User talk:Neutrality/Archive 18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] The Truth

The truth is incontrovertible.
Panic may resent it;
ignorance may deride it;
malice may distort it;
but there it is.


As scarce as the truth is,
the supply is much greater
than the demand.


The truth is always
the strongest argument.


       — Winston Churchill

[edit] Paediatrics

Ben, what are you doing to Category:Pediatrics? This category is supposed to be empty and should redirect to Category:Paediatrics, unless you are going to manually move all articles under that category! JFW | T@lk 04:04, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


[edit] George W. Bush's...

Thanks for fixing up George W.'s second term. I've been working working on that article and the one for his first term and they do tend to be POV since I'm the only writer usually. I've been hoping someone could make it sound more nuetral.--The_stuart 05:30, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


You're continued "service" on the abitration committee is a disgrace. Ollieplatt 10:35, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Office of War Information photos

It is incorrect to label US Office of War Information photos (such as the one I uploaded at Image:A-20 Havoc.jpg) as PD-USGov-Military. OWI photographers were neither military personnel nor DoD employees. They were civilians employed by a separate branch of the US Government. See http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/fsahtml/owiinfo.html, for example. Thanks, —Morven 16:42, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Requested moves

For future reference, when you put a request for a move up, can you please put the move template on the relevant article's talk page? I had no clue there was a debate going on about The George Washington University until after the debate had ceased. Thanks. --Golbez 19:29, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Headlines

Oh, come on. Wouldn't it be so much nicer if we could just order the servers to work harder, faster? Whippings will continue until performance improves. It would solve all of our problems. --Michael Snow 21:25, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cerro de la Silla

Hey Neutrality, I just wanted to let you know that I posted a cropped version of the Cerro de la Silla picture on FPC, and am wondering if you would still support it. Thanks alot! --Spangineer ∞ 00:14, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Democratic Underground

How is my edit of Democratic Underground POV? All I wrote was factual. RickK 05:44, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image sleuthing

There's a new project in town called Wikipedia:Image sleuthing, and you are hereby invited to become an official image sleuth. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 00:47, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Singapore

You objected on the FAC, leading to its failure, but I've tried reworking the article now. Can you please chip in at Wikipedia:Peer review/Singapore about the article's current condition? Thanks. Johnleemk | Talk 12:48, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration matter

Could you come to IRC as soon as you can please? Thanks -- sannse (talk) 15:18, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's important - you are named in the request on the Charles Darwin case, so need to stop editing it. It's also too early to be making any proposals on this one. -- sannse (talk) 15:36, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to talk about this privately if that's OK with you. Perhaps I could take the decision page back to the template for now? It really is too early to be working on that in any case -- sannse (talk) 15:50, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Neutrality :) -- sannse (talk) 15:56, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blotter

Although I don't want to refuse offers to write for The Signpost, because I certainly need the help, I have a mixed reaction for a couple reasons:

  1. I'm hesitant to have any of the arbitrators as reporters. Not that I think any of you wouldn't write good, objective news articles, but I think it's important that The Signpost strive for a public perception of independence, and this might work against that. Since arbitration activity is regularly covered and probably one of the subjects many readers are particularly interested in, it's one area where the perception really matters. I assume that vocal criticism of your work may occasionally come up, and while I don't want to editorialize that you are/aren't doing a great job, I do need to be able to report on criticism when appropriate without having my objectivity questioned.
  2. When reporting about edit wars and other disputes, there's a difficult balance in terms of reporting things that really are significant and giving undue significance to petty squabbles, since the publicity sometimes has the effect of magnifying the conflict. It's an eternal problem of journalistic ethics, I suppose. At least in the context of what The Signpost manages to cover right now, I worry that this idea might be out of place. Coverage of relatively routine blocks seems like reporting things that aren't quite news yet, but have the potential to become news if they get bigger.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on the subject. If you've got any other ideas about news that I'm missing out on, I'm happy to hear them. --Michael Snow 19:43, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scottish Parliament By-Elections

Hi there, just noticed you moved List of Scottish Parliamentary by-elections to List of Scottish parliamentary by-elections. I created the original page (forgot to log in, whoops) and was wondering if that was the correct thing to do, as Parliament does have a capital 'P' when referring to the Scottish Parliament so I would logically expect it to be capitalised in this article. Not majorly bothered, but am curious to get your thoughts as to why you felt it should be moved in the first place.

Cheers, User:Big Jim Fae Scotland

Ben, I think you're mistaken here. These are by-elections for the Scottish Parliament, so "p" should be capitalised. Had they been by-elections for the Westminster Parliament that happened to be in Scottish constituencies, then the "p" would not be capitalised. Kind regards, jguk 08:42, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Great Game

Could you please take a look at Talk:Great Game and give your opinion, whatever it may be? —Lowellian (talk) 05:56, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Singapore

I tried addressing your concerns; care for a second third fourth fifth look? Johnleemk | Talk 10:00, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] J.J. Thomson

Hi Neutrality, I am glad that you agreed with me about moving the page, but I wonder if it may be a little pre-emptive to move it now while it's under discussion at Wikipedia:Requested moves. I don't know if we should move it back for now and maybe you would like to post your support for the move on 'Requested moves'.--Pharos 03:33, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:4.35.195.185

Hi. Is there a particular reason not to speedy delete User talk:4.35.195.185? Deletion seems to be in accordance with the rules. -- Chris 73 Talk 03:43, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adminsdeath

BTW, thanks for blocking Adminsdeath. I was more than a little thrown off when I saw it, and so I'm glad to see he's been blocked. -- user:zanimum

[edit] Turkish flag copyright

Neutrality,
I noticed that in the past you have changed the terms of copyright for Image:Turkey_flag_large.png. I have now uploaded a better version and put some licensing terms. That image is my creation and I do not want to put it in public domain, please do not change the terms. I also provided the source for the image and anyone, in particular you, can create a public domain version using that source, if they/you wish. at0 06:36, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Singapore (-> Govt Type)

I noticed that you have reverted an Anon's edit of Singapore's government back to "Single-party state". Understandly, despite being a democratic system, in de facto the ruling party occupies almost the whole of the Parliament. I am no pro-government myself, I know that many Western countries do not consider Singapore as a "true democracy", but "single-party state" does sound misleading because it gives an impression of a Soviet-style "Communist/Dictatorship" state. Please see single-party state. I suggest having it changed to "Representative democracy (Westminister system), de facto dominant-party state". - Mailer Diablo 13:27, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the compromise made. :) If you have any further questions regarding my edit or the anonymous IP 202.156.2.170 (which has posted on my talk) feel free to contact me. - Mailer Diablo 11:51, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Leah Manning

I note your change to this page. Manning's notability stems not from the fact she was a teacher but from her involvement in teaching unions and campaigning for education reform in the House of Commons and the Labour Party. Over here, 'educationalist' is a word that sums that up, a campaigner for education. Wikipedia points it to Teacher, which isn't satisfactory, but I don't feel up to changing that end of things. Is there a word which makes clear her contribution beyond the classroom that you would be happier with? Mtiedemann 20:41, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Lohioff

Hi,

Can you clarify the one-week block of this guy? From Special:Contributions/Lohioff it seemed he was just a newbie who twice added "biased" to Farenheit 9/11. This seems just like clueless newbie POV editing, not trolling and impersonation. -- Curps 22:58, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Alpha Centauri relative sizes.png

Hi Neutrality,

I noticed you copied the text from Commons:Image:Alpha Centauri relative sizes.png to Image:Alpha Centauri relative sizes.png. I'm just curious, is there an official policy somewhere that that's what should be done? Is there somewhere it's being discussed?

I haven't been doing that for the various images I put at the Commons, mainly because I don't want to have to update two different places when I change an image.

Thanks, dbenbenn | talk 22:14, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wik

Ben, I can understand why you're keen to get Gzornenplatz accepted as a sockpuppet of Wik, but I take it your second vote on the matter was a mistake? Kind regards, jguk 00:00, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Doing the moves

If you are going to do the moves for Wikipedia:Requested moves could you do one of the following:

  1. indicate the article has been moved on WP:RM
  2. move the discussion to the talk of the destination (if there is significant discussion)
  3. delete the discussion section (if there is no significant discussion).

For 2 &3, please also make an appropriate edit comment. It's a real pain to go through the discussion for concensus and set up to do the move, only to find out that it's already been done. Thanks for participating, though! - UtherSRG 20:48, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WikiUser RfC

As one of the various people abused by WikiUser, you may be interested to know that I've started a Request for Comment on him - he's threatened mediation against three people and started proceedings against two, which is one idiocity too many as far as I'm concerned. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/WikiUser and feel free to add to it as you see fit. -- ChrisO 01:32, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Sollog

Hi. Just wondering, why did you revert my edit to that template? I really didn't see the need for the picture and the text says basically the same thing. Thanks, Vacuum c 02:39, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. The revert didn't really matter to me, I was just wondering why. Regards, Vacuum c 02:45, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:CopyrightedFreeUse

Hi Neutrality,

Please see Template talk:CopyrightedFreeUse. I think that your last two edits to the template should be reverted—it certainly would have been a good idea to discuss your changes on the talk page before editing a protected page. Also, it seems to me inappropriate to mark large changes like that as minor.

dbenbenn | talk 22:44, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Female circumcision

Female circumcision was more NPOV title. You moved it to POV title OneGuy 00:33, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Autofellatio poll

Hi. There is a poll going on at Talk:Autofellatio. We'd appreciate your vote. —Cantus…☎ 04:17, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thanks for your support, Neutrality! dbenbenn | talk 06:52, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Public Schools

You deleted this "per CfD", but, umm, we hadn't made a decision yet. Could you undelete it again, until a decision is actually made. Quite possibly utterly fruitless, but important none the less.

James F. (talk) 18:14, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship

Neutrality, thank you for the compliment. But I was nominated for adminship a couple months ago and the vote was split 50-50 (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Maurreen). I think the Wikiquette criticism was baseless, but I'm not ready to hear it again. Maurreen 07:00, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ford

I am puzzled by your move of Ford (disambiguation) to Ford without any discussion. I presume you are quickly going to go through the 156 articles that now redirect to the incorrect place and fix them? Rmhermen 17:11, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright concerns

Would you look the conversation between myself and Obradovic Goran on pages User talk:Obradovic Goran and my talk page. We are trying to decide if the picture Image:Ducic.jpg is PD or available under some license type. I just don't understand the details of copyright law. The language barrier isn't helping either. BrokenSegue 03:20, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History of Russia style

If you're going to revert my changes to bring History of Russia into conformance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotation marks, which provides an explicit guideline that overrides the generic laissez-faire policy on American vs. British style by giving logical justification for splitting the difference by using American quotes but British outer commas, could you at least make the article consistent? The version you reverted to has both single- and double-quoted text, and comma and periods both inside and outside the quotes. (I would cite them, but the effort I made to locate all occurrences to provide consistency, casually wiped out by your revert, leaves me uninclined to be so helpful. You can see which ones I changed; I leave it to you to find the ones I didn't.)

While you're deciding which style to enforce, please think about why you're so anxious to stick to either policy in defiance of a long-standing MoS guideline. I leave further changes to this article, whatever form they take, to you. — Jeff Q 05:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ben, you are more than aware what WP:MOS says. May I advise you not keep to reverting editors that convert articles in accordance with WP:MOS lest you get accused of being a troll. Kind regards, jguk 06:01, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I see now that I was ignorantly adding to an already intense punctuation argument on an otherwise interesting article. I apologize for my snippiness; I've just become very tired trying to get articles to conform to some internally consistent style, whether it be WMoS, American, or British (depending on the existing predominance of technique when I make my attempt). For History of Russia, I saw a mixture of single/double quotes and punctuation inside and outside of quotes. Russia being neither American nor British, and myself discerning no particular technique, I attempted to bring the article into WMoS conformance in this one area.
Not only have I disengaged from the punctuation argument, I've removed this interesting article from my Watchlist because I'm fed up with the argument. If you continue your own efforts in this area, all I ask is that you try to make the article self-consistent. But that's up to you. I apologize for adding to the problem. — Jeff Q 03:47, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More quotes

Please could you explain how this edit [1] can possibly be regarded as being in good faith. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 10:18, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bartlett's Familiar Quotations

Salve, Neutrality!
Hope this message finds you well. Saw Bartlett's on your to-do list and wondered if you might take a look at the article on it I just posted. Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 19:53, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

  • Thanks, Neutrality, for your praise. I'm in a bit of a kerfuffle over Julia Stiles with User:Zen-master and never having been involved in any sort of edit war, major or minor, I wanted some advice. I rolled back changes he made, which were simply deletions of material such as her parents names and quotes from critics. He faults me for violating the NPOV guidelines, first for quoting critics praising her (which is how the NPOV rules say to include opinions) and once I altered how that material was presented and deleted, says the article is subtly still biased. I've read through it several times and I don't see the bias. Would you look at the article and the Talk:Julia Stiles page and give me your opinion? Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 18:50, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] U.S. Senate election, 2006

You switched the map on this a couple of days ago, so I thought you might want to repair the glitch that has New Hampshire in white but the other non-election states in gray. I don't know whether you want to revert to the earlier map or put up another new version. MisfitToys 22:54, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Neutrality-

Thanks for your edits and contributions on the Stout Scarab and Star(automobile) articles! user: stude62 user talk:stude62 01:03, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] thanks for ...

... subtle, contextually correct edit on "Space Race". Sfahey 04:42, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please ban [[user:Serge Dupouy

He has personally attacked me on homophobia talk page, which I had already requested mediation. "Apollomelos = not too bright or Troll (flamebaiter) ?" "Apollomelos, Are you stupid, or are you just pretending to be stupid? " "Since one can only assume that either 1. you're an idiot, or 2. this was a sad attempt to discredit an organization you don't like….. please don't ever write anything on Wikipedia ever again. You've been caught red-handed, chummy. Take a hike."

I think it could be Noah Peters who I sought an arbcom ruling against because of his harrasment but was turned down after he agreed to be banned permanently and have his page deleted. And now it appears he could be back. Apollomelos 12:27, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:vfd

Hi, Can you add Template:vfd to your watchlist if you haven't already done so? Some anon IP likes to vandalize it by changing "blank" to "bugger". A hassle because it gets subst'd in. I'm sending notes to get more people to add it to their watchlists. -- Curps 20:00, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Housecleaning

To all those on the ArbCom: Man, you guys cleaned house! Great work. My number one hope for the 2005 ArbCom was that the backlog would shrink due to prompt decisions, and you all surpassed my hopes. My hat's off to you. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 20:46, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)


Please take care of the POV trolling on Saddam Hussein. Thanks in part to you I cannot do it. You should be responsible for this because you are among those voting to privilege these kinds of users over me. 172 16:25, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Do not disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point

Ben

Please stop

You list not disrupting WP to prove a point as one of your favourite policies, but seem to breach it all the time. Deliberately copyediting an article away from the standards set out in WP:MOS, which you know to be WP policy, and deliberately reverting back to your preferred version is disrupting WP. It is also, regrettably, a form of trolling, since you know that at some stage a copyediting Wikipedian will revert you back.

You have been at Wikipedia longer than me, and you are more than aware of the principle that if you do not like a policy you try to change it. You do not aggressively edit along the lines you would like the policy to be. So first, I would ask you to desist from your current actions.

But I will work with you, if you wish

Now, I do agree with you that the current policy has some flaws, and I am willing to help you to get it changed. To be honest, I hadn't read your initial proposal to change it in detail at the time, or I would have pointed out its fundamental flaw, which is the somewhat arbitrary and, to be frank, ridiculous divi'ing up of the world. I will help to change the policy to something sensible. I will start my proposal on User:Jguk/policy proposal, with the first edit being to copy over the existing policy so that the changes can be easily seen with diffs. I will not formally propose it until and unless it has generated a groundswell of support. Please feel free to add constructive comments on the talk page. If I see you on IRC later, I'll page you.

Kind regards

jguk 18:19, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/e/u/User_talk%7ENeutrality_Archive_18_27dd.html"