User talk:Alice/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

recent edits at de facto

Vanuatu

Sorry, it's easy to forget that jargon and abbreviations are not easy to recognize by the new. "rv" just means revert, which I did because I think "European ethnic groups" is not an appropriate place to direct readers to. Ethnic groups did not colonize Vanuatu, it was European nations, and "Europe" is what most readers will expect to find when they click that link. If there's anything else you need, feel free to ask.--Cúchullain t/c 21:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying both the abbreviation and the reason for the revert that I queried at your user talk page.

I would slightly disagree with you that these were all national government sponsored and organised expeditions - some of the very first landings were by privateers that would have been executed by their respective (European) governments if they had been caught- but no matter. There was also a distinct feeling of ethnic superiority and solidarity amongst the colonisers which many Vanuatuans feel is still relevant. Alice.S 21:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Replied...

to you here NoSeptember 01:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)]]

Re:Thanks again for good advice

You are most welcome, and please do feel free to do modifications as you please. This is your talk page afterall, and a beautiful one at that! Meanwhile, I notice you still appear to have some problems with the signature part. You only need to insert --~~~~ behind your comments. No need to manually type in your name and timestamp. Hope this helps!--Huaiwei 01:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what I do, Huawei, but because I do not (and do not want a user page) a bug in Sinebot thinks I haven't signed. Sinebot's owner was kind enough to respond to my concerns here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Slakr&oldid=167995998#Sinebot_signs_after_my_signature

Please keep up your mentorship - it's much appreciated! Alice.S 08:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting essay

a note to myself (and anyone lurking, of course). Alice.S 12:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Cat:New Zealand-Pacific relations

No harm done

I realize you're a (relatively) new user, and I probably should have worded my reply to reflect that. SparsityProblem 01:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for being so gallant.

And no need to pull your punches - it was pretty stupid of me not to have read the whole debate before I commented and your succinct and accurate summary of the process jolted me out of my laziness. Sorry again and thanks for the "wake-up at the back" comment! Alice.S 02:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

KSB's revert

It's already been reverted back to your newer, changed version by another editor. Cheers! Gwen Gale 02:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I'm a slow typist and folks seem to be very quick on the draw. Thanks for keeping an eye on things, Gwen! Alice.S 03:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It was my mistake Alice, and I deserve no congratulations for reverting it, though I appreciate your kind words at my talk page. I apologize for not looking closer at what you were actually doing, and you have my sympathies in your current dispute with Perspicacite. I've watched the dispute a bit, and it appears you're on the side of angels there, so-to-speak. Keep up the good work of encyclopedia building! Best regards, K. Scott Bailey 06:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Looking closer, I realize Encyclopetey beat me to the revert, so it wasn't actually my undoing of my mistake. Again, though, I take full responsibility for not looking closer at what you were actually doing. K. Scott Bailey 06:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, dragons are busy creatures and it can be hard to spot the detail sometimes when you're flying at such dizzy heights (grin).

P has been actually showing distinct signs of editing rather than reverting recently - I do hope I'm not grinding him down (wan smile). Alice.S 06:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"Straight but not narrow"

I've been on the lookout for a userbox saying something like that for awhile. Where did you find it? And I hope you don't mind that I swiped the code to put on my userpage. K. Scott Bailey 17:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, you're very polite and friendly for a dragon! I'm afraid I've forgotten where I swiped it from, (that'll teach me to use better edit summaries) except that I'm fairly sure it was either GFDL or public domain. You might like to edit it to show the male symbol as slightly more prominent or keep it the same to reflect the female gamete's dominant role in our world (grin). Thanks for being so friendly! Alice.S 21:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Made me smile

This and this made me smile; hope it does the same for you. WAS 4.250 01:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Me too and how lovely for you to think of me! A very interesting new source for stopping me getting any work done! I think I need a sugar daddy so I can stop all remunerative work and concentrate on Wikistuff. This may get seriously addictive... Thanks for being nice to me. Alice.S 01:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Turns out there was more. I wondered why he stopped where he did. WAS 4.250 01:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments....

Hi there. My editing today on a few articles may have removed or changed some of your material. Please don't be offended, but all I merely wanted to do was to remove any dubious unreferenced material. The worst though is that anon IP who turns out to be a block evading sock of the rude User:Domaleixo.

I can't say I understood your message, but I'm guess it was tongue in cheek. Cheers and happy editing. --Merbabu 06:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not offended at all - that's what is so wonderful about Wikipedia: we can all stand on the shoulders of others and become GIANTS!

I'm sure that, given your evident cultural sensitivity, you will be aware that the IP (s)(socks or not) feel very strongly about the topics they edit on and that may lead them to be bit rash and loud at times - especially when it is evident that, like me, English was probably not the language they first learnt to read in. They have provided some good material, though, and the articles they have edited could definitely do with lots more citations.

Lastly, I'm intrigued as to exactly which message you did not understand - can you provide a diff? Alice.S 06:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

North Korea

HI

You're entirely welcome to use that. Perhaps needs putting into context! edward (buckner) 10:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Edward. I knew you were a sport.
Kick it into whatever context you feel appropriate. Be my guest (non) user page editor!Alice.S 15:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Singapore Airlines

Hey Alice.S

Thanks for the welcome :-D Hopefully we can get the Singapore Airlines right and make it a great article and balancing veiled and explicit views of editors in the process! —Preceding unsigned comment added by RomanceOfTravel (talk • contribs) 18:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

That's the spirit! Isn't Wikipedia wonderful? What's your favourite airline if you're flying economy ?Alice.S 18:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocking

(section reconstituted from [1])

8.1) Blocking is a serious matter. Administrators should be exceedingly careful when blocking. Blocks should be made only if other means are not likely to be effective.

Passed 10 to 1 at 17:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[2]

Especially when you are not dealing with some pimply teenager that can not take a hint. Why not ask Edward nicely first if you do not wish to receive communications from him? Alice.S 17:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Edward is passionate about Wikipedia. He has a stack of intellectual effort invested in it. Admins should only block serious contributors as a last (and not a first) response. Alice.S 19:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
In my mind, disrupting an open election through a smear campaign is a serious matter - especially if the perpetrator has been asked to stop, and has refused. >Radiant< 22:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Well

If you're unwilling to respond to that, you really shouldn't be trying to "throw the book" at people. >Radiant< 23:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you're assuming too much again. If you had bothered to read what is on the top of this talk page, you would be able to work out that I believe it's more difficult to have a dialogue when people are talking in separate rooms.
You may well have been privy to information that I wasn't but I just reacted to what I thought I saw. A rather veiled warning to Edward followed by a block a few minutes later. I'm probably getting a warped view of things but I see too many examples of lazy admins (not that I'm necessarily putting you in that category) who can't be bothered to attempt to engage a (possibly) problematic user in dialogue before reaching for the block button. I must admit that I'm not impressed by you removing the thread from your own user page so quickly and then suggesting that I'm "unwilling to respond".
Now I'm going away for a few days so I'd suggest a period of sober reflection to ascertain what you want from me before appearing on my talk page again - to swat me round the ear or to persuade me that I was in error. If the latter, then I'd very much welcome the courtesy of a considered reply (since I don't perceive any urgency about the situation now) rather than (what still appears to me as) a precipitate response.
By the way, I do like both the idea and execution of your "quilt". Alice.S 23:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
It strikes me that if you disagree with a block on somebody, you should address the issue at hand, rather than copy/paste a bit of a policy page. I am aware that people shouldn't be blocked lightly; if you believe that I have acted too hastily, it is far more helpful to explain why you think so, rather than reiterate that blocks are a last resort. For what it's worth, after investigation by a few other admins, Dbuckner has now been indefinitely blocked. >Radiant< 00:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Don't be silly, Radiant. I headlined a relevant ArbCom page, not a policy page and I've already outlined precisely why I thought the block was inflammatory and wrong. I note that you've not commented on why you remove uncomfortable posts from your talk page. Alice✉

Sad

Personally, I think Edward went about things the wrong way (I voted for FT2). It might have been better if he had raised his concerns about bad publicity for Wikipedia with the ArbCom secret mailing list or the Foundation in confidence first. Equally, he may actually have done that and felt his concerns were not being timeously addressed or he may just have felt that confidential mailing was an underhand way of going about things. I don't know the guy, but from his postings he seems to be concerned with ethics. Whatever the sequence of events I do think it sad that things had to come to this. Anyway I do hope we can agree to disagree on some issues without rancour or grudges. Alice.S 10:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I fully agree to that. >Radiant< 09:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

what to call me

Re: WP:why

2006 figures better than 2005 figures

You got the facts wrong my friend. The latest HDI values (2007 report) are derived based on 2005 data. People often get confused and think that the year of the hdi report is the year from which the values are derived. This similar mistake is found on the wikipedia pages of many other countries too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.14.236.218 (talk) 05:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to respond to me here. (Although a better place, since yours is a general point concerning the contents of the article, might have been Talk:Singapore).
Personally, I'd hate to doubt the truth of your statement. However, our encyclopedia needs verifiable sources for everything we write.
It would really help me if you could provide the source (even quicker would be an on-line source for your changes). Again, a good place to do this would be on the talk page of our article. There's some information you may find useful for that right at the bottom of my "user page" here. It would help myself and others take you more seriously if you got an account and signed your comments on talk pages.
Lastly, on talk pages, it's Wikipedia etiquette to add new sections at the bottom of the page. Just click the fourth tab from the left at the very top talk of talk pages that's marked with a "+" (plus sign). Thanks for taking the time to write a better encyclopedia! Alice✉ 07:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Singapore

To remove the external source is necessary because it is misleading. It basically provides the rate in the year of 2006. Plus, the inline citation already showed the sources of rank. If you want to object, write down your reason in the talk page of Singapore. Coloane (talk) 08:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to respond to me here, Coloane. (Although a better place, since yours is a general point concerning the contents of the article, might have been Talk:Singapore).
Your comment relates to the contents of our article so should have been placed on Talk:Singapore) and not here. That way all interested parties (including you and I) can participate and reach consensus. (All articles I edit, including their discussion pages, are automatically added to my WP:Watchlist).
Your edit removed the relevant inline citation placed by Huaiwei but left the claim: "It (Singapore) was rated as the world's best airport in 2006 by Skytrax". That may not be what you intended, but if you actually examine your edit that's what it did, Coloane! And you are also running perilously close to being in breach of WP:3RR. Alice✉ 09:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Perspicacite

Non-P section

Season's greetings!

And compliments of the season to you too - hope your Christmas has been a good one :) Grutness...wha? 21:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you've been celebrating with the traditional barbecue and crate of cold beer? I dream of coming to visit your beautiful locality one of these days ... Alice✉ 05:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I love the bouncing ball!!!

What more can I say? --Coppertwig (talk) 02:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I wish I were the author, who I believe may be user "Splaka" at Uncyclopedia. Thanks for dropping by and saying friendly things (and for joining the "bouncers' club")! Alice✉ 05:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

World's largest airline by market capitalisation?

I've copied most of the discussion below to Talk:Singapore Airlines as being a more appropriate venue
I recently restored some sourced speculation and User:WhisperToMe was kind enough to respond here on my talk page, thus:

Why the edit doesn't belong there

Okay, regarding the Air China lead not lasting:

  • Even with a source, you still have to state who believes that the Air China lead may not last? To not provide the "who" may imply POV
  • Even then, remember that the article is mostly about SQ, so you can say Air China took the lead, but does speculation about Air China belong there?

WhisperToMe (talk) 03:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, in principle, with your first point. However, I think we should assume that some of our readers are perceptive enough to follow the cited reference to the cited International Herald Tribune article dated 11 October 2007, entitled: Around the Markets: Airlines Face Challenges at http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/11/business/sxasia.php and read that this is their opinion.
As to your second opinion, then I have no strong feelings one way or the other but Talk:Singapore Airlines is a better forum to discuss the contents of the article than my talk page.
Thanks for taking the time and trouble to raise both these issues and I hope you will forgive the impertinence of taking the discussion there? Alice✉ 05:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Diplomats

Hi there Alice,

I noticed you changed WP:BIO to say that diplomats do not have inherent notability. Disregarding my opinion on this topic, can you point to a discussion or general consensus for this edit? It seems to me to be rather unilateral and unconstructive. Thanks --Thomas.macmillan (talk) 07:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Thomas, nice to have you drop by.

I assume you are talking about this edit of mine: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Notability_%28people%29&diff=prev&oldid=180540586 where I added the text I have italicized for emphasis: "**Simply being an ambassador does not guarantee notability, although such a person may be notable for other reasons aside from his/her diplomatic career and few appointments will not have been noted in independent, reliable sources. However, many career diplomats strive to maintain a relatively low profile and this may mean fewer reports than might otherwise be expected for international officials of similar seniority.

If that's the edit you're talking about then it was certainly not my intention to reinforce the view that ambassadors do not have inherent notability.

The source for this was the discussion on the article's talk page together with the Article for deletion discussion on a newly appointed Australian ambassador to Zimbabwe: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Charles_John_Hodgson where my contributions were signed under my previous user name of "Alice.S".

My view point is that almost all ambassadors merit their own article on Wikipedia since they are almost all plenipotentiaries and, as such, represent their head of state in the country of their accreditation.

The talk page discussion made the valid point that notability does not equate to either being important nor does it equate to being high profile - it merely means that there exist independent authoritative sources for verification and on that test it would be a very rare ambassador indeed that did not pass this low threshold notability test. Please note that not all diplomats are of ambassador status, though...Alice✉ 08:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the speedy reply. I was part of the Australian diplomat discussion as well. For the record, I am commenting to you tonight about this issue because user's have taken your comments on the page to mean that ambassadors are not generally or inherently notable. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janvier Kanyamashure.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 08:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

They were wrong to do that, but I apologise if my language was so opaque that it caused the misunderstanding. If you can point me towards where this misunderstanding is occurring then I will attempt to put the record straight, Thomas. Alice✉ 08:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help at Elise Primavera

I appreciate your not objecting to my replacement of your text with what I'd been working on off-wiki. I also appreciate all the tweaking you've done to the text I placed. I didn't feel it was quite ready, but when I saw a stub had been placed, I decided to go ahead and add my off-wiki work. Bellwether BC (talk) 04:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC) ;)

No problem, BBC; nice to have your school on board! Alice✉ 04:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm excited about it! And my students are really looking forward to it as well. Bellwether BC (talk) 04:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Amok

I am not "running amok deleting stuff" without reason. The presentation of the material on the capital page is lopsided and uncited, and has been the case for many months. Death penalty is a serious issue and any material on it should be backed up with credible sources. Chensiyuan (talk) 01:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that you have a valid rationale. However, unless you make your motivation clear (either in edit summaries or, better still, on the discussion page of the article beforehand), you can understand that folks may be puzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzled.
As a first class lawyer, you will also appreciate the distinction that many folks have edited and deleted material (both sourced and un-sourced) from Capital punishment in Singapore and my edit summary was not specifically targeted against your good self. I assume that you were going to go back and source the material that you removed at a later time but some may have thought that a neater way to proceed would have been to either tag or remark out the un-cited stuff and then allow a reasonable period for someone (even your good self) to format the citations. As a lawyer, I think you know that very little of the stuff you removed was completely without foundation in primary, secondary and tertiary sources.

Anyway, nice of you to take the trouble to clarify your concerns and I hope to see you making a reasonable précis of some of the applicable legislation very shortly and killing some of those glaring red links. A prosperous New Year to you (whenever you celebrate it)! Alice✉ 02:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

SQ Flight Numbers

Thanks Alice! But frankly I have better things to do than to read through that tripe! I'll just leave it for the two of them to... fight it out ;-P Have a Happy New Year 2008! —Preceding unsigned comment added by RomanceOfTravel (talk • contribs) 21:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Continuation War

Thanks for your work today cleaning up Continuation War. It's nice to have someone who hasn't been caught up in the past year and a half of arguments make a big contribution. --Stlemur 17:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Well that's very sweet of you and makes a pleasant change from some of the comments that have been left in my "P section". I must admit I trembled a bit before I dared tickle the lead since I know diddly squat about the subject matter. Thanks for giving my spirits a boost! Alice.S 17:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
In fact, this is exactly what the article needs: The editor which is sufficiently separated from the - too often - very pointed discussions. Nice work. --Whiskey (talk) 11:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Whiskey! Passion is important as a motivator to drive the quest for better sources but it can hinder presenting a balanced distillation of historical research sometimes. I suppose you've had the sort of "White Christmas" that is popular on many Christmas Cards in Singapore still? We have our own rivalry with Hong Kong but of course it does not have the same degree of historical venom that is obviously present inside some of the editors regularly contributing to some articles focussed on your region. Alice✉ 12:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK

Updated DYK query On 4 January 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Elise Primavera, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Great job on the article! --Royalbroil 05:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words but it was really only serendipitous that I created and made the first few edits on the article; the heavy lifting was done by Bellwether BC, Risker and Alansohn. Alice✉ 05:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Neal Blair

Why you would violate 3RR on Neal Blair when you know the policy and you knew I would report you is beyond my understanding. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Alice reported by User:Perspicacite (Result: ). Jose João (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

So as to improve our Encyclopedia for our readers by restoring the citations you keep removing, and fixing the redlinks and mis-spellings you keep reverting to. You are really incorrigible.Alice✉
  • I have blocked you for 24 hours for a violation of the three revert rule. Spartaz Humbug! 10:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Which was the version that I reverted to four times? Alice✉ 11:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
See the report at AN3 linked above. You removed the same information 4 times. Spartaz Humbug! 11:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Spartaz, but I am genuinely puzzled. My clear intention and actual edits (as clarified in my AN3 riposte to Perspicacite) was not to remove anything at all (other than a spelling mistake), but rather to restore a WP:BLP citation.
Please would you be kind enough to specify the information that I removed from the article "4 times" so that I can understand and agree with my block rather than regard it as a mistake on your part (understandable - P does make a cunningly contrived case). Alice✉ 18:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
    • You removed the following phrase from the very start of the article 4 times In 1989 he pleaded guilty to evading income taxes in 1984.. None of your edits specified BLP concerns. If you think I made a mistake you can use the unblock template (as I pointed out yesterday) and another admin will come along and review the block. Spartaz Humbug! 08:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock|your reason here}} I should have pointed out the unblock template should you wish to appeal the block.

Continuation War

Alice. I plan to allow the dust to settle on Finnish matters for a few weeks. But, I will come back to them in due course. regards. Bob BScar23625 (talk) 09:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

stop looking at my history

if you want to get more pleasure from observing other people's edit history, I would suggest that you had better spend more time on improving the article Singapore, or countries from Sacanadivian areas. I am not very interested in talking with you although you are attractive, beautiful as you claimed. Good Luck! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coloane (talk • contribs) 14:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Occasionally I encounter editors who are not vandals, but whose consistent behaviour patterns (as exhibited by the historical record of their past edits across several articles) are problematic for other editors and, often because of that, for our encyclopedia. You seem to be one - User:Perspicacite and User:Corticopia are others.
I'm not aware of ever making any comment (or "claim") as to my attractiveness or beauty (or lack of either). Can you e-mail me some diffs? Alice✉ 06:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI regarding User:Coloane

Hello Alice. I recall from 3RR, your request to be notified of a disruption case on the user, should it be opened. It has, here. Regards, Bogdan що? 06:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Most kind, Bogdan! I've commented there ☯ Alice✉ 09:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia retirement

Coloane notified his retirement here following discussion here.

thanks!

thanks for the Christmas wish. I hope you had a great one yourself. Guess I haven't logged in for a while. Pdbailey (talk) 03:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess you haven't, Paul. I might take a long break myself the way things are going. Perspicacite managed to engineer a block on me by lying through his teeth. Not good!
Happy Chinese New Year in advance! Alice✉ 05:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Alice, I think I've known you for most of your time here and very much enjoy reading your talk page, if you don't mind, can I ask you a question? (if you do mind, I guess you have to skip the next sentence.) What do you think you spend most of your time here doing? There are lots of ways you could take that, and I leave the question intentionally vague. Pdbailey (talk) 05:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

We never had any prior interaction with each other as far as I know, but your comments and support in regards to my getting unbanned showed genuine thoughtfulness and integrity. You had/have your suspicions about whether I can really behave myself on this go round -- or at least not be so combative and china breaking -- but I will make a genuine effort. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work, and I will just walk away instead of resorting to my old ways. But again thanks very much for your time and efforts. You and Haemo helped push away -- at least temporarily -- much of my cynicism regarding Wikipedia editing, and other admins should look at the responsible, on point, logical and fair conduct the both of you displayed as something to emulate and strive for. Hopefully I won't be giving you any reason to regret this later. Take care. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct in saying that we never had any interaction prior to your block; however, I admired both your glowing and lucid writing style and your sheer tenacity in the face of illogical and partisan attack - both are not easy when the mob is baying for your blood. Administrator John taught me the important Wikipedian principle that we should `Defend each other!'.
I suspect we are on opposite ends of the political spectrum but, especially in my region, it is important to have an encyclopedia where all sourced points of view are represented in a balanced way.
Thank you for the delightfully erudite and polished reply you gave me on your own talk page (I'm wickedly breaking my own rule and replying here, just so I can readily access this important article - huge grin). Alice✉
Thanks again. I've noticed that some other editors, especially anonymous IP's, don't seem to gush much in the way of warm appreciation and/or kindly kudos when I suggest improvements to the accuracy of an article, or when I revert deletions that were justified with edit summaries that basically only went "rm per WP:IDONTLIKETHAT". Also I didn't mean to demean the importance of articles like this or even this -- knowledge & understanding are always good regardless, especially when you consider the alternative.... -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 14:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Portuguese cuisine - overlinking

Hello Alice! You are of course right. But please remember - many times an editor is just making changes to a specific section and, unwillingly, may link something already linked above. It is not on purpose. Of course editors should be carefull, but please be understanding. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 07:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, what does the {{clear}} template you placed at Farinheira mean? The Ogre (talk) 07:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Good Afternoon, The Ogre. Thanks for taking the trouble to visit my talk page.
I do understand the problem and I think you've correctly identified one of the reasons for overlinking. I can see from your contributions that you're an excellent editor and I'm sorry if my edit summary came overs as a bit exasperated or short-tempered.
Here's the explanation for the Template:Clear - I used it in this case for better visual appearance on Linux and XP machines so the right-aligned image in the (rather short) lead does not "foul" the following "see also" section - but I also often use it so it is clearer which are the appropriate "edit" buttons for particular sections. Alice✉ 08:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Alice! For me it's good morning...! Keep up the good work. Cheers. The Ogre (talk) 08:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks from Domer48

Your comment here on my talk page was totally unexpected and came quite out of the blue, which made it all the more welcome. Thanks very much, I really appreciated it. --Domer48 (talk) 08:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I hope I will always be able to admit when (and if) I'm wrong, and I am always willing to revise my opinions in the case of further (or better) evidence - remember, I was trained as a scientist.
I do, on occasion, follow editors' contributions to see if there are particular patterns or consistencies to edits. That is not stalking - unless, and only unless, that following and scrutiny is with the intention of causing disruption to our goal of making a better encyclopedia.
When you did not answer my WP:COI question, I hope you will accept at face value my statement that I tracked your edits in order to assess whether you had a conflict of interest (COI), or fundamental problem of incompatibility, between the aim of Wikipedia (which is to produce a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia free from original research) and your own aims.
Clearly it is wholly consistent with the aims of our project to make such excellent starting efforts as Peadar Clancy. Presumably, like me, you use your user space to create and refine these articles? Alice✉ 09:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry we got of on the wrong foot, but with the problems I was having your questions on WP:COI, I assumed it was just to add fuel to the fire. With my shortness at the time, to answer would have been to go down your throat, like Alice down a rabbit hole. If you were to honestly asses my edits, you will quickly find that it is my civility on talk pages that has got me into trouble, and I will not offer provocation as an excuse, for my conduct. If you were to look for example at this article before I started to edit it, and look at it now . The same could be said on this article also, if you look at it now, likewise this and today this. Now that is just three examples, I could give more. Thing is, most of my edits stay, but the resistance is unbelievable. I do have a genuine interest in history. All of the books on those lists are my own, and it would be very rare for me to use books as references I do not own. I buy and sell Irish antique books from the 19th centaury, as a hobby, it is from there my interest stems. You are more than welcome to review my edits, I would in fact welcome your opinion, and respect all opinions honestly given. Thanks again, regards --Domer48 (talk) 14:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting material to ponder.
You are indeed fortunate in having a privileged access to sources for articles that interest you and I see that WP is benefiting from that access.
BigDunc has given me the impression (in sections above and elsewhere) that you refuse to answer directly my questions about COI, but could you at least tell me if you assembled the Peadar Clancy article in user space or whether you simply wrote it up directly on-line? Your answer would directly assist with formulating any more than an interim opinion on your edits. Alice✉ 04:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "user space." If it means did I do it up on a word document over a period of time and then posted it onto wiki, well the answer is yes. I'm in the process of doing one up on Thomas Clarke Luby at the moment, and will use the same process. I will then ask editors like Dunc, Vin or Pádraig to review it for me, point out the mistakes and build it up from there. I do have access to a very large collection of books which I have built up over many years, and my opinions are based on that reading, so I would consider that on some subjects my opinion is at least informed. Like you have said yourself above, as I'm intrested in the subject, reading is not a effort. --Domer48 (talk) 17:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

"user space" in the sense that I meant it above, is pages that are sub-pages from either your user name space or user talk space. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alice/Private_Correspondence
In addition to my first (so far unanswered) COI question [Q1) Are you affiliated to any political party or movement and do you have close connections with a book, magazine or newspaper publisher?], I have two more questions for you, Domer48:
Q2) Are "Dunc, Vin or Pádraig" other like-minded editors: User:BigDunc, User:Vintagekits and User:Padraig?
Q3) Do you think it would help initiate a more balanced and less biased article if editors of a different viewpoint to your own were consulted when preparing the first draft of an article?
I do agree that Wikipedia should make better use of experts on a particular topic (such as yourself and your associates with respect to physical force Irish republicanism) and I deprecate the present interpretation of COI policy by some ignorant editors (and admins) that means such experts think they have to pretend otherwise. Alice✉ 00:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I’m reminded of the old saying, give an inch and they take a yard. On the question of WP:COI, please provide diff’s of edits by me which you would consider represents a WP:COI? In addition explain to me why Irish historical articles and historical figures cause such acrimony while English equivalents do not. For example, the articles I have provided diff’s for above, which I have improved, are all referenced, yet the linked English equivalent articles such as these [5], [6], [7], [8] and [9] are almost devoid of references. What I also find striking is the almost complete lack of achromous discussion on their talk pages. Why is that? Why are {NPOV}, {CITATION}, {FACT} or {SPECIFY} tags not used on them? Why is it that as soon as I go near them, the discussion page will soon fill up? Or as a group of editors decided to started to apply the same standards of NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS to theses articles which is consistently expected of us? What do you think the reaction would be, if I stood on policy and removed all the unreferenced information? What is wrong with editors who have a shared and genuine interest in articles working together? Compared to a group of editors dedicated to undermining articles and editors and whose motivation is based on their POV and pathological hatred of the subject matter, this I consider would be infinitely worse? Now I hope I have given you some food for thought, and pointed you to some articles in desperate need of attention for you to ponder? Please take your time in answering these questions. As I know you will want to give thoughtful and considered responses to these questions? --Domer48 (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I have responded to your comments here. If you would rather keep the discussion here please let me know? --Domer48 (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I have also left a comment at User talk:Domer48#Interrogation. I am disturbed that something that began as a thank you has become so ugly. Scolaire (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Pictures on the side

I love your pictures! How do you format them to be on the side? Miranda 20:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Replied to you by e-mail, Miranda. Alice✉ 04:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Miranda 04:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

merge Q

Now that you've had some time to think about it, are you still opposed to the de facto / de jure merge? Pdbailey (talk) 21:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Would your proposal be:
  1. to have ONE article, entitled "When law and common practice differ"
  2. with three main headings of de facto, de jure and desuetude
  3. to change the current three separate eponymous articles to redirects to the relevant sections?
Would there be any technical difficulties with having redirects to sections rather than the whole (new) article? If there weren't, that would overcome my neophyte argument, but I must confess I'm still not clear on the advantages (as opposed to the lack of drawbacks) of such a merger, Paul... Alice✉ 20:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I was kind of hoping you would say you were still strongly against it and then I would drop it. But, it comes down to a view of this beast (Wikipedia) as an encyclopedia and a few things I've noticed:
  • More articles on the same topic leads to a few that are way below par and a maybe one great one that is even well maintained. Why not have all the below par ones in the great one as subsections and let them get lots of attention?
  • Many times when I look something up, I find just one of the many possible articles and it can take months for me to find either the good one or even years to find all the bad ones to redirect.
But again, I fear it's just my view of Wikipedia and that I'm not right to impose it. So since you considered this most I thought I would ask you where you stand. I'm fine with all of the above, and it will all work great as you hope. Pdbailey (talk) 14:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Again, you have given me some new perspectives to think about and deepened my respect for you, Paul.
Now you have given me a positive (editor pedagogic) rationale for making the merge.
However, may I ask you to explicitly answer each of my 3 numbered questions posed above. If the answer is a clear YES to the three numbered questions (and a NO to the subsequent un-numbered question) then I would support whatever you wish to do. Thanks again for explaining all of this patiently and rationally to me! Alice✉ 23:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with (1), I can not promise nor necessarily agree with (2) or else, why would I want to merge, and (3) is fine (as I've shown you before). Pdbailey (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

What, am I chopped liver, I've got two unanswered posts on this page. Pdbailey (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm so sorry, Paul; I was waiting for a specific "NO" answer to the "un-numbered question" "Would there be any technical difficulties with having redirects to sections rather than the whole (new) article?" since I assume that every time someone changed the sections the re-directs would fail. I seem to remember something about whojamaflicks (were they called anchors...) in articles that one can re-direct to but I've not been able to find the relevant article again, so that's my only excuse.
I trust you that it would work technically (you're a very thoughtful chap) so I withdraw my objections as it's not fair to keep you hanging on while I do the research.
If and when Domer48 answers some pertinent questions, it may be safe for me to reply to the other question. Is your e-mail enabled? Alice✉ 22:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Alice, you did see the part where I disagree with (2), making (4--implied) an uninteresting question. Pdbailey (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I did not previously read that part as you being actively opposed to having 3 separate sections that could be wikilinked to from other articles, but as you not being able to promise that there would be these sections (that's honest - since none of us can own WArts) nor necessarily agree that they are good things. If you are now saying that you are actively opposed to having appropriate sections in the merged unitary article that can be wikilinked to AND there is no technical solution, then and naturally, I would remain opposed. Does that make any kind of sense? Alice✉ 00:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I finally got the resolution I came here for then. Thx. Pdbailey (talk) 01:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Alice, that formatting was intentional. I like it (and see it often) that a merge proposal has a boxed conclusion so that it's easy to see that discussion is over and a conclusion was reached. If you have better formatting that makes it clear (like a green box or some such) that would be fine too. Pdbailey (talk) 06:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Accusations

Could you supply diffs for your second accusaton re Domer, regarding a WP:COI or retract your comments. I have asked you not to make them as they are unhelpful especially on artcles relating to the Troubles. For an editor who is cagey about there own privacy as seen by your, about you, section on your user page you are quick to throw out unsubstantiated accusations BigDunc (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

They are not accusations, they are my personal observations followed by pertinent (unanswered) questions - and they apply equally to you. And, of course, like Domer48, you are at liberty to continue to ignore both my questions and my observations. Editors are entitled to keep their personal details secret. They are not entitled to ignore our rules on conflicts of interest. This is exactly what I wrote (italicized because it's quoting my previous writing):
In this section, I can understand the contributions and rationale of Bastun, Damac, R. fiend, and Scolaire (listed in alphabetical order) but I am getting increasingly perplexed as to why BigDunc and Domer48 seem so resistant to any and every argument and cling like grim death to the exact (and, admittedly minority point of view) stance of a single non-historian."
The only other time I have seen such obduracy on Wikipedia has been when there was a conflict of interest between the partisan aims of a particular team of edit warriors and those of our Encyclopedia in presenting a balanced and unbiased summary. If you do have a particular interest (such as working for a book publisher or being aligned with a particular political party) I think that now would be a good time to declare it.
For the avoidance of doubt, I have never been affiliated to, a member of, a candidate for or donated to any political party or movement whatever and I have never been an employee of, a voluntary distributor for, had close connections with any book publisher, newspaper or magazine whatever. Are you able to say the same, BigDunc?
And before you ask, you are not obliged to answer those questions; you are obliged to read WP:COI and conform with the guidance therein.
Any pile-on comments from you or your fellow-travellers will be expunged.
I have edited on other controversial articles such as Scientology and North Korea but I do deprecate the way you ganged up on former admin R. fiend and because of that unprincipled and nitpicking and argumentative stand I want nothing more to do with you or your kind since, rightly or wrongly, (from reading many of your former edits) I have formed the opinion that you seem principally concerned to justify and excuse acts of violence and edit war with those editors who seek to introduce balancing points of view and sources. Alice✉
I can answer no I haven't to all of your questions and regarding the diffs that you have supplied, are any of these edits against wikipedia policy, if so would you not revert them and report me to an admin. Also half of these diffs are in response to an editor who under the The Troubles arbcom case has had his second months probation for edit warring. I have never been blocked for anything since I started editing wikipedia. And I would like to know how you feel I ganged up on an admin who admits to editng while high and drunk and has resigned his admin powers due to his misuse of same. BigDunc (talk) 09:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
If I have misjudged you, then you have my unreserved apology.
It was certainly helpful that you have answered - voluntarily - my questions unequivocally.
If Domer48 does the same then that would certainly clear the air.
As regards R. fiend, then I think that the comment he left on the Talk:Easter Rising page today was helpful and I may re-consider my position.
At the end of the day my opinions count for little, but I do still feel that the mechanisms of WP are currently excessively vulnerable to gangs of editors with a harmonised political or religious viewpoint and a zealot outlook.
Thanks for giving me pause for further reflection and perhaps I was a bit harsh in my comments above. Alice✉ 10:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Apology accepted but in my humble opinion NO editors opinion count for little that is what makes wikipedia such a great project is that every ones opinions can be aired and discussed to make this a great encyclopedia. Also Domers silence in no way means that he has a WP:COI, it is up to him to reply if he wants. BigDunc (talk) 12:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Update: Apology not warranted by recent evidence Alice✉ 05:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You can assume what you like about me all it does is make an ASS of U and ME. And an apology with conditions is not an apology. Your continued patronisation says more about you than it does me. Your own POV was clearly shown in your last reply to me. BigDunc (talk) 11:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm heartened by your recent interest in Cheesecake perhaps there is hope for you yet... Alice✉ 18:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Singapore Airlines FT

Do you participate in any frequent flyer / aviation forums on line? RomanceOfTravel (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Not under either my real name or my Wikipedia pseudonym. I'm intrigued, RomanceOfTravel; please send me an e-mail to untrigue me... Alice✉

Perspicacite and AfD

I've reported Perspicacite's behavior at WP:ANI#Civility_issue:_User:Perspicacite_at_AfD. Argyriou (talk) 06:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping me informed, Argyriou.
Since that is a page that changes with incredible rapidity, may I suggest that you replace the piped internal link you placed as a notice on the Afd page with something that will last longer than a few hours and be a little more precise?
This would do the job: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/
Incidents&oldid=186982291#Civility_issue:_User:Perspicacite_at_AfD
Until it's archived, the link I gave should work. Hopefully, whatever will happen will happen before it gets archived. Argyriou (talk) 07:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
That's precisely my interest; both ANI and the Afd will be archived and the link (preserved in Aspic) will be non-functional for anyone looking at it in the future...
Thanks again for your response. Alice✉ 07:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom

Arbcom.[10] Jose João (talk) 22:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

In case you're not sure what that meant. A request for arbitration has been filed and you have been named as a party. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Alice and feel free to comment there. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


Wally Hedrick

Dear Alice,

I did notice that you peeked into the Wally Hedrick article. Thank you..

Did you know Wally was a big Alice fan? Well, yes he was. He made a great painting of her I will find for you -- and by the way, I love 'alice' by tom waits -- Tom was a neighbor of Wally's in Northern California. Coincidence?

Anyway to the point: things are a little, well, waaaaaaay lopsided here in Wally Hedrick land. In fact, I have just been asked to give a citation to Vesuvio's bar in San Francisco during the Beat Era. This is beyond ridiculous. As an acute reader chimmed in, asking for that citation is "like asking for a citation to the address of the White House." This clearly amounts to much more than harassment...

Wally Hedrick 130 citation <-----> Jeff Koons 0 citations

I know this may be extending a courtesy with your busy schedule but I certainly could use a little evenhanded, leveling-out, back-off oversight here please if you could spare a moment...

Thank you in advance for falling down another rabbit hole...--Art4em (talk) 09:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)