? Surely your POV/area of concern could be discerned by looking at your contribs. let's work something out. Crackatzzl 04:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Esperanza

Hello, I'm trying to show some people off my friends list a new society, somewhat similar to WP:KC, Esperanza. Its still in its early stages but nonetheless I'd appreciate it were you to join. Redwolf24 (talk) 06:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Monasticism

Good evening, Andrew! Currently, you are a member of the laity of the Catholic Church of Wikipedia. I, Cardinal Ryan the Reformed, ask if you would like to become a monk. You may respond at my talk page. God Bless! Cardinal Ryan 09:01, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] on felons

I'd like to hear back from you about some things I mentioned in my last message to you. I highlighted them above. since I'v done it twice and you reverted both times and I'm still not sure why, I think we gott work it out or we'll be in 3revert territory, Yameen? Schzz-niddl-bam snip snap sack 03:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I don't think so

you'r the only one who'd reverted me so you'r the only one I need to work it out with so far. after I thought about it, dough, I should also put it on the talk:u.s.. I'm pretty sure you havn't fully explained anywhere why you reverted here.

I think

"Americans (except some convicted felons) enjoy universal suffrage upon reaching the age of 18,"

is more truthful and more importantly more honest than

"Americans enjoy universal suffrage upon reaching the age of 18,"

perhaps we could take out "convicted". I'm not married to it.

I think it's worth including.

that's all for now. thankz, Schzz-niddl-bam snip snap sack 06:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] fag links

why did you revert and put back that link some fag put in to advertise his site? wikipedia is not for self-promotion

[edit] Vandalism

Thanks... the vandalism at Hurricane Katrina is getting out of hand. I reverted a vandal edit just to realize that I had left another one on the article's lead section! Thanks for covering this up. --Titoxd 00:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Long Discussions

The talk pages for the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season and Hurricane Katrina are getting about as big as the hurricanes they discribe. I've been trying to stem the tide, but you can only archive so much, I've even been severely chastised by one user (coughBoortcough) for doing it. Both the 2005 and Katrina talk pages are over 100 kilobytes long and I don't think there's much more I can do.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 02:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I gave an edit summary many times, but not all of the time.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 21:52, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pakistan Socialist Democratic Party (Online)

05:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC) Pakistan Socialist Democratic Party (Online) is formed in June 11, 2003. This Party did not participate into 2002 Election in Pakistan. Pakistan Social Democratic Platform is a part of this Party, not a part of Pakistan Social Democratic Party (already exist). Name has been carefully figured out. Its named as Pakistan Socialist Democratic Party not a Pakistan Social Democratic Party.

Thanking you.

[edit] Crossmaglen

Re: "rv, and this is the final word on the subject - no one gives a flying goat what the people in crossmaglen call it. it's northern ireland. PERIOD."

I don't agree. If the majority of people in New York did'nt, for whatever reason, call the United States by its official title, I think that would be noteworthy enough for inclusion in an article on the city.

Lapsed Pacifist 17:23, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] number of edits

I know this is a silly question, but I am wondering, is there an easy way to find out how many edits i have done without actually counting (500 plus 500 plus 500 etc.)? Is there a counter somewhere that keeps track? Masterhatch 31 August 2005

It's because you are on my watchlist, and I was bored. :) By the way, you never replied to my comment. Acetic'Acid 12:57, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
I'll respond here then! ;) And because, since I'm one of the main people working on the hurricane articles, I ended up with something else taking up my wikitime for the last few days :-/ But I will! All praise to the J. --Golbez 13:04, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
That's okay. :) Congratulations, your new title is Brother Andrew the Meteorologist. Acetic'Acid 13:36, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Get my comp

Its 0waldo with a zero not Owaldo. My understasnding is Jesse partly removed his link because he stuck it at the top of the list (see the edit summary), and when he revert stuck it at the top again I also removed it, then all the stuff about being a major donor, and him putting his user name into the article, happened. I early on tried the link and found it useless. It identified my IP and that was it, though it also thought I was in the US (about 1,000 miles to the north), which a Brazilian user also reported. If he had stuck his link at the bottom it may have stayed, but he did put it into 3 or 4 other sites as 24.214.30.98, and they were all quickly removed by difeerent editors, so maybe it wouldn't have, SqueakBox 18:04, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I got a similar letter. Good to know. I told him to write to you, or just let things be and hopefully they will calm down in 48 hours, which I think would be the best option, SqueakBox 18:10, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

As long as our names are removed from the site I won't revert it if you put it back, SqueakBox 18:13, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Is there some other part of this discussion other than on Talk:IP address that I've missed. AFAI have seen, 0waldo has failed to provide a justification convicing to any editor other than himself that the site he wants to add is worth adding. Why is adding his link a "compromise"? What did I miss? :-) JesseW 23:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Golbez - could you have the guy quit deleting the link to getmypc.info ? It's a raw IP address: 84.9.203.30. I put it back once and he immediately erased it. Thanks 0waldo 12:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] u.s.

is that all it takes to get what I want on US? just mention it on the talk? u feeling alright?

[edit] Article/Vandalism

Could you speedy delete this please: New York Hurricane of 1893. This is nothing but vandalism, some anon being utterly foolish.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 22:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More problems

I just noticed that 1928 Okeechobee Hurricane and Great Lake Okeechobee Hurricane are on the same storm. Both have good info, but we stand where we stand. What do you suggest we do about this? A merger seems like the best option to me.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 23:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Toby

I appreciate your borrowing Toby for your user page; I hope you won't think I'm ungrateful if I ask you to show your support a bit more directly, on the relevant Talk.

Toby is hardly the perfect solution, but after years of wrangling, we've not come up with anything better. I still think Toby is pretty good, and I'd like some balanced voices in the mix. — Xiong熊talk* 05:19, 2005 September 3 (UTC)

[edit] Hyderabad

Remember that Punjab incident (#52 up above) You'd posted an RFC on my talk. Ok, I stumbled on upon Hyderabad. The city is a place in India as well as Pakistan. Currently the links are Hyderabad, India and Hyderabad, Pakistan. Is this correct or should it be CITY, STATE; which in that case would be Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh for Ind. and Hyderabad, Sindh for Pak. Thanks User:Nichalp/sg 18:37, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the inputs. Just wanted to know what was the status for disambiguating cities with common names in different countries. Wasn't sure if brackets be added, or separate by commas and so on. But if there's no probs with Hyderabad as it currently stands, then I won't stir up a hornet's nest. :) User:Nichalp/sg 18:50, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Government & Law in New Orleans

Yes, I was just moving it to the Infrastructure category. A little accidental humor in the process,... ;-) Dr. Cash 18:54, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Do you really think that is funny?--I-2-d2 21:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/o/l/User_talk%7EGolbez_Archive_San_62bd.html"