User talk:Aoi
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hello Aoi, welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Drop us a note at Wikipedia:New user log so we can meet you and help you get started. If you need editing help, visit Wikipedia:How does one edit a page. For format questions, visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Isomorphic 09:10, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Blogs and Saimin
Hey! Sorry to hear about that stuff about your girlfriend on your user profile. Hmmm... I should check out your Xanga sometime. I have a blog there, too, under "StokedGFX." Anyhoo, I just finished a saimin article and thought I needed some local perspective, like yours. What do you think? Gerald Farinas 21:34, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Suggested Reading
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Matters_currently_in_Arbitration
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Libertas/Evidence
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Libertas/Proposed_decision
Note that Ollieplatt is Libertas and about a dozen other user IDs.
— Davenbelle 18:23, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not too sure about the 'pussy' reference, do you want to put it back in? Ollieplatt 10:14, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] "Roman" Catholic Church
Please revert your changes to the article on the Catholic Church back to *my* revision. For my reasoning, see the discussion in "Pope Benedict XVI" under "'Roman' Catholic Church". I think I make a good case.
Okay -- why should I "never" move an article by copying and pasting? It seemed like it worked pretty well.
[edit] Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother
hi there, yes i moved it, because apparently the rules say that she is an exception. [1].
- Past Royal Consorts are referred to by their pre-marital name or pre-marital title, not by their consort name, as without an ordinal (which they lack) it is difficult to distinguish various consorts; eg, as there have been many queen consorts called Catherine, use Catherine of Aragon not Queen Catherine. However, there has been one notable exeption. From Wikipedia: "Shortly after King George VI died of lung cancer, on February 6, 1952, Elizabeth began to be styled "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother." This style was adopted because the normal style for the widow of a King, "Queen Elizabeth," would have been too similar to the style of her elder daughter, now Queen Elizabeth II. The alternative style "The Queen Dowager" could not be used because a senior widowed Queen, Queen Mary, the widow of King George V, was still alive."
if you follow the discussions as well, you can gather that naming the article "elisabeth bowes-lyon" whatever is probably not such a wise idea, since nobody knows her under that name... Antares911 9 July 2005 00:55 (UTC)
There is no justifiable reason why the late Queen Mother is in as Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother.
- It marks a deviation from the normal naming of deceased consorts;
- It breaks Wikipedia naming conventions, which require that a royal, if not referred to by maiden name (ie, if they were the reigning monarch or are still alive) be listed by their highest title. Queen Mother was not Elizabeth's highest title. Queen Mother is a lower status than queen consort.
So calling Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon QEtheQM breaks just about all the conventions followed not just here but in royal naming generally. The only justification, and it is a slim one, is that she is only recently dead, but even that is dodgy. We have redirects to allow people to link to her by her old title of QEtheQM. If she was only a few months dead then there might be some justification for keeping her initially at her own title. But there is none for keeping her at her old title years after her death. It is amateurish and unencyclopædic, and suggests that she should get special treatment. From every conceivable angle, like other deceased consorts she should be at maiden name or maiden title by now. FearÉIREANN
Image:Animated-union-jack-01.gif SOLIDARITY WITH THE PEOPLE OF LONDON\(caint) 9 July 2005 02:03 (UTC)
I think it should. A handful of users try to sneak in 'new' policies by putting them on the naming conventions page. They hope no-one will notice and sometimes no-one does. Next thing you know, Wikipedia appears to have a policy on something and no-one has a clue where it came from. I think this is a classic example of a sneaked in 'policy'. AFAIK there was no debate on making Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon an exception to the normal rules. It sort of happened, or was done by a minority of users. Whenever I spot a new made up so-called policy appearing from nowhere I revert it until it has been agreed on with a consensus behind it. I think this was one that slipped through the net. It is a classic 'where the hell did that come from?' addition to the page. FearÉIREANNImage:Animated-union-jack-01.gif SOLIDARITY WITH THE PEOPLE OF LONDON\(caint) 9 July 2005 04:51 (UTC)
It is a very suspicious edit. It looks as though some established user went incognito to doctor the page and slip in their desired changes. In this case they weren't caught doing it. But it clearly is a set-up by an individual, not a decision taken based on a consensus on the talk page. FearÉIREANNImage:Animated-union-jack-01.gif SOLIDARITY WITH THE PEOPLE OF LONDON\(caint) 9 July 2005 04:55 (UTC)
osu aoi, no problem. in any case, i don´t think opening up this can of worms again would be wise. if you look at other consorts, such as "Princess Alice" her name has also not been reverted back to the maiden form. i agree though that it is confusing, because there seem to be exceptions everywhere. look at Marie Antoinette, who has also not reverted to her maiden name, justifiably i think, because who would know her under that? maybe we need more clearer guidelines when consorts go back to the maiden name, and when they should remain with the name they carried. if you are interested in such a discussion, let me know...
i also see you contributed some articles about Hawaiian royalty. i was thinking about some guidelines about naming that as well. i don´t understand for example, why we have european royalty under their titular names, but someone like Princess Victoria Kaiulani is listed as Victoria Kaiulani? because the kingdom of Hawaii does not exist anymore? i don´t know about this... Antares911 9 July 2005 11:35 (UTC)
- There are a tiny number of exceptions, principally Marie Antoinette, simply because she is remembered not as a consort but as an executed queen. If the revolution had not occurred and she had not died the way she did, she would just be another consort and would be treated like all other consorts (ie, reverted to maiden name). As to Princess Alice, she is less than a year dead. It is reasonable to leave her at her death name for a short time after her death (often that is done as a mark of respect for a deceased person - most cultures treat the first year as an informal mourning period usually symbolically ended with a religious ceremony and which people 'move on') but certainly after a year she will be reverted to maiden name as is normal. It probably would make sense to go though consort articles to make sure they all follow the standard academic and royal style of maiden name/maiden title. The odd article has slipped through with the wrong name. Also a small minority of people keep changing opening paragraphs to use consort title first, where it should be maiden name first, and who was the . . . link in the paragraph to consort name. FearÉIREANNImage:Animated-union-jack-01.gif SOLIDARITY WITH THE PEOPLE OF LONDON\(caint) 9 July 2005 18:05 (UTC)
Re Alice, her objective treatment (also now when she is dead) is a wife of a peer. It is different than wife of monarch. She could be under Alice, Duchess of Gloucester into eternity, and does not need revert to maiden name. 217.140.193.123 09:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Conventions generally treat royal wives like royal consorts, not least because many royal wives were part of other royal houses and so reverting allowed such details to be seen clearly.
Re the added bit to naming conventions, and the location of the Queen Mother page: both have now been changed back to the way they should have been. FearÉIREANNImage:Animated-union-jack-01.gif SOLIDARITY WITH THE PEOPLE OF LONDON\(caint) 16:52, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
hi there. rules cannot be changed unilaterally as apparently by user User:Jtdirl without having it gone thru a discussion first. please post your views first, thank you. Antares911 17:06, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
- Poor Antares seems not to have grasped that a sneak was caught and taken away. No need to listen to Antares' writings, of course Antares is now sending such to all and sundry - without any success, I predict. 217.140.193.123 17:59, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
There are certain indications that User:Antares911 edits also using some IPs, and additionally has at least two sockpuppets: User:at33 and User:Bhinneka. A careful check of facts, such as objects of interest, writing style and wording, trend of opinions and purposes, reveal that highly probably these are all products of the same person. The person in question seems to have a specific habit to sugn sometimes using other username than that which is technically in use at the moment. 217.140.193.123 21:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] regarding your comments
hi aoi, ahm I will see what else was moved via copy+paste, but I think that was the only case as far as I can remember. apart from that I´m rather busy at the moment and please remember that I have another life outside Wikipedia and the cyber-community as well. If something comes up, I will let you know. I don´t understand the latter part of your comment, "Plus, your copy and paste moves MUST be fixed and merged." (ps: please don´t leave me messages in CAPITAL letters or bold in future, I shall refrain from doing so as well) What does that mean, I mean from a technical point? What exactly needs to be fixed and merged and how is it done correctly? I don´t understand the procedure, maybe you would be so kind to elaborate...? thanks. Antares911 16:16, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
-
- thanks for your advice Aoi, I will try to follow them to the best of my capabilities. I hope that in future we can be of mutual help to each other. I appreciate you taking your time to help me out on these difficult issues. cheers. Antares911 13:01, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] thais - analogy to Hawaii
would you like to visit Talk:Manual of Style for Thailand articles#Consensus?? - another non-European case having similar pushers of titularies to headings as Hawaii royals have recently seen. 217.140.193.123 09:17, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Do you have further thoughts on the Thai non-reigning royals naming question? (Please visit again that page).
[edit] DYK
 |
Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Fort Yellowstone, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently-created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. |
[edit] Japanese emperors
Hey Aoi. Thanks for your help with the emperors. It might be better if you let me fix the double redirects though. I'm doing them in a consistent style and putting the proper diacritics in the articles, etc. Thanks! -Jefu 05:38, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. I hate double redirects as much as you do and I've been working fast and furious to get these articles right. We have now moved the first 49 emperors and fixed all double redirects. Not bad for a days work. Anyway, thanks again for you support and your help. -Jefu 10:10, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Thai MoS
Construed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Thailand-related articles)#Cast votes 217.140.193.123 10:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Naming conventions for Hawaiian Monarchs
I just took a quick glance, but your position appears to be supported. If the conflict is just with one user, then perhaps you should announce the discussion (and/or conduct a poll) to settle the issue, and list it at Wikipedia:Current surveys for greater input. --Viriditas | Talk 10:08, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- Hello there Aoi. What is this comment "your thinking on this topic is most flawed." [2], is that really necessary or has your style of writing come to the level of Arrigo/217.140.193.123 as well? Why do you not wait for me to give reasons instead of getting personal? Gryffindor 21:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- Hi there. What I meant to say is that maybe a simple "I disagree" would have sufficed as well, don't you think? In any case, it doesn't matter anymore. I have placed my comments in the discussion and that's all. mahalo.. Gryffindor 12:57, 02 Septembre 2005 (UTC)
[edit] VMI peer review
You've worked on the VMI article. I have posted the article Virginia Military Institute at Wikipedia:Peer review/Virginia Military Institute/archive1 and would appreciate your comments. Rillian 14:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] no way...
I can't believe this, thank you so much. That is the first barnstar I ever received! This is totally unexpected, I mean I'm just trying to give whatever I can... but thanks alot, I was really surprised. I know we had our disagreements earlier, but I sincerely hope we can be friends here and get along, mahalo :-) Gryffindor 13:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Hawaii edits
Hey Aoi, glad I was able to help! Your new edits look fine, I'm glad I asked for clarification. --JereKrischel 08:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Monarch
I replied to your query on my user talk page. Nicholas 13:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Wahine Volleyball
Quoting what you wrote earliar. "Also, I'm tagging this page for clean-up, as it reads horribly, is full of distracting fragments, and some rather useless information. I notice ManoaChild and others have done some work trying to improve the page. I'll try to contribute, too, unfortunately I'm too sick at the moment to do anything useful."
Believe me I'd like to fix this page, however so far the Admin on Wikipedia have been real pains, and well the page got butchered and then some by everybody's edits. I invite you to do something on this page, because I am not going to risk banning from some overzealous admin who imposed some weirdo changing standards with no basis in Wikipedia policy about no religion as vandalism.
As for the useless information.. I'd like to hear from you what you think is more useful? What kind of facts do you think should be in there? Please note, the admin deleted the pages that I made when I tried to list all the players there were ever in the program. --Masssiveego 09:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Diamond Head, Hawaii
One of the pictures on the Diamond Head, Hawaii article is up for nomination to become a featured picture! You can see the picture here. Please add a supporting vote on its nomination page here or, more specifically, here, if you feel it's worthy. Thanks for your help! Cathryn 16:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Your recent edit to Tietê River
I see you did it to fix a double redirect. But wouldn't it be easier to do this? fetofs Hello! 12:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know if there's any change in policy, but on Wikipedia:Double redirects it says to do like I said. Where does it say it's better to change redirects? You must have read it somewhere, but I don't think it was there — I can't find it. fetofs Hello! 17:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- I think you misunderstand it.
* Suppose page title A redirects to B which in turn redirects to C. * Follow a link to A. You will see a page containing: (a) the page title B; (b) a large link to C; (c) a very small notice in the corner saying "redirected from A". * Click the "A" in "redirected from A". * You will see a page containing: (a) the page title A; (b) a large link to B. * Click "Edit this page" and change B to C.
[edit] Copyright problem solved
I have sent an email to Sooslic.com administration and have received an copy of answer. They have sent a second copy on the address permissions-en@wikimedia.org. From a mail follows, that еveryone can use the source from sooslic.com, if the author placed a back link on the initial text or article. Aghochikyan 15:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:Universityofhawaiiathleticslogo.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Universityofhawaiiathleticslogo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. fuzzy510 20:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Matson.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Matson.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 14:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] February 2008
- As of right now, I cant remember or find the link, when I get back tomorrow from the Airport, Ill look through my History, as of right now, if you want you can revert my edit. NimiTize 00:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Hawaiʻi WikiProject Newsletter - Issue I - April 2008
Aloha. The April 2008 issue of the Hawaiʻi WikiProject newsletter has been published. To change your delivery options or unsubscribe, visit this link. Mahalo nui loa. WikiProject Hawaiʻi 15:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Hawaiʻi WikiProject Newsletter - Issue II - May 2008
Aloha. The May 2008 issue of the Hawaiʻi WikiProject newsletter has been published. To change your delivery options or unsubscribe, visit this link. Mahalo nui loa. WikiProject Hawaiʻi 17:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Alexanderbaldwin logo.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Alexanderbaldwin logo.gif. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Hawaiʻi WikiProject Newsletter - Issue III - June 2008
Aloha. The June 2008 issue of the Hawaiʻi WikiProject newsletter has been published. To change your delivery options or unsubscribe, visit this link. Mahalo nui loa. WikiProject Hawaiʻi 04:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
