User:Silence/Archive0007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to my talk page; comments, criticism, requests, suggestions, questions, and whatever else comes to mind are welcome!

Contents 1 Re: categories 2 FSM Category Rename 3 thanks for the help 4 Thanks 5 'Vandalism' regarding Randall Flagg 6 Roma people won! 7 COTW Project 8 Contact 9 What makes nazi imagery more tolerable than KKK imagery, for example? 10 AID 11 Lyrics 12 A touchy subject 13 Yet another date links proposal 14 I take offense. 15 I don't take offense. 16 Titles denote, not explain 17 "good article" star on main article page

[edit] Re: categories

I understand your thinking, but how is a person supposed to get to the category, let alone know that it exists! If a link to the category isn't placed on the bottom of the page, no one will know about the categories; how will people view them without prior knowledge. That is where I lose you. --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 01:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, you apparently haven't noticed that I added a link to the category on all of those userboxes, with a very clear explanation too. The only thing I changed was that the template itself is no longer in the category, because the template is not a Wikipedia user. See userboxes like {{user artist}} for the established way of using usercategories with userboxes. And sorry if I wasn't clear enough in my edit histories about exactly what I was changing; you seem to have misunderstood the effect of my changes, which still adds all users to this category who use the box (and they can then easily reach the category from the bottom of their pages, where the category will be), and still links to the category from the template page, but does it in a way that will make more sense to users unfamiliar with the system and won't put the box itself into the category—the box should be linked to on the category's description section instead, with clear instructions for how to use it, as in Category:Wikipedian artists, etc. -Silence 02:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, apparently I did misunderstand you. Its not your fault, I guess I just misunderstood the concept. Forgive me for being bothersome! --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 02:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Nothing bothersome about it. Glad we could clear this up! Good luck to you in your future editing. -Silence 02:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Right back 'atcha. --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 02:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FSM Category Rename

Thanks for your comments on the renaming discussion for the FSMist Wikipedians Category. I think you really made some excellent points about the reasons and the usefulness behind having categories like this. bmearns.....(talk) 15:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] thanks for the help

I still haven't fully figured out the correct text used in userboxes to make it subst the username, and hence sort the category according to name. {{PAGENAME}}? When I tried it, it didn't seem to work, but after you altered categories for the architecture userboxes, adding the one you found that I didn't know about (dang case sensitivity), it seemed to work correctly, even though as far as I could tell you didn't alter the relevant language. It's a bit bewildering. But thanks anyway. BTW, I couldn't find a 'how-to' page describing exactly how to create a category of users via inserting userboxes. I know the concepts, but somehow the verbage doesn't seem to work sometimes. :-/    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 09:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is rather complicated; I had to look at a lot of userboxes to find the ideal text, not only because of the bewildering amount of code involved for such little things, but also because many userboxes are quite inconsistent in how or whether they use categories (and in other areas)! I don't know if there's any guideline for making them; the guides at Wikipedia:Userboxes seem pretty basic, probably because users are too busy arguing over the new userbox policy votes to do much of anything else. :) I like your new boxes, though, and am glad you've got it working now; if you do have any future troubles with any templates (or anything else), no matter how trivial, feel free to give me a call here and I'll help fix 'er up or explain what's going wrong with the code.

Also, good luck with WikiProject Architecture! I look forward to any future improvements to Wikipedia's architecture articles; I've tinkered around with a few Greco-Roman architecture pages in the past, but a lot of these articles are in pretty bad shape, so it's a good thing that users have new ways to work together on this subject now! -Silence 09:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks very much for the oponions. I appropriately received them while I was in the middle of updating my rants page too :) —Pengo 15:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I know, I had the page on my watchlist and your updates reminded me of it. :) -Silence 16:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Vandalism' regarding Randall Flagg

According to Wikipedia, vandalism is 'any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia'.

Upon noticing that all but one of his other appearences (the RF in Hearts) were speculations, I changed the sentence from "as well as cameo or hinted roles in other stories" to "as well as speculated cameos or hinted roles in other stories"

You, a user who hasn't contributed to this article for at least 500 edits, reverted and says it was vandalism.

Please explain.--CyberGhostface 03:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Software glitch. When I visited Randall Flagg, the article appeared as a completely blank page with the standard notice present for articles that don't exist, like fooooble (though it was still bluelinked, as was the "article" tab) and the history said that your edit had removed all the text from the article, so, in lieu of any reasoning I could see for its being deleted, I reverted it. I apologize for the hasty revert and especially for the presumptive message, as if I'd taken another minute to examine the circumstances surrounding the blanking, I'd have immediately been reminded that you're a major contributor to the article and would have no reason for "vandalism"—and in the time it would have taken to check up on the circumstances more carefully, the glitch might have fixed itself. Very sorry. -Silence 03:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Its ok...sorry for the misunderstanding.--CyberGhostface 20:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

This appears to be a new bug that Wiki has developed. It did something similar to me earlier on the PLD page. I expected that page to exist, searched for it, and found it reported as non-existing, so I went to create it, only to discover (in another window) that it already did exist. One more thing to be cautious of... :-( .

Atlant 20:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roma people won!

[edit] COTW Project

You voted for Letter (alphabet), this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. -- Avala 16:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contact

Iustinus Silentio SPD,

After that last encounter, I'm thinking perhaps it would be best to exchange contact information? Ideal would be IM screennames, so that if one of us wants to comment on the other's edits, it can be done in real time. Much smaller chance of misunderstanding that way!

I don't want to give out my info publically, so perhaps you could get in touch with me by email. --Iustinus 21:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What makes nazi imagery more tolerable than KKK imagery, for example?

The Nazis were a much more serious matter, the KKK never took over America and conqured,e.g. Canada and Mexico the way Nazis did with Germany and Eastern Europe. Besides in Germany, it is illegal and I would not be surprised if the German wikipedia (or even Dutch and Scandinavian wikipedias) has super serious policies on it. And here in Australia, we have a history of refugess who have suffered under the Nazis (they wated to get as faraway as possible) so it is more of an issue for us.Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian)(talk)

That makes nazi imagery less tolerable from a historical ("they did something unforgivable in the past, so we have to ban them extra hard on Wikipedia") and emotional ("they killed my grandparents, so we have to ban them extra hard on Wikipedia") perspective, not from anything that's relevant to Wikipedia's interests or objectives. I'm not trying to compare or contrast different racial supremacist groups, I'm trying to point out how pointless (and besides the point) it is to single any group out when the problem runs deeper than any single organization or movement.

"Besides in Germany, it is illegal" - Irrelevant. Many things have been illegal, and will be illegal in the future, in many times and places. Would we ban expression of homosexuality from Wikipedia userpages and talkpages if it was illegal in Germany?

"And here in Australia, we have a history of refugess who have suffered under the Nazis (they wanted to get as faraway as possible) so it is more of an issue for us." - And I'm a Jew, so it's not exactly a nonissue for me either. The point here is not how good or bad, how legal or illegal, how "serious" or nonserious, the nazis were, are, or will be. The point is that no matter how bad, illegal, or serious nazism is, there is still no reason to reserve special treatment for nazi vandalism that is not already existing for all other types of equally-destructive vandalism. To do so is to go beyond the point of preventing vandalism (which is to protect Wikipedia, not to "rate" how unacceptable the contents of that vandalism is to determine the length of punishment) toward censoring thoughts and turning Wikipedia into a tool for moral judgment, which, even if in theory a good idea for dealing with nazism decisively, in practice would be deeply unnecessary, reactionary, and damaging. -Silence 23:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

"Would we ban expression of homosexuality from Wikipedia userpages and talkpages if it was illegal in Germany?" You are probably missing the point, Germany is not the only country that bans it, Austria, Netherlands also have laws about it (to my knowledge anyway, Prince Harry's Nazi scandel led to German politicians calling it to be banned throughout Europe). Many other countries ban it *indirectly*. Here in Australia, for instance, we have laws banning racist material, greetings, t-shirts, media, etc and for resons denoted above, Nazisim is reguarded(legally) as racist.Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian)(talk)

And you seem to have missed the point much more than myself. Homosexuality laws of the world. -Silence

Well, they don't have laws against it, therfore I don't see how its relevent. I beleive that a POV on non-racisim is a good thing, that is what I was brought up (by Australian society, remember Australia is multi cultural and tollerent) to perceive. It seems the not all countries even in the west have a general POV on non racism (Wikipedia started in the US, not in Canada or Australia or Germany or New Zealand, Netherlands, or Scandinavia, to my knowledge, all countries mentioned here outside where Wikipedia started have a gerenal point of view on non-racism).Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian)(talk)

[edit] AID

-Litefantastic 00:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lyrics

The copyright law on lyrics is quite clear, and can be reviewed here. Unless Wikipedia obtains permission to reproduce lyrics, including them here is considered a copyright violation. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 17:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

What didn't make any sense to me was that you deleted one of the song's lyrics, but completely ignored the other song's lyrics! Why didn't you also remove: "I'm wide open so pass the ball my way / And I'll dribble that shit right up the parquet / Nothing but net as I show you how I flow / Swish motherfucker now listen to me blow"? It's just as much a "song" as the "Right Behind You" joke-clip. -Silence 19:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I was not aware that there were other lyrics on the page. I was only skimming the article, not reading it. But any song lyriucs you find should be deleted unless consent has been given by the original author. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 19:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

OK. But one question: considering that neither of these are real "songs" (they will never be released commercially in any way, they're essentially just very brief, 30-second "skits" on the Colbert Report set to music), what makes quoting a few lines of them any different from quoting anything else Colbert has said on his show? Does it really make such a massive, pivotal difference whether a quotation from a TV show has music playing in the background or not? Weird stuff. -Silence 20:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A touchy subject

Apparently I touched a nerve. My apologies. FeloniousMonk 19:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Nah, it's hard to sound anything but terse in edit summary-discussions. :) Sorry, I just don't understand the value of naming the different versions after a random selection of a few of their supporters when (1) I'd already recently added a list of supporters to the bottom of the table, (2) whatever name we pick should be short and clear so we can easily mention which version we're referring to in discussion, not some long string of names of people involved in the discussion, (3) every time the "name it based on list of supporters/contributors" plan was instituted on the Talk page, for some reason Version 3 and, even more inexplicably, Version 2, completely ignored the people who actually wrote that intro, and (4) consistently misspelled goethean's name as "Gothean" (which sounds more like some sort of goth variant). So I was a bit confused that reverting to the "named by supporters" version was so quickly switched to after I proposed a new possible name, even though it seemed much less offensive and inaccurate to me than all the names that had previously been chosen, including "Scientific/Secular Point of View", "Inclusionist", and "Encyclopedic" (though I agree that it has plenty of potential to be misleading, too, so I guess Version 1/2/3 is best). Sorry again for snapping at you! Honestly, I don't even know myself why I did; your edits to the Talk page are just about the least nerve-touching ones I've seen there. :) -Silence 19:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yet another date links proposal

Hi, I saw your interest in links at Wikipedia talk:Only make links that are relevant to the context. You may wish to see the proposal at: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#linking_of_dates and vote whichever way you think is best. Thanks. bobblewik 14:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I take offense.

I'll probably be reverted if I try to make any edits myself (if Jeffrey O. Gustafson's overzealous defensiveness are any indication of the editing atmosphere there)...

1) I have made a grand total of one (1) minor edit to Joan of Arc, and last actively tried to effect change via the talk page fifteen months ago. 2) "The editing atmosphere" of which you unknowingly attempt to speak took one of Wikipedia's worst articles into one of our best. Indeed, I'd reckon that Durova and the rest would be entirely receptive to your suggestions, if their extraordinary track record are any barometer. Such blind accusations are, at the very least, entirely uncalled for. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

That's good. I'm delighted to hear that my early fears were unwarranted; perhaps I'll give a shot to editing some bits of the article, if I have the time. But my comments were not "blind accusations", they were an explanation of why I wasn't editing the article myself: because if the article inspired such a patriotic fervor (really, the best on Wikipedia? asking to feature it the very next day, just to spite me and my concerns?) over a simple and ordinary quality evaluation, I didn't want to get any further embroiled in the "IT'S ALREADY PERFECT LEAVE IT BE!" mindset; I've already had to deal with that too many times in the past, on much worse-quality articles (human), so perhaps I was a bit paranoid, and I certainly jumped the gun in my analysis, based solely on your comments and the lead section of the article. Thanks for clearing the air there. -Silence 15:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations on the copy edit work on Joan of Arc! Your detailed critique, almost entirely appropriate, shows a very healthy concern for quality in Wikipedia articles. You aren't the only one who thought that the article read like a committee project. I just figured that was Wikipedia! Anyway, you are certainly welcome to copy edit those articles which I have spent time working on. JFPerry 17:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the attention you've given to Joan of Arc. Something came up that is going to delay my work there for a day or two. I've been tending a featured list candidate and comments have asked for some changes. Please continue to raise concerns and correct the page. I'm glad the page finally has a professional copyeditor. Regards, Durova 21:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I don't take offense.

Silence, thanks for sorting out my human intro page. You did a great job. I thought it would be a good to have a semi permanent reference since as the discussion proceeds the everthing gets a little disconnected. You have made it into a very useful resource, again thanks David D. (Talk) 03:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words! You make me happy. Hopefully we will be able to reach a consensus soon. Perhaps an RfC (and/or strawpoll?) is merited, after another week or two to iron out the rest of the current discussion and see if goethean or Sam Spade can find any references indicating a controversy. I'm glad we're finally making the distinction between versions so clear, and more and more moving the dispute from article-page-reverts to talk-page-debates. Progress is slow, but it happens. -Silence 05:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Titles denote, not explain

Thank you in return for your cogent explanation of the problem. That's what they give us mops for.
--Jerzy•t 09:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "good article" star on main article page

hi, i wonder if you could comment on the debate at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 March 25 about a new template to be slapped on the *main article page* when an article is deemed "good". it would be directly equivalent to the featured article star on an article mainpage, and suddenly appeared, without prior discussion, on hundreds of articles marked as "good articles".

note the GA process is not currently policy, and was formerly restricted to talk pages only, putting an icon on the main article page itself is the new development). would you consider "good article" differently from "featured article" in this case, and allow the narcisisstic meta-data on the main ARTICLE page? Zzzzz 10:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no "star" for the good article icon and it is not directly equivalent to the featured article icon! The {{good article}} template places a small Good Article symbol () in the top right corner of an article to indicate that it is a good article on Wikipedia. —RJN 11:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)