User talk:Stevertigo/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Image:Michelson interferometer schematic.png

[edit] Image:Michelson interferometer schematic.png

Hi there! Thanks for adding the image Image:Michelson interferometer schematic.png. It currently doesn't have an image copyright tag, and I was hoping that you would add one as untagged images may be deleted eventually. (You can use {{gfdl}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) Thanks! --David Iberri | Talk 18:18, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Oh I see, you redrew the existing diagram. Wouldn't that still be considered your artwork? --Diberri | User talk:Diberri 17:56, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Language order poll

Way back in Feburary, you created the above page. I'm wondering if it is still open, or what you intend to do with it. I'm trying to clean up Wikipedia:Topical Index as part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia Namespace, and it's not clear what that page's status is. Thanks for any help. JesseW 12:29, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Article Licensing

Hi, I've started the Free the Rambot Articles Project which has the goals of getting users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to...

  1. ...all U.S. state, county, and city articles...
  2. ...all articles...

using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) version 1.0 and 2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to the GFDL (which every contribution made to Wikipedia is licensed under), but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles (See the Multi-licensing Guide for more information). Since you are among the top 1000 most active Wikipedians, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles.

Nutshell: Wikipedia articles can be shared with any other GFDL project but open/free projects using the incompatible Creative Commons Licenses (e.g. WikiTravel) can't use our stuff and we can't use theirs. It is important to us that other free projects can use our stuff. So we use their licenses too.

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} template (or {{MultiLicensePD}} for public domain) into their user page, but there are other templates for other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} with {{MultiLicensePD}}. If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know at my talk page what you think. -- Ram-Man 18:06, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Let me explain my purpose here a little more clearly. The rambot's user page, which you left a comment on, contains a very unofficial list of people who have multi-licensed their stuff. It's not meant to be anything more than an informative list. It is also not a place to vote. When people multi-license their changes I add their name to the list depending on the license. It is meant primarily to show the users who in the narrow context of state, city, county articles have released their contributions (if any, but many people will edit at least one city at one point or another). In fact the list is mostly for my usage so I can track what progress that I am making. I would like for more than just the rambot articles to be multi-licensed, it is just that I want to focus my attention on the first goal while always striving for the second. The fact is that about 90% or so of those people who multi-license their state/county/city articles ALSO multi-license ALL of their main namespace edits. It is not just the so-called rambot articles that are useful to other projects, but it at least allows me to use those articles for work at WikiTravel. And since it is entirely optional I don't see any problems. Feel free to respond on my talk page if you have additional thoughts. -- Ram-Man 21:47, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
I've responded on my user talk page. -- Ram-Man


[edit] Unverified images

Hi! Thanks for uploading the following images:

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GNU Free Documentation License, {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know at my talk page where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 05:22, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

P.S. You can help tag other images at User:Yann/Untagged_Images. Thanks again.

[edit] Notice of planned merge and redirect for Rebel

Hi Stevertigo,

This is a courtesy notification to you as the creator of rebel. I am currently trying to organize the web of articles related to rebellion, rebel, insurgency, freedom fighter, etc, that are making navigating the topic almost impossible due to their wildly varying quality, length and wikification. Please see my talk page for more. I am starting with the most general terms and merging 'participant' articles into their 'event' page, which makes merging rebel into rebellion my first priority. Unless I hear an objection I will be making the merge in a few days. Please let me know if you have any concerns. Regards, BanyanTree 06:57, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Local Embassy

I found your name on zh:Wikipedia:维基大使. Please also sign on Wikipedia:Local Embassy if you can help Chinese speaking users in English Wikipedia. -- Felix Wan 00:49, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)


[edit] Charles Darwin

User:Fastfission and others, including User:Noisy have been on a crusade to delete the mention of Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln sharing a birthday. I have remained civil but others have been flaming. FastFission posted a biased comment on RfC which I have made neutral (I hope). Would you be interested in supporting my side? If so, please start at Talk:Charles_Darwin#Summary. Of course, that's my side, but the other side is strongly represented in the rest of the Talk page.Thanks Vincent 06:15, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Oscar Wilde

What's up with the restructure? (Please reply at Talk:Oscar_Wilde#Footer, where I've made further comments). -- Jmabel | Talk 08:22, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] International English

As you may have noticed, I took the work you did at International English and tried to produce an article that followed in that path. However, currently, an editor, who doubts that International English even exists, is somewhat unilaterally attempting to control the article, I believe to its grave worsening.

You may wish to check the article and make known any opinions you have, either in support or against what I have done and the current state of the article. The version I prefer, though certainly not faultless, is at User:Jallan/International English.

Jallan 07:17, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

I quite agree on the imperfections of my article. A difficulty I had was attempting not to go all the way with your glowing endoresement of International English, partly because there are academics (and others) who are actively hostile to the concept. One must be NPOV and indicate there are two sides to the question. As usual, there are the romantics who delight in linguistic diversity and wonderful new Englishes and Creoles and so forth, and there are the down-to-earth practical types who favor the obvious advantages of one international language, or failing that then two: U.S. English and British English.

Unfortunately, the arguments are complex, and I felt I could not go much farther than to indicate there was debate on the neturality issue and let the additional reading material take up the slack. Supposed Neutrality as a header made me wince also. While literally neutral, the idiomatic nuence of the term was too suggestive that the neutrality was bogus. But "Claimed neutality" and other similar phrases didn't come out any better. I could have reversed it to something like Supposed cultural bias I suppose. This is a problem I've had in other articles. Sometimes the solution, when covering the same material in more than one article, is to use, to some extent, a glass half-full approach in one article and a glass half-empty approach in another, when language just won't let you be neutral, without expanding a discussion far out of reasonable bounds. But in this case, it is likely that a heading saying Neutrality would have done better.

Jallan 04:41, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Main namespace cleanup

In an effort to clean up the main namespace, I've moved your old main namespace userpage to User:Stevertigo/old, as there's some edit history you might want to keep. Otherwise just delete it. --fvw* 12:27, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)

Could someone please start mediating? - Andre Engels 16:02, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Life and death

Hi Stevertigo,

I was asked [1] to replace the images at Life and death. Although a screen shot is fair use, apparently modifying it (e.g. by adding numbers over stones) isn't allowed.

I've made new versions of the first three boards. See, for example, Image:Go position, life and death, 3.png. I could copy the last two as they are, but it looks to me like they could use some cleanup too. The last image, I propose to leave out digits 5 through 9, and place stones 11, 12, and 13.

But I don't really understand the ALTERNATE VERSION, so I don't know how to fix it. Comments?

Dbenbenn 06:20, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Quadell doesnt know what the heck he's talking about - screenshots are fair use, and moreso when they are of material created by the creator - me. Quadell's use of the term "altered" didnt take into consideration the use of software to create new images in their own right. I liked my version better, to be honest. -==SV 07:22, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I still don't understand what Image:LnD15.png is attempting to convey. Perhaps you could explain it? Thanks, dbenbenn | talk 22:19, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

'I dont understand' - its simple, really. Do you play go? -==SV 00:09, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I know how to play go. I'm not an especially good player. Anyway, I don't see what the A, B, C, and triangle indicate. dbenbenn | talk 00:12, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Untagged Image

Please tag Image:Lock-icon2.jpg See Image copyright tags for help. Note: It is currently listed as unverified so your action is needed. Thanks for your cooperation. Superm401 18:04, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The same is true for Image:WOM Image3.png. – Quadell (talk) (help) 15:07, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
And:
  • Image:Meerkatmascot1b.png -- Kbh3rd 02:41, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Current events

Hi hello, would you be interested to contribute to Current events in Hong Kong and Macao? best, — Instantnood 11:40, Jan 27 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Life and Death

You asked "Why the delete of images from life and death?" I apologize, but I don't know what you mean. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 17:05, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Mediation meeting

Template:Mediation-meeting Please edit the side box here (be brief) to update when you might be able to attend. Thanks. -==SV 22:06, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oops

I'm not sure. Sorry about that. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:13, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cangjie

I've been hoping to make some improvements upon the Cangjie article that you created but it's protected for some reason. Since you're the only one who has touched it, I assume you might have something to do with it. Why is it protected and what is the procedure for getting it unprotected? The page really needs to be fixed up since it's mostly an incomprehensible machine translation. Please reply in the Talk:Cangjie page. Thanks! -- Umofomia 00:36, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Christianity

Hi, can you look at Template talk:Christianity and help to outline what is needed on the template so we can therefore make it easier to code the html for the template for what best suits the subjects and not just change the Islam one. This will probably be the best method. gren 03:59, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In response - The reason the Islam template is green is because Islam is associated with green. The style is very nice ofr Islam and it fits how Islam should be represented in a template but the nature of the topics of Christianity likely makes it necessary to have some changes on the template. The template should represent Christianity since that is what it is for, Islam's template is green, Jesus' has the face of Jesus. These are proper representations where equality is nonesense because differences do not bring in a POV to the article. gren 04:09, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In response 2 - bah, why is this argument toned and all. We both want a good template and to that ends it is necessary to know what goes on the template before we can know how it will best look. I have no problem with it looking like the Islam template if it happens to have parts that warrant it being in that form, however Christianity might not be so easily fit into that style template. I only wish that since you have done more for this template than I that you look at the talk page for it and help to decide the nesting and what belongs on the template itself. After that we can see what style best fits the parts we wish to put on it. I am not saying make it a different style, I am just trying to say we must formalize what will go on it before we make it. Because... as of my last check Salafism was on the Christianity template... will you help me to that end? gren 04:23, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In response 3 - Jihad and Crusade are not equivalents by any means. As Crusade denotes they were a series of military campaigns and a word never used in the Bible. Jihad is a word used in the Qur'an and does not only denote military struggle (lesser Jihad). Jihad has a sense of inner struggle as well and we cannot be expected to call them equivalents because of mass ignorance. This is by no means favoring Christianity because I do mostly favor Islam in my personal beliefs, it has to do with there is no such thing as direct equivalence between religion. There is no equivalent to directly relates to a Fatwa that spans Christianity, if you wish to add Papal decrees the term merely applies to Catholicism. I am not asking you to remove things crticial of Christianity or to hide them away from view I am just asking you to see the sense in not trying to pick out each entry into the Islamic template and translate it. There is no role in prominent Christianity like a Muezzin. There was never a Christian caliphate, to call the Holy Roman empire such would be a misnomer because it was started many years after the Death of Jesus. There is no Trinity in Islam. Christians were widely persecuted for many years after Jesus' death whereas before the death of Muhammad Mecca and Medina at least were controlled by Muslims. The point is there were vastly different circumstances and to ignore that and somehow equate Crusades directly to Jihad is wrong. gren 05:26, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In Response 4 - Well, we can have philosophical differences and hopefully they will not translate into differences on the template. I know it still needs work since I just patched things together and wouldn't recommend putting it onto the page yet but I suppose maybe that would force people to help edit it who don't otherwise know of its existence. The progress others than yourself are making was me and then a few edits by Ungtss... because of the fact that it is primarily my work into this versoin I know it is insufficient even if a move in the right direction and hope that the community will remedy my errors. Christianity is more difficult than Islam as they have no basic five pillars or even the same creed that they all accept. Here's to progress gren 00:43, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History of the Church of England

Hi,

I've taken the POV tag off the History of the Church of England page, because there was nothing on the Talk Page explaining or discussing why it might be considered POV. I'm not necessarily saying it is NPOV, but if you re-add the tag could you also add something to the Talk Page explaining why?

Thanks, TSP 09:07, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anglicanism

Thanks for the edits. I've tried to clarify with a Leadership section. See what you think. Although perhaps the organisational content should be merged to Anglican Communion? Man vyi 22:06, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, both Anglicanism and Anglican Communion could do with a mutual tidy. I think that Anglican Communion should probably concentrate on the organisation, while Anglicanism should in principle focus on the theology. Both articles probably need a measure of history. Like Anglicans, it'll probably muddle through to a compromise in the end! Man vyi 06:20, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Patent-free ciphers

There are quite a few ciphers without patent problems (that is, either not patented, or the patent-holders let anyone use the ciphers for any purpose). Off the top of my head, examples include DES, AES, Twofish, CAST-128 and KHAZAD. IIRC, use of IDEA is permitted for non-commercial use. It's quite possible that some open-source software infringes on patents, but probably the bigger, famous packages steer clear. I know that GnuPG are quite careful about using only unencumbered algorithms. — Matt Crypto 01:32, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi guys... Well, free for a restricted use is definitely not free! ;) Would you mind removing IDEA from the Free Ciphers list? Thanks -- ClementSeveillac 05:42, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Messianic democracy

Your recent edit at Totalitarian democracy is very confusing. Are you saying that Talmon used the term "messianic democracy" rather than "totalitarian democracy"? Or what? Also writing "term" and linking to political neologism seems out of line: if you mean "political neologism", say it, no?

I figured I'd take this up with you rather than just revert: I assume you have a point you are trying to make, but so far this is just confusing. Could you take another shot at it? Thanks. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:01, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Jalal Talabani.jpg

Hi. I understand the recrop, but why did you enlarge the image? It only serves to make it a bit more blurry, and it's not like we have a need to display it at this artificially enlarged size anywhere.--Pharos 08:57, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying enlarging the image was the worst thing in the world, but frankly I can't think of a single reason why we would want a somewhat expanded slightly fuzzy version of any image when there is no particular need to display the image at that size. Please explain your reasoning. Thanks.--Pharos 05:16, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vfd tags on Criticism of the Iraq War

Hi, Stevertigo

I understand that seeing ones creations listed up on Votes for Deletion can be upsetting, but you are plainly not allowed to remove the Votes for Deletion-tag. Sjakkalle 08:32, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I must disagree with you that such a listing on vfd is invalid. The deletion criterion "No potential for becoming encyclopedic" is a pretty broad one, although it applies is always somewhat controversial. The feeling among the voters is the this could not become much more than a biased criticism against the war. Sjakkalle 09:18, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well if you both rename and rewrite an article, then you have pretty much deleted the original content anyway. Sjakkalle 09:26, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikilove

It is okay SV. I know you did not mean ill, and was very proud someone thought it good enough to move it here. Yeah, I felt a bit ... not so happy about this, but others kindly mentionned the origin of it, so that was really fine. And I know you are not always much around :-) Thanks for the neat pict;-) Anthere

[edit] Deletion policy

If the listing on VfD is against deletion policy, it would probably look better for you to argue that on VfD instead of edit warring on the page. Even if the listing is ill-advised, those generally get voted on anyway. In practice, the rule of thumb tends to be "If someone wants it deleted, we'll hear them out." So, stupid listing or no, best to argue it on VfD would be my advice. Snowspinner 03:32, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

For better or worse, deletionism is not a crime. :) Snowspinner 04:15, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Phonetics

In the Phonetics article, I noticed you changed:

For instance, in Chinese characters, a phonetic refers to the portion of the character that hints at its pronunciation.

to:

For instance, in Chinese characters, a phonetic refers to the portion of the character or word that hints at its pronunciation.

I can't say that the new statement is now correct. A phonetic in Chinese is an orthographic feature that applies to a single written character. Some characters may be words, but most words are more than one character long and in such a case, this statement would make no sense. Do you agree? --Umofomia 03:33, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] short chronology

I'm sorry but I do not understand the note you left on my talk page. dab (ᛏ) 18:40, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see -- the subject is very complicated and full of pitfalls. I agree that it is high time for the merge with Chronological systems of Babylonia and Assyria, so I hope you get around to dig into it deeper... Be careful with saying that the schort chronolgoy is "most common". I believe it is acknowledged as the most likely to be correct, today, but for a long time the middle chronology was used as the facto standard, so which is more commonly used will really depend on the date of the publication. We should also make sure to refer to all three chronologies in the intro, giving their Hammurabi dates, since short, middle and long chronology are all redirected to this article, and often people will just want to see the numbers. regards, dab (ᛏ) 19:47, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] cRASS

hi- I was wondering why you removed the anarchism template from the Crass page- personally i feel that it is entirely appropriate placed there quercus robur 22:08, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AP Photos

Thanks for your comment/question on my talk page. The AP photos in question are the only ones we have permission for. I will be requesting permission on additional ones as I come across them. I'm trying to focus on the notable photos since those would be the most likely to attract their attention and lead to a dispute with them. So if you come across something and are wondering on it feel free to let me know and I'll take a look. --Wgfinley 22:12, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Convention

Would you consider a Charter Convention? — Xiong熊talk 02:06, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

..."Charter Convention?"...-SV|t|th 02:56, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(I moved your reply to keep the thread unfragmented. I'm trying to start a trend.)

I had to follow the link and read your comment 3 or 4 times before I caught your meaning. Perhaps my fault for going in such an abruptly different direction. My reply to the rest of your comment is on my Talk page.

A caucus of sensible folk is forming to discuss a Charter -- a Constitution, if you like -- for the project membership. I invite you to join -- just send me email at: xiong@mochamail.com and I'll include you. No heavy lifting required. — Xiong熊talk 03:16, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

[edit] Magic (paranormal) NPOV header

Going through the edit comments to this article, I noticed that it was you who added the NPOV header to that article; and that it was apparently because of objections to the heading "Changing attitudes towards magic".

Just curious as to what the problems are you see there, and how the article might be improved in your eyes. The talk page of the article is probably the most convenient place to continue this. -- Smerdis of Tlön 18:49, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template Ecstasy

I do not see any reason to have the simple organic data table for ecstasy in a separate special template. I will revert the article and list the template for deletion. Cacycle 08:34, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RecentChanges

I may have been a bit hasty in removing the box but I thought it was ugly and didn't belong there. You could make a statement on the village pump or WP:AN. I don't think there is any official policy but RecentChanges should be reserved for small benign things not requests for action. I wouldn't object if you put it back as a small line of text. If I was doing this I would have introduced a second template and phased it in over time. BrokenSegue 22:57, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Josphus

Totally agree - Josephus was a very complex bloke. I re-edited and expanded the article - but he certainly deserves more. I'll come back to him if I can, unless someone else does it first.--Doc Glasgow 23:40, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "anti-japanese" textbook demonstrations in China

I agree with you about the title to a certain extent (I added "textbook" to the title just a day ago), but "Textbook demonstrations in China" is way too unclear, it makes it seem like people are protesting over a Chinese textbook. Or, are you not advocating that the main title not be changed to that, just use that within the article, i.e. it should be more generic? I think we can perhaps come up with an even better title than what is there currently, something like maybe Anti-Japanese Government textbook demonstrations in China but that is kind of long. What do you think? zen master T 21:08, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't like "whitewashing", that doesn't sound good and is a word that generally requires added context. There needs to be an "anti" in the title to convey the fact the protestors are against something, not for something, as well. zen master T 21:24, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
hmmm, Anti-Japan government textbook demonstrations in China kind of sounds awkward, I think if we add "government" it's clear the protests are against the Japanese government textbook office's policies, rather than the japanese people. So how about Anti-Japanese government textbook demonstrations in China? zen master T 21:35, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] template current

How does br break anything???, It's been this way for months and nobody has complained. —Cantus…☎ 22:25, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Infotainment

Well, I thought that there was really no point in discussing hard news and soft news separately; they are two sides of the same coin. What is not one is either the other or neither, and the boundaries are fuzzy and controversial. I also thought there's not much point in discussing soft news and infotainment separately, because the two terms refer to more or less the same thing, depending on who is using them.

The article I created doesn't pretend to cover the entirety of the process of production of either professional journalism or fluff; that's certainly appropriate to delegate to other articles. Whether or not article titled "infotainment" is necessary, I'm not sure, especially since it has negative POV connotations. Certainly the industries of entertainment news, human interest reporting, home and garden shows, etc. deserve coverage, but I would expect them to have their own articles. What sort of content were you thinking should be added to "infotainment" itself? -- Beland 02:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you are proposing. Did you mean that you think my new article should be retitled "infotainment", and that "hard news" and "soft news" should redirect there? I just tidied up both the "infotainment" and "hard news, soft news, and infotainment" so they could both co-exist, which is what I originally thought you had in mind? -- Beland 02:25, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How Long Is the Coast of Britain? Statistical Self-Similarity and Fractional Dimension

Just wondered why you have added a math-stub notice to How Long Is the Coast of Britain? Statistical Self-Similarity and Fractional Dimension - what exactly do you think is missing from the article ? The article is intended to provide a summary of Mandelbrot's original paper, and I think adding more detail would require more or less repeating chunks of the paper itself, which I believe is not good idea. Gandalf61 10:32, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response to my question. If you don't mind, I will take the math-stub notice off the article. To answer your question about my views on Wikipedia:Access, I agree that mathematics articles should contain links to articles about related concepts, especially those which are pre-requisites for understanding the article in question. But I disagree with the idea that all mathematics articles should include "low-level explanations". If we tried to make every mathematics article self-contained, then each one would become huge, and there would be an enormous amount of overlap and repetition. So, for example, How Long Is the Coast of Britain? should (and does) contain links to fractal, Hausdorff dimension, Koch snowflake etc., but it should not (and does not) attempt to explain all of these concepts. Interested readers can follow the links. Gandalf61 10:55, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

Why what? Sorry, I don't follow you. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:35, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Is there a reason you keep protecting New anti-Semitism? It was attacked by an editor who's been adding nonsense all day, a sockpuppet who's already up on an RfC. However, he seems to have stopped now, so there's no need for page protection. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:39, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
LOL! We keep talking past each other. I unprotected it because it wasn't a genuine edit dispute, just a troublemaker. I've been watching his contribs and he seems to have stopped. Must have worn himself out. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 03:42, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
Although LevelCheck is a troublemaker, his edit to New anti-Semitism (inadvertently?) improved it. The edit war was bad. SlimVirgin and my girlfriend shouldn't have kept reverting. — Helpful Dave 03:49, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It was not an edit war. All his edits were being reverted because of vandalism and trolling, and in fact he was about to be blocked, which I think is why he stopped. Pages should not be protected because of a single idiot. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:17, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
ST, look carefully at his contribs. He does not have a substantial history, and if you read his edits, you'll see they're all deliberately provocative, and most have been reverted (e.g. he created a page called "Poking a dog with a stick" meaning animal cruelty). He's associated with at least three other sockpuppet accounts that I'm aware of, and was also warned not to vandalize when he was posting as an anon IP. Read the RfC against him. Read the adminship nomination for SamuraiClinton. This user has a history of trouble-making and nothing else. I'd appreciate it if you could let me know why you protected it in the first place, given that LevelCheck had stopped, and no one else was editing it, and what you meant by asking me whether I understood policy. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:08, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
ST, I really must insist that you assume good faith. I was not engaging in any revert war, and hadn't even looked at the history. I was checking his contribs only, and was reverting any that were vandalism, deletion of material, nonsense categories, nonsense redirects; and was about to block him, having warned him two or three times today. That is not editing warring. Had I been involved in editing the article, I would not, of course, have unprotected it, and I'm surprised you think otherwise. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:33, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
You make a fair point about me not having left a comment on talk. I should have done that, and I apologize for the oversight. Best, SlimVirgin (talk) 07:40, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Iraq Al-Qaeda links move

As much as I like your new title I have to point out there is a talk page vote (requested move) currently underway. You moved it to Talk:Alleged links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda zen master T 05:23, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

oh ok, I thought there was a policy for moves like VfD, I like the new title. zen master T 05:44, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Sciencecenter.jpg

Image deletion warning The image Image:Sciencecenter.jpg has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it will be deleted. If you have any information on the source or licensing of this image, please go there to provide the necessary information.

Burgundavia 23:58, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Help

Calling for backup. Help save List of incidents famously considered great blunders. A wonderfully useful article and the subject of a number of books and documentaries. Viciously attacked by deletionists. It does have a few supporters, but our voices are being drowned out. Please help save this article! - Pioneer-12 06:49, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Precidents for Vfd

Thanks for your input. Re: List of incidents famously considered great blunders. "there are easy to find precedents" Any precidents you know of would be most appreciated. - Pioneer-12 09:18, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/t/e/User_talk%7EStevertigo_Archive_10_46e7.html"