User talk:Neutrality/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Meelar | Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! That's a truly stunning amount of info you've added to El Cid--thanks for all the help (thought I haven't had a chance to read over all of it myself). Anyway, if you need any help or have any questions, feel free to try Wikipedia:Tutorial, or ask at our Wikipedia:Help Desk. Also, you might want to look over Wikipedia:NPOV--it's probably our most important policy. Again, thanks for all the help. It's great to have you here. Yours, Meelar 18:01, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Angela | Conveying Radicalsubversiv's request for mediation over "Democratic Underground"

  • Hello Neutrality. Radicalsubversiv has requested mediation over the Democratic Underground article. Would this be agreeable to you? If so, please leave me a message regarding your preferred choice of mediator at requests for mediation. You may choose any user to be a mediator, but the members of the Wikipedia:Mediation committee would be preferred, as we have been discussing methods of mediation and such. Thank you for considering the option. Angela (member of the mediation committee) 23:55, May 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your reply. Just to clarify, wikipedia:mediation is not the same as wikipedia:arbitration. It is mediation you are accepting isn't it? By the way, I am already involved in another case, so won't be able to mediate, but hopefully someone who is available will contact you soon. Angela. 01:59, May 21, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Hephaestos | Notification Regarding the Unprotecting of "William Rivers Pitt"

Got your mail, William Rivers Pitt is unprotected. - Hephaestos|§ 00:20, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Alex756 | Request for AMA assistance

We have received an anonymous request for AMA assistance from an IP address. I have directed that individual to contact me if they wish not to create a Wikipedia account. If you are interested in helping please let me know and if I hear from this individual I will try and put you in contact. See Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance. Thank you. — © Alex756 03:08, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] RickK | The "Show preview" key

  • Hi. Do you know how to use the "Show preview" key? Your repeated edits and saves to the Charles Graner article are clogging up the Recent Changes page. RickK 04:59, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)
    • Sorry about that. I don't think it impacted the Recent Changes in any significant way; however, I will use the show preview page in the future. Thanks. Neutrality 05:01, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Mav | FAC message

  • FYI, the {{fac}} message goes at the top of talk pages, not at the top of articles. See second para at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. --mav 20:18, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure. It seems to go on either page. Someone should ask for a ruling. Neutrality 16:01, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Burgundavia | Siege

  • I noticed in this diff that you added some material from this page. Can you fill me in as to the copyright status of the material added? It appears from first glance to be a copy vio. Burgundavia 05:45, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • I dunno. I didn't put in that paragraph in; Ask Raul654. Neutrality 13:24, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • No actually, the from the page was added by you, so I repeat my question. Burgundavia 08:35, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
      • Oh! I see now. It took a while to realize which part you where talking about! You mean the quote? Well, since the source is written by a student, part of an educational project, and is properly cited (and has been ever since I put it it), it's not a copyright violation. Clarify, please. Neutrality 14:27, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • IANAL, nor an American, but even if we cite him, I am still uncertain as to the copyright status. Have we attempted to contact this person to ask their permission? I don't think I am being paranoid, but copyrights are something I do care about a lot. Burgundavia 07:28, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] General Discussion | VfD

  • Why are you adding new entires to the VfD page under June 24 instead of under today's date? RickK 19:55, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • I just realized that. It's fixed. Sorry.  ;) Neutrality 19:55, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • No problemo.  :) RickK 19:57, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Also, please try to follow the process at the bottom of the VfD page. You need to specify a reason for each deletion, no matter how obvious you think it might be, and you need to add the VfD boilerplate to the article in question (it's only fair, as this lets the original author know deletion is pending, giving them the oppertunity to fix things or defend the article). Unkinder souls than I will just remove such listings from the VfD page as being invalid nominations. Oh, and please check the history of articles that appear to be blank or nonsense - sometimes it's just a good article that's been vandalised. Thanks. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:15, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Just a bit of feedback: I notice you listed then delisted a page for deletion after I reverted the blanking. When faced with a blank article it is always worth checking the edit history to see why it has been blanked: it may be an act of vandalism on a perfectly decent article and just needs reverting. Also some of the stuff you've added would be better placed at Wikipedia:Speedy deletions; se what constitutes a Wikipedia:Candidate for speedy deletion. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 23:30, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I know. I've never ventured into VfD before, so I'm learning how things work. Forgive me, all three of you, and thanks for the feedback. Neutrality 23:31, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • No probs. We all had to start somewhere (yes even RickK...!) -- Graham ☺ | Talk 23:46, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • I'm not really a "clueless newbie." I've been here since May 15, so I really don't have any excuse ;). In all seriousness, though, my moment of Wiki-confusion was an exception, not the rule: VfD is not my favorite haunt. Thanks for your feedback and forgiveness; it is appreciated.Neutrality 23:49, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Matt | Charles Graner

  • Thanks for your interactions on the Featured Article page regarding Charles Graner. Just one thing though — I prefer to strike out my own objections, rather than have other people do it for me: it's kind of speaking on someone else's behalf. It doesn't really matter in this case (because I agree) but there might be occasions where the person still objects, or might want to comment further. I think it's OK to flag the article as "uncontested," though. — Matt 12:33, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] General Discussion | TheCustomOfLife adminship nomination

  • Your nomination of User:TheCustomOfLife for adminship was very premature. I have removed the request. Please consider renominating in 2-3 months. Best regards --H. CHENEY 18:53, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree. I like it here, but I wouldn't even think of accepting a nomination before at least September or October. Thanks for having so much faith in me, though. It means a lot. Mike H 18:55, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • I respect your wishes and thank you. I plan on nominating you sometime in the future. ;)Neutrality 18:59, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Apparently I'm "too hostile" anyway. Mike H 19:16, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)
        • Who said that!? Neutrality 19:17, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
          • Jwrosenzweig. To his credit, he wanted to see how my handling skills panned out, but I behave according to my own internal standards. I've had enough of pleasing other people first in my real life. Mike H 19:18, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)
            • Bizarre. Neutrality 19:22, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
              • To be clear (and I've clarified things with Mike), I didn't say he was "too hostile", nor did I mean to. :-) I have seen him in a couple of disputes -- he seems to take things very hard, and he occasionally takes criticisms of an article he's worked on as criticisms of himself. I worried it might be that Mike takes things too personally, which would lead to some confrontational disputes (and, inevitably, hostility, if Mike really does take things too personally). I need more time to see how he handles himself in disputes, to prove to me that Mike can handle the arguments that constantly envelop admins. I expect he will prove himself, but I need to see it first, that's all. Hopefully that's a little less bizarre. :-) Jwrosenzweig 19:27, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC) P.S. I do think that admins accept the standards of this site, so Mike's comment "I behave according to my own internal standards" is also a little troubling. Again, time may prove to me that Mike's standards match the policies of this site well. But if they don't, Mike would be a poor choice for admin, simply because his standards would be in constant conflict with the policies he was asked to uphold. Mike is a great editor regardless -- I need time to see if he would be a great admin. Jwrosenzweig 19:29, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
                • You do not know what my standards are. I hate it when people analyze every little thing I say and then assume they understand how I am or how I act. Mike H 19:31, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)
                  • I know I don't, Mike. That's why I said I'd have to see what they were. I didn't assume anything, and I'm sorry if it looked like I was. I think "time may prove to me that Mike's standards match the policies of this site well" conveys that pretty clearly, though. Sorry, Neutrality, for having a conversation with Mike on your talk page -- really a faux pas, I suppose. Jwrosenzweig 19:33, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
                • Thanks. I understand and I hope Mike does as well. Perhaps by the end of this year he will be an admin. If not, hopefully he will continue to make the high-quality edits he does now. Neutrality 19:34, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • P.S. -- I hope, Jwrosenzweig, that you did not take offense at my "bizarre" comment. I meant no offense; please take none. :) Neutrality 19:34, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • Well, I was a little worried at first. :-) No offense taken, though, of course. I understand completely. Jwrosenzweig 19:38, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I have sent you an email. Mike H 20:03, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • Neutrality, I was referring to you. Mike H 20:18, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)
      • Got it, thanks. Neutrality 20:31, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The proof's in the pudding. Sycophancy and greedy politics run this place. The same handful of people are in a "policing" contest in order to attain positions of "power". I've been here 18 times as long as Mike H has. I'm happy being a plebian!205.188.116.205 23:45, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Hcheney | Benjamin Franklin Bridge Image

  • Is it ok with you if I delete Image:Benjamin Franklin Bridge.bmp? I made it much smaller by converting it to jpeg at Image:Benjamin Franklin Bridge.jpg. --H. CHENEY 18:22, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Sure, no problem. Go right ahead! Thanks! :) Neutrality 19:28, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Davidcannon | Thank you for your support

  • Hi there! Just a short note to thank you for your vote in my favour in last week's sysop poll. I feel privileged to be able to take part in this fantastic project. Your vote was very much appreciated. David Cannon 10:27, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • No problem. You deserve it! Neutrality 15:18, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Alanyst | Calvin and Hobbes Images

  • Are the images you placed in the Calvin and Hobbes article fair use? You might add a disclaimer to that effect if they are (see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags). Also, they seem to crowd the article a bit, so I wonder if it would be good to reduce the number or size of the images. Alanyst 23:18, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I am planning to ask someone in the Village Pump to format the graphics and convert the bmp files into jpgs. And yes, they're all fair use; book covers are almost always fair use. Thanks! Neutrality 23:33, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • The images should be tagged with a fair use note and some indication of their origin on their description page. Since you're the one who added the images, could you take a few moments and add the tags/descriptions to them so there aren't questions about copyvio, etc.? I'm especially concerned about the individual character shots - where are they from, are they fair use, etc. - but all of the images need this work done. Thanks! Alanyst 19:59, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Leave the images in as the text is growing all the time and it won't look unbalanced for long. But add copyright tags! I would also like to know from where you got the ones of characters.--[[User:HamYoyo|Bendž

|Ť]] 10:42, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Blankfaze | Thanks for your support

  • I just wanted to thank you for your support in my recent nomination to become an administrator. I really appreciate it. blankfaze | •• | •• 14:26, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • No problem. You should be a sysop. Neutrality 21:52, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Matt | Contested / Uncontested flag

  • Neutrality - I think you may be misunderstanding the instructions on the Featured Articles page: "If you withdraw your objection, strike it out and, if you are the only remaining objector, change "Contested" back to "Uncontested." Do not change the heading's date." This does not mean that, when you strike an objection, and subsequently there remains only one objection left, it's tagged as "Uncontested"; instead it means that if your objection is the last one, and you strike it, then you can tag it as "Uncontested". — Matt 05:03, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • You are right. I misunderstood. Thanks. ;) Neutrality 03:36, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)