User talk:Dhartung/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Taurid, 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.

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Katharine Hamnett, 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.

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Bettye Lavette, 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.

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article James A. Baker (government attorney), 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.

You're nuts if you think all I've done on Wikipedia is link to my blog. Check the pages for Tom G. Palmer, libertarianism, libertarian legal theory, the Cato Institute, Non-Profits, and a host of other topics I've edited in the almost two years I've been editing Wikipedia. And I only reinserted the material after someone ELSE voted to include it. So I'm reinserting it now, and you should feel free to report it. My take on the Kills, which has been endorsed by other editors, is at least as valid and appropriate as any of the poorly-written, factually inaccurate "reviews" that are included. So, Dhartung, do waht you gotta do, big man.

Apology

Mea culpa for thinking you had removed material from the Prescott Bush Talk page -- alas the command to see the change only showed it as a deletion for the "last" change :( I do happen to feel that "allegations" will, in the long run, prove ruinous to Wiki -- vide the "allegations" regarding political oponents which have been reported in the news media.) Collect 19:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Cape Horn

Hi, I thought you might be interested to know that Cape Horn is having a peer review. Comments welcome. — Johan the Ghost _seance 23:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Postal

That was quick to get all that information up. While I was still searching you had it completed and wikified. Excellent. I love the lists, thats why I used to get a new almanac every year. Take a peak at my List of relationships with age disparity for a recent one of mine. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Plurals, companies and bands, and grammatical superciliousness

Quoth Dhartung, to joturner: Please note that in British English, group references (such as companies, or bands) are plural. Thus "Microsoft are announcing a new version of Windows very soon" is grammatically correct [....] --Dhartung | Talk 8 July 2005 06:01 (UTC)

Quoth ElectricRay: Utter hogwash. Whilst in the context of the Green Day example, there was an implied reference to the members of Green Day (i.e., a plural), meaning it did make sense to use the plural ("Green Day" the entity is abstract and can't itself be interviewed; only its members can) - and this has now been corrected to that the article mentions the members of... explicitly - using a plural formulation of a verb to refer to a singular subject, be it a company, a band, a collective, or any other single entity, whether or not it has a suggestion of collectivity about it, is flat out wrong, in British, American, or any other form of English. It's common, sure, but then so is the misuse of the apostrophe. It's still an error. -- ElectricRay 12:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry you feel so vehement about it. I feel my position on this edit is supported by sources, while yours seems supported by the strength of your emotions (six months later you come back to flame? sheesh). [1] --Dhartung | Talk 19:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, you'd be wrong on both counts. If you read the examples you have cited carefully I think you'll see that in both cases the only reason the plural form makes sense is where there is a necessary implication that the members of the collective are being talked about, not the collective itself. In Fowler's case re the Cabinet, as the text you've quoted notes, it is not possible for a single entity to be united, so it must be the members that are being impliedly spoken of - i.e., in the context "cabinet" is a plural noun, and not a reference to a single entity.

More explicitly, Laker's example states clearly "If you treat 'government' as plural, it means you're considering the individual members of the government" - that is, the members comprising the entity, not the entity itself.

Both of these comments are entirely consistent with what I have written above, and contrary to what you wrote, six months ago. At the end of the day this isn't a usage point, it's one of logic. I'm not being emotional about this - quite the contrary (to a fault, I suspect).

I'm sorry you feel aggrieved at the flame, and I realise I'm running late about it, but you were asking for it - if you're going to be a pedant, you need to make sure you're right, otherwise you've declared open season on yourself. After all, you flamed some other poor, unsuspecting (and quite correct) user in the first place.

Happy Travels --ElectricRay 23:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Prescriptivist, let me introduce you to Mr. Descriptivist. I've met your type before. "Wrong" or not, it's quite clearly the favored form in British English at this point, as a Google of several band names with the attribute "site:uk" will quickly show. I admit I used more certainty than I should have ("typically plural" would be more correct), but I did not flame in my initial comment. As I noted, the fact that you're arguing a point of grammar with me six months after I completely forgot even what article was being referenced indicates that you have strong feelings about this that are not necessarily shared. I find that odd. In the end, it's just an encyclopedia. --Dhartung | Talk 00:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

You've obviously converted from prescriptivism to descriptivism in the last six months, then? As it happens, I would generally describe myself as the latter (I fully agree that language is a dynamic thing that evolves with usage and that rules are for pedants), but when the opportunity arises to out-prescribe a prescriber, I don't miss it. Nice attempt to discreetly shift your position 180 degrees to maintain the moral high-ground, though. ElectricRay 09:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

There's no inconsistency, and you're obviously incredibly seized by this business for some unknown reason. Take a deep breath, step away from the computer, get some fresh air, dude. I don't care anymore. --Dhartung | Talk 18:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Page deletion

Revolution within the form is up for deletion. I ask for a vote to transwiki. Thanks. WHEELER 00:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Pulaski

I've been mistakenly switching references of Casimir Pulaski to Kazimierz Pułaski after merging the articles under the Polish link. I did this because there were only a handful of links to Cashimir, but many more within the English Wikipedia to Kazimierz. I added my support to moving the article to the English page after reading your policy link, and would appreciate any help or guidance in fixing references/links to Pulaski in the rest of Wikipedia. Craig R. Nielsen 21:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Gladio & stay-behind

Hi! What do you think of a merge between these two articles? It seems the only arguments given for the time being against that merge is that Swedish and Finnish stay-behind were not connected to Gladio, which is false. Users supporting these allegations, trying to defend i don't know what, seem to forget that there is not much use in putting up a stay-behind network if there are no exile base (such as London during WWII) and thus cooperation from Allied Forces (MI6 and CIA). Since you started the article, I'd like to be interested in your thought on this merge. Regards, Tazmaniacs 21:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Wafa Sultan

Good job ! Zeq 16:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Guantánamo/Guantanamo-related move/redirects

Greetings! I hope you're well. In light of prior discussion and to round out recent moves and redirects/DABs regarding Guantánamo/Guantanamo-related articles, I have proposed another ... with a twist. Please weigh in, and thanks for your co-operation! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

King Edward VII as Heir Apparent

Hi, Dan. I see that you added a note about the date when Prince Charles will surpass King Edward VII's time spent as heir apparent to the British throne. You have it as August 16, 2012 and I've calculated it as happening on April 20, 2011. I hope one of us is right! EgbertW 02:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

World Trade Center cross

I just wanted to say thanks for your attention to detail in your various touch-ups and additions to World Trade Center cross. Staxringold 22:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding 'Buttons'

No, I'm sorry, Dahrtung, that's not where I'm talking about; I'm talking about the history pages.

68.148.165.213 01:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

37 Signals

I think your effort was heroic. I have replied to your comment on the 37 Signals Afd page, I hope its clear that my comments were about the circumstances, not your efforts to save the article, which were fantastic. I think to any objective reader you come out of this better than anyone else. I wish I had your patience and calmness to just to do what the idiots ask... Davebrooky 20:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Clint Hartung

I see you've created the page Clint Hartung. Are you by any chance related to the Hondo Hurricane? Andrew Levine 23:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

No, see Talk:Clint Hartung. My ancestors immigrated to Pennsylvania before there was a Texas. There are lots of German-Americans in Texas, but they mostly came later. --Dhartung | Talk 23:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Poll of the Day

I think it would be a good idea because:

1.More people would be involved in the articles for deletion
2.It would encourage more people who log on to Wikipedia to become a member
3.Once you tally the results, we can either delete the article or not delete the article depending on what they voted for
4.It would be more fair because everybody can see it when they log on and not just the people who log on to the articles for deletion page

Ads you can see, having a poll of the day is a good idea1028 00:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure that (1) is necessary -- are there too few people "involved" right now? What effects of that are showable? For (2) I suppose that's possible, though unproven (people would register to delete an article, when they don't register now to edit them?). (3) is just a restatement of the process, not an argument, and doesn't explain how it differs from the existenting AfD system, and (4) is certainly one way of looking at it, but many things vie for Main Page attention that arguably "should" have them. I've suggested in the past that a Science Item of the Day would be cool, but didn't get many others interested. So, I suggest you go to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion and argue there for replacing the AfD process (which was just recently revised) with a wide-ranging poll. --Dhartung | Talk 03:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a Science Item too. 1028 23:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I have actually altered my opinion since last year -- now I think it would be better to have a featured portal every day or week. See Portal:Science for your featured science needs. --Dhartung | Talk 23:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Nigeria oil blast

How are the deaths of 200 people and the destruction of a major pipeline unencyclopedic? The Nigerian government has launched a special investigation. KI 00:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

If you believe so, then by all means, flesh it out into a proper article. Last time I checked it was still barely two sentences. --Dhartung | Talk 01:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Bush/River Oaks

What is your source on George H. W. Bush living in River Oaks? I see that you added it to multiple places, but unless the family has moved recently, they've lived in Tanglewood, Houston, Texas for a decade or so. I'm not sure if you're familiar with Houston, but Tanglewood is outside the 610 loop and River Oaks is inside; they are not similar or even remotely contiguous. I've corrected this in the various Bush articles and removed it from the River Oaks article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbchip (talk • contribs) 16:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I see that you're correct. Chalk it up to a misreading of a White House article and a misunderstanding of Houston geography. --Dhartung | Talk 22:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Bush family

Ah, I see. I only noticed that when removing a large mention of GHW from GWB's (I love these acronyms) intro, and I figured, being a grandfather of GHWB... but yeah, if you're making an article for the Walkers specifically, then okay. :) --Golbez 16:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Think again

I'm astonished that you're actually admitting to a violation of the guidelines. If you have been editing Wikipedia as long as you claim, then you should understand why it's a bad idea to just let people link their own material right and left (that's a libertarianism joke, son). Should we add all 500,000 Technorati references to the Kills in that article, because they're "valid" opinions? What would Wikipedia become? --Dhartung | Talk 02:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Jackson photo

(moved to Talk:Jesse Jackson, Jr.)

Lynching

Hi Dan,

I've got to go to work and am pressed for time. I had been planning to add some of what's in these articles to the piece on lycnhing. Feel free to play with it if you have time. Or I'll get to it when I can.

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/56 http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/55/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Tillman

Skywriter 11:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Stan Fox, which you recently nominated, 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.

--Cactus.man ✍ 12:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Asthamatic Kitty

Thank you for doing the merge and cleanup I suggested. I had not had time myself. RayGates 00:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On June 16, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Atlantica (trade zone), which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Your DYK nomination for Levant Company was successful

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Levant Company, which you recently nominated, 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.

Thanks for your contributions! Fixing that nom up was a great suggestion! ++Lar: t/c 19:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality of operation names

As you already helped to find a consensus at United States invasion of Panama, please take a look at the general discussions at Wikipedia:Naming conventions and Wikipedia:Words to avoid. Añoranza 01:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hamdan

I see you're also working on Hamdan. I inserted what I've done so far on the majority opinion (pages 7-25). I don't mind if you finish the majority, but can you tell me what you plan on doing (or, better yet, tell everyone here). Thanks!--Kchase02 T 00:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed ICRC move/creation

Thanks for opining at the discussion about the proposed move/creation for a new ICRC article. If you know anyone else well-versed in the area, please ask them to do the same, whether yea or ney. I've seen too many discussions reach a lack of concensus simply because not enough people chimed in, and I don't want that to happen here. If you can't spare the time for a personalized message, you can copy the second paragraph of this page as it appears and paste into people's talk pages. Thanks again. - Draeco 09:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Tallest structures vote

Hi - can I ask you what you meant by 'it should have been dropped before going to WP:RM' ? If you'll have a look over the rest of the talk page you'll see that this has to do with Wikipedia:Verifiability more than anything, and I don't think the article's goal should be to cater to general ignorance.

I do agree that the article, as it is at present, is suitable for its name - two lists: one for Paris, another for the suburbs - but its previous state was a frankly better intermixed one that was unsuitable for its "Paris-only" title. Change "Paris" to "Paris region" and the list can be joined again without any infringement of fact at all. This shouldn't be such a big deal, but the molehill is growing for sure.

Regards -- THEPROMENADER 07:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand your firmness on the policy issue, but RM operates by consensus voting, and it was clear that there was considerable pushback before the vote. If the other editors were undecided that would have been a different story. Thus, you're effectively wasting people's time. --Dhartung | Talk 07:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

You mean to say that it is possible to publish something that's not true just because several agree to? I don't stand a chance then. Anyhow, thanks for your reply. THEPROMENADER 08:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

See WP:POINT. --Dhartung | Talk 08:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see anything there that applies. I am most certainly not 'gaming' anything, and my goal was absolutely not to disrupt - it was to have a page moved to a proper namespace for reasons supported by fact, reference and reality. Since the move was 'controvertial' (oppposed by two), opening an WP:RM also opened the issue to outside view and consensus - the very purpose of WP:RM.

If your vote was based on the above protocol questions instead of the validity of my proposition, I don't find it to be particularily fair. But rules are rules. THEPROMENADER 08:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

PS: But thanks to your intervention I was reminded to look at the issue from an outside point of view - to this end I added a clarification to the discussion introduction. I forgot to mention that the list is fine where it is as it is, but it is generally agreed that it would be better as a unique list - and in this intermixed much-wider-than-Paris form, it must have a fitting namespace. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 08:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Military history of the US

Ok. Thanks for clearing that out. Esaborio 05:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't vandalize my edits

Make your comments on the Comments page, but please don't vandalize my edits. Condit's role on the House Intelligence commitee is relevant in part because no murder has been found. Also, Levy disappeared on May 1, 2001, which is spring not summer. Thank you for your cooperation.69.255.0.91 05:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

CSNI

Thanks for your changes here. I've reinstated the note on the incorrect title which IS germane to the main article, and removed the US category (the OECD and its subs are NOT US only, or even mainly). Bob aka Linuxlad 08:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Rudolph

I have no obsession. I just happen to think the reverse of what you think. Murder is the more powerful word. Murder is the wanton taking of a life, while killing can be something sanctioned like the death penalty. Killing can be an act of self-defense. His conviction is for murder. TripleH1976 12:03 p.m., 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Possible Deletion

Hi. I'm letting all the people know who have commented on Category_talk:Neoconservatives that I am considering nominating the category for deletion and would like to hear comments about the idea. Hoping to see you there, Karwynn (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Planet X conspiracy theory

I have no idea who wrote the "phaeton/Tunguska blast" material, but it wasn't me. However I don't see why my "Planet X Conspiracy theory" section constitutes original research. It is a widely held belief on the web and has caused a great deal of psychological damage. It is important enough to be discussed in that article. Serendipodous 09:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Categories: User talk archives