User talk:Neutrality/Archive 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] SCOTUS WikiProject Collaboration Article

Just a reminder that today is the last day to vote. At midnight, the article with the most votes will be the article we are working on. Skyler 15:50, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship

sorry I didn't get to vote on your adminship (slightly gone from internet for a while). Hope it passed... — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 19:07, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You removed my previous message with the edit summary I am not a party to this dispute. If you don't want to get involved any further, no problem, but with five reverts ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5]) and numerous posts to the talk page, you were the third-most-active participant in that argument—ergo I though your opinion was necessary. —No-One Jones (m) 03:05, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Oak Hill, Kansas

Neutrality, are you a native? Catbar (Brian Rock) 00:42, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] ADW Vote

The vote for General Secretary of the Association of Deletionist Wikipedians has opened. Please visit the page and vote for who you think would make the best choice. --Slowking Man 03:32, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Rex

User:216.153.214.94 contributions seems to me highly likely to be Rex, editing John Kerry pages in spite of the temporary ban against him. Technically, I suppose he's not banned from the specific pages, but he should have been. At any rate, any motion to close the arbcom case seems quite premature.

His contribution list includes several edits leading me to this conclusion. For example, the edit to Rex's comment on your RFA. Also, this anon added "Sponsorship of Legislation" to John Kerry -- an addition that Rex took credit for several times. Also, see the numerous edits in the midst of Rex's edit wars on John Kerry. Wolfman 16:00, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I unblocked the IP address. It has not been used to edit John Kerry, John Kerry presidential campaign, 2004, and John Kerry VVAW controversy since the arbcom imposed its temporary injunction against Rex editing those pages. —No-One Jones (m) 18:01, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Ugh

I know, he's creating a terrible mess. I've given him a final warning, so if he continues, then we'll have to. -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 16:28, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Wikistress usually isn't really an issue for me, but this is getting totally out of hand. Luckily, he seems to have stopped, but I wouldn't take Jesus off of your watchlist just yet ;). -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 16:30, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Can you add the Wikiquote link to propaganda that you protected?

This is unrelated to the current dispute about the examples, which by the way has not been solved. I am still a bit upset about the behavior by user:Mikkalai who has removed contents that I think was good. Thanks Andries 14:55, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright vio

I'm pretty sure the Battle_of_the_Metaurus_River is a copyright violation this site http://www.lbdb.com/TMDisplayBattle.cfm?BID=247 has the exacct same text on it. I am not sure what to do about this so maybe an admin could look into this 578 20:54, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] List of countries by system of government

In the process of reverting Cantus's overriding the original article with flawed CIA data without consensus, I had to revert four of your edits in the process. Just so you know... --Jiang 22:55, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "Terrorism" straw poll

Neutrality, there is a straw poll going on at Straw poll on use of the term "terrorist" on whether or not to use the term "terrorist" to describe the 9/11 attacks. I'd be interested in hearing your view on the subject. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 23:11, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship

It appears that I've made the cut on adminship ..... thanks very much once again for putting my name in nomination and for your support. I really appreciate it. ffirehorse 23:32, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Celtic Tiger

I've tried to address your concerns about POV in the Celtic Tiger article. Reading through it, it was clear the points about Bertie Ahern, Charlie McCreevy and Mary Hearney were quite biased and completelty unsupported. I've rewritten the end of the section on causes and backed up many of the claims made with reference to reports and other articles written on the subject. If you still have an issue with POV, please make it clear on WP:FAC so that I can try to rectify it, otherwise please strike out the comment! Thanks CGorman 20:49, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. CGorman 16:05, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] PLO/terrorist category

A couple of recent editors have reverted your categorization of the Palestinian Liberation Organization as a Palestinian terrorist group. Thought you might want to know. Jayjg 16:17, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorist categories

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion has two lists of categories related to terrorists up for deletion. Jayjg 20:49, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the welcome

I'm not going to sign in. I might (or might not) be an employee of the news organization whose story I'm picking apart - and I'd rather not leave a trail that could lead to me getting fired. -- Anonymous

[edit] RfA nomination

Hi Neutrality,

Just wanted to say thanks for your vote of support at RfA. It looks like I've been promoted, and I look forward helping you out with admin tasks. –spencer195 17:42, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] John Vanbrugh

Hi, Neutrality, thanks for editing at John Vanbrugh. Could you take a look at the Talk page, please, there's a comment and question there for you.--Bishonen 17:53, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wikilinking units

Currently Marginated Tortoise is on WP:FAC, with the only outstanding objection that the units of measure are not wikilinked. However, you keep unlinking them. I really don't care if they're wikilinked, personally, and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Style for numbers, weights, and measures seems to imply that they are not necessary... (Though this mandates in, ft, oz instead of writing out the words...) Maybe you want to weigh in over at the FAC? Mpolo 07:19, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] John Vanbrugh again

Crossposted to Talk:John Vanbrugh

Hi, Neutrality, please don't think I don't value the interest you take in improving John Vanbrugh! It takes me a while to answer sometimes, because I'm pretty busy (and slow). I totally share your concern about length, "scrolling length" as well as kilobyte size, and I take your point that "See also" is not intended for terms that have already been linked in the article text. I suppose renaming the section "Related topics" didn't make as much difference as I thought? It was probably altogether a mistake to try to shoehorn our "Small set of useful links culled from the big set of article wikilinks" collection into a format intended for something else, and I'm trying to think of alternatives. Meanwhile, though, I think I should also try to explain why I'm so interested in having a collection like that at all.

A lot, I mean a lot, of the 17th-18th century terms, and especially names, that are linked in the article lead to not merely weak articles, but to actually worse-than-nothing articles, especially in the field of Restoration comedy, the form that Vanbrugh wrote. This includes big, important figures like William Congreve and William Wycherley, important plays, major topics ...lots of very central stuff. Many or most of those articles are 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica text dumps. I realize it may sound very extreme to call 1911 articles "worse than nothing": isn't a little information always better than none? Well, I think not in this case, because:

  1. The information is degenerated, it's actively wrong. Stories and "traditions" about 17th-18th century literary figures, none too reliable to begin with, morphed into worse in the 19th century as they passed back and forth between books that were all summarizing or rewriting each other — literary biographers couldn't even dream of having the kind of access to original sources that modern scholars have. These traditions are what we find in the 1911 EB. (With minor figures like Vanbrugh, we still find them in today's EB, as I discovered when I was writing the Early life section! If you thought I was rude about the modern EB and DNB Vanbrugh articles, I wasn't, I was incredibly restrained.)
  2. Restoration comedy is about sex. The 1911 EB is Victorian, and is indignant about sexy literature. The 1911 is a really bad place for a modern reader to seek a literary historical perspective on Restoration comedy. I honestly think he/she will be more ignorant after reading it than before.

I still think it's right to link to all existing articles in the text of John Vanbrugh. Wikipedia is dynamic, and bad articles are being improved all the time. I'm rewriting the 1911 Restoration drama articles as fast as I can myself, but I haven't been here very long, I don't have that much time, and few other Wikipedians seem to be working in late 17th and 18th century literature. There's Geogre, who writes great articles, and... well, there's Geogre, I haven't actually seen any traces of anyone else. I could have missed them, but whenever I look around at articles on the drama, thaat I take the most interest in, nobody seems to have touched those articles since they were created, as either stubs or 1911 text or a combination. Well, touched them substantively, I mean. They get categories and wikilinks, but the text stays the same.

My point is that there is some good information on Restoration comedy and related topics on Wikipedia, but at present it's terribly hard to find it from following wikilinks in the John Vanbrugh text. I hope that will change, but I'd like also to give the reader some help now. I do understand that a "See also" section is not the right way, I'm trying to think of something else. You have a lot of editing experience, if you have any ideas for alternatives I hope you'll share them. If I called the section something completely different, do you think it might be OK to put the links side by side in one line, rather than having them add scrolling length the way they do?--Bishonen 00:30, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC). (Sorry for the screed.)

[edit] Election

Thanks for correcting the vandalism. I tried to revert, but couldn't figure out how. Might I recomend that some keep close tabs on the page as the night whears on to prevent this from happening again? TomStar81

[edit] Impostor alert

Someone has created an account as User:NeutraIity and is vandalizing Template:Potuspov. I've warned him about the vandalism, but I think you have the right to have the confusing name discontinued, whether or not that particular user is banned for vandalism. JamesMLane 08:28, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Developer investigation of the imposter led to the discovery of about 40 different accounts apparently created by the same person for vandalism and trolling since April 2004. I recognise many of them as having been nvolved in problems. As a result, acting as a developer, I've blocked the two IPs used by the connected accounts for 7 days while I continue to investigate before bringing the matter before the Arbitration Committee or community. Jamesday 09:57, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Opposition to Castro

Could you have another look at Opposition to Castro? I'm not sure what it was like when you looked at it (I gather is started out very POV), but at this point it looks to me like the nucleus of a good article. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:11, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki Junior Project

We are currently in the process of deciding what the first topics will be. We have already decided that the first humanities topic will be Countries of the World:South America. We need to decide what our first science topic will be. We already have plenty of pictures available for Big Cats, The Solar System and Human Flight. We're having a little vote to decide which one we should work on first. Please come to Meta:Wikijunior project first topics. Cheers! Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 08:00, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Image licenses

Hi, Neutrality. Did you discuss changing the license on Image:London millenium wobbly bridge.jpg with User:PaulLomax? As a general rule, changing license conditions is not something you should do unilaterally. -- Solipsist 05:25, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On the Upload Form, it reads: "By uploading a file to which you hold the copyright, you agree to licence it under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License." Paul may wish to duel-license it under a Creative Commons licenses, but it is also automatically licensed under the GFDL. Neutrality (hopefully!) 05:28, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
I thought that might be what you were thinking, but there are a couple of problems with that.
  • You don't actually know that the copyright holder is the Wikipedia user doing the uploading. It might seem likely in the case of User:PaulLomax, but on Image:RememberancePoppies.jpg you certainly did not know whether 'Andrew Dunn' is a friend or partner of mine.
  • Only the copyright holder can agree to a change in the license.
  • The image upload page is just wrong in several ways. Try for example to workout how any 'fair-use' images are uploaded.
Also if you look over User:Solitude's good work in persuading User:PaulLomax to change the license on that image, is there anyway that your changes are going to be beneficial to Wikipedia. It seems more likely that you will drive contributors away. -- Solipsist 05:39, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Election controversy article

I like your work on it so far. I still think that the over-all "controversy" has not been established, but I like that you're removing redunancy. -- Netoholic @ 05:59, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)