User talk:Justin/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

Jhall1468

Discussion from my old talk page have been moved to here. If you would like to continue the discussion, please do so here, as that page is archived. Thanks, Justin chat 15:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Bryozoans

Where would I find the Wikipedia policy that requires changing Bryozoa to Bryozoans, Echiura to Echiurans, etc. ? --Bejnar 22:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

There isn't one, however all of the rest of the animals by scientific classification in Category:Animals uses the plural form. So it only makes sense that they all do. J. Hall • (Talk) 01:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Bryozoa is a mass noun, so to that extent it is plural already. --Bejnar 01:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Bryozoan is an adjective, and the rest of the Category:Animals subcategories are listed as their plural adjectives. See Cyclostomatida for an example: "are an ancient order of stenolaemate bryozoans". It makes no sense for category names to be nouns, otherwise the only thing listed in them would be the topic themselves. "Cyclostomatida is listed in the bryozoan category" is grammatically correct while "Cyclostomatida is listed in the Bryozoa category" is less grammatically correct. Justin chat 01:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Are you saying that the Category:Animals or Category:Flatworms or Category:Molluscs or Category:Horses make no sence? I think that they do, quite. Nor is Category:Blue any great shakes. Flatly, I just do not understand your argument. Nouns are frequently used and successfully used as Category names (markers). I can say that a worm is an Annelid. I do not have to say that it is annelidian. I can also say that it is a member of Annelida. --Bejnar 02:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
First of all, Category:Flatworms is currently awaiting change to its plural scientific name. That being said, animals, horses and molluscs are all plural nouns and plural adjectives, so I fail to see how that proves your point, without proving mine as well. As for Category:Blue that isn't listed in Category:Animals, so obviously having it conform to the naming conventions within Category:Animals is just silly. ALL of Category:Animals use this plural adjective naming convention. I just don't get why the naming convention of one category matters so much to you. Seriously, take a look at Category:Animals and see if keeping Category:Bryozoa makes any sense. This discussion is moot, the change has already been made. Justin chat 02:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Changes are never moot in the Wikipedia. In addition there are a lot of animal and plant Categories that you haven't changed. Horses, animals and molluscs are not "plural adjectives" they are plural nouns. I find Category:Bryozoans silly. --Bejnar 03:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm cleaning up Category:Animals as that falls within the spectrum of WikiProject Animals. I'm sorry you don't like the naming convention, but you seem to be the only person that's complained of the proposed changes. The fact is, making the subcategories conform to a specific standard makes the whole category more readable. You can complain about one whole subcategory if you feel the need, but I think it borders on absurdity. Justin chat 03:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually I am complaining about all of the forced adjectival forms that you are perpetuating. I would prefer that you stop and go the other direction, namely use nouns for the Categories, the way a great many of them were. --Bejnar 04:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I selected adjectives because the majority of the categories were already adjectives. So you are suggesting that we change 10 categories instead of 3, because you prefer categories be nouns? Why in the world are you beating a category name to death? It was simply a matter of ease. I suppose we could change all of them to nouns, simply to placate you, but do you have any specific reason they should be nouns aside from the fact that you "prefer" they are nouns? Justin chat 06:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm all for uniform naming conventions. I'm definitely not a linguist nor a biologist but most text book examples of specie categorization would seem to suggests that nouns are the proper lexical category. From a progmatic point of view this is also inline with the internal structure of wikipedia; for example the wiki page Bryozoan redirects to Bryozoa. Furthermore the use of nouns over adjectives is inline with search query optimization. Why would you ever "prefer" them to be adjectives or more aptly what reference can you provide to support such a mass revision of naming conventions across such a broad domain of articles? Personally I believe forced adjectives lack clarity of meaning and are frequently the root of grammatical error, but those two points are simply my opinion so I stand by the prior observations. 99.229.239.0 22:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Virtual-OS

To be honest, I found myself reviewing this talk page after your recent speedy deletion nomination (vandalism?) of the "Virtual-OS" article. I'm surprised to find that your actual realm of interest seems to be biology as your statements regarding this application and events seem to imply some type of expertise in the computer science field or Canadian current events. None the less I would really appreciate constructive criticism regarding what you found to be so offensive about the article, in particular your suggestions that it may read like an advertisement. Even general feedback on my IP talk page would be appreciated as I would like my revisions to the make the article not only more accurate but to also increase it's general readability to a broader audience. 99.229.239.0 22:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Zoology

Well spotted! That was one of the more egregious cases of copyright violation I have seen; great catch. I have gone ahead and restored what I believe is the last copyright violation-free version. You may want to double check. Thanks and keep up the great work! --TeaDrinker 17:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that revert appears to have removed all of the copyrighted material. Justin chat 17:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Please consider restoring these contributions as they are Public Domain. This issue has been addressed for some time in the header of the discussion page as well as in the category: Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica. 99.229.239.0 00:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
If it truly IS public domain, I'd have to question why the current edition of Britannica is using a 100 year old article. Nothing in the abstract, available on the Britannica website, suggests that the Britannica Online version is the same as the 1911 edition. In fact, the language seems far to modern for my eyes to be 100 years old. Justin chat 00:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your attention I believe I stand corrected, TeaDrinker has clarified the issue via comparison of the two versions in question. 99.229.239.0 00:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

You helped choose Carbon as this week's WP:ACID winner

 Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Carbon was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help.

Zginder (talk) 13:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Apologize (song)

Hi there. I accept your decision to decline third opinion on this debate, although the vast majority of it is between two editors. However, could I ask you to provide a comment at least? This debate seems to be going nowhere and is eating up a lot of time. A comment would really help. Cheers Nouse4aname (talk) 10:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Tagging animals articles

I removed mimicry and crypsis because they apply to various taxa including animals, plants and fungi. I prefer to avoid having project tags on articles that belong to a broader scope. Not really sure about bot tagging the articles; I guess if you use the animals cat you just need to avoid cats that belong to a more specific project (a daughter project of animals), although the bot will still probably make some mistakes. Richard001 (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

Thank you for your participation in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate that landed on WP:100, but ultimately was deemed a successful declaration of consensus, and I am now an admin. I definitely paid close attention to everything that was said in the debate, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. I'm working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school, carefully double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools, with my main goals being to help out with various backlogs. I sincerely doubt you'll see anything controversial coming from my new access level. :) I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are a few more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status. If you do ever have any concerns about my activities as an administrator, I encourage you to let me know. My door is always open. Have a good new year, --Elonka 01:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi There

Hi there Justin, I am the Librarian. I'm investing some time in greeting various senior Wikipedians because some of you don't get a lot of love. I notice you spend a lot of time editing articles on various species, what are your thoughts on animal rights? and as a broader discussion, animal welfare? ..Anyhoo, I am pretty busy with some other little projects of mine, so I must scoot, best of luck with your future edits and good to see someone going after so long! -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Wiquette of Smith Jones

Hey I was wondering if you have opened any a wikiquette alert on Smith Jones in the pass looking at his contribs he seems to be acting fairly uncivil lately. I am contacting you becuase I have noticed that you have been discussing this with him on his talk page and have encourned him at WP:NAR. Thanks, -- Nn123645 (talk) 08:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

I see you're quite vocal about rollback, but you don't yet have the tool. Would you like it to see exactly what it does and how fast it is? Ryan Postlethwaite 05:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I really don't have a use for it. I'm incredibly lazy, and Twinkle does nearly everything for me :). I have used it before, and I realize how easily it could be abused. That being said, it's relatively easy to set hard limits to manage it. Heck, even admins are limited in a default MediaWiki setup. I appreciate the offer, but the whole process seems completely disproportionate to the damage that can be done with the tool. Justin chat 06:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
True, and I do see your point in many ways - I'm just concerned it would be misused in the wrong hands, that's why I think it's important to do a little bit of checking (but I do agree that the most users who ask for it should get it). If you ever do want it, just let me know and I'd be glad to give it to you. Hopefully enhancements can be made to twinkle and other scripts to take advantage of rollback. Ryan Postlethwaite 06:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
There's no question it's going to be abused. Any tool granted to any given editor is going to be abused eventually. I prefer the "grant, abuse, revoke" procedure for adding such tools. Those that have proven themselves unable to handle it should have it removed. If it becomes a huge issue for abuse, than perhaps implementing a policy similar to the current one would be appropriate. But I think it's better to assume it won't be abused to the degree that procedure is necessary, or at the very least, it won't be abused beyond the admins ability to handle it. Hard to say how it's all going to work out, but I certainly agree with you on twinkle and other scripts implementing it. The faster vandalism can be reverted, the better :). Justin chat 06:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Franco-Mongol alliance

Thank you for your support about the opening sentence for the Franco-Mongol alliance page. I think you are perfectly correct in your evaluation, and your help is much appreciated. Best regards. PHG (talk) 11:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

And a thanks from me too, for trying to help sort things out. It's much appreciated! Ealdgyth | Talk 20:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It's rather selfish actually... I see so many great editors wasting so much energy on this debate and that's just no fun to watch. I'm hoping to find enough common ground that everyone can go back to writing FA's :). Justin chat 20:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I find it interesting, Justin, that you're accusing me of things, even though I'm not the one doing the reverts. Is there some other dispute that we had in the past that I'm not aware of? --Elonka 08:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

None at all. I'm trying to be objective (and I can assure you, I don't think User:PHG is in any way innocent of wrong-doing here), but the constant reverts back and forth, accusations on the talk pages, et al, is getting way out of hand. My goal is to get this revert war under control, and allow consensus to form. Ideally, that means working on sub pages so a broader audience can read both versions and determine which they like better. As a casual reader, I think there are some POV problems with both versions (although, the longer long versions User:PHG recently "reverted to" are probably the worst case), and I think eventually a compromised version of the article will be found.
To be honest, I will likely join the majority consensus once the various POV problems are sorted out, since I prefer concise articles. In the mean time, I just think everyone who is overly involved should take a step back, work on their own versions of the articles, and make there cases on the talk page. I think you are both frustrated to the point that willingness to compromise has gone out the window. I certainly understand that given how long this has been going on. But I think, given some time to work individual on sub pages, you are both more likely to keep objective. I think you are very close to a very good article, but the revert war is really overriding that fact. Justin chat 08:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. The problem, as I see it, is that though I've done what you suggest, meaning going away for awhile (2-6 weeks), working on a subpage, etc., that PHG never has. He's been camped on this article on a pretty much daily basis for several months now, and is showing no signs of letting go. He has ignored an article RfC, posted deceptive messages at ANI, and stonewalled a mediation. It is honestly my opinion now that we have sufficient editors at the talkpage to prove a consensus, and that PHG is just continuing to oppose, because, well, that's what he has done from the beginning. Also, if you haven't yet, I strongly recommend reading the "getting longer" thread on the article talkpage, where there is proof that not only is PHG continuing to edit-war, but that when he's saying "revert", he's actually inserting even more biased information into the article that wasn't there in the first place. Over 50K of material! In other words, though I've tried really hard to assume good faith on his actions over the last few months, I just can't anymore. He's not operating in good faith, and I think he's really just arguing to be arguing at this point.  :/ --Elonka 16:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
There's no question that PHG is practicing some ownership. My hope, was that the subpage editing would result in a cool down time in which you could work on your version of the article without interruption, to the point that there is a wide consensus for it. I primarily work in biology-related articles, so I know what it's like to only get opinions from a handful of editors on controversial issues (you think history is bad, you should see Taxonomy articles :P). I was hoping a page protection would help avoid getting PHG blocked, but unfortunately it came too late.
I did read the some 40+ paragraphs he added to the long version, and I have no doubt that he was doing it solely to make a point. His behavior on this one was unquestionably getting out of hand, hence the page protection request. While I agree that blocks are often necessary for disruptive editors, I would hate to see PHG stop editing Wikipedia altogether. I doubt there's a solution where both of you are going to be happy, but I do think once cool heads prevail and the present version is fixed, that PHG won't have a choice but to accept a consensus. Hopefully that comes sooner than latter. Justin chat 18:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I know what you mean about Taxonomy, I was working on the Nelumbo article recently, and got a definite education in the difficulty of sorting things.  :) As for the Alliance article though, speaking from my point of view, I just don't think that the problem is as you describe it. I don't see the situation as a "multi-editor chaos" as you do. I see it as a situation that was being caused pretty much by one editor, PHG, over a long period of time. With him removed from the equation, I think the talkpage is a lot calmer, and that the article will stabilize very rapidly. Also, I'm not really angry with PHG. More, I'm really disappointed at the tactics that he used, and sad at the amount of time that has been wasted on the part of other good editors, by PHG's complete unwillingness to compromise. I have personally tried on multiple occasions, in a variety of ways, to tell him, "Please, can we just work together towards a compromise?" I even posted a nice message to his talkpage in French.  :) But each time, he'd reject overtures. He usually does his rejection in a civil way, but it's still a rejection. For example, see his comment here from a September thread, where he basically says that his idea of a "compromise" is to do things his way.[1] In short, this is not a two-sided dispute, it's a case where one editor (PHG) was systematically disrupting Wikipedia to push his own POV. If you have any proof otherwise, such as any diffs that show that I or any other editor on the talkpage has been reluctant to work with other editors towards compromise, I'd be very interested in seeing it, but I just don't think you're going to find such a thing. The entire dispute really boils down to a case of WP:OWN. PHG didn't want anyone changing "his" article. --Elonka 01:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

portal:animals HELLO Justin

Hello Justin can you tell me why delete the portal:animals —Preceding unsigned comment added by G.merkviladze (talk • contribs) 13:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

PHG

The accusations I have made are substantiated by the evident facts visible through the links at the top of the case called past dispute resolution efforts. During the evidence phase, specific diffs will be provided by me or others. The arbitration page is watched by may administrators, clerks and arbitrators. Unfortunately, I must present the case without sugar coating so that everyone understands the seriousness, and so the arbitrators can make a proper decision whether to accept, or not. Jehochman Talk 21:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much Justin for your support. I do appreciate tremendously. I am very serene about my own editing, as everything I contribute is from proper published sources. Since I started writing about the Franco-Mongol alliance, I have been under nearly constant attack from people who wanted to demonstrate that there was no alliance at all. As a matter of fact, both views are significant among scholars, and I believe firmly that both should be properly presented. Thanks again, and best regards. PHG (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Justin. Your comments that the Franco-Mongol alliance should be reinstated to its full version are being disregarded. Could you kindly confirm your opinion on the Franco-Mongol alliance Talk page? Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Consensus poll. Best regards PHG (talk) 11:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 22:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC), note User:Thatcher is the clerk, not me, I'm just opening for him. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Clarificiation

Are you referring specifically to ME in your note on the ArbCom case? Because you replied under MY comment, I feel like you are specifically addressing me, and would like to know what you think I did to obscure the main point of the case. My concerns with PHG's behavior stem from his use of sources, which is a valid behavioral issue. *I* did not choose to file an arbcom, and frankly would rather it went away. Ealdgyth | Talk 18:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

My apologize, I was specifically talking to everyone above you :P... didn't realize I put it under your comment. To be honest, I think you've been a breath of fresh air in all of this. I think most are unable to see the trees for the forest, and I'm glad you've stuck around to keep it sane. Justin chat 18:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't THINK it was addressed to me, but one thing I've learned in life is to not assume, but to ask to make sure there are no misunderstandings. Now, I'm off to tractor shop, a fun and exciting way for a gal to spend her Valentine's day weekend. Ealdgyth | Talk 19:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy Prohibition

Please be aware that articles on Homeopathy, as well as articles suffering disruption due to this topic are currently on probation. Following this discussion, editors making disruptive edits may be placed on revert limitation or topic-banned by any uninvolved administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages. I'm not stating that your edits have thus far been disruptive, merely making you aware of the probation. Thank you. TalkIslander 18:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Religion_in_China#Third_Opinion Angelo De La Paz (talk) 16:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Justin, I have noticed that your mediation on John Zizioulas dispute, and the whole case s nowhere recorded. WP:Dispute_resolution page calls for two types of mediation: informal & formal... Do you think this case should be submitted as informal?

Cebactokpatop (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)