User talk:Gadfium/archive4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Laura Bush 2 Refactoring an old discussion 3 reply about CCB 4 The spelling thing 5 Pope John Paul II 6 Category:Botanists studying fungi 7 Images and media for deletion votes 8 RfA thanks 9 User:CDThieme 10 Barnstar! 11 Flower Photos 12 My adminship: thanks! 13 Alan Duff 14 Thanks 15 netbux 16 User:Pavel_Vozenilek 17 My RfA 18 Thank you

[edit] Laura Bush

Please don't restore tabloid innuendo to the Laura Bush article, falsely describing the First Lady that way is worthy only of an April Fool's joke. No respectable source substantiates the inferences made about the accident, viz that the First Lady deliberately killed her ex lover. So let's leave it out please. Gmyu 05:13, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't care whether she's the First Lady. I do care that someone ran a red light resulting in a death, but they were not charged. That's a major scandal, and since it involves a significant figure in public life, it's encyclopedic.-gadfium 05:43, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Refactoring an old discussion

I've been so bold as to refactor the comments you made way back on User talk:JRM/Countdown deletion. I'm thinking of reviving this proposal, in a new form, and I'd like the new talk page to be a refactoring zone. However, I'm aware this goes against de facto Wikiquette and I can't retroactively instate it, so if you find you don't agree with my edits, please feel free to replace them with something better. JRM 15:51, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

No problem.-gadfium 18:45, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] reply about CCB

I created that Clunky Cartridge Button article to state information about some defects that it causes on NES games and what effects it causes. I played NES when I was really little, and we have undergone some problems that we remember it having. I just thought that the notorius pop-in button would be worth making an article about due to the notorius defects it has. Even with a VfD article, I still have good intentions for Wikipedia. --TheSamurai 23:59, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The spelling thing

Thanks a lot for reverting John Dee; I missed the fact that it was in a book title.

PS: If I were to spell Shakespeare's works instead of math, I would be in big trouble. :) Oleg Alexandrov 01:26, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pope John Paul II

The Vatican Secretary of State has already called Pope John Paul II, John Paul the Great. the Knights of Columbus is calling him, the Great. http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/world/11303527.htm

Please see http://www.kofc.org/ as well. Thank you.

It's easy to heap praise on someone just after they die. Wait a while, and then see what history's assessment is.-gadfium 01:55, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Botanists studying fungi

Yes, that was a cock-up of mine. The cause was the current split between Category:Mycology and Category:Fungi. I too prefer the former - however, before doing anything about, please be aware that (1) I was using data from IPNI and I have some doubts over its reliability (e.g. occasionally the article talked about him as studying algae but IPNI didn't list him as such), (2) currently mycologists lists mainly devout mycologists, whereas a lot of people in the current category were mainly interested in e.g. algae but apparently did enough mycology on the side for IPNI to list that as an "area of interest", (3) there is a strong chance that my cat scheme will be reverted anyway and if so I wouldn't want the original category to get lost in the process.

I am not an expert on botany. My main hope was to deal with a conflict between a group of users who wanted to categorise by nationality and another who wanted all botanists to be listed in one place. What I have created is a situation where all major botanists that I found in Category:Botanists are now listed in Category:Botanists with author abbreviations and also under List of botanists by author abbreviation. That involved actually looking up each botanist in the list in IPNI, finding their author abbreviation (a few, mainly "tele-botanists", hobbyists and pre-Linnaeans didn't seem to have one - I put the pre-Linnaeans into their own category to avoid cluttering up the main category), putting their author abbreviation into their article, putting them into the "with abbreviation" category and also putting them on the list; then recategorising them by nationality and I also made an attempt with some of them to categorise by location of research. While I was doing this I noticed that IPNI listed the fields of interest and thought: well, if I'm going to look every botanist up in here, then I might as well do a little data mining! Hence all the "Botanists studying..." were born. It may well only be a temporary measure but I thought it is pretty neat that when browsing a category e.g. Algae you can jump to people who studied algae.

Seeing as you know more than me about this, I could actually do with a little advice: (1) Do you think the IPNI information should be regarded as enough to merge Category:botanists studying fungi into Category:Mycologists under the title of the latter? (2) Can you think of equivalent short names for the other categories e.g. Category:botanists studying ferns? At the moment the "Botanists studying..." clutters up the bottom of the article pages.

My current thoughts are to use: Category:Algologists, Category:Lichenologists, Category:Pteridologists, Category:Bryologists and Category:Paleobotanists. I am considering having Category:Botanists studying spermatophytes deleted because it doesn't appear to represent a genuine field in its own right. Am I correct in that synopsis?VivaEmilyDavies 18:36, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(3) Could you think of a better way to phrase e.g. "Category:Botanists active in Australia" and others? I actually put in there a lot of botanists who worked in Europe, but dealing with material brought back from Australia. Would "Category:Botanists of Australian flora" be an improvement? Can you think of any better ideas? Thanks! VivaEmilyDavies 14:12, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in this area either. I just happened to write a few short biographies of botanists, and saw that one had been recategorised. You could try asking User:Onco p53 for advice; this is more his area.-gadfium 20:11, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Images and media for deletion votes

• I am contacting people who previously helped to vote to delete a generally objectionable photograph by a vote of 88 to 21, and who might be unaware that immediately after that image was voted to be deleted someone posted another which was very similar in content. My objections to this, and the previous image that was voted to be deleted might be based upon reasons far different from any that you have, but I do object to it, and consider the posting of such images to be acts of asinine stupidity, which burdens the project and its major educational aims in ways that they should not be burdened, and can be extremely detrimental to the acceptance and growth of WIkipedia's use and influence. Thus far those who I believe to be in the extreme minority of Wikipedians who would like to include these images, many who have been channeled to the voting page from the article with which it is associated have dominated the voting, 23 to 12 (as of the time that I composed this message). I would like to be somewhat instrumental in shedding a bit more light upon the issue, and if possible, helping to turn the tide against its inclusion. It might also be necessary to begin making an effort to establish an explicit Wikipedia policy against explicite photographic depictions of humans engaged in erotic, auto-erotic, or quasi-erotic activities. To my limited knowledge such images have not been accepted as appropriate anywhere else within this project, and frankly I can agree with those who are casually labeled prudes for opposing their inclusion, that they should not be. Vitally important information that might be unwelcome by some is one thing that should never be deleted, but un-needed images that can eventually prevent or impede many thousands or millions of people from gaining access to the great mass of truly important information that Wikipedia provides is quite another. There are vitally important distinctions to be made. Whatever your reasons, or final decisions upon the matter, I am appealing for more input on the voting that is occurring at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion ~ Achilles † 21:23, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks

Thank you for the vote at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Henrygb2. It has made my week. --Henrygb 01:56, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting my nomination too --nixie 11:53, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:CDThieme

Last month you helped me with a malfeasant stalker who was fooling around with my user page. I just got online for the first time in several days (away on business, internet access opportunities are few and far between), and I noticed one of the articles I work on was edited by a User:CDThieme who is probably that vandal from last month who was harassing me and screwing around with my user page, and now has decided to start a userpage based on one of my personal e-mail addresses. I sincerely doubt there are two CDThieme's operating on WP and I take considerable umbrage if this little bug has misappropriated my name for dubious and mischievious purposes. He/She seems to be focused on articles dealing with homosexuality, in what I think is an attempt at bringing discredit or to slander me or my work (through association, an attack which seems to work in professional fora). I'd like you to keep an eye on him/her, and I hope that if it is truly a malfeasant stalker something can be done to stop the attempts of this person if he/she is involved in mischief during my absence. I have my suspicions on who this individual is in real life. Unfortunately the IP trail stops cold at a mass-ISP in Chicago. Is there anyway I can force him/her to change his/her name. Thanks in advance. (Last note: It may take me several days until I can read your response to this posting.) —ExplorerCDT 21:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I doubt that there's anything I can do, since it appears that User:CDThieme is making productive edits. That their user name is similar or identical to the user name you use in an email address may be coincidental; and while they do seem to have a focus on gay-related articles, that doesn't make them mischievous. There's no obvious connection between this user and the user page vandal of a month ago. If you have a home page associated with your email address, you might like to put a disclaimer on it that you are not the only person on the web using that name.

I'm aware that I'm not the only person on the internet to use the name "gadfium", but I have no reason to believe that anyone else who has adopted this name has done so to spite me.

If you want to take this further, you can ask a developer (User talk:Tim Starling) to investigate whether User:CDThieme has a similar IP address to last month's vandal.-gadfium 22:40, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Thank you for your suggestions, I will be contacting Tim to proceed with an investigation. —ExplorerCDT 23:37, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar!

Hey, thanks SO much for the Barnstar! I had a couple of old user pages deleted and I lost my others. I greatly appreciate it. Have a great weekend!! - Lucky 6.9 20:22, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Flower Photos

Thanks so much for identifying my photos. --Fir0002 08:56, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My adminship: thanks!

Hi Gadfium. Thanks very much for your vote for my RfA. I promise to be prudent, wise, sagacious and totally unilateral in all my admin affairs. I should say that I am very pleased at the number of people who supported me – it's very nice to know I'm making a positive impact. Cheers again, Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 20:57, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alan Duff

Thanks for adding to this article! I am from Canada and saw Once Were Warriors on Showcase a few years ago, and was really impressed. I just recently started reading the book, as I had a hard time finding it and by luck found it at Value Village (a thrift shop) one day. I wanted to find more info on the author, so naturally I checked WikiPedia first, but was shocked to find to entry... --Mista-X 04:42, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I haven't actually seen the movie myself; it appears to be too violent for my taste. I might read the book sometime; I'm sure it's readily available in my local public library.-gadfium 04:52, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the note you left on my talk page. I think you may have overstated my intentions (although not my wishes) a little, but I agree that it would be valuable. As yet, I haven't actually found any other list of candidates equivalent to the one we're building here at Wikipedia, so I'm hoping that it will actually be visited by people other than regular Wikipedia-users. Of course, Wikipedia isn't intended to be some sort of online database for New Zealand politics, but I believe that articles about significant candidates fall well within the aims of the project. -- Vardion 01:14, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] netbux

Please reconsider your vote to delete the article Netbux, which has been re-written to incorporate verifyable information and statistics, some links and references etc... Your delete vote reflects your attitute to the previous version of the page, but I am sure your vote will be to keep the current version. I apologise for the referrals - i got a 24hr ban for that but i will not do it again. Thanks. THE KING 08:29, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I still don't think this article is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. I suggest you move on and find another topic where you can contribute to this encyclopedia.-gadfium 20:03, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Pavel_Vozenilek

You asked Pavel if he wanted to be nominated for adminship, and he accepted, but you didn't go ahead with the nomination. Did it slip your mind? I'll support the nomination.-gadfium 02:56, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I performed the nomination. The only reason I hadn't done it sooner is that I wasn't certain whether Pavel's ambiguously worded followup to my question was an acceptance or not. Firebug 04:27, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Thanks for supporting my successful RfA. I will do my best to live up to the responsibility and your trust. --khaosworks 07:07, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Hello, Gadfium. Thanks for your vote at my adminship nomination. I appreciate the support. Cheers! — Trilobite (Talk) 13:30, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes and thank you for catching my typo. BrokenSegue 02:06, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)