User talk:Common Man

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Hi! welcome to Wikipedia!

Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful:

I hope you stick around and keep contributing to Wikipedia. Drop us a note at Wikipedia:New user log.

-- utcursch | talk to me

[edit] Nepal-stub

Dear Common Man -

I see from the changes to the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types that you have added a new stub template, listed as "Nepal-stub". There are several concerns as to this template.

  1. In the list, it apppears as a red link. This indicates that the name is not "Nepal-stub" - what is it?
  2. Since you have not (according to your user contributions) created any templates of any kind, who created nepal-stub (or whatever it is called)?
  3. Does the template have a dedicated stub category into which it feeds (an absolute requirement of stub templates)?
  4. Stub templates are normally made one week after being proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria, this allows time for debate on the need for such stubs. New templates are normally only made if they do not fall foul of the well established stub hierarchy and can be assured of reaching at least 60 (and preferably 100) currently-existingstubs. Although the new stub fits in with the new hierarchy, I would have serious doubts that it could reach 60. The request to contact WP:WSS prior to the creation of a new stub template is clearly stated at the top of many stub-related pages in the Wikipedia namespace.

If you could give answers to some of these questions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria#Nepal-stub?, we would be happy to hear your replies! Grutness...wha? 02:14, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Measure word and random pages

I have just reverted your edit of Measure word. A measure word is a part of speech, also known as a classifier and a counter word; it has nothing to do with actual physical measurement of anything, but is just a grammatical usage in some languages.

I hope this doesn't discourage you from boldly editing pages. Maybe instead of random pages, you should try focusing on topics you already know about (which might turn out to be underrepresented). --Pablo D. Flores 11:31, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, to say that an article with examples such as

  • three cups of coffee
  • four kernels of corn, three ears of corn, two bushels of corn
  • one litre of water

"has nothing to do with actual physical measurement of anything" seems to require quite a narrow view. I understand where you're coming from, but I believe that it's better to err on the side of adding, rather than removing connections. That said, my happiness does not depend on this link.

Re. your advice: We just have different ideas of what's important for Wikipedia. That's all right, Wikipedia thrives on diversity. I actually enjoy working with categories, and I believe that I tend to be (or become) good at what I enjoy. While I do appreciate contributions by specialists, I find the wider view of categories a relaxing change from work-imposed specialization. I believe that finding missing links is a valuable contribution to Wikipedia. -- Common Man 07:00, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


What I meant by "no actual measurement" is that a measure word is a class of words, not an instrument of measurement or a physical unit of measurement. The English examples are not really good at conveying the subject. In Japanese you have "measure words" to count categories such as "flat things" and "long narrow things", which don't mean anything except that the noun being counted is of a certain conventional type. What I will do is see if I can somehow cross-reference the linguistic aspects of measurement, counting, mass vs. countable nouns, etc. into the Measurement article. --Pablo D. Flores 17:59, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yangon

Hello, you may be interested in voting on whether the article Yangôn should be moved to Yangon. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 21:09, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Answer for you at Category:Fundamental

Hi there! I've got an answer for you at Category talk:Fundamental. Cheers! :-) Peter S. 19:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Help_desk#Could_someone_please_change_.7B.7BC19YearInTopic.7D.7D.3F

Hi Common Man.

I had a look at your request, but I am hesitant to change the template because it's not clear to me that individual pages for US history even exist. I couldn't find any page like YYYY in the United States. So I think probably the link should be removed all together!

Basically I think it's only worth including something if the page/s already exist. They don't ALL have to exist, but inserting 100 new redlinks doesn't seem like a smart idea to me.

Anyway I suggest you make a comment on the template's Talk page, and/or bring it up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Years. They seem to like this kind of stuff.

HTH, pfctdayelise 02:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to reply. Strange that you couldn't find any. There are more than a dozen pages, such as 1828 in the United States. Anyway, thanks for the link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Years; I wasn't aware of it and I'll check it out. Common Man 04:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
There are about exactly a dozen -- seeCategory:Years in the United States (for some reason some are mistakenly made as subcats rather than simply in the category). Not exactly what you'd expect when Category:Years in Australia has over 70 articles!! I just suspect US history pages haven't been in this single format, until now; these Category:United States history timelines seem more common. Anyway no worries, have fun with the wikiproject! pfctdayelise 05:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I know, because I created them. A dozen for US and then some for UK. So, could you please do the changes for US and UK? Thanks! Common Man 07:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
(BTW, you should post replied on my talk page, since I wouldn't have yours on my watchlist unless you asked me to) Do what changes exactly? Make 50 articles?? No thanks! :)
I actually came to reply to your latest comment on WP:HD. (After a few days it's pretty easy for a conversation to get more or less lost, so at that stage I figure it's easier to switch to talk pages) As for your idea of getting rid of the cleanup categories, I would definitely air ideas about that before going ahead and implementing it. It's been part of the system for a while now, and people may be resistant to changing it for no other reason than that. You should bring it up somewhere where people interested will see (ie, not the help desk)... try Wikipedia talk:Cleanup. pfctdayelise 07:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Replied on User_talk:Pfctdayelise#Thanks for your replies and helpful links

[edit] Polyamory

Thanks :-) I've been unhappy with that section for ages (I think I wrote the previous version too, or most of it) but it took a while to figure out how to express it better. --Calair 12:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop the bot!

This is ridiculous! I don't know how to find out who tagged the image since it apparently has been permanently deleted. But it seems unlikely that a human would do so, since nobody in their right mind would assume there's a copyright on a place name in local writing. Common Man 04:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It was tagged by User:Dbenbenn on October 7. It's quite believable that such an image could be copyrighted, since many writing styles are art forms in and of themselves. I'd suggest making a replacement, or better still, typing in the replacement using Unicode characters. --Carnildo 07:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I guess you're right. I feel a bit like someone who just pulled the emergency break for nothing. But the image of a bot running amok just scared me. A pity, though, that the record of why the imaged was tagged seems to be lost with the deletion. Or isn't it? Common Man 18:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Also left a note at User talk:Carnildo#Orphan Bot - Burmese writing issue with a detail question. Common Man 19:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't remember the image, but its description page was blank before I tagged it as {{no source}}. Also, OrphanBot didn't delete the image; User:JesseW did. dbenbenn | talk 18:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick answer! Hmm, so my fear of a bot running amok may not be so far-fetched: A user notices that there is no source and tags it. The bot then just assumes that means that it's a copyvio and orphans it. The next user assumes that the bot must have had a reason and deletes it. Not a nice scenario, is it? Common Man 19:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Wrong. When OrphanBot orphaned the image, it edited the image description page with a note that it had done so, and a list of the pages the image was removed from. Furthermore, a few months ago Jimbo Wales decreed that images with unknown source must be deleted after a week [1]. dbenbenn | talk 00:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I see - I didn't know about Jimbo's decree. That explains a lot. But what do you mean by "Wrong"? What part of my scenario is wrong (other than the unnecessary "X assumes Y" parts)? (I moved the better part of this discussion to User talk:Carnildo#Orphan Bot - Burmese writing issue.) Common Man 00:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, the bot doesn't assume that no source tag implies copyvio. I guess one purpose of OrphanBot is that, when it removes a picture from an article, that will show up on lots of people's watchlists. Then, if the "no source" tag is incorrect, someone can go to the image and fix it. dbenbenn | talk 00:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Humbly acknowledged. The anthropomorphous "assumes" part was silly. Common Man 00:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thames sailing barges

Hi, nowt on talk page yet - or am I just being a bit quick off the mark? Actually I'm about to turn in: suggest you dump the offending sentence on the Talk page and let's sort it from there (unless you've already resolved it). Nigh' night JackyR 02:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Yep, you're just too fast for me. I guess you won this 'Match'. Cheers, Common Man 02:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Howdy. I've been mucking around with this page again, introducing headings and trying to lessen the amount it jumps around. Do you fancy taking a look at the result and seeing if it makes sense? JackyR 02:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It's beautiful now! Sorting the text into sections makes it much more readable, and I noticed you could eliminate some duplicate text this way. Once the remaining problems (see talk:Thames sailing barge) are either explained or removed, I would support its nomination for featured article. Common Man 20:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, an earlier contributor called Boatman is still active, so I've directed his attention to the Talk page. Perhaps he can answer our Qs. :-) JackyR 22:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Overlinking in YearInTopic templates

You make a good point about overlinking - I'll remove the excess links. Warofdreams talk 10:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abramoff, religion, etc.

You wrote:

I completely agree with Stolencdz: It certainly shouldn't be in the introduction. Also, Sholom's change was necessary and a clear improvement. Some time ago, I also had made a related change [21] and my rationale was thus: The distinction I make is what I may call "inward" and "outward" religion. I can't look into other people's heart, so, as a rule, the question how religious they are is none of my business, and does certainly not belong in an encyclopedia. That is inward religion. Wearing a yarmulke, a burqa, a rumāl or a "Jesus Loves you" badge are outward signs, and there's nothing wrong with noting them. I found it an interesting tidbit that Abramoff chose to remove the outward sign.

I just wanted to say that I'm impressed that while you on some level disagreed with my edit, you noted it was an improvement.

As far as "inner" and "outer" signs go, I tend to agree with you. But, in actuality, wearing a yarmulke is a more complicated situation. For some, it's a religious obligation that comes with exceptions that ought to be discussed with one's rabbi. Sen Joe Liberman, e.g., afaik, discussed with his rabbi about this issue, and concluded that he might alienate his own constituents and/or send a mixed message, when he wanted to send the message that he represents all the citizens of Connecticut. There are other reasons one might remove one: e.g., if one enters a non-kosher restaurant for legitimate purposes and doesn't want to mislead anyone else that it is proper for a kosher-keeping person to eat there.

And so it may be with Abramoff. I know, for a fact, that he did not remove his yarmulke permanently. In many pictures, actually, one can't tell if he's wearing one or not. And, of course, in the famous pictures of him leaving court, on back to back days, in DC and Florida, he's wearing a hat.

So, I removed it, quite simply, because unless there is a lot more information out there, we just don't know when he wore one, when he didn't, and why he made the decisions that he did.

I hope that helps!

(I figured this was too long to include in the Abramoff:talk page)

Sholom 20:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your very thoughtful reply and your detailed explanation. I agree that this is a very complicated matter, which certainly would go far beyond what is appropriate on the Abramoff page. I stand behind your removal because we need to cut it off somewhere.
Ideally, from an encyclopedic point of view, the best cut-off point would be to keep just a short mention in the article and discuss the rest in the Yarmulke article, where the considerations you mentioned are more likely to be discussed in a considerate forum.
However, there are a two catches: (1) My assumption was that the yarmulke was (marginally) worth mentioning. It turns out, there is no agreement about this, and (2) this is hard to discuss – it leads to extreme emotional polarization. So I agree that simply removing it altogether was the best in the situation. By sacrificing the encyclopedic ideal in one arguable instance we gain the serenity we need to create a good article and to focus on the bigger picture. (Funny, how this mirrors the case in point!)
BTW, when I cited Howrealisreal, I avoided something else that would have been too long for the talk page. His quote begins with "The real question that I think you guys should be asking is: why Abramoff? ..." I left this out because I wanted to avoid further polarization, and one possible explanation is certainly "because he is Jewish". There need not be a single explanation – in fact, there are others. My favorite so far is "because he treated the people that fed him with disrespect". I wish people would learn at least that lesson - that would make the world a better place. Common Man 00:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
"Funny how this mirrors the case in point"! Indeed! Very insightful. I enjoy your comments above. Sholom 14:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures in year articles (esp. 1829)

This was a reply to my request

I'm sorry if you felt my removing the picture was rash. There were TWO reasons for removing it. The first (and most important, in my view) was the article was not served by having a picture in it - the fact that he became US President is listed, and if you want to see his picture then visit the link. Why should any "year" article be served by pictures that can be seen in other articles and just add to the size of the article? And who chooses the pictures that "represent" any one year? If someone wants an illustration for one of the listed articles, then they should use the link. The second, and more minor, was that the picture was captioned without reference to him being a U.S. President, which is why I thought it was U.S.-centric. I see that you've added other pictures to other years. I'm very tempted to remove them, too. Stephenb (Talk) 13:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's discuss your first point on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years. I'll answer your first question there. As to your second question "And who chooses the pictures that "represent" any one year?": I'm amazed you would ask such a question. You know Wikipedia as well as I do – you know how any content on Wikipedia is chosen. See Who is responsible for the articles on Wikipedia?.
You're amazed? Wikipedia is such a large place - no-one can know of all of the projects, nor pages. Thanks for pointing this one out. I was genuinely unaware of it. "I know Wikipedia as well as you do"? Why on earth do you assume that? Stephenb (Talk) 11:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
As to your second point: I agree, it can't hurt to add "U.S.". (I just understood "president" to be a title.) But that's no reason to revert the whole edit, accusing someone of "US-centrism" who has a track record of cleaning up just that.
As I pointed out, that WASN'T the reason to revert the edit. It was a comment on the reversion. Stephenb (Talk) 11:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Re "I'm very tempted to remove them, too.": This is a threat I can do without, and it makes your statement "I'm sorry" appear a mere lip service. I really respect you for your hard RC patrol work. But please don't let that harden you towards other well-intended editors. Common Man 19:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I would have appreciated all this more if you'd replied on MY talk page, instead of finding this here today. My apology was not "lip service". I appreciate your edit was well-intentioned - please accept that mine was too. I was not threatening you, just stating my thoughts about pictures on articles. I still disagree with them, though never reverted any others. I was unaware that there had been any vote to put them in (or of the project, until today) - it might have helped when you added to my talk page something about these, instead of accusing me (rather rudely, I thought) of acting rashly. I left the article alone after the single reversion (and other articles too) as I didn't want to get into an argument about it - if there was a consensus elsewhere to add pictures, I wasn't going to be a lone voice aagainst it (but then as I say, I was unaware of any vote or project). I was, in all this, merely innocently making an edit just as thousands do, making a judgement call on the necessary content of an article. I don't appreciate the accusation of "bullying" elsewhere, which I have replied to. Stephenb (Talk) 11:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't see what your problem is. I did write on your talk page in the first place, but then you carried the conversation here. Please make up your mind where you want the conversation to take place. I also replied elsewhere and I'll be fine with consolidating the conversation at any place you see fit, but I actually would prefer to just move on - I'm getting tired of this. Common Man 17:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Please make up your mind where you want the conversation to take place - I was under the impression that it was common practice (and polite) to reply on the other user's talk page, to save that user from monitoring all of the conversations they may be having. I have no interest in carrying on this conversation either - I was merely annoyed at your claim that I was "bullying" and your general attitude, which is not one of good faith or courtesy, which I find at best unhelpful. I can't claim I'm not partly to blame (though mostly through ignorance/inexperience) so I suggest we both leave it here. Stephenb (Talk) 17:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you - I agree, we both made mistakes. As to the location, I guess there are different ideals. I, for one, prefer if a conversation is consistent, and I keep a user's talk page on my watchlist until they edit it. But I'll reply on your talk page this time. See you there! Common Man 17:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, I apologise if you thought I called you US-centric - this was only in relation to the edit in question, and I was unaware of the many other valuable contributions you have made to Wikipedia. Let us learn from this and not blow up over two minor edits both made in good faith into such a set of presumed accusations (on both sides) again! As for watching my talk page: I wouldn't - I rarely talk to myself :-) Stephenb (Talk) 08:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm glad we both learned from the experience and end up agreeing with each other. Have fun on Wikipedia! Common Man 15:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jim Ellis

_ _ You wrote me:

Thank you for your compliment in your edit description, but I'm sorry to say that I'm not happy with your change. In particular, I don't see why you created a new article for "Jim Ellis (politics)". Now this is a name no one ever called him! By contrast, "James W. Ellis" is at least used in some cases. Now we have a handful of links that all point to the redirect page. (Unless you're already working on that.) My apologies if there is a policy that articles should follow this format of which I'm just not aware. Common Man 22:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

_ _ [Chuckle] I take your point! But yes, that's called a disambiguated article title, and the refs in yr welcome msg will lead you to much more information on Dabs than you want! (I work on the Dab pages much more often than on the titles, so my personal favorite is WP:MoS (dabs), which should (also) lead you to articles more relevant to this case.)
_ _ Either the JWE lk, or entering

James W. Ellis

via the search pane & Go button, will take those who use it almost seamlessly to the article; the premise is that on the other hand

Jim Ellis

is just too ambiguous to avoid the admittedly slightly obnoxious Dab page, but that burden is not something we can eliminate (until workstations support brain-wave analyzers as data entry devices!): it's a problem built into human culture by failure to design itself as carefully as that of The Dispossessed did.
_ _ I indeed misinterpreted your initial configuration of Jim rdr'g to JWE: it meant to me two things: that you thot the full name was more common, and that you thot Jim Ellis is predominantly a reference to JWE; i accepted the first at face value but severly doubted the second on the basis of my interpretation of the first.
_ _ It seems to me i stumbled on JWE bcz the name Jim Ellis had already appeared as a rd lk on LoPbN, and your rdr made it blue. Looking for his nat'ty, vit-stats, or occupation, i followed the lk & rdr to JWE, which made it clear that there was a "collision" between the two uses of the name. (Off-hand i don't recall which of the other two Jims was on LoPbN, but i probably found the other in the process of getting enough info on the LoPbN one to make me sure he was different from JWE.) We get used to being surprised here by what is obvious to one of us and not to others; the process of getting on the same page is not an efficient one, but many eyeballs is how WP works, and it is inherantly inefficient -- something like evolution.
_ _ BTW, there's Category:Disambiguation which offers 200 easily accessible Dab pages starting with "A", and a lot of less accessible but more representative ones; you'll see that they aren't just for people. IIRC i started either Battery or Battery (disambiguation) a Wiki-eon ago.
_ _ You added

- and it even doesn't distinguish him from the other activist

which is a valid and constructive complaint. You may already be able to do a better job on distinguishing them than i, and i encourage you to try. That has two aspects:

  1. The title of his article, and
  2. The description on the Dab page Jim Ellis.

If you do, be sure to read the two project pages pointed to by Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Be precise when necessary as to the first and WP:MoS (dabs) as to the second. (As to the second, also bear in mind that that page has only been in existence for about 1/10 of the life of the project, and the errors it was drawn up to address still carry a lot of weight of tradition in many editor's minds, and have not be very widely reflected in the content of the body of Dab pages. The relevant executive summary IMO is

Article pages invite the impression that every additional detail and every additional lk is a step forward, but with Dab pages, less is more bcz they have only one job: to get a user to an article that almost could have carried the Dab page's title, with the least reading, distraction, or other delay.

)
_ _ Finally, with some hesitation, i'll mention that "Jim Ellis" is not out of the question as a new title for the JWE article. If he is of sufficiently higher notability (no standard for this that i know of!) than the other two combined, Jim Ellis (disambiguation) could become the new name of the Dab page, and Jim Ellis the new name of the JWE article, which would then have a top-of-page Dab, i.e. would begin with something like

This is about the Republican activist; for others so named, see Jim Ellis (disambiguation).

My hesitation is about editors tending to be sure that the originator of one of the colliding articles is often sure, or perceived as being sure, that "theirs" is the predominant article in this sense. You may want to consider backing off before strongly advocating for the move and ToP Dab, even after you are sure you've got good reasons to call for it, until you've got a bigger track record here -- though you are already far from being a blatant newbie IMO.
_ _ Please excuse my interminable wordiness; if i gave priority to avoiding it, you'd never hear back from me. [blush]
--Jerzy•t 00:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles

I have been looking through the list of unwatched pages (available only to administrators) and found 1824 in the United States. I see that you recently edited this but are not watching it. You may want to go to your preferences and under the "editing" tab turn on "Add pages you edit to your watchlist". This will enable you to keep an eye out for any edits that are made to pages you create and help to revert vandalism. If you do decide to turn it on can you please drop me a note on my talk page so I can cut down my excessive watchlist. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

If you look on the left there is the link to Recent changes. There are several editors that spend a lot of time going through this and reveting vandalism. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 14:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] empirical values for wealth distribution

Since Vilfredo Pareto came up with the Pareto distribution while measuring economic inequality I would like to know which values have been empirically found to best fit reality (maybe for selected countries). I am also not clear what is meant by "embodies": Which index leads to the 80/20 rule? A table with the index and the corresponding percentages would be nice. Common Man 02:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

The 80-20 rule holds if α = log4(5) (about 1.16.). Michael Hardy 17:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CSPI reference

Hi CM- CSPI is the corporate author of the document in which it tells activists that they can support their claim that alcohol advertising targets children by documenting the location and number of alcohol-related billboards found near elementary, junior high, and high schools. Of course, for many logical and methodological reasons the resulting information is totally meaningless and cannot prove the claim. Its use for that purpose would be highly misleading. This isn't a point of view but a fact known to researchers. Thanks.Enrique Perez 15:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)— Enrique Perez (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

[edit] Business ethics

No, I think "Ethically disputed business practices" is actually a very clear name, the reason I removed it, is that if you look at the article, only a small part of it is "business related". It also includes animal testing in terms of scientific research, medical research, etc., not just product testing. And yes, I think the category "Business ethics" is also out of place there, I just hadn't noticed it there. I think the title of the article is a bit misleading since, at least in the U.S., "Animal testing" usually implies testing of cosmetics and such on animals which is distinct from "Animal research", which is scientifically and medically related. In Britain, "Animal testing" seems to encompass both. Since most of the usual editors of that article appear to be British, the article is named "Animal testing". Nrets 02:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Rest of discussion is at Talk:Animal testing#Category:Ethically disputed business practices or Category:Business ethics

[edit] Redundant category?

Hi - I notice that you cut the category: ethics from Global justice. Why is ethics a 'redundant category', please? Cheers, Sam Clark 10:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC).

Sorry for being unclear. What I mean is that Global justice -> Category:Justice -> Category:Core issues in ethics -> Category: Ethics. This is how I understand the warning at the beginning of the category: {{catdiffuse}} Common Man 10:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I now see the remark "discuss large-scale changes on the talk page first". I guess I should write this on Category_talk: Ethics. Common Man 10:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see - fair enough, and thanks for explaining. Cheers, Sam Clark 10:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the thoughtful reply

I'm glad that all ended well. Best Wishes, SteveWolfer 15:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] intentional communities

I don't think Category:intentional communities is right for either Fellowship of Reason or moral community, because according to the article titled intentional communities, such a thing is a residential community. That's not what those two articles is about. Fellowship of Reason is a congregation that gathers every Sunday; it is not a residential community. Michael Hardy 23:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for catching this. I only read Moral community, and misunderstood the remark about "living". Common Man 00:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations of sock puppetry on the Center for Science in the Public Interest page

Allegations of sock puppetry have been made against some of the accounts that have edited the Center for Science in the Public Interest page. I have instigated the wiki process for handling such allegations. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/David Justin. As someone who has contributed to the CSPI page, please add your views to the Comments section. You have up to 10 days to make comments on the allegation. Nunquam Dormio 18:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comprehensive contribution. I've requested a check user as stipulated by KiloLima though I'm not sure it's necessarily the best way forward. Nunquam Dormio 20:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
A check user Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/David Justin has shown "that Wright, Creighton, and Wise are sockpuppets". These accounts are Bryant Wright, Ralph Creighton, Stu Wise. Other suspected sock puppets are too old to check. I will keep everyone informed of progress. Nunquam Dormio 09:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI: See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/David Justin (2nd) Nunquam Dormio 13:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of pubs

As someone who has contributed to the talk page discussion on List of publications in philosophy and/or that article's previous deletion debate, I thought you might be interested in participating in its new nomination for deletion which can be found here. Thanks. - KSchutte 17:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cookies

Cookies!
Cookies!

Hello, Common Man. I just wanted to give you a plate of cookies for being a Wikipedian. I hope your Wikistress gets better! Peace, Neranei 01:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, that's yummy! Yes, chocolate always helps overcome stress! Is there any specific reason why I deserve this nice greeting? Common Man 04:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability of Ferenc Cako

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Ferenc Cako, by Carlossuarez46 (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Ferenc Cako seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Ferenc Cako, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 08:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Civility warning

For this edit. Please do not accuse me of "hypocrisy", "trying to fool" people, edit warring "stooping down" to my level, etc. I have left a comment on the discussion page about your POV edit to the article Center for Consumer Freedom‎, which is what you should have done rather than making personal attacks if you wanted to discuss or achieve a disputed edit. Please keep it on the article talk page and if you disagree use the dispute resolution mechanisms Wikipedia has provided.Wikidemo 20:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures and year pages

I saw your comments of a while back about illustrations of year pages. I think it is a most useful way of making them much more interesting and pleasing for the eye. I have done a lot of year pages in the past, mostly on nl.wiki and I have been adding a lot of pix lately. Maybe you'd find it interesting to browse through the 17th century from about nl:1600 to nl:1660 or so. But I have been putting some more in elsewhere.

Greetings nl:Gebruiker:Jcwf 75.178.179.208 00:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:DarlingtonLocomotion1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:DarlingtonLocomotion1.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) 21:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:DarlingtonLocomotion1.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:DarlingtonLocomotion1.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 03:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CfD nomination of Category:Crime objects

Category:Crime objects, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 12:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)