User talk:Nfitz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  HGB 01:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Missing Episodes

Hi, I am a bit put out at your rejection of my Dr.Who missing episodes article. A lot of the information comes from members of the Restoration Team, who, for reasons best known to themselves, decided to feed me information that they later disputed. Whether this information is right or not, I leave to you to judge. The information comes from Steve Roberts (well known in fan circles as someone who uses people and then rejects them when they have fulfilled their usefullness to him - perhaps indicative of the exchange between himself and Ian Levine on the RT forum. In the early 1990s they were keen to pass bootleg tapes amongst themselves) and Peter Finklestone (someone who is still revered in fan circles even though he was struck off the medical register for filming a lady and a child on his lavatory and who broke a promise to me to provide restored video and audio dubs after I gave him Graham Strong's address - of course, I am conveniently air brushed out of the story at this point, maybe because the Restoration Team wanted the glory of finding "pristine audios" to themelves)

DrPaulLee 00:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hi

i read your comment on the GH avisualagency AfD page and saw that you have extensive experience on here. i am trying to contribute to the GH article but everyone on the discussion page keeps giving me the wrong advice. most insisted that i have to prove notability, then they said that it was wrong to list articles about the collective. i don't know who to believe as they all keep leading me astray. if you could please offer me any advice on how to make the article better or make any adjustments yourself i would sincerely appreciate it. even if it does get deleted, at least i will have known that i tried my hardest to make it the best i could given the limited time frame. thanks so much.

Inspectorpanther 16:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Polls polls polls

Hey nfitz, thanks for the info. I apologize about the dates, I had thought they were actually released the day that CTV had them on air. I did not know they were from the day before. Thanks for the clarification. Snickerdo 03:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keyboard shortcuts

There's an answer to your question at the village pump. Cheers! — Catherine\talk 17:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1921 election

Per your suggestion at the 2006 election talk page, I've added a section explaining the majority/minority situation following the 1921 election. I hope this is what you were looking for. - Jord 16:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TfD

Hi there! Thanks for your note; understood. However, I think the TfD – without any prior discussion – is flawed for numerous reasons (which I've indicated at its TfD entry) and necessitated my actions. Mea culpa. In any event, here's a pickle: what now if we want to edit it? Anyhow, thanks again. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 06:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note; I'm going to update the template later. I'd have to disagree with you on one point, though: isn't it the result of ... depression? ;) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 06:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm; I'm unsure about that just yet. I guess we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. This may very well depend on the reliability of the source; if they don't withstand scrutiny and aren't sourced properly – and to me (during that period) that can only be true of information from Elections Canada – I think that should determine our actions. If the results are copied over from some blog elsewhere, they cannot be reasonably verified and might not belong. If they are from a media source (i.e., a Canadian one, like Canadian Press), they likely already conform to the media blackout, but this is uncertain. Would you include results about an imminent Canadian election from, say, CNN? In any event, all such information on the results page should be accompanied by source information or (as per Wp guidelines) it should be "edited mercilessly." Remember: anyone can post links to any website down below, regardless of their authority, and still maintain the integrity of the article. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
If the polls are in doubt, perhaps showing the NDP sweeping Newfoundland, then perhaps deletion is appropriate. But in the polls area, we have normally left a poll in place for 24 hours or so, before the linking reference is available. I think we have to assume that the results are legit ... now it might be worth looking at who added them, and how long they have been around; and perhaps discussing it with then off-line. But I'm not comfortable with removing the results willy-nilly. Nfitz 18:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I hear you and understand. Remember: this is supposed to be a reputable article about quantifiable election results, not a blog or news report/service for everything including the kitchen sink. In opposition to polls (which we take time to scrutinise, edit, or nix), electoral results will likely be presented in an extremely short timeframe at first, raising issues about verifiability and legitimacy that may remain unaddressed; if so, IMO the results don't belong. What's more: we will have hours, if not days or even weeks, to solidify the article after the results are legitimately released and certified. Let's cross that bridge when we come to it and review as needed. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello! I'd advise you to restore the template and not remove it as you just did. If anything, it should be placed the moment polls open in Atlantic Canada ... and they have, right? There's nothing in it that prevents usual editing by Wikipedians (as we have been), but it serves as a reminder to those who may flout our discussions and who think otherwise. Moreover, a consensus seems to support its inclusion and it is admittedly ad hoc already. Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't necessarily disagree, but it does not do any harm by including it now on – this – election day. It also serves to inform visitors that any unofficial information, in this article until 03:00 (and perhaps despite our efforts to the contrary), will change and may be circumspect. Perhaps this was Pc62's judgement call to merely get this perfunctory act out of the way? I reflected that in editing the poll article with said template (and still support its inclusion), but am exceedingly reluctant to restore it until later given your revert. We should also not set a precdent of endlessly reverting the template, as this would not bode well for the information contained therein ... particularly given the consensus so far at its TfD to keep it. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I understand; yes: additional discussion should've occurred and such acts aren't ideal, but no harm has been done ... (yet?). Come the closing of polls in Atlantic Canada or thereabouts, though, the template should be placed indisputably.
And how do you think the template can be worded better? Remember: we've had days to address this and little time now, and it has been through the ringer already. If you have a suggestion about the wording, let me know on my talk page and I'll consider editing it. I'm reluctant to edit it more since a consensus currently supports its retention, and largely as is. It should not be edited once placed later and until after 03:00, and then it can be appropriately edited to reflect what you suggest regarding timing.
Also note that the "future election" template is now something of a misnomer – it's already underway! :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I hear you. I'd actually push for doing so around 6 p.m. EST (a preliminary warning) ... and it's a nice round figure! But I defer. And despite your edit, I still feel that the "future template" is out of sync with the text below ... hence the propriety of the current template for this current election. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Great ... after 6, then. Enjoy your dinner! :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I have a centring personality or effect? (ha!) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I was just about to add the template to the election article ... when I saw that you did! Thanks. I will also add it to the polling and results articles. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Done! By the way, I inaugurated the results article by adding the template to it; otherwise, it's naked! Perhaps someone can add an introductory paragraph, or even include information about release/poll times? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi again. Can you review this, and edit if necessary? Merci! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 00:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EKOS polling

I get it now, one of the polls was the one they intended and the other one was their daily data. I didn't notice that the same had been done for other dates, the last doubley one was spread out. I don't know why we would want to include both really but ok, sorry about the confusion. Also, there must be a better way to divide up tables than an empty row. I didn't even realize that it was supposed to represent something, assuming that it was. It just looked wrong. Fratley 12:53 AM, 22 January 2006 (EST)

[edit] Results of the Canadian federal election, 2006

I've withdrawn the AFD nomination on the grounds that such articles have been created, apparently without incident, for previous years. When it was created, it appeared to be a POV fork to get around WP:NLT, but apparently putting the results on a different page is accepted editorial practice and I won't dispute that. I still maintain that including any legal threats on the page is improper. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PM designate

This is to try to head off all of those eager beavers who are trying to declare S. Harper PM before the GG gets the chance to. Martin is speaking now, and its pretty clear that he's conceding. So I'm jumping the gun by a few minutes. Better that than a few weeks. Ground Zero | t

[edit] So called "nonsense"

Not sure how the protection tag is "nonsense"; makes perfect sense to me. 69.109.117.211 07:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wimpy warnings?

I added Template:Test before your Template:Test2 largely because it's a gentler introduction to Wikipedia. That IP started editing Wikipedia today. Their editing may be misguided, but there is no reason to WP:BITE if they're just messing around on a couple of pages where they will be quickly reverted. Incidentally, please remember to use subst: when adding the test tags; it is easier on the server not to have to load the template with each page view. Thanks for asking. Jkelly 19:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it is a judgement call. I just gave HerrPatrick (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) a Template:Bv tag for replacing an image of the Moon with that of a swastika. Everyone has their own standard for when to stop WP:AGF and protect the project or when to suggest the sandbox as a place to experiment. Jkelly 19:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Classifying Organisms Speedy

Howdy, I wanted to drop you a line about the Classifying Organisms speedy. I was concerned that the article was only nonsensical given the title, not generally patent nonsense. Thus had the author indended to write about "Taxonomic Preferences of Lewis and Clark" but chose a poor title, I would not want immediately to delete it. I don't know what the author intends (hence the note about it to their talk page). It was also recently pointed out to me that ordinary nonsense is not speediable, only patent nonsense, so this would probably have to go through an AfD if it is to be deleted. That at least is my understanding. Feel free to drop me a note on my talk page or reply below this message. --Hansnesse 02:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

As you note, yes, there is something strange going on. The author has a history of copyvios, so your point is certainly a good one. It does sound like a high school level textbook. Thanks for the note. --Hansnesse 03:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CARTOONS OF MOHAMMED

Showing the figures of Mohammed is disturbing muslims. And it is a insult to Islam. In Islam making and also looking the figures of Mohammed is forbidden.That is raping the holy things of Islam.And it is not about "freedom".PLEASE get back your sıgnature.Thanks.--Erdemsenol 01:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attack?

Thank you for placing the template on my user talk page. I have no idea what my personal attack was though. Perhaps you could tell me? Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 16:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with you. Telling someone to "get real" may be harsh, but it is neither an insult nor a personal attack. I must therefore inform you that I will consider your message not sent. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 16:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Telling someone to get real is nowhere near an insult. If I had insulted you, I would have used terms like moron, idiot, loser, asshole, buttwipe etc. But I have not used those terms, I do not intend to use them, and I don't even see a reason to use them, because you are none of them. With "I will consider your message not sent", I meant the following: I have read your messages, I have thought about them, but I see nothing that comes even close to a personal attack, so I will ignore what you have said and I will not change my behaviour. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 16:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps it doesn't elevate the level of the discussion, but sometimes it's necessary. Like in this case. And if you can't take it, then I suggest you grow some skin (or is that a personal attack as well?). Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 16:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Aecis does have a very low standard of discussion... Just read below: Rajab 18:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I created tempalte Template:Muhammad cartoons and placed it in two article already. Remove the "see also" or "main article" and replace it with this template.

that's amazing - we have a huge discussion on how to avoid insulting readers by showing the cartoons (e.g. putting a warning before showing them etc.) & now you come up with a way to show them on each & every article Rajab 15:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC). And you don't even sign your name....
We were not having a discussion on that, you (plural) were talking to us about that. That does not constitute a dialogue towards avoiding offense. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 15:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
that's interesting - you don't consider Muslims as equal on wikipedia? Of course *we* (wikipedians) had a discussion about that. Just have a look at the 9 archives Rajab 18:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expos

[edit] Re: Expos

Because "Montréal" is the correct way to put it. WikiFanatic 22:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

What about their logo? (I'm fine with reverting it; I'm not trying to encroach on your territory) WikiFanatic 23:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

What about Álex Rodríguez? That uses accents and it should be Alex Rodriguez since that's what we call him, no? WikiFanatic 23:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sports Wiki

I noticed you were active on many sports pages. My friends and are I starting a sports wiki that you may be interested in. It uses Wikipedia's software but we made a lot of technological improvements to allow for more news and opinion articles. The site is com ArmchairGM. We're not "officially" launching until March 6th, but you can feel free to poke around and add content. Let me know if you have any questions.--Awrigh01 15:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Montréal-Ouest

I have the tentation to put the train station Montréal-Ouest in the city of Montreal. Because, if i look on the web site of the AMT, we can find that the adress of the station is on the avenue Harley and this avenue is in Montreal because in Montreal-Ouest, this street is name Broughton. Thank you.

[edit] Montreal East

Sorry for the delay. I think the best guide to which name is more common is the local media, who use "Montreal East" exclusively as far as I can tell. Google probably isn't a good reference, because it will be skewed by addresses that use the Canada Post default (French in Quebec, English in the rest of the country). Farquard 19:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that the common name that are in use by the english population of Montréal-Est is in french.

[edit] Sports wiki link

I removed the link to the sports wiki from your talk page because the editor(s) who placed the notice had placed similar notices on at least three hundred other talk pages; they were engaged in an inappropriate advertising campaign. If you found the notice useful, you're welcome to retain it on your talk page.

Please try not to jump to accusing other editors of vandalism without discussing the matter first. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

While I really don't think the matter is worth arguing over, you did accuse me of vandalism in your edit summary: Revert vandalism by TenOfAllTrades. Just try to keep in mind that other people can and do read the edit summaries that you leave behind. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Once again, it's really not worth arguing over. There was a discussion on the Administrators' noticeboard about the editors' behaviour; several admins concurred that the postings were inappropriate. In general, such bulk postings are removed as a matter of course. Where an editor had replied on his own talk page to the messages, I did make an effort to preserve a link to the information for that editor.
While we generally are concerned more about the spirit of our rules than their letter, the part of Wikipedia:Vandalism you'll want to refer to is Spam, listed second on the list of types of vandalism. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
*sigh* The thing is, the removal of spam is mandated by the vandalism policy—see Wikipedia:Vandalism#Dealing with vandalism, which instructs "If you see vandalism (as defined below), revert it."
The addition of the linkspam to hundreds of pages was the act of vandalism that I was undoing. Even though it appeared on user talk pages, it doesn't get a free pass. You can see why it would be a Bad Thing to permit editors to spam talk pages with impunity. If you were following the discussion on WP:AN/I, then you were also aware that there was general agreement that the spamming was inappropriate, and there was no objection to reverting it as vandalism.
With respect to the blocks I placed, you'll note that they were indefinite, which is not the same as infinite. It was reasonable to have the blocks last until the website in question went on the spam blacklist, and the editors in question understood what was inappropriate about their behaviour. The accounts had been used solely for spamming; there wasn't a plausible argument to be made that valuable edits were being lost. Since I didn't know how long it would take until those conditions would be fulfilled, I placed an indefinite block and monitored the situation.
I released the blocks that I placed as soon as the two conditions I listed above were met. You'll note that I indicated I would do this in my postings to WP:AN/I on the subject. I've even provided Awrigh01 and Roblesko with instructions on how they might promote their site without running into further trouble here.
I'm trying to keep linkspam out of the encyclopedia, I'm trying to keep things running smoothly here, I've bent over backward to give these guys a chance to try to contribute without doing harm, and all of my actions have been in line with both the letter (important to wikilawyers) and the spirit (actually important) of policy. And yer still bustin' my chops. Whaddya want from me? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello again. There are two substantive differences between delivering admail to your doorstep and spamming on Wikipedia. For one, the resources being used to deliver the spam on Wikipedia are those of the Wikimedia Foundation. It's as if the guy delivering admail made you pay for the paper, ink, printing, and delivery. (While we often let our contributing editors plug their own personal projects in moderation and in their own user space, there's at least a sort of quid pro quo—a modest amount of promotion is permitted in exchange for their valuable contributions to the project.) These guys were promoting their website using Wikipedia's servers and bandwidth, and (apparently) giving nothing back to the community.

The second difference is that the guy delivering admail to your door doesn't affect search engines. By creating many links to an external site from the high-traffic, high-impact Wikipedia, a website owner can inflate his ranking on the major search engines and drive extra traffic to his site. This is the reason why the links were removed from (most of) the user pages where they appeared; hundreds of links from Wikipedia could serve to manipulate search engine results.

While I suspect that the editors in question here meant no harm and simply failed to think through all the possible consequences of their actions, it is the usual practice to remove the links to discourage other, less ethical individuals from trying to take advantage. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CITY-TV and Template:Superstations

if you wish to delete, you can.... User:Raccoon Fox Talk 22:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image

Hey Nfitz,

Image:Johnamacdonald1870.jpg is about to be deleted, can you please add where you got the photo from? Thanks -- Jeff3000 14:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the PD tag is almost enough; I think all they now need is where it originally came from; did you get it from a particular website? did you scan it from a book? Just write that information over the current nosource tag, and I think it should be enough. Thanks, -- Jeff3000 14:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sir John A. MacDonald image

It appears that your bot, is prepaing to delete Image:Johnamacdonald1870.jpg because there is no source information? I would appreciate it, if you would follow normal practice, and have left me a message at that time, rather than simply tagging the image, where few would notice it.

I must confess I'm not clear, nor have I found information, on how one is supposed to source an image. Given that that the photograph is clearly well over 100 years old, and obviously outside of copyright, I marked it as such originally, and thought that would suffice. Can you point me towards information on how source data should be presented, and I will gladly do so? Nfitz 14:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The image was tagged as unsourced by Jkelly. If OrphanBot had done the tagging, you would have been notified as soon as it tagged the image. As is, the bot saw Jeff3000's comment, and figured that you had already been notified.
Generally, an image needs information on who created it, when it was created, when it was published, and who holds the copyright. Images older than 100 years are not "clearly out of copyright": for older works, the term of copyright starts when the image is published, rather than when it was created. http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/training/Hirtle_Public_Domain.htm is a good overview of when images pass into the public domain in the United States. --Carnildo 19:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I notified the most recent uploader here. I note that the image remains improperly sourced; there is nothing at the URL given about this image. Jkelly 18:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
It seems that you are under the misapprehension that images over 120 years old are automatically out of copyright, and complained about the sourcing requirements for such images, without anybody actually telling you why images over 120 years old often are still in copyright. I have found plenty of images that old which I wanted to upload to Wikipedia that turned out to be copyright when I investigated further. So age alone is not the determining factor. By including information like who the photographer was and where the photograph was taken, you make it clear which copyright jurisdiction applies. That is helpful for one thing. Sometimes, depending upon the jurisdiction, you may need to find a source for the actual publication of the image. This is the critical complicating factor - depending on jurisdiction, in many places the countdown starts at publication, not creation. For example, if you are claiming that an image is PD in the United States by virtue of being pre-1923, you actually require first publication to be in the United States before 1923. Now, older photographs weren't usually published. The technology generally wasn't there - newspapers couldn't include early photographs, and the photographic postcard didn't really emerge until later. There were some limited instances of publications from catalogues but as a rule, old photographs weren't usually published until much later than their creation date. Most just stayed in private hands, unpublished. Plenty remain unpublished; others have found their way onto the internet or into books of "Old Placeville in Photographs" which include many first publications of very old photographs, as late as the 1990s or 2000s. Even the "70 years after creator's death" rule often doesn't apply - in the 19th century, many photographs were taken by very young professional photographers, sometimes in their teens, who died much later. I am aware of several 1890 photographs, for instance, that will not come out of copyright for another 15 years. However, if the photographer can be confirmed and it turns out they died long enough ago, then that's great! So, all the additional information about where and when a picture was taken and published are highly relevant to copyright status - very many photographs from 120+ years ago will not be public domain. I hope you find this helpful - not trying to lecture you, but I think you deserve an answer and it doesn't look like you were going to get one :-) TheGrappler 20:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NAM

Please reconsider your opinion at the proposal to delete this redirect. I am the essay's creator and principal contributor. Its editors all agree that WP:MASTODONS is a better shortcut. This deletion request is not part of any broader effort to delete acronym shortcuts from essays in general: it is a specific request pertaining to one essay only and has full support from the people who are active at the page. Durova 14:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vrba edits

Thanks for your note. I checked when I saw you'd cleaned out some vandalism, but somehow both of our edits stuck. :-) Jayjg (talk) 22:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editorial advice

Consider this stuff, some of which I learned the hard way - some of us (half the people in lot of RFDs there) have worked a long time on Microsoft and related articles. I was the one who personally got it up to featured status, which took many, many weeks; nearly a whole year. Meanwhile you are coming in, persistantly claiming you know what it is best for them. It is fine to make suggestions, but wikilawyering around and claiming each of us has some sort of axe or POV to grind, especially which clear evidence of knowing NOTHING of the history of the pages, is not cool. In the future, please ask questions, read the history of the pages and talkpages/afds, and try to work towards a COMPROMISE with other editors; otherwise you'll just drive them away, and then you'll have no one left to help you out... RN 00:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

"And I'm not the one who started the wikilawyering " - well, that is too bad that you have chosen that path... RN 00:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not the only person using this pc... I didn't vandalize Mariah Carey article. Sorry.201.43.19.123 04:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] H.R. 2795, the Patent Reform Act of 2005 → Patent Reform Act of 2005

Thanks a lot for your note on my talk page! --Edcolins 09:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: changes to Eris and Dysnomia

Some of your changes had to be reverted since they were contrary to the WP:MOS for disambiguation pages. I've left a full explanation at Talk:Eris. Cheers! --Ckatzchatspy 22:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Winter tyre

Sorry I did not reply to your comment, It appeared that you had corrected my mistake (of which I fully acknowledge as my error) and there seemed little point in replying as the issue had been resolved. Sorry I added the db-context - it was premature. Senordingdong 19:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: your comment

I'll look into this later when I have more time. One question, there seem to be quite a lot of opposes on the talk page. Doesn't look much like consensus. -- Steel 21:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Dwarf_planet/Naming
Here we go. Ongoing discussion, no clear consensus yet. -- Steel 22:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] STOP

If your tirade of nonsense continues an administrator may block you. HP 50g 22:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, ignore that. It seems as if the guy that posted on Admin Board, is the real problem. I jumped to conclusions. HP 50g 22:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] tildes

Thanks! just tell me about the tildes.. dont get it =/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Netomx (talk • contribs) .

[edit] In reply to your comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Help requested

I was going to reply to your comment at WP:AN/I, but it's not really necessary to put it there.

All I can say is please take a short break to clear your head and then rethink the matter. I understand where you're coming from, it's not that I agree or disagree with you. You're deeply involved in a disagreement with this editor, and I think you're seeing this in a different light than those of us who aren't involved with the AfD/RfD/whatever disagreements. I'm no admin, and not that great an editor either, I'm just trying to put it in perspective. If you still feel strongly about it tomorrow, pursue it, however consider that letting it drop may be the best course of action for all involved (read: the best for you and RN). It's just advice, take it with a grain of salt, my only agenda here is to see you both back to constructive tasks in the near future. BigNate37(T) 23:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RN/ANI reply

Hi,

As it happens, I have been around long enough to remember vaguely the circumstances involving the first two of those three blocks, and they were controversial and disputed -- process vs. WP:IAR question there, very old, very tricky. In any case, that was ages ago. My objection is not meant to impugn you, only to insist that RN is generally trusted, and that warning him would rightly require exceptional circumstances. Even in disagreements, we don't warn respected editors unless their behavior is egregious. This may be a "double standard," but it's a fair double standard, common in everyday life: experienced and respected folks are treated differently than newbies because they've earned respect. (By the same token, newbies are treated with more patience, because we expect they'll make mistakes.) Best wishes, Xoloz 01:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Pewlosels

Thanks you for your comment. Because the user in question was unblocked a couple of days ago, I consider the matter closed & have no further interest in discussing it at this time. -- llywrch 16:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stern removed for his remarks

About Stern being removed for his remarks: of course, this seems obvious, but we should be wary of the obvious. I have read that he was removed with stations denying it had anything to do with the remarks. It may sound fishy, but if it's what's officially said, it can't be bypassed (it can be noted that it was doubted). I would like your sources for saying it was overtly the reason, which is that the section implies now. Also, I respect your attemps to do what in your own opinion is correct and I thank you for it. I hope we find some common ground. --Liberlogos 23:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, would you please point out any problem you find with the Ray Conlogue quote translation at Quebec bashing#Quotes? I will underline that the quote comes from an interview from La Presse published in French, so this is not a "double" translation (English to French to English). I wish to listen. --Liberlogos 00:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't have any firm references for Stern; just my own recollections; should likely be rephrased ... though I still don't see the need for Stern; he's completely oblivious to Canadian politics, and he'll shoot off his mouth on any subject - that's what a shock jock does. His words aren't proof of anything, except that he's a shock jock.
  • As for Conologue, as in English journalist, I assume that his quote was in English. If not, then fine ... though I've never heard of the guy, and I don't see why his comments would have any relevence to a discussion.
  • You've returned the phrase I removed "Quebec is a North American society ..."; the words you use are fine in themselves; but no one would use that structure ... it just doesn't parse. It needs to be written in standard English. There are many, many, examples of this; virtually every sentance is riddled with odd constructs that bend the meaning ... such as "Past radio personality ..." What does that mean? Former radio personality maybe? Nfitz 02:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Stern: I see the point that the presence is the... less non-debatable of the present examples, but the thing still happened and was deemed anti-Quebec by a substantial number of people. The article stresses heavily ("allegedly" is used each time the expression "Quebec bashing" is mentioned, quotation marks are used, etc.); in other words, it's about things (in the media) that happened and were deemed anti-Quebec by a substantial number of people. How is Stern's thing opposite to the nature of the article then?
  • Ray Conlogue: The article was in French, so I am speaking of the original language of publication, and he speaks French, and drawing from his own words, I believe it would be his type to speak the local majority language in the given land or the language of the journalist that welcomes his opinion, by respect. Conlogue was referenced twice on the deletion debate and I have referenced him on the article and he's cited in The Black Book of English Canada (Conlogue did the English translation). He is a former Quebec correspondent and former cultural correspondent for The Globe and Mail.
  • "Quebec is a North American society ...": Let's change the words for a moment for "Virginia is an American society". Correct. Then what makes it wrong in your example? "North American" being two words? The similar construction "South American country" get word for word, as an expression, dictionary entries here, here, here and here.
  • I changed "past" to "former" to be sure. But golly, I heard that numerous times, and Google searches for such things as "Past President" appear to confirm this (9,990,000 hits, and they're not all "in the 'past, President' John Smith..."). If you have other examples, bring them up. --Liberlogos 04:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:André Pratte

"For a clear-eyed vision of Quebec" is the official name for "Pour un Québec lucide" (see here on the official website) and on Wikipedia, we use official English names when available. But *why* wouldn't "separatists" sign a document titled in English?? And must I remind people that not only so-called "separatists" signed the manifesto, and that it went against the left-wing opinions of the majority of "separatists"? And why do you use that biased term "separatists"? --Liberlogos 10:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Your welcome. There's no reason why "separatists" would not sign a document with an English title also. Also, notorious anti-"separatist" federalists signed the manifesto; yes, they were "exactly" federalists. This is the first time I've seen Pour un Québec lucide specifically associated to "separatists". Please do not use the "separatist" word. "Separatist, word of rupture used in English, only while grinding one's teeth and to put an end to any discussion." - René Lévesque, 1968 (René Lévesque: Mot à mot, Éditions Stantké, p.314) --Liberlogos 13:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ceres

The passed motion to move dwarf planets to Name (dwarf planet) is currently being finalised at the Talk: 1 Ceres page. As you participated in the original debate, it would help if you could now add your vote there. The Enlightened 19:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ceres

I don't disagree that there wasn't consensus to move. But there was also consensus in the discussion to keep the vote open to Monday October 16th! Nfitz 19:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I read that, but in general if it seems that a consensus is reached after 5 days then the debate is closed unless it is very close. In this case, discussion was really slowing down, and it didn't seem like the majority vote was going to be altered in any way with any new votes, nor was anyone going to change their vote, so closing the discussion was also functioning to save the time of the editors arguing. —Mets501 (talk) 19:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vigile.net

I asked the initiator to sum up what's going on. She informed me that there were links to vigile that don't show permission was given. Someone brought up Canadian law. The papers are American, under the International Copyright Convention, that does not matter. I informed her of this and closed the case. If you can prove that permission has been shown, let me know and I will re-open the case. Geo. 01:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me explain better, the case was still in the initial stages. If there had been something to mediate, I would be contacting everyone listed as a party. My decision was more of a rejection, so why bother people. Apologies if I did not explain well enough. Geo. 06:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ontario nom

I misread something, and have now changed my vote. Thanks for letting me know. Xiner (talk, email) 18:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/f/i/User_talk%7ENfitz_7a45.html"