User talk:Ideogram/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Israel apartheid activity

Well, in hopes of ending a revert/move war, I listed the poll Wikipedia talk:Central discussions/Apartheid#Poll: Rename "Israeli apartheid" article to "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" as an official Wikipedia:Requested moves poll. This stopped the revert war, but attracted many other editors to the article. Now the article is getting over 100 edits per day, and its talk page even more. There's not much progress; it's mostly churn. The level of acrimony seems to be below the level that requires administrator attention, but getting anything like convergence looks difficult. One of the interesting phenomena with this article is that it has timezone issues; it's being edited around the clock, and there's almost a daily cycle of point of view adjustments. Any ideas? --John Nagle 23:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say keep discussing it and hope that you can reach a consensus. Wikipedia encourages people to participate; the broader the eventual consensus the better. Ideogram 13:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
There's been a blowup over there. See the end of Wikipedia:Central discussions/Apartheid and the tail end of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Sigh. And for a while it looked like we were making progress. --John Nagle 22:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't know how I can help. I'm not an admin and I hesitate to get into a dispute between admins. Ideogram 22:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Good point. Thanks. --John Nagle 22:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict

Hi Ideogram, I've been away for a couple of days, but looking at the talk page it looks like things have calmed down a bit. To be honest, I would not feel comfortable entering a conflict that I've had no previous part in and taking a stance against another user. I appreciate that you have felt overwhelmed but I don't think my joining in would be particularly helpful. It looks like there's been a shift towards agreement anyway, and that's a very positive thing. Rossrs 12:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Rossrs. Yes, the conflict appears to have been resolved. Ideogram 12:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad to hear that! I sometimes think it would be so much easier to resolve things face to face - this is not exactly an easy medium for communicating. Rossrs 15:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Editors recommended actions"

This really clutters up the AfD page and serves no useful purpose that I can see. Everything below the nomination is the editors' recommended actions. Just my opinion. Fan1967 16:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was just using the template from the instructions. Ideogram 16:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Interesting, I haven't seen it before. Must be pretty old. I don't know that I've seen it used before. Most AfD's just have the nominator's comments, and then others chime in, like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megaryhmes Fan1967 16:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current events in HK and Macao

I've created June 2006 in Hong Kong and Macao and also updated Current events in Hong Kong and Macao. But it was quite a bit of work because of all the formatting. I don't think there's enough interest to upkeep current events in HK and Macau to as much detail and attention that those pages currently require. I suggest we come up with a simpler format for those pages. I'm going to comment in the Talk page of Current events in Hong Kong and Macao. We can take the discussion over there. Hong Qi Gong 16:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seems that Instantnood has reverted my changes. I commented on his talk page. Please participate in the discussion if you're interested. Hong Qi Gong 17:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:BuddhisticStatuesHK.jpg

Hi, you contacted me on my commons-page because of my photo. Thanks that you want to use my photo. Sorry dont know how/where to write you a wikimail. Can you tell me that? Where exactly do u want to credit me? Isnt my commons-name sufficient? Please reply on my commons-page --AngMo 19:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good article graphs

Cheers man. I think the graph is pretty neat myself - it's nice to see something visually rather than wade through a table of data! And it will be easy to update too - the "Easy Timeline" tool is a bit of a misnomer, but once you look at the source for the page I think anybody could update it. I just added another one in to show the "per million" statistics, which showed up something very interesting: while the proportion of Wikipedia articles that are featured is in long term decline (and not even slowing down), the proportion of "good" articles continues to climb quite rapidly. The long term decline of the featured article proportion has been commented on before, but hopefully it's just a sign that the golden standard is being continually raised higher. It's reassuring that the good article proportion (and the good article criteria are about as tough as the featured article ones were until relatively recently) is on the up. TheGrappler 23:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks... good spot! :-) Nice to see somebody else edit that page, and that it's in an easily editable form! TheGrappler 00:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the timeline tool is very cool. I'm going to play with it in some other articles too. Ideogram 00:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
It could do with better documentation perhaps; but cool nonetheless. I've been doing things like sticking timelines into biographies. TheGrappler 05:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Where is this timeline tool? And would someone like to apply it to Timeline of Chicago history, which has a timeline garbaged by bad CSS absolute positioning? Thanks. --John Nagle 05:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
You can read the (sparse) documentation here. Two simple examples are on my user page User:Ideogram and at Wikipedia:Good articles/Statistics. Ideogram 05:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prod

Howdy - just wanted to make sure you are aware of the Proposed Deletion process available at WP:PROD. I noticed some of the articles you sent to AfD are pretty much non-controversial and likely could be deleted using this process. You just place the tag on the page and it is automatically deleted after a few days if no one contests it. Easier than AfD! --Aguerriero (talk) 18:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. --Ideogram 18:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia conventions

Wondered if you had seen the questions I posted at the bottom of User_talk:Jpaulm - not sure if you still had it on your watchlist, or were just busy... Jpaulm 19:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I try to prune my watchlist, so if you want my attention you should post here. --Ideogram 19:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Great! 'Nother question: what is the difference between References and External Links - subhead Articles (this convention is used in Service-oriented_architecture)? I have added one article in the latter section of Flow-based programming - do I have the format right? TIA Jpaulm 14:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
References would be any background reading material helpful for understanding the article. External links would be anything else that is on a web page. Your format looks fine. --Ideogram 15:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, "References" should be material that was actually used as a reference in constructing the article. Some editors include a "Further reading" section for other useful reading material. Guidance on "External links" can be found here. --Allan McInnes (talk) 17:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, guys!Jpaulm 19:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Another handy resource I forgot to mention before: Wikipedia:Guide to layout#Standard appendices discusses the standard section headings (references, further reading etc.), what should appear in them, and what order they should be in. --Allan McInnes (talk) 19:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regional Municipality of Peel, Ontario

Thanks!!! though I doubt that anything drastic will happen. This has been very low key. :) Cheers!Eagle talk 08:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the edit

I appreciate your obfuscation of my email address. SteveWolfer 18:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User notice: temporary 3RR block

[edit] Regarding reversions[1] made on July 11, 2006 (UTC) to Russo-Turkish War, 1877–1878

 You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.
The duration of the block is 12 hours. William M. Connolley 07:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
YOu're right - 4R was outside 24h. I've unblocked you William M. Connolley 08:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you, but my ip address is still blocked. BTW I've learned my lesson; I won't cut it so close again. --Ideogram 08:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Is it unblocked now? William M. Connolley 09:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPR Mediation

I trust you've seen this bit from MSTCrow's history. In light of his efforts to intimidate you away from the NPR discussion, I think his history is ironic. He removed that part of his resume from the mediation page, but it's there in the history for those who wish to find out about the qualifications of that particular "mediator."--RattBoy 10:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I was aware of that. It's hard to intimidate someone over the Internet. I'm watching him very closely. --Ideogram 10:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if you've seen this post, which prompted this response. I can't predict how long the latter edit will be live on that page.--RattBoy 14:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent POV pushing by anons and socks on Taiwan/ROC related articles

The recent POV pushing by several anon (and in some cases, registered users) on Taiwan/ROC related articles seem to be the work of at least one individual using multiple sockpupppets (all edits from the 167.7.39.* IP block). I am also beginning to suspect that 24.88.124.252 (talk · contribs) may also be a sock of Devout Christian (talk · contribs) based on some editing and edit summary similarities, though I am not sure if these are all the work of a single individual. Given the persistant reversions by anon IPs and their seeming disinterest in engaging in dialouge I am beginning to lean towards semiprotection of the affected articles. Any ideas? -Loren 04:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't think of anything. I suppose semi-protection would be helpful if you can do it. --Ideogram 06:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Technically I can't semiprotect it since it's an article I have been actively engaged in editing. If this continues however I may go ahead and file a request for protection. Thanks. -Loren 08:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another revert warrior?

I see that you are engaged in nasty revert warring on Russo-Turkish War, 1877–1878. In case that you have not understood that WP is not a Turkish propaganda machine, please review the guidelines and take care. If you continue to revert mindlessly and spread Russophobia abroad, I'll have to report you. Revert warring is not acceptable and will get you blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Ghirla -трёп- 07:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

On your contention "You people are really incapable of assuming good faith, aren't you?" [2] (Don't bother me). I suppose that "you people" refers to me as well? I did not even mention this [3], because I knew Ghirla either remembered, or would check and see immediately. Yes, this is one of the three I mentioned whom Ghirla had a row with on the 17th. Now, of course, it is probably pure coincidence. "It's a small world after all" (as they sing at Disneyland, Paris) and it is not like Ghirla has (or rather had, for you have all but driven him away from English Wiki) rows with hundreds of different users every day. But let me tell you: such coincidences will inevitably happen if you enquire about RfCs while you are mediating even if mediation is about something completely different, and when you get involved in edit warring OVER THE SAME MATTER that you offered to mediate about less than a month before. I as an editor definitely would not want mediation from someone who writes "Any time you revert without discussion I will be happy to re-revert you." The matter is on the discussion page. One side (with a lot of justification) claims the author the other side wants to quote is a revisionist and therefore not to be taken seriously. The only reason to go on discussing that would be the other side's contention to at least turn the discussion page into a Holodomor, Auschwitz or Mayakovskoye article while the article is about something else. Have a nice day.--Pan Gerwazy 17:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you think about the accusations Ghirlandajo made against me before you start throwing more accusations my way. --Ideogram 23:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but for the second time ("you people" was the first time) you ignore the fact that I told Ghirla you were not a sockpuppet. And that I told him to forget about you. Which stance of course will not outlive the attempt to take out the NPOV-section flag while the section still contains revisionist material. Have a nice day. --Pan Gerwazy 16:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I did not try to take out the NPOV-section flag. --Ideogram 04:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
No, I did not (want to) suggest you would. I rather suspect and suspected other people may be tempted and the revert war would re-start. But you are right, I should have written "AN attempt to take out ...". Now, after reading it carefully, I see the use of the definite article "THE" was wrong and may have implied something which I did not want to imply. Sorry about that - blame it on my Slavic ancestry. Have a nice day.--Pan Gerwazy 20:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, look, I don't think I have a dispute with you. But I hope you understand that it is not productive when Ghirla reverts changes and then refuses to discuss them on the talk page. Honestly, I don't care about Turkey or Russia or any of that stuff, but I find Ghirla's behaviour and obvious contempt for his opponents very disturbing. --Ideogram 17:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ideogram is a Communist bitch

go to hell and file the RFC against yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiang Kai-shek (talk • contribs)

Ideogram, what did you do to hurt this guy's feelings? --- Hong Qi Gong 05:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about him, he's insane. --Ideogram 05:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Ideogram. Things seem to be blown out of proportion. I just noticed on WP:RFAR that Chiang Kai-shek read your above comment calling him "insane". Although he made a comment about you, you've also made a comment about him. It only serves to maintain a bad atmosphere between the two of you. What's more important isn't fighting each other, but actually making constructive efforts to make Wikipedia a good encyclopedia. Ideally we should support each other by praising other people's work.
I think Chiang Kai-shek misunderstood your intentions concerning the red color theme. If we make comments about another person that isn't constructive, or is insulting/threatening, it's only going to make matters worse. Recently I made a mistake of questioning his English and he pointed out the my English isn't good, which is true lol. Instead of actually trying to solve the Portal:Taiwan dispute, how come it's turned into a fight between each other? I've also put forward this thought to Chiang Kai-shek. Hopefully, we can get back on track. — Nrtm81 09:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
As soon as Chiang Kai-shek admits he was wrong to call me a Communist for suggesting a red color scheme, we can conclude the misunderstanding. The fact that he vandalized my user page and used the language he did was far worse than my comment about him. In any case the RFAR has been filed and we cannot go back. --Ideogram 03:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I've asked Chiang Kai-shek to apologize for those harsh remarks. Also, if he does apologize, can you also refrain from accusing him of pro-ROC agenda? We should try not to judge too much. We can try another approach which is to point out whether we feel an edit is straying from NPOV and try to communicate better to resolve any problems.
Certainly he should apologize, and if he does I will note it in my statement. But if he continues his pattern of editing I will also have to note that in my statement. --Ideogram 12:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Like his moving the page from "Taiwan Province (People's Republic of China)" to The Claimed Taiwan Province of the People's Republic of China. I can see he just wants the title to be correct, but actually the title doesn't seem appropriate. The content is what people will read to find out the information.
Although the WP:RFAR is already filed, I don't think anything serious will come from the arbitrators. Most likely, they will just advise us to refrain from accusing people (it's also a kind of threat or even inviting a fight). Also, there's bad communication that leads to confusion and misunderstanding just like between you and User:^demon at first. I also believe that's what happened with the whole red/communism, green/independence, etc misunderstanding. I'm just trying to stop this unnecessary fighting so that we can bring the focus back to finding a way to resolve things more peacefully.
The arbcom doesn't like to arbitrate content disputes, but they take user-conduct disputes very seriously. At a minimum Chiang Kai-shek will lose his username. If the arbitrators agree to hear the case you can bet they intend to do something about it. --Ideogram 12:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
With regards to Portal:Taiwan, Chiang Kai-shek doesn't agree with the name. So I've already invited people to share their opinion on the portal name. We'll see how things go from there. Also, I'm honored that you've listed me in your Respect shoutbox :-) — Nrtm81 11:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Out of all the people you've surveyed none have agreed with Chiang Kai-shek. He stubbornly insists he is right. That by itself is not a problem (I am stubborn too) but he also lies, insists I am a communist, attacks me with obscenities, and vandalizes my user page. Eventually there has to be a limit. --Ideogram 12:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation of PT and WCityMike

Ideogram,

You have not been listed as a party in this mediation. So far, both Parsssseltongue and WCityMike have both been very agreeable about the mediation process and WCityMike has already agreed to allow me to mediate their dispute. However, as mentioned, you were not named in the dispute. Is there some reason you should be included that I've overlooked? Also, your comment about "closing the case" rather disturbs me, as only mediation committee members are supposed to open and close cases. Thanks for responding to my concerns. -^demon[yell at me][ubx_war_sux] /10:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I read WCityMike's initial comments on the mediation request that he was not willing to participate in mediation so I closed the case. I am sorry if I was mistaken. I am not an "official" member of mediation cabal but I have been participating in cases. In any case since the mediation is ongoing I will let you handle it. I do not ned to be included in the case. --Ideogram 01:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. It was my mistake. -^demon[yell at me][ubx_war_sux] /12:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Second thoughts

May I ask what the second thought was? [4] - Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I felt that the articles I nominated (and withdrew) did not meet 0.5 standards for significance. (Note that OpenBSD, a Featured Article, was nominated and rejected). --Ideogram 22:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Taiwan related articles

OK, I see Chinese Wikipedia uses two different templates to cover "Taiwan" (See: zh:template:Taiwan) and "ROC/Taiwan" (See: zh:template:台灣政治) articles. I'll try to get the other template onto English Wikipedia later. — Nrtm81 12:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Great... The other template is just template:Politics of Taiwan. I don't know what to do with the Template:Taiwan related articles. I personally don't feel it's a problem to have those links. They are after all "Taiwan related". — Nrtm81 13:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Chiang Kai-shek

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Chiang Kai-shek. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Chiang Kai-shek/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Chiang Kai-shek/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 20:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Super Secret Cabal Thanks

Thanks for contributing to my successful RfA!
To the people who have supported my request: I appreciate the show of confidence in me and I hope I live up to your expectations!
To the people who opposed the request: I'm certainly not ignoring the constructive criticism and advice you've offered. I thank you as well!
♥! ~Kylu (u|t) 20:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Now maybe I can get back to mediating cases, hey? :) ~Kylu (u|t) 20:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] your reversion at programming lagnguages

I'm having intermittency problems, so I coulnd't get back quickly to final edit that section. When I finally did get back, I found a removal, in total, and a complaint that you didn't understand the point in the edit comment. Even if I agreed with your objection -- which I can't of course make out on no evidence, I can't adjust to compensate. What was your objection, aside to lack of links and typos? ww 15:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's have this discussion on Talk:Programming language. --Ideogram 16:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverts

Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Thank you. - MSTCrow 21:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commenting on each opinion separately

Commenting on each persons opinion separately is certainly permitted. If you find attempts to discuss with people to be threatening, then that in itself is an interesting observation. Hmmm, <scratches head>.

Yes it's permitted, but doing it to everyone opposed looks aggressive. I don't find "attempts to discuss with people to be threatening", and it's not productive to characterize the objection that way either. I don't see what is gained by commenting on every single oppose vote; all you have accomplished is to ruffle some feathers. If you don't understand this and continue your aggressive tactics I predict trouble. --Ideogram 01:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't mind ruffeling feathers :-) Kim Bruning

Originally I had placed just my own comment. I've switched to commenting on every person I disagreed with, and I would like to discuss their criteria with them. I'm certainly permitted to do that, and it can't really be seen as disruptive, since it follows all the normal wiki-rules of discourse.

It's not a question of what's permitted. If other people see you as disruptive you can't argue them into agreeing with you. --Ideogram 01:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm trying to show that it doesn't have to be disruptive as long as you are polite and to the point. :-) Kim Bruning 07:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It does immediately show up to a lot of people of course.

The other thing it does is shake a couple of people up and forces them to answer for themselves. We have a right to question any person about any descision or edit they make at wikipedia, to determine if they are doing The Right Thing. I'm making use of that right to do precicely that. People should be doing spot checks at RfA more often. They do occur ad hoc of course, but still.

So why did I switch to systematically asking several people at one RFA about their edit count criteria? Well, it seems odd that some people hold criteria that are more stringent than those for the arbitration committee. I'd like to get to the bottom of that. That probably won't happen by sitting around and waiting for the mana to fall into our hands :-P

I do have a tendency to be slightly mischivious of course - as you have surely noticed - but I try to stay out of major trouble. No RFCs or RFArs so far since 2001! <knock on wood>, :-) Can you help me out on this? :-)

Kim Bruning 01:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I really do advise you to back off on this. You won't convince a lot of people by insisting that they have no right to object. --Ideogram 01:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
People have every right to object, and I have every right to ask them why. Just as they have the same right to ask me why I hold my opinion. At any point in time you need to be able to justify any action you take on wikipedia, as you might get called on it. Without this right it would be impossible to gain or maintain or discuss consensus. So I'm using that right what it's meant for today, and I'm calling certain people on their actions.
I meant that you should not be surprised that several people now have told you your tactics were too aggressive, and you should not waste energy trying to convince anyone that your tactics were not too aggressive. --Ideogram 07:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)\
There's nothing wrong with agressively pursuing a course of action per-se. As long as you are polite in doing so. Can you explain why you see it as a problem in this situation? Kim Bruning 08:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say it was wrong. I'm trying to point out it's not effective. It's a problem because you are now spending more energy defending your tactics than discussing the issue you originally wanted to raise. --Ideogram 21:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not really trying to convince people of something today though. Rather I'm trying to learn why they hold their criteria. I might try convincing people on some later date. (Though, some people seem to have modified their opinions after talking with me, interestingly :-) )
Do you have suggestions as to better means to achieve these ends? Kim Bruning 07:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I think Tyrenius' suggestion of asking people individually on their talk pages is a good one. I understand that you are using the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and for all I know it might work, but it is not the approach I would have taken (and I do take it when editing articles). In future if you want to start a discussion about admin criteria I wouldn't try to do it in the context of a particular nomination; it's better on a talk page or at the Village Pump. --Ideogram 07:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Except that I don't want to discuss for discussions sake, people must have literally tried that over 100 times already in the case of RFA (guesstimating by size of talk page archives) . Rather I'd like to force change, by dusting off the wiki(pedia) consensus meachnisms and pressing them back into use. I can simply do this because most admins and bureaucrats are familiar with these mechanisms, and support them. Consensus requires thought, participation and personal responsibility. I'm sure people are shocked to suddenly be called to show these things more than they're accustomed to. It's certainly amazing to be called disruptive and aggressive for doing so. Does that make sense to you? Kim Bruning 08:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
"Forcing change" is by definition disruptive. I'm amazed that you're amazed at the reaction. Nevertheless, now that so many people have called you disruptive and aggressive, it's a waste of time to argue that point. --Ideogram 21:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbcom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#NPR

[edit] AID entry for furry fandom

Hi there, Ideogram! I left some details on the AID page in response to your note. I hope that helps explain what happened with respect to furry fandom's nomination. GreenReaper 04:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the date, I wasn't sure how far to increment it because one user aside from myself had voted without incrementing (so I added two weeks to the date). - ∅ (∅), 05:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh poop, looks like I misunderstood the instructions completely. Did you also fix the votes needed count? See Wikipedia talk:Article improvement drive#Votes needed for Furry fandom - ∅ (∅), 05:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, everything should be fine now. --Ideogram 17:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Archive1User talk:Cshay

Your recent edit to Archive1User talk:Cshay (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 21:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for setting up the RM for the Hong Kong Current Events page. I'm tempted to start a Current Events page for Macau myself just to appease User:Instantnood. --- Hong Qi Gong 21:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Do not block conversations by blanking/archiving active conversations. When archiving talk pages, you must bring forward active conversations. Failure to do so constitutes vandalism. Please read WP:ARCHIVE for proper procedures. Wkerney 06:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] return thanks

...and thank you, sir, for the recognition! It can be trying, yes, but somehow I feel cleaner after each linkspam removal. Cheers --AbsolutDan (talk) 04:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I, for some reason, feel compelled to remove a userbox. Here: [5] --AbsolutDan (talk) 04:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] checkuser

[6] According to the above link, I noticed you requested a checkuser on me. Why? We did not have any run-ins whatsoever except seeing your name on the Rfa for Chiang Kai-Shek. In addition, I don't recall vandalizing any articles since March. Why is the checkuser necessary? It's an invasion of my privacy. You could've easily contacted me or even e-mail me instead of performing a checkuser. I don't know how explicit I can say this. I do not use or make sockpuppets. Anyway, my behavior doesn't warrant a checkuser and the accusation you made on the mass reverts are efforts to keep wiki NPOV. Anyway, hit me back. I like to hear your reasoning on this. Thanks--Bonafide.hustla 07:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It's nothing personal, I just noticed that Aish Warya was making the same edits as you to the same pages. Anyway you were cleared so I am satisfied you are innocent. --Ideogram 17:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese dictionaries

Since you generously offered to help mediate between Eiorgiomugini and me, I wanted to let you know that I've posted some comments on the case page. Would you please take a look? Thanks. Keahapana 01:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I have read them. I am not the official mediator; that would be User:The prophet wizard of the crayon cake. That said, we won't be able to have a discussion if Eiorgiomugini doesn't return. --Ideogram 01:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relational database

massive rewrite proposal completed, info on my talk page (feel free to delete this reference, I'm just leaving you a message;) McKay 20:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I haven't heard from you (or anyone) about the proposed rewrite for relational database. Any thoughts on the matter? McKay 07:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi, sorry for not getting back to you sooner, but I was hoping that someone more knowledgeable than I would comment first. I think the article is basically good; I have some minor quibbles but those can be left for later. Let me note that I came to this subject with some basic questions that I was hoping a rewrite would answer. Those questions are:
  • What makes the relational model a good foundation for databases?
  • What advantages does a relational database have over other kinds?
  • Why is it a good idea to normalize a relational database?
I note that you left normalization out of your rewrite. Why was that? --Ideogram 16:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Normalization was left out, partially beacuse I was lazy, and I was getting bored of writing. It does have it's own article(Database normalization), and I'm not sure that a topic on normalization is best for the relational databases page. It might be, I'm just not sure.
The questions you actually posed, are good questions (Particularly the first two. I'll see about incorporating them into the rewrite. I'm not sure where they would go best. How do you think that the outline should follow for these topics? McKay 23:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Those three questions are now answered (I think so, but maybe not very well). I would really like further comments before I make the changes live. When do you think that that should happen? McKay 23:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the best way to get comments is by making the changes live. You've already mentioned the rewrite and got no response. I'm a believer in the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. --Ideogram 23:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Heh, I didn't check your user page for a while, I kinda wish I would have seen this sooner, but I'm kinda glad I had the extra few days. In any case, the rewrite is live now. Please post your concerns, and/or be bold and change them. McKay 05:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent dispute

You may wish to keep an eye on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts; I've posted up a dispute you were involved in (you're not named in it, but I thought you should know). ----Emufarmers(T/C) 07:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Derek Smart

Hi, I am concerned about this. While everyone understands that protection is not an endorsement, the fact is that the same editor who requested the protection made large edits prior to the protection; his version is the one currently visible and he has no incentive to reach consensus. He seems to think that arbitration will be his long-term solution but it is well known that the ArbCom does not like content-dispute cases. From my observation of the discussion this is one editor who has failed to negotiate in good faith now using the protection mechanism to get his way. Although I know the admin applying the protection cannot pass judgement on which version to protect, as a practical matter I feel that if the version protected was not this editor's preferred version it would motivate him to build consensus. --Ideogram 17:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, what are you asking me to do about it? Stifle (talk) 22:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you revert to the last version immediately prior to the edit by the requestor, here, and protect the page. --Ideogram 00:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
That would be a violation of the protection policy. Stifle (talk) 09:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Well I'm a fan of WP:IAR. If you won't do this, what other ideas do you have? --Ideogram 09:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies

It's hypocritical of me to say things like "it's been difficult to get any moderating influence here" and then be short-tempered with you after you've volunteered to do same. I really want very badly to not have to work on that page anymore, it's not exactly a passion of mine, and I originally started over there just doing vandalism cleanup. The whole thing took a frustrating turn early this week while I was out of town, and I've been a little grumpy and sarcastic about the whole thing. Thanks for dropping by and trying to help sort things out, I've tried to do it before, and I know it's a thankless job.

Fox1 (talk) 01:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem. --Ideogram 03:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attack removal

Hi Ideogram - Thank you very much for removing the personal attack from User:Cshay on my talk page. I have, however, decided to restore the comment "for the record" with a note to that effect. If he goes ahead with filing some sort of case on me, I'd like to have it all there. I get plenty of flaming for my other cleanup work, anyway, so what's a bit more? :) Thanks again though, I very much appreciate your thoughtfulness. --AbsolutDan (talk) 03:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Ideogram 03:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit Waring on Derek Smart page

Hi Ideogram, I urge you to please full protect the Derek Smart page again as the anon edit waring has started up again. This is exactly why it was protected to begin with. Thank You Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 17:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joe Lieberman mediation

I think the Joe Lieberman page needs mediation on just about everything. Thanks for your help. Smedley Hirkum 19:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links at the top of the China Portal

I noticed that you reverted my additions of Taiwan and the RoC to the top of the China Portal. Come to think of it, I agree that Taiwan shouldn't be up there, but I still believe that as long as a link to the Portal:People's Republic of China is up there, then there should be one to the the Portal:Republic of China, too (after all, they are both linked to below, which you mentioned in your edit summary). Having one, no matter which, and not the other, seems to be commenting on their legitimacy, which would be a violation of NPOV. However, since you're far more active in the portal, and China-related discussions as a whole, I'll leave it up to you; I just thought I should explain my edit and the reasoning behind it. Happy editing. Picaroon9288|ta co 23:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. As you probably know, the whole China/PRC/ROC thing is controversial and maintaining a balance is difficult. --Ideogram 23:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Summary para for FBP

Hi! I see where you removed my summary para as being self-promotion - I admit I did wonder if it was neutral enough. I did ask Allan McInnis if it was OK, and got no response, so I assumed it was OK. Still I feel some type of closure is needed - put it down to my many years of writing essays - how about if we just said something like "Overall, FBP is a fusion of a number of the recent concepts in computer science, and is also being used as a base for a variety of on-going efforts in many different areas of computing (see External Links)." If not, how about suggesting something yourself? Thx. Jpaulm 18:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to have a summary paragraph in the lead. The lead itself is already a summary of the rest of the article. After reading the lead we would expect readers to continue on to the body of the article, so there is no need to summarize what was said in the lead. --Ideogram 19:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback! So, if I don't hear back from you, I will assume that External Links doesn't have to be explained further... Jpaulm 15:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you think Flow-based_programming is ready for peer review yet? Jpaulm 14:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure. --Ideogram 19:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Here goes! Jpaulm 01:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Could you weigh in on this?

I'd like to bring forth a more definite agreement on what to do about archiving the current events article for Hong Kong. Could you join the discussion and vote?

  • Talk:Current_events_in_Hong_Kong#Concerning_the_archives

Thanks. --- Hong Qi Gong 17:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Añoranza

This case has closed and the final decision has been published at the link above.

To summarise, Añoranza is banned for one week and the principals in this matter are encouraged to enter into good faith negotiations regarding use of propagandistic operational codenames for which there are neutral alternative names in common use.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 21:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Morrison Article?

Hi, Adam! I would still like to have an article with my name that I can link to from my parents' articles, from FBP, and perhaps other places. I see that Cedars has added a tag to Talk:Flow-based_programming listing me as a Notable Wikipedian - as I understand it, this is because I have published a book (see WP:BIO - 7th and possibly 8th bullets). When I click on the category "Notable Wikipedians", I notice that Talk:FBP is one of the minuscule number of cases where this tag is not on a human!

Accordingly, I would like to add an article with my name on it, and all the relevant tags (e.g. living person, subject has edited as..., etc.), being careful to avoid POV, bias, etc. - just the bare facts. I can then move the relevant material from User:Jpaulm to the new article or its Talk:. Or would you like to add it - this apparently would make the Wikipedia folks happier... :-) If not, I will take the chance and see if anyone tags me for deletion.

BTW Would it be a good idea to mention that the book is now out of print?

Also, how do I know if FBP survived the peer review? Should we try for Good Article - I don't know what's involved. Thanks for your help - both past and hopefully future!

I would highly recommend not starting an article about yourself. Doing so is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia, regardless of how notable a person might be. --Allan McInnes (talk) 15:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Allan that starting an article about yourself is not a good idea. The peer review will be closed by someone after sufficient time has passed. After that, you can nominate it for Good Article status. --Ideogram 19:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, both! I guess it's a reasonable rule to have in place... Jpaulm 19:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Heqong

This case is now closed and the result has been published at the link above.

  • Heqong is placed on Probation. He may be banned for a reasonable period of time by any administrator from an article or set of articles which he disrupts by tendentious editing. Should Heqong violate a ban he may be blocked for a reasonable period of time. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Heqong#Log of blocks and bans.
  • Heqong is banned for one month for personal attacks.
  • Heqong is placed on personal attack parole.

For the Arbitration Committee. FloNight 14:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Requests for Arbcom

  • Pan Gerwazy's inability to read
  • Giano's pointless histrionics

Not exactly civil edit summaries are they? [7] As you can obviously read, you will have seen I am making an observation. So why so rude? Please keep you summaries civil as thiw will encourage others to do the same. Thank you. Giano | talk 06:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

As long as people are arguing that Ghirlandajo's incivility should be excused I will give them a taste of their own medicine. If he doesn't get sanctioned, neither will I. --Ideogram 06:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Please explain

Hi,

Strictly speaking, a procès d'intention (from Latin through French) is the act of judging somebody on mere intent (not to be confused with an attempt), something that is forbidden in penal law, with only a few exceptions (terrorism and so on). In a broader sense though, it refers to the act of someone who, in a discussion, answers to a hypothetic sentence the other person did not say, and possibly never wanted to. In our case, your "Are you now going to argue that Ghirlandajo is kind and welcoming towards those he disagrees with, that he attracts more and better editors to the project?" was an "answer" to something I never said and never wanted to, since, as I said later, not only I would not argue that, but I did warn Ghirla about his behaviour.

OK, the French / law pause is over :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 10:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Ideogram 10:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)