User talk:Neutrality/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Mumbai

The layout of the Mumbai table uses standard wiki syntax. I have pruned it now so that some of the data is added to the demographics. I think the look of the table is fine. Thanks for clarifying, I hence upgrade the nomination from neutral to support. PS I'm not sure if 80-esq is what you mean (wikipedia isn't that old :D ) [[User:Nichalp|¶ nichalp | Talk]] 20:09, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, There is still work to be done on the history of India. Once I finish that, I will nominate the page to be a featured article. I have just finished working on the cricket page, reworking it from ground up. Peer review is needed, are you up to it? [[User:Nichalp|¶ nichalp | Talk]] 20:41, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
Since you were a proof reader, I thought it would be apt to ask you to check out the page. I specifially rewrote the page keeping in mind wikipedians like you with just a little idea of the sport. If you can understand even a part of the sport, I should feel that my "Mission [is] Accomplished." :) [[User:Nichalp|¶ nichalp | Talk]] 19:31, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] RfA

I hope you don't mind, but I have a brief word of advice, as someone who has been here for quite a while. Ignore your own Rfa. Some users like to vote on the basis of meaningless first impressions, and like to vote against users engaged in the process because they read this as a sign of the person wanting admin status too much. While users who have a better idea of what's going on see your comments on the page as sharp and helpful (and indeed "janitorial"), some of the people who are voting just don't know what's going on. (In that sense voting on Wikipedia is a lot like voting everywhere) In short, I think that it's a better strategy to stay as uninvolved as possible in the process. For the sake of appearances, it's best to leave anything to the other janitors. 172 04:04, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

172 is right. Leave your vote alone. Other nominations have been declined for no better reason. What were you thinking? uc 21:33, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Cecropia | Thanks for the barnstar

Thanks for the barnstar; I will cherish it always. I may even have someone come in twice a week to dust and polish it! :) -- Cecropia | Talk 04:22, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I'm glad you like it! Maybe if you offer someone Wikimoney they'll dust and polish it for you. :P Neutrality 04:25, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Dean Dozen

Thanks for creating the Dean Dozen article! --NeuronExMachina 08:01, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] New Bush vote now under way - please vote

Here [1]

Rex071404 15:56, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Admin fun!

Consider my vote cast. Thanks for backing me on mine! - Lucky 6.9 00:10, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Why did you change an image?

At Template:United States infobox, you reverted one of the images. Why did you do this? The other one looked much better. Neutrality 03:11, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Mainly because I couldn't see any note given as to why the flag had been changed to hang at ninety degrees, contrary to the practice in all other country articles, which gives a misleading impression of the flag design. Marnanel 04:36, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Marnanel. Why is the flag like this? That's not the US flag. I feel it should be the right way up, unless you are planning to turn every country's flag around like that. - Mark 06:32, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I agree that we should be consistent and show all flags horizontally in these infoboxes. Furthermore, based on Flag of the United States it appears that the image you uploaded displays the flag incorrectly in terms of accepted flag etiquette. In order to avoid confusion and unnecessarily causing offense, I think we should stick with a horizontal image unless we have good reasons to use a vertical one. --Michael Snow 20:57, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Withdrawing your RfA

Hi Neutrality, I commend you for removing your RfA; I think it was the classy thing to do. I hope you will take to heart the reasonable complaints of your opponents—I think people expect a little more from a sysop (rightly or wrongly) in going the extra mile to explain why they do things, even if the editor's action may be 100% justifiable. If you do that and give it a few months, I expect you will get a nicer reception next time. Cheers! Cecropia | Talk 21:13, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I would like to iterate Cecropia's comments. I was pleased (if such a word is appropriate) to see that you'd withdrawn your nomination in the interest of preventing further hostility or divisiveness.

If you will allow me, I'd like to offer some advice based on what I've seen in the past at RfA. First, if you are nominated again, do not accept the nomination until at least three months from now. Some users (rightly or wrongly) believe that users who show up on RfA after a failed nomination without waiting a reasonable time are power-hungry. Second, if you are nominated again and choose to accept: answer questions related to the nomination but do NOTHING else regarding it — don't write anything in the comments section, don't mention the nomination on talk pages, don't challenge sockpuppet votes, don't even update the tocally. Again, rightly or wrongly, such actions are looked at with suspicion by some users and are a pretty reliable way to rack up opposition votes.

Considering that sockpuppet votes may not be considered at all in future nominations (see Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship), it is my belief that if you take the advice above, a future nomination is more likely to succeed.

However, I am a concerned about some of the legitimate reasons cited in opposition your nomination. I have never had a dispute with you. In fact, we've worked well together on some articles and I've seen your dedication to Wikipedia through your work on others. But I have seen that you can be both controversial and off-putting. In fact, the first time I really noticed you was when you struck through what I had written. :-) While I don't mind that and am amused by it now, other users might not react the same way. So it might be a good idea adhere more closely to the tenets of Wikipedia:Civility in the future. I realize that this might be difficult to do after your nomination has failed, but it will make other users (including myself) more willing to support you in the future, both on RfA and off it. Again, this is only advice, so don't take it the wrong way and feel free to disregard it. But I think that it is good advice, and I believe that if you continue to contribute with it in mind, you'll be an even more valuable asset to this project.

Sincerely,

Acegikmo1 22:21, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I just wanted to say I agree very much with what Acegikmo1 said. I would have supported your nomination, if not for your recent actions. It's not that I don't think you qualify to be a sysop, it's just that I have come to feel that sysops, being that they are often more visable to other users, should watch what they say and do very closely. I can speak from persoanl experience when I say "I know these types of things happen sometimes." If you manage to keep from reacting in the future as you have reacted recently, I will whole-heartedly support your nomination. Really, your reactions were understandable, just not appropriate, especially for someone who wants to be a sysop. Here's hoping things look-up for you, I know how it can be. — マイケル ₪ 18:51, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] European Union Olympic medals count for 2004

Hi there,

I wonder would you consider reversing your decision to delete this article. I have substantially rewritten it. A united EU team is not going to happen. I've discussed potential EU co-operation towards the olympics, and kept the table. I believe the table is valid, for us Europeans/EUians to see how the area has fared as a whole. Please comment on my talk page if you still feel the article should be deleted.

zoney | talk 00:58, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. zoney ███ talk 01:26, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Leaving?

I couldn't help but notice the paragraph under your wikistress image... I sincerely hope that you won't be leaving Wikipedia. I know I'm one who voted against your RfA... but I still deeply respect you as a user. Looking over your contributions, I regret having voted at all. You've done a staggering amount of contributions in only a few months, and they're of very fine quality. I think the contributions you've made far outweigh any harm you feel you might have caused. The worst you've done is gotten heated in arguments, and I defy anyone to find a user who's never done that before. :) Just take a little wikibreak, and avoid the political pages for a while. Have fun editing! Hoping you'll stick around. You're quick on your way to becoming one of the top users. Miss Puffskein 03:36, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

"I think my presence here damages more than it helps." - you'll do a whole lot more damage by leaving than by sticking around. - Mark 07:58, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Your RfA

Though I can honestly say I am pleased that your RfA failed at this time, I am also willing to extend to you an olive branch. Here it is:

If you agree, I will make a sub-page off of my personal page. This sub-page can be used by you and me to hash out and discuss our past difficulties. If you agree to attempt this, I promise:

  1. I will treat your comments with respect.
  2. I will respond to each of them honestly and promptly.
  3. If you sincerely try to hash out the problems, regardless of whether or not we ultimately agree on everything we discuss, I will support your RfA next time, provided:

a) You have few or none new complaints about revert/edit wars and b) You have few or none new complaints about poor Edit Summaries.

Let me know.

Rex071404 06:56, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)


[edit] RFA error

My apologies, I got caught out by my own wikireflexes. Kim Bruning 11:37, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] RfA

Sorry I couldn't vote for you. I was moving and I had very limited access to computers. Mike H 04:48, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

No problem. Did you get caught in Charley? How's Tampa? Neutrality 04:48, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
No, really nice, and my dorm is spacious and great. I have a new webcam; if you have a messenger, I can show you what some of it looks like. Mike H 04:51, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
I would, but I'm really bad with computers — I don't even know to go on the #Wikipedia IRC channel. Neutrality 04:52, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-American sentiment

You may not have realized you were stumbling into a minefield on that article; that intro has been the site of fierce battle, and rewriting it like that is hazardous to say the least. But at any rate I don't see how you can defend your changes. You describe two schools of thought, one that the U.S.'s misdeeds provoke hatred, and one that the term is propaganda. Left and further left? You then change the text from the U.S. being the victim of prejudice and chauvinism to itself being chauvinistic! I find it hard to believe you regard this as appropriate. VV 08:50, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Googleplex (headquarters)

Hi, I've hidden Googleplex (headquarters) on Template:Opentask and placed it on standby. Is there any urgency to the creation of this page ? " http://www.google.com/corporate/culture.html " has lots of info on it. And would you consider Googleplex (Google), instead ? Or simply a new section on the stub, Googleplex ? It's a cute name, but I wonder if it's a stand-alone topic in an encyclopedia. -- PFHLai 15:19, 2004 Aug 20 (UTC)

I've corrected Googleplex to note that it is a mispelling of the mathematical term Googolplex. That makes Googleplex only about the corporate name and possible the mispelling used in Douglass Adams book also, if that is the way he spelled it. - Taxman 14:13, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Ribas-Dominicci

How are you doing? I saw that you put my article on dispute. I asked another administrator to take a look User:Hajor and some changes were made to make it neutral. Take a look. Thanks User:Marine 69-71

[edit] England expects...

Hi, I've made some comments in the FAC discussion for this article that I think are important, but may have been lost in other side comments. Thanks - Taxman 13:56, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] anti-American sentiment

Unfortunately, the anti-Americans will consider the German actions a good thing. RickK 22:23, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Galatea

Please do not remove the navigation footers we painstakingly put in place in the solar system articles (e.g. Galatea (moon). Their purpose is to allow one to start at any given planet and then visit its moons in sequence from inner to outer. A similar navigation facility is also being put in place for the asteroids.

Urhixidur 23:02, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)

[edit] Riga International Airport

Thanks for fixing my mistake (and my gaff) on the article. I was natively born in Riga, but I never heard of the other 2 airports (of course, I've only been there 3 times in the last 6 years). [[User:Ilyanep|— Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ, cοηtrιbs)]] 15:42, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship

Hi, Neutrality: Thanks for supporting my nomination for adminship. I take your support and that of everyone else seriously, and would strive to exercise my adminship privileges judiciously and conservatively. --Sewing 01:29, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Your name mentioned

by an arbitrator over on VerilyVerily's talk page. since I don't see your name anywhere on the VV arbitration request, you might be unaware. seemed a bit odd to me that a neutral arbitrator would specifically suggest you as a possible subject of counter-complaint, in a case you are uninvolved in. probably nothing, but thought you should know about it. Wolfman 02:02, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] adminship

Dear Neutrality,

Yes, I will treat the "keys to the mop closet" well. :-)
Thank you very much for your vote in support of my nomination for adminship.

-- PFHLai 03:39, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Hi, Jiang.

I don't object strongly becuase the difference is subtle, but I think "controls" is more neutral than "consists of". The former is a reflection of the de facto status of the ROC while the latter implies that the territory of the ROC is defined by these territories (not officially so) and gives the status quo legitimacy. I don't think "controls" implies legitimacy at all becuase they do control Taiwan. Saying ROC=Taiwan is making a political statement. --Jiang 00:11, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"administers" is fine. --Jiang

[edit] Adminship

Sure you can, It will be interesting, but I don’t think it will work… I would love to see what will happen. GeneralPatton 20:12, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Didn't like the way it started, so i've rejected it. GeneralPatton 00:41, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Dan Rather

Please be advised, that I have taken notice of the rv you did against my edit here. I do not belive, based on your lack of discussion, that you had valid grounds to rv me on this. You are hereby notified that I have restored my edits of that section and am inviting to you discuss it on Talk:Dan_Rather so we may be able to reach consensus. Rex071404 14:38, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship

Hi, Neutrality: Thanks again for your support. At least your vote was not wasted in my case: I saw the history of RfA — hopefully, the next time you are nominated (or you nominate someone), there will be more consensus! ;) -山道子 (Sewing) - talk 15:21, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Holidays

Thanks for joining. I hope we can actually get something done. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 21:23, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] VfD policy for dicdefs?

Good afternoon, Neutrality. In light of the discussion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sty and its reference on the RfA page, I have opened a discussion thread at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Dictionary Definitions. I'd be interested in your thoughts. Thanks.

By the way, I realize that I may be jeapordizing my nomination but we appear to have uncovered some ambiguity in the proper interpretation of our deletion policy. Resolving that ambiguity is more important than any one nomination. Rossami 20:42, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] B-Movie Bandit fun

Just a note to thank you for doing more for that movie substub beyond merely formatting it. I'm really not a deletionist, and if someone really and truly wants to salvage them, more power to you. - Lucky 6.9 06:45, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/e/u/User_talk%7ENeutrality_Archive_5_1101.html"