User talk:MartinRe/Mar06-May06

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 untitled 2 spammer 3 Şebnem Ferah 4 comment 5 Star Sonata 6 Xtra's comments 7 Mike Green 8 DRV conversation 9 67.172.194.15 10 Re:FYI 11 Moving error Quantum Mysticism to Metaphysics 12 WP:AID 13 Re: RfA addition 14 Contrat nouvelle embauche 15 2006 local election 16 Wellington College, Berkshire 17 RE:Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard 18 disambig with popups 19 Football AID 7 May - 13 May 20 Vandalism warnings 21 Beaker (glassware) 22 Ruaidhri Conroy 23 Western Avenue 24 Thanks 25 Juggernaut Bitch 26 photoguide.,jp 27 Speedy deletion 28 SRAM 29 Your vote on my RFA 30 Tony Sidaway RFC 31 My Mediation Cabal case -- thanks 32 RfA Thank You! 33 Mr. Ducky 34 Greystones 35 Thanks 36 Personal Insults 37 Reply 38 Why transclude userboxes? 39 unsigned 40 RfA Notification

[edit] untitled

Thats cool martin(about the page blanking thing). I don't know how that happenned.

[edit] spammer

Hi Martin, now that spam site is in blacklist. But he can start using a new domain name for spamming.--Ugur Basak 09:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Şebnem Ferah

Hi Martin, i see you are British i hope you can answer this question. I don't know whether i'm using British Eng. or American Eng. I want to ask it to you. This is one of my contributions, you can look life and career part. I add that part.--Ugur Basak 09:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I had a look at the section you asked for, it seems someone else has already made a few minor changes to the grammar, which would be similar to the ones I would have made. I've made a few more minor updates for grammar and readibility, hope that helps. Regards, MartinRe 10:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Martin. Does my edition looks like British or American english? --Ugur Basak 10:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is a difference in this case. It's only some words that are different between British and American, eg. Color/Colour, but none of those type of words appear. About the only thing that might be different is the date, Americans would write the date as April 12, 1972, but as the article is about a turkish person, it should follow the turkish standard, so is fine as it is. Regards, MartinRe 10:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Martin, if there is a question about Turkey related articles i'll try to help. Regards --Ugur Basak 10:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] comment

Sorry. I do get quite annoyed sometimes. Xtra 11:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your commentary on the Stir page controversy that I seemingly started. I'll get more details and referential links to flesh the article out. I appreciate your feedback. Krakrjak 10:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star Sonata

Hi Martin, Not to beat a dead horse again... but the anon editor is back. Would you mind re-adding Star Sonata to your watchlist? (shortcut:watch) Thanks, ---J.Smith 09:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Xtra's comments

thankyou. Xtra 13:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Martin could you please speak to PSYCH about not editting my userpage. Also, I am not removing the link, but can you suggest (if the current wording is no appropriate) a form of wording that identifies the specific link and does not amount to something that can be suggested to be a personal attack. Not that I think what is there at the moment is a personal attack. In fact, it only conveys a non-contentious fact and a wikilink. Xtra 03:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Last warning? Last time I checked (i) all users receive a 3 revert rule, so a "final warning" isn't here yet, especially when it's to revert your personal attack. 'Keep in mind you vandalised lefty's page 6 times in the exact same circumstances here over a personal attack.' I guess you approve of double standards, eh Xtra? (ii) secondly, all users have the right not to suffer personal attacks at the hands of people like you. PSYCH 03:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

In an edit summary removing my warning not to edit my page, PSYCH called me a "right wing fundy" . now that is a clear personal attack and I will not put up with it. PHSYCH needs to be blocked. Xtra 03:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Any response made, which I don't hink is a PA, was in response to you. Secondly, you support the Liberal party (right-wing) and you say so on your own beliefs page that marriage should be defined by your own bible -- which leads any learned person to believe that you think all people should follow your religious biblical definition, which is clearly fundamentliasm. Fundamentalists believe in a literal adam and eve (literalists) and those who see it as an allegory do not (and are ergo not fundies) don't hold too much stock in that. Both would justify that summary, regerdless you seem to have a vendetta against me, and will try anything to enforce it. PSYCH 03:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Not to but in here... but read the name of this page. incase you forgot: User talk:MartinRe.... got it? Also... if you all you two can do is argue, perhaps wikipedia isn't for you? ---J.Smith 06:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey folks, hope you all don't mind me commenting on my own talkpage :)

I personally don't like editing other people main user pages (The one time I did, I apologised even though it was removing offensive commnets[1] :), but many people think it's fine. However, on the Xtra's user page recently, there's been one outside edit, which was reverted, hardly worth a comment in light of all the other complaints that have been fired around.

Edit warring over another person's user page is a definite no-no, though, especially once outside parties have been involved. If someone is unhapppy with a comment on anothers user page, then they can ask the user (some do the change directly) but if that user says no (or reverts) then the change should not be repeated, but outside parties involved. Two things are wrong at this point, in my view. 1) Continuing to edit war when outside parties are working on convincing the person to remove it themselves, or 2) continuning to complain when the outside parties agree that it doesn't need removal.

While I personally think the link (to a case which expired a little over three weeks ago) isn't an attack, I do wonder that would happen if it was removed? Would everyone be happy bunnies, or would the dispute simply move to a different point? I think it could be quite illuminating! Couple of new quotes, please pick any to apply if you think it's appropiate:

• Never argue with a fool - people may not know the difference.
• You can not walk forward if you keep digging your heels in.
• "You fight and contend with the wind, and consequently you are destroyed; while we on the contrary bend before the storm and remain unbroken, and survive." - (paraphrase) The Oak tree and the reeds, fable by Aesop.

Regards, MartinRe 10:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

This whole mess started last year when Xtra included the link "My successful Arbitration" in the first place, even when I asked him to remove it, he completely refused. For over a year, Xtra had the link "MSA" displayed on his front page, and now the link's still there, only this time, referring to me by name! so nothing's really changed. Is there any way to vote to decide, whether to have it removed? Unless someone makes him remove it, Xtra will continue to perpetuate personal attacks against me. PSYCH 10:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You have asked several people for it to be removed, both in person and on PAIN, but most of those are of the opinion that it is not a personal attack, and does not need to be removed. The link no longer even says "successful", it simply says "Arbitration with PSYCH" which is a link to a page called "Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/PSYCH". By continuing to complain after several people have pointed out that they think it is not an attack, you are not doing yourself any favours, especially since you seem to have mostly stopped editing article space. That discrepency will make people wonder why you are here, to edit the encylopedia, or to continue a dispute? I would point out that the case only expired a few weeks ago, as you were under parole to not attack Xtra until then, so it's reasonable to me for Xtra to have had that link there for that time. After the parole ended on 12 March, it might have been removed, but you returned on 10 March (still within the parole) making a complaint against Xtra, and have made multiple complaints since then. Do you realise that continuing to complain about Xtra is making it more and more unlikely for the link to removed? Also, continuing to make complaints over the same issue, when those complaints have been answered previously (although not to your liking) could easily be seen as unacceptable behaviour. Anyway, time for a coffee break here, please do chill, there are worse things in life to stress over than a link with your name on it! Regards, MartinRe 12:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Green

there were two mike greens that played in the NHL. This is a link to the "other" one hockeydb.com. And to answer your question abut the standard, there has never been an agreed upon standard for ice hockey. People have used: (hockey), (ice hockey), (hockey player) among others. There probably should be a standard, though. Masterhatch 02:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DRV conversation

Hi Martin,

I've decided to take this to talk because you're my kind of fellow, and we might chatter about this for a while. :) Your point about unpopular speech is good one, so I'll try a different analogy to clarify my feelings. Although I generally dislike people who cite the maxim "Wikipedia is NOT a state" (anti-process people do like to bludgeon disagreeable contributors much too harshly with this), it is applicable, in my mind, in one very specific way. Free states generally grant legal standing to anyone within their jurisdiction, because the business of state jurisprudence includes the protection of basic human rights. Wikipedia's duties are much less grandiose, and so it can afford some minor curbs on its own grants of standing.

Although WP policy demands that we not "bite newbies", that they be treated politely and respectfully, the simple fact is that most newbies are ignorant of our policies and our mission here. This is not meant to demean them (everybody is a newbie at some time), but newbies need to become accostumed to our culture and our standards before we invest them with full trust. If a newbie, for example, fails to understand NPOV in articles, the policy should be calmly explained over and over until the newbie comprehends: no amount of protestation, no appeal to process, no consensus forum can modify that fundamental policy. Every experienced WP knows this, and knows to argue whether an article meets NPOV, not whether NPOV is right. Newbies don't.

That was just an example, of course, because NPOV doesn't apply to userspace. It does matter, though, that the present debate concerns a user with few content contributions so far. He is making a claim of censorship as if Wikipedia were a state; because of his inexperience, his argument is badly formed. More to the point, pragmatically, Wikipedia has hundreds of new accounts registered daily; many of these are "single use" accounts in which an editor places little investment. Until an editor reaches a minimal standard of contributions, he is best not invested with the full set of privileges given to experienced users. This is similar, actually, to the state's treatment of children -- their standing is limited because of their lack of certain capacities.

When an editor meets such a minimal standard, I agree that an arbitrary speedy deletion against his userpage is egregious, and I have argued for userpage freedom more strenuously than most even at consensus debates (for which, see the MfD and DRV of God of War's POV subpage.) However, when dealing with a newbie, I am sympathetic to the idea that they lack standing to complain. This isn't because I feel newbies don't deserve respect, but because I can't be sure whether (if the newbie understood Wikipedia policy and its rationales) even he would wish to continue in his complaint. The newbie's "lack of information" is sufficiently severe such that I hold his capacity to judge even his own interests at WP is deeply compromised.

Whew. :) So, that is the full, verbose justification for my opinion at DRV. If you can devise a counter-case that shows the flaw of this reasoning, I will gladly reverse myself. Certainly, I heartily support the importance of process in almost every other species of case. Abstaction is so much fun! Best wishes, wordily, Xoloz 18:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Dmcdevit redeleted User:ROGNNTUDJUU!/User against Iraq war of aggression and User:ROGNNTUDJUU!/GOP criminal. I will file a complaint at RFC if another user fails to convince him that he violates policy. And, as a sidenote, I would say ROGNNTUDJUU! invests far too much rather then not enough in this project. I regard this as dangerous and think we should not spread mischief here by trying to censor each other. De mortuis... 01:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 67.172.194.15

He's at it again... heads up! ---J.Smith 02:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:FYI

You were right, thanks for explaining me the procedure. I have no experience with RfC on personal conduct, and by the way, I found out about this one accidentally. Regards, Grandmaster 11:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving error Quantum Mysticism to Metaphysics

Thanks for the notice it was my first attempt to make a move to a more appropriate category. Thanks for your help H0riz0n 23:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

... and it was my first attempt to fix a c&p move. Sorry about missing the talk page! :-) I actually didn't see your original AN post - I was responding to a related Village Pump post. Best, FreplySpang (talk) 23:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AID

Wow... as Homer Simpson would say, D'oh!. My mistake... I just was a bit surprised it was removed, that's all. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 18:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: RfA addition

Thanks for the tip, I will be more careful next time. -- ReyBrujo 17:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contrat nouvelle embauche

Hi MartinRe, thanks for your recent comments on the CNE talkpage. I directly asked you for additionnal comment there, following your earlier questions, as there still is mostly me and my "opponent" fighting on the edit! The fact you are not French might also bring some light and additionnal depth... Hope to see you soon! Sarreau 13:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

hi MartinRe, you came in in the above article, and came out quite fast, I was just wondering if there was a reason I might be interested to know? No interest? Running away from a mess/dispute? I was glad that 3rd opinion, particularly non-French opinion came in... so I just wanted to know if there was a particular reason. Kindly, Sarreau 23:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 local election

Good stuff Martin! - you are correct.

Hayday 17:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wellington College, Berkshire

You are absolutely correct of course. I scanned the diff quickly and reverted it as vandalism. I never thought to take into consideration the meaning of "Fags" in that context (cigarettes). I've reverted my revert, and thank you for pointing out my error made in haste. --Llort 19:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard

Well, I guess, the next best thing we could do is to leave comments about the users' messages having blatant errors on the respective talk pages. Then, the users who edited these messages will then have the option of correcting their own mistakes. Some are not aware that their messages contain full of spelling or grammatical errors and it would be a good idea to clarify with them first before proceeding. What do you think about this? --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 17:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have to agree with you here. It would seem like a bad idea but the point is, no user (correct me if I am wrong) has ever done this before to my knowledge. If spelling mistakes are made, I do not think any harm would come from this if it is being pointed out very politely to the user and asking the user's permission to correct these minor errors. Of course, it also depends on who the user is. As for me personally, I would not mind it at all if a user points out my mistakes in a polite and diplomatic manner. I also agree with you that it would be interesting to add the outcome about this to the talk page guideline page. All the best and I personally hope that this particular guideline would have a slight change to it in the future. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] disambig with popups

Hello, how did you disambiguate beaker to beaker (glassware) using popups? Although i use popups regularly i haven't figured out the disambiguate function. thx. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 23:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! --M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

p.s. I think you also need to set simplePopups to false. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Football AID 7 May - 13 May

[edit] Vandalism warnings

You said: "Hello. I've come via a posting on the village pump, and on reviewing the edits, I have to agree that the edit you gave a vandalism warning for does not look like vandalism to me. Uncited, proably incorrect, but no indication from contribution history that it was not made in good faith. So, while it was probably a mistake, but mistakes aren't vandalism. I would point out that your reply calling the edit "complete crap"[2] was not very civil. As good faith editors can rightly get demoralised by being labeled vandals, I would suggest that the best thing for you to do would be to retract the warning, and please be careful in future not to bite good faith mistakes."

I will retract this warning. I still believe that nobody would ever believe that cockney rhyming slang would come up with a slang term for a specific building in another country. This simply does not make any sense to me and I truly believed this editor was deliberately introducing vandalism considering that the article previously linked to gay, a reasonable alternative for slang, and that I had pointed this out to the editor. However, the editor did continue to insist that ginger referred to this specific building. And I was definitely not being friendly at that point. I will retract the warning. User:Akidd dublin and I have made several other productive edits since that time to the Red hair article and seem to be working well together. --Yamla 15:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Please take a look at my response on User talk:Akidd dublin. My intention is to offer a sincere apology to him. I do take the time to provide a citation indicating that "ginger" refers to homosexuals rather than to the building he claimed, though, which may result in my apology to him not being sufficient. Please take a look and let me know if you think I should revise my apology. --Yamla 16:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beaker (glassware)

This seems to have fallen through the cracks. I will give the person who requested it more time as in a day and restore it after that. A history merge was supposed to take place. Capitalistroadster 01:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ruaidhri Conroy

I just continued what you already started. It helps to have a foundation to build on. -- Robocoder 23:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Western Avenue

I think I now understand!

Are you saying that if two different references A and B say:

A: Western Avenue starts at Old Oak Common Lane and goes to Denham Roundabout along the line of the A40.

B: The distance along the A40 from Old Oak Common Lane at its junction with the A40 to Denham Roundabout on the A40 is xyz miles.

Then the article would infringe WP:NOR if it said Western Avenue is xyz miles long and giving these two references?

I agree with this as a very fine point (and so wonder whether this might not be a "point"). I think many people might allow it, even the High Priests of the sacred pillars of Wikipedia.

I thought you were criticising the lack of reference for "A" coupled with a claim that such a reference is impossible.

And I thought other people on Talk were critising that the Multimap reference did not provide "B" to WP standards.

Well, I have three thoughts:

1) Provide Multimap graphical map references that show "Western Avenue" (as text) extending between the stated points (within the accuracy of the claim of length). Only one source is then involved.

or 2) Split the Western Avenue entry in the article into the two separate claims "A" and "B" above. I'm increasingly thinking that the bulleted list should be dispensed with and (unordered) paragraphs inserted instead. But I'm not doing all this if the article is going to be deleted.

or 3) Give us a break and let's just get on. I know you (and many others) hated the article in its original form and this has plagued it ever since. I thought it was salvagable but the reversions and nit-picking has put me off from doing very much.

I know it's no excuse but even Featured Articles will have this tiny abount of synthesis. Let me also quote WP:NOR: "However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.".

I'd be delighted to get your thoughts, either here or on my talk page. Let me know what you think. We might be able to salvage something! Best wishes! Thincat 14:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Replied at User_talk:Thincat#Western_Avenue.2C_etc.

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the words of encouragement. I've listed the template at WP:DRV/U#Template:User Christian, for what it's worth. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Juggernaut Bitch

Here's the pending reason (re: Wikipedia:Deletion review/The Juggernaut Bitch ), the edit summary was mistaken, the afd with consensus delete (and thus being a valid deletion) is at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The Juggernaut Bitch (again) -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 04:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] photoguide.,jp

I suggested this months ago (one link to photoguide.jp) - No one took action. Yy-bo 16:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion

Thanks for the tip. I've done so. Fnarf999 17:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SRAM

They have not been reversed.
I wrote it, someone else has put it to more extensive english then.
Then i also corrected technical mistakes. (which do not realy harm anyway, it is more a question of superstition).
This is completely not required for technical references. (see motorola reference, in .pdf format).
The problem is it was technically wrong, and honestly to say "crap". I know it, because i created this section, or parts of it.
My latest edit is technically right.
It greatly helps to look up manufacturer's manuals.
I am doing it. They are not understandable by "Joe Editor".
It takes me considerable time to get into the technics.
If it comes to a point where wikipedia "editors" are going to attack reference manuals, of intel, motorola, samsung, this is getting a good grief.
It would be a great help to cite sources.
The revert edit don't.
I believe my lastest edit was technically correct, and valid spelling. I do believe several wikipedia articles are incorrect, incomplete and made up of different quality.
My edit to SRAM will be analyzed again, put to discussion, and if no one points put what's wrong, published again.
Be preprared, this is a place where i can cite sources.
There is written evidence of superstition in digital electronics.
It does not make sense to make wikipedia a battlefield for it.
Articles in low quality are embarassing for wikipedia, not for me.
I always try to write in good quality.
Where are the spelling mistakes?
However Akidd_dublin is abandoned. Akidd dublin (abandoned 5/2006) 18:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your vote on my RFA

Thank you for voting on my RFA, however I've decided to withdraw my nomination. I'll perhaps nominate myself in the future once I have more experience, and not to immaturely release RFAs. Until then, I'll continue working on Wikipedia. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 21:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Sidaway RFC

Due to historic accident, the importance of a policy, guideline, or essay is in fact in no way related to the name.

For instance, consensus is marked as a guideline, though failing to adhere to consensus is certainly a major offence. The foundation issues aren't marked anything at all, (because they're on meta, and meta has no graffiti-affictionados⁽¹⁾ yet ;-) ) and failure to follow some of those will lead to you being politely but firmly being asked to leave.

In short, hmm, the argument that "it's just a guideline" is somewhat problematic.

Kim Bruning 11:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC) (1) A simple form of graffiti is also called a "tag" ;-)

[edit] My Mediation Cabal case -- thanks

Thanks for all the work you did to defend me against the ludicrous "charges" made by you-know-who in Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-05-16_the_remarks_of_Fnarf999. I appreciate it. I doubt we've heard the last of this. \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 19:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA Thank You!

Thanks Martin,

I am honored by your support in my recent successful request for adminship. As an administrator, I am your servant, ready to help however I can. My talk page is always open; should you need anything, or should you see me making a mistake -- probably a common occurrence -- please do let me know. I will depend on the good sense of the community to keep me from making a complete fool of myself! :) In gratitude, Xoloz 17:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

PS. You're not an admin yet?!?! Good lord, that's a glaring oversight! If you feel ready, I'll nominate you anytime!

I just had the same thought about contacting you for nomination. If you do decide to become interested, feel free to let me know as well. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 14:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mr. Ducky

Hi, :)

It's good of you to point this out, and I don't disagree, except that I think completely non-controversial cases need not be held to strictest formalism. In this case, I might well have closed that MfD as a regular editor -- the decision was unanimous, so there was no need to keep the duck on the chopping block any longer! :) Really, it was a choice balancing that formal requirement against the inconvenience to the user in question. If the exact same situation arose, I'd do the same again -- this is also influenced by my knowledge that MfD rarely gets cleaned out, so if I had waited, Mr. Ducky would likely have been marked for some time.

I made one other close call today at MfD, to delete Wikiproject:Dardania, even with a sparse debate in which I was one of only three participants. The thing is, I'm not at all invested in the result: if anyone cares to ask, I'll undelete immediately. The only time the deletion process gets really thorny is when people become stubborn in defending controversial choices: I'll never do that, because I always enjoy discussing an issue, and believe firmly that every valid point deserves consideration. Best wishes, Xoloz 00:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greystones

Hi Martin,

I got your note, thanks. I wasn't entirely happy with the revert I did this morning for the reasons you pointed out. I ended up re-inserting text, which was a bit stupid on my part. Thanks for clarifying things. I had been trying to get the page semi-protected from the 'real' ip vandals when I saw the anon edit and reverted it without much thought.

I was thinking, it might be better just to remove that whole second paragraph in the 'Politics' section as it seems to be causing the most controversy, and lacks citations.

Jhonan ^talk 13:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

I think I done it right.. I've just started started working on the wikipedia yesterday and thanks for helping. I'm just supporting my primary school and I'm 13. Cya later.

--Wizardscast 11:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Insults

Nary an insult was made, sir. Reread every word I wrote to the man, not a single insult. I ASKED him questions out of curiosity, I SUGGESTED articles to read that I enjoyed personally, and I told him to NOT be the hole of a buttocks (never once did i call him anything outright). I made suggestions as a friend to try and help him be a better human being, as I would love for people to do to me as well, so I feel personally insulted by the accusation that I made a personal attack or insult on anyone. Good day sir.--Monosylab1k 20:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

And nary was the word "insult" used by me :) I simply asked both of you to refrain from making personal comments about each other[3] (regardless of reason) as the afd discussion is about the article, not the people debating it. Regards, MartinRe 20:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Thank you for your comments. I realize that reinserting my sig messes up the time, but at the same time, I don't like having my signature messed around with. I think I'll stick with reinserting the HTML next time.

And a kind remark for you. I really appreciate the comments you've put on the CSD page. I may not agree with most of them, but I like the polite, yet assertive way you talk, and not coming off as a stuffy know-it-all. Keep up the good work! --D-Day ^{What up? Am I cool, or what?} 14:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

That does sound like a good idea. I'll try it on mine. --D-Day ^{What up? Am I cool, or what?} 14:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why transclude userboxes?

(Noticed your puzzlement on D-Day's talk page...)

I do it, and prefer to have it done that way, because if someone improves the userbox, I want it to be reflected on my page. I trust the Wikipedia mechanisms for stopping vandalism to deal with that problem; they work well.

I also greatly prefer the simple template, rather than the complex {{userbox}} generic template, when editing my user page - it's a lot cleaner and easier to deal with. I believe most users would agree.

That said, since it appears the desire of Wikipedia admins is for bland, homogenous user pages that do nothing to distinguish the user fromanyone else, I've redone my user page accordingly. Jay Maynard 14:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

There remains a problem that if someon changes a template in a way that they regard as an improvement, but you do not, there is no way for both of you to have the template of your choice on your respective pages, which you could if it was in user space.

The complexity of the editing is increased slightly, yes, but that can be reduced by using a subpage for all the userboxes. Also, it wouldn't have that great of an impact, as user pages generally aren't edited frequently, you've made less than 10 edits to yours, doe example.

Saying that admins desire "bland, homogenous user pages" is incorrect. Wikipedia:User page is the guideline for userpages, and in any case, moving userboxes from template space to user space would not change the look of any user page if subst'd before deletion. Regards, MartinRe 14:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The overall effect of the entire debate over userboxes, to someone reading that mountain of verbiage, is that the admin community does not believe that anything belongs there that serves to distinguish users from each other; they're all supposed to just be Wikipedians. Okkay, fine. I'm not a ham radio operator; that is a divisive tag (between those who are hams and those who are not). I'm not a licensed pilot; that's divisive. I'm certainly not a Republican; that's really divisive, as well as potentially inflammatory.

Of course, I am all of those things - but I'm not allowed to actually point that out, lest I help turn Wikipedia into MySpace. (I REALLY wish people would quit using that analogy; it's inaccurate and highly insulting.) So, in order to not divide Wikipedians, and just to make sure I'm not targeted by some admin determined to turn Wikipedia into one homogenous place where everyone's required to hide the things that make them unique, I took some preemptive action. Yes, I've only made a few edits, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't make more later - that is, if I felt that doing so would be welcome in the first place. Right now, I don't, and I'm not feeling all that welcomed, period. Jay Maynard 15:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone is saying that userpages are supposed to be homogenous, as I pointed out above, the guideline about user pages is reasonably open on this, editors are allowed lattitude to cutomise their page, but it has to be within reason. It is important not to look at things as "all or nothing", from your recent userpage change you seem to taken the comment that "userboxes shouldn't be in template space" and extended it to mean "userboxes shouldn't exist at all, and userpages should be bland" and disagreeing on that point. It is somewhat fustrating to put forward explainations for A, B and C, for people to dismiss it based on not liking D. Based on userboxes being subst'd before being deleted (which would make your user page (userbox version) look the same as just prior to the change), are your main objections that it would make the editing more difficult, and if someone else made a change you liked you wouldn't see it? Or are there others? Regards, MartinRe 15:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the one arguing all userboxes should be deleted. Tony and Cyde are doing that. Further, they're getting massive support.

The two objections you cite are two that I have to subst and delete. Just as importantly, though, they're attempts to solve problems that simply don't exist. No reasonable person would go from seeing a template that says the user is a Republican to thinking that Wikipedia endorses the Republican Party, especially when there's another template that says the user is a Democrat. Votestacking is another issue people have raised, and they don't even see the incongruity between that and the oft-repeated refrain that voting doesn't count on Wikipedia. The same folks raise both points. If voting doesn't count, what's the problem with votestacking?

Further, doing the subst and delete bit may be fine for folks who have them now, but what about folks who want to add them? It's going to be much harder for them to get it right, and they'll either put up with having it wrong, or get frustrated and leave.

There is a refrain going around about keeping Template: space pure. Not once has anyone advanced any technical or, indeed, any other non-religious argument to back that up.

My objection is fundamental: The anti-userbox folks are trying to deny that communities, inevitably, have sub-communities. That's human nature, and there's no way to stop it. Everything that's been raised against userboxes boils down to a smokescreen for trying to homogenize all Wikipedians. It's not "check your biases at the door"; it's "sweep your identity under the rug". The latter is far, far too much to ask. Jay Maynard 17:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

No reasonable person would think wikipedia supports one party, but by wikipedia having the userboxes displayed gives the indication that wikipedia encourages people to pick a side and what party you support matters. This implied factionisation of wikipedia users is what I believe Jimbo meant by being "damaging to our culture"[4] Yes, everything is not a vote, but votestacking is still a problem because consensus is more difficult to reach when you have many people from one point of view contributing, or worse if you have votestacking on both sides, the discussion disintegrates very quickly.

If someone in the future wants to add a user box, they can copy and paste it from where they saw it. However, if someone leaves wikipeda because they can't get a little box on their userpage working, then I would seriously wonder why they were here in the first place. With regard to your final point, I have not seen anything that would imply that this is an attempt by anyone to "homogenize all Wikipedians", so on that point, I would respectfully disagree completely. Regards, MartinRe 18:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't suppose that you're willing to consider that if a lot of folks weigh in on one side of a controversy, it simply means that that side may be the consensus view? If you're going to solicit opinion, be prepared for that opinion to be one you might consider incorrect.

I simply don't see that allowing people to put a userbox on their page that says "This user is a Republican" factionalizes them any more than they already are. That argument presumes people check not only their biases, but their identity, at the door. I'm not willing to demand that, or put up with demands that I do so, for that is a demand that I accept being homogenized - and I find that unacceptable. Jay Maynard 13:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] unsigned

Thanks for your note. I felt the same way. So I boldly added it. CheersUser:Mikereichold | User_talk:Mikereichold 23:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA Notification

Hello! I noticed that you have interacted with User:Griffjam who is currently undergoing an RfA and thought that you might be interested in participating at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/griffjam. You have received this message without the endorsement of the candidate involved, and this is not a solicitation of support, it is only an effort to make RfA discussions better (for more information see user:ShortJason/Publicity). Thank you in advance for your participation. ShortJason 21:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)