User talk:Iceflow/archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Archive 1

Created 15.05 UTC, 29th January 2006

[edit] Java

Hi. Please disambiguate "Java" on your user page. For example, Java. Thanks. RedWolf 00:50, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Arbcomm suffrage

You've picked the wrong place to ask that question, as I don't make the rules. I just try to make sure both sides follow whatever rules have been agreed upon. The undeniable fact is that people will try to cheat by using multiple accounts, and the rules exist to reduce this, although it can never be fully prevented. No personal offense should be taken. Regards. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 20:05, Jan. 10, 2006

[edit] do not edit this page

you could always use a personal sandbox as in User:Tmalmjursson/sandbox to finish your translation and then merging it back to the article 132.248.196.4 00:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] tapu

Hi. I gather you re-inserted the note on tapu (as probably borrowed from Tongan tabu), minutes after I removed it. Very shortly afterwards Limegreen corrected it. There has been some rapid cross-editing here!

Your note in the history says "Useful information removed". In fact, I removed it because it was not useful - it was wrong. I intended to explain my action on the discussion page, but domestic circumstances interrupted. Māori and Tongan are both Polynesian languages, and even though they are remote from each other on the Polynesian family tree, they still share a lot of common inherited features, especially in vocabulary. The word tapu is widely attested, including the form kapu in Hawai'ian, which is very close to Māori. Tapu is a deeply grounded concept in the traditional Māori world view, and not something borrowed from outside. It touches almost every area of life. No one with specialist knowledge in Polynesian languages and culture would have assumed a borrowing here.

Cheers—Neil Copeland

[edit] Re: Spurious Edits (From Chubdub)

Care to explain how my edits are "spurious"? I attempted to revert back to the original edits of the Paid in Full article to avoid confrontation..........but I think a album stub needs to be insterted--Chubdub 03:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

There is absolutely no need to apologize. I have done my share of editing wars and have not completely followed the rules of the site as a I should. With that said, however, I ask of you if I can resume editing the "Paid in Full" article, since it is a album stub and is in need of attnetion............

Thanks :-) I would also like to know if it's proper for certain articles to contain "opinioned" remarks from musical artists. I am asking you this in fear that I may make a certain article seem bias and not from a Neutral POV.--chub 17:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew Vassar vandalism

Look through the article history, and you'll see that you protected the wrong version of the article -- can you lock it now? Thanks. -- TrinityC 06:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Corrected, TrinityC, and thank you. Job done - Thor Malmjursson 06:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Note - the barnstar you awarded to User:Trinity C was most likely intended for User:TrinityC. The former is a vandal account made to impersonate TrinityC. I didn't move it, but perhaps the real TrinityC might enjoy it more (especially since the vandal is indef blocked anyhow ;) ). In an unrelated note, but to avoid two different edits... I removed the sprotect notice from your Userpage. The page was not actually protected, as the template is just a notice. Only an administrator can actually apply page protection. Thanks! --Syrthiss 21:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Introduction

Hi. You reverted an edit on Wikipedia:Introduction thinking it was vandalism, but this edit was in the bottom area intended specifically to encourage new users to experiment with editing. Lambiam 07:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Nah, we all make mistakes. Don't give up the good fight, just give yourself a break every now and then. Lambiam 07:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re block on 68.117.39.165

Hi Thor, thanks for your question, I would not be prepared to impose an indefinite ban for this anon on this occasion. Looking back on the overall contributions, I will extend the ban to one week, as the two previous blocks were for 48 and 24 hours respectively, should the anon decide to continue to vandalise after that, I would then consider much longer. --Alf melmac 19:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KDE

Hello,

I reformulate the paragraph on KDE usability. My main ideas was

  • to kill the KDE vs GNOME troll. If we do this we should compare them with Windows and mac osx
  • to add a reference.

However, I tink english sucks and make a lot of mistakes, so you would have to correct them.

Jmfayard

[edit] Protection request denied

Hi. I wanted to let you know that your informal request for protection of your userpage has been denied. Referring to the protection policy, we don't protect pages because they *might* become targets of vandalism. Joining CVU doesn't nessecarily mean you will be the target of vandalism reprisals. I would say just keep your userpage and talk page on your watchlist and revert vandalism if it comes, and if you find you are being targetted a lot then think whether it is worthwhile requesting protection at requests for page protection (or contact me again). Cheers! --Syrthiss 14:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] German police

Hi there. Actually, we do have articles on the Bundespolizei and Volkspolizei already, which is why I changed the link. Obviously, it's best if links point to articles in English than articles in German, but I agree that if someone would like the German articles that would be great. -- Necrothesp 11:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Electroconvulsive therapy

Thanks for your note on the talk page - the annon user has reverted yet again - I now count x6 reverts within the last 24hrs. Several (revert) edit comments have asked that they discuss in the talk page prior further re-insertion of what is stated to be POV. (the talk page already has past discussion about ECT & side-effects, so this is unilat action by the annon user.) The annon user is re-editing at a faster rate and with a huge number of references (at least these are now being stated) that I suspect no practicing doctor has the time to wade through. The original version gave considered opinions that there is no credible evidence of harm (National Institue for Health), so the quoting of large numbers of anecdotal reports is hardly fair (pretty much every patient forcibly committed to a psychiatric ward and assessed as needing forced treatment by tablet or injection also claims unfair & unecessary treatment and that they are unwell as a result of the medication which they would like stopped). Can you advicse on how to proceed (I've got as far as knowing about the 3RR and concept of a content dispute , but not what then happens next). David Ruben Talk 02:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks - I'll monitor things in the next couple days (its on my watch list), but for now I'm off to bed :-) David Ruben Talk 04:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


Hello you guys---obviously I am new to this and cannot figure out how to get onto the talk page. Why is it OK for people to take off my edits three times, but not for me to put them back on three times? I'd be glad to discuss my edits, if you could just point out which specific statements you object to, or think aren't verifiable. I am trying to deal with this by posting references, but someone keeps deleting the references! Please tell me specifically which statements you think have a POV. It's hard for me to understand how the SG report is considered NPOV since I was involved in the process of creating it, and it was not only biased in favor of ECT, but was very publicly and internationally criticized for this bias. Basically, this whole entry was purloined from the SG, so it is highly POV.

Thanks

Hello! Welcome! Sorry for the trouble. You can get onto the talk page via this clickedy click underscored link: Talk:Electroconvulsive therapy. Did you notice the row of tabs along the top of the Electroconvulsive therapy page? It should have one marked discussion. You can use that too. Kim Bruning 03:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aid needed from a Catalan Native (or Near-Native) Speaker

Hello, my name is Seb. You contacted me asking for a basic translation of the Tabaluga article from English to Catalan. I would be glad to do so, however I may not be able to get around to this until sometime in the coming week. Thank you for contacting me. User:Brownsc

I've seen you have a translator. I was going to ask you about the tag in the article Tabaluga. May be it would be better solving this problem before the translation. Anyway, if the user Brownsc can't translate it because of any reason, I will translate it when I finished the exam period. Arturo Reina| Ambaixada.

I give you my deepest apologies as I will not be able to translate the Tabaluga article. I feel bad for accepting to translate the article and then backing out. Perhaps Arturo Reina can do the translation. Apologies and all, Sebastian Brown

[edit] Tabaluga feedback

I liked how you said, then spelled, the links.

On the technical side, it sounds like there's a very slight bit of distortion in your recording. Perhaps it's the sound removal effect, but it could just be your mic. At any rate, it's not serious at all.

Also, your reading speed was nice and slow. Great job. Ckamaeleon 04:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

P.S. -- I noticed that your uploads all have the recording date appended to the end of the file. I wouldn't think you need to do that, since the Spoken Wikipedia template on pages and on the description page includes the date. I don't think there's anything that explicitly says you shouldn't/can't put the date in the filename, but it does make the filename a bit harder to read. Just a thought, there. Ckamaeleon 19:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Columbine Spoken Article

Hello, I noticed on my watchlist that you have decided to take on the Columbine massacre article. Unfortunately, another user. Ckamaeleon has already taken this article up, and is currently in the editing stages. I just wanted to let you know so that you don't start recording only to discover it has already been done, and can move on to another article that is also on the waiting list. Thanks. -- PRueda29 / Ptalk29 / Pcontribs29 14:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion,Tmalmjursson. In the future, don't forget to check the In Progress section of the project page, as well as the list of active participants. I hope you hadn't recorded much yet. Ckamaeleon 16:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: my oppose on RfR

Quote: Why can't potential rollback-ees just become admins? Adminship is no big deal, is it?

My response: Yes, I am afraid it is. I once asked in the IRC Channel about going for an RfA, someone checked how many edits I had, and I was then told that if I completed an RfA at this point, most people would laugh me off the shelf. I have about 450 or so edits, and I have been told that in order to go for an RfA, I should ideally have about 1000 to 1500. The waiting time more than anything else is the obstacle to adminship, we need something to bridge the gap in the meantime. Rollback is just what we are looking for in my opinion. Thor Malmjursson 13:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC) Talk

Yes. That's part of the problem with RFA as it is now: everyone says adminship is "no big deal", but it is treated as if it were, especially when it comes to editcount and amount of time. I am afraid that RfR is not the solution to that problem; only an overhaul of RfA is. —Wikiacc • ◊ 16:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)