User talk:Neutrality/Archive 22

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You marked Saturday night special for NPOV about a month ago. There was one question on the talk page questioning the source of the information on actual criminal preferences, which I have backed up by references from US DOJ studies. I will admit that I am biased on the issue, because I've actually worked selling guns, but then the term itself is highly biased. If you can point out any specific issues, I'll be glad to do my best to address them. scot 01:40, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Jeb Bush - request for consultation

Hi Ben,

The article Jeb Bush currently contains a number of copyrighted images. I contacted the user, SummerFR, who uploaded them and asked him/her to remove them, or obtain permission. S/he has contacted Gov. Bush's organization for permission. I've never negotiated permission for images to be used on Wikipedia, and SummerFR is very new to Wikipedia. So, I'm worried that the requirements of Wikipedia and GFDL might not be explained properly to the copyright holders.

I saw your name at Wikipedia:Boilerplate_request_for_permission, and figured you could help. Would you take a look at the discussion at Talk:Jeb Bush and see what you think? If not, it would be great if you could recommend another experienced Wikipedian for this. Maybe I'm worrying too much about this, but I feel like this could become a big stink if not handled properly. Thanks! FreplySpang (talk) 02:48, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

SummerFR has apparently left Wikipedia, so I'll just mark the images as imagevios and deal with them that way. Cheers, FreplySpang (talk) 01:08, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] a vote you might be interested in

Talk:Links_between_Iraq_and_Al-Qaeda#Requested_move:_Links_between_Iraq_and_Al-Qaeda_.26rarr.3B_Alleged_links_between_pre-invasion_Iraq_and_Al-Qaeda Kevin Baastalk 22:12, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)

[edit] Are you interested in being a Bureaucrat?

Hi, I am considering nominating you to become a Bureaucrat. The role would involve giving administrator or bureaucrat access to other users following consensus on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Although there are currently 18 bureaucrats, it may be helpful to have a few more. If you would accept a nomination, please let me know. Kingturtle 04:27, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Hello, Neutrality. Thanks for your vote at my adminship nomination. I appreciate the support. Cheers! — Trilobite (Talk) 13:23, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Terri Schaivo

Why did you revert my edits about Greer? I read Fox, Worldnetdaily and NewsMax on the right and CNN and the Nation on the left and never did I read about Greer striking down the subpoenas. The fact of the matter is that he doesn't have the authority to as a state judge. 220 years of American jurisprudence has established that no individual state can invalidate an action of the Federal Government. In effect, he chose to ignore the supoeans and stated that Congress deciding to get involved that late in the game changed nothing. Furthermore, had President Bush chosen to enforce the subpeonas, he clearly could have done so. Again, as a Federal Officer, President Bush could not have been held in contempt by Greer. Please tell me where anything I've just said is untrue or factually incorrect. Equinox137 11:48, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] expos/nationals debate

There is a major debate going on, and I wondered if you might want to chime in. The debate involves how to deal with franchise moves in baseball. The question is whether Montréal Expos should be its own article or if it should redirect to Washington Nationals. All other instances of franchise moves in MLB redirect the old team name to the new team name, and the history of the franchise is covered within the new team name (for MLB, NBA and NFL examples, see here. Some people are confused and think the Expos and the Nats are different teams. Some people don't want to upset Canadian readers.

Indeed, the Washington Nationals are not a new team - the Montreal Expos franchise has moved to Washington, and the old franchise name should redirect to the new franchise name, just like the 20+ instances of this occuring in Wikipedia. For example, Brooklyn Dodger history resides in the Los Angeles Dodgers article. New York Giants history, including the Shot Heard 'Round the World, resides in the San Francisco Giants article.

If you have the time, maybe you could chime in on the conversation there, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Montréal Expos. Kingturtle 23:16, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cricket

Hi Neut, you converted the Cricket portal to a disambig by copy-and-paste, but the real history of the disambig is now stranded at cricket (disambiguation). silsor 00:11, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] bogus

Hi Neutrality... can you explain how you concluded that the game of borgolf is "bogus"? ---FoodMarket talk! 04:04, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ISP -> Internet service provider

Hi Neutrality,

I'm disambiguating ISP, and your vandalism chastisement page /Vandal is protected, so you've going to have to do the change there for me. Josh Parris ✉ 06:12, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] history in digital projects

Hi Neutrality, I’m an historian working at the Center for History and New Media at George Mason University (http://chnm.gmu.edu/) and we are very interested in digital historical works, including people writing history on Wikipedia. We’d like to talk to people about their experiences working on articles in Wikipedia, in connection with a larger project on the history of the free and open source software movement. Would you be willing to talk with us about your involvement, either by phone, a/v chat, IM, or email? This could be as lengthy or brief a conversation as you wish.

Thanks for your consideration.

Joan Fragaszy

jfragasz_at_gmu.edu

[edit] Cricket

Hi. You commented on the move of the cricket portal to cricket. Having moved the whole affair back, I have made my own proposal. Could you come and comment, so that we can get consensus for the best version. Cheers, Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 19:58, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Strange activity on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Nehruvian-Stalinism

There is some unusual activity going on on this VFD page. There are at least 7 to 10 new users, many of whose first edits were to this page. One user made a statement that seemed to imply he was asked to come to Wikipedia specifically to vote on this. Can you look into this situation? Firebug 04:47, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • I noticed on Recent Changes that you just deleted this article, which is much appreciated (it is flagrant POV pushing). However, it appears that an editor has just re-created it, perhaps due to editing while the deletion was in progress. Firebug 04:50, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lost history on 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq

Hi Neutrality, looks like someone (perhaps Kevin bass) did a "manual" move of (the apparent redirect) U.S. Iraq War 2003 to U.S. Iraq War but the article seems to currently be 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq (main non-redirected title). Somehow the history and talk page were completely lost through this and other recent byzantine series of moves. Can you clean it up? zen master T 07:06, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cricket portal VfD

Neut, would you mind restoring the comment you originally made ("I'd ordinarily put this on requested moves...") and strike it out? I'm fine with people editing their own comments, but now both mine and Knowledge Seeker's comments don't make sense. I would restore it myself, but that strikes me as just ever so slightly rude. If you don't want to re-add it, that's fine, but say so, because I'll have to alter my comment as well. JRM · Talk 15:21, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)

So altered. JRM · Talk 15:29, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)

[edit] Please clarify "style usage" vote

I believe you agree with me about the inappropriateness of use of a formal style at the beginning of a biography article (like "His Holiness Pope B16"). However, if you would clarfiy your vote to explicitly list "Fifth choice" (and "First choice", etc. elsewhere), that would carry more weight than a generic disapproval of the bad style policy. Btw. Ranked preference and Condercet voting may seem strange at first, but it really is a good way to decide among a number of choices--Whig was clever to choose this technique, IMO. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:41, 2005 May 1 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Sollog

Question: I was wondering if a template like this, except having the target user is Wikipedia is Communism, can be created. Thanks. Zscout370 (talk) 03:24, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] COTW Project

You voted for History of Quebec, this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article.

[edit] Is "conspiracy theory" in an article's title NPOV?

Hi Neutrality, I wanted your opinion on something. Is it NPOV to have "conspiracy theory" in an article's title? Wikipedia's own definition of "conspiracy theory" states that it "connotes that the subject is unworthy of being taken seriously" -- not taking a subject seriously is the anti-thesis of an encyclopedia I believe, what do you think? zen master T 06:30, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Non-admins closing debates

I see on WP:RFAr that you claimed that SPUI did not have authority to close VfD-debates. I would like to refer you to these discussions on the subject:

If you take a look at the third discussion you will see a number of users critisizing me for not contributing by closing debates. Sjakkalle 07:32, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration case - Netoholic

A decision has been reached in the arbitration case relating to Netoholic. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Netoholic 2#Final decision for further details and the full decision. -- sannse (talk) 22:42, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] thanks!

that info you provided about schools and sleep was terrific. thanks, Kingturtle 03:53, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:2006 Senate election.png

Good job on this image. However, the problem is that New Hampshire on this image is not colored (it should be colored gray). Could you please change that? Thanks. --Lst27 (talk) 00:52, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your objections

your opinion was interesting, and it goes with I though. The formating of countries is useless and uninformative. So should we create these sections? I think some that you mention are really interresting. But some sections would be odd. like Human rights... most of these should be joined. you said

  1. No education section.
  2. No communications section.
  3. No transportation section.
  4. No environment section
  5. No human rights section.
  6. No science and technology section.

i think:

  • Environment (or create a single section: Geography, Climate and Environment) - but there's a lot to tell...
  • Communications and transportation (or include these in economy, maybe it would be the best)
  • Education, Science and Technology?

-Pedro 12:37, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Cricket

Please leave this page at Portal:Cricket until Portalspace is created. (See also Wikipedia:Portalspace. I discussed this with ABCD, who closed the VfD debate, and he was ok with this - I trust you will be too - especially as it does not look as though it will be long before we do have Portalspace. Kind regards, jguk 05:32, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Secretary General

w/r/t Template:In the news -- for the record, UN use is "Secretary-General", but OAS use is "Secretary General"; there's a list on Secretary-General. I just can't believe it was there for four days without my noticing it. –Hajor 16:57, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Nehruvian-Stalinism"

We've got another outbreak of the Nehruvian-Stalinism crap on the Jawaharlal Nehru article. I've already used up my 3 reverts for the day; perhaps you could assist here? Thanks. Firebug 01:50, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that the Nehru article needs a lot of cleanup in general; there are a lot of unsourced statements in the article from various POVs. Unfortunately, this isn't one of my areas of expertise. Firebug 01:57, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration case against LevelCheck

Hi, regarding the arbcom case against LevelCheck: recently, he's returned to editing after a 9-day hiatus, and immediately commenced disrupting again (see List of people who have used the word "Islamofascism"). In light of this, I hope the arbcom will take a look at my request for a temporary injunction. Thanks, Meelar (talk) 22:37, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] jhkjhkjh

Dear Neutrality, i was just looking at Portugal's failed FAC and i noticed this sentence of yours: No mention of Portugal's conterversial stance on abortion or drugs?. Now, this is interesting because you are the third American i encounter (1st in wikipedia) who makes an apocryphal comment such as this one. I would understand this kind of idea about Holland, a country notorious for being liberal, but Portugal?? So, can i ask you whats the word over there about Portugal and drugs? Whats the common idea, if you get my point... Cheers, muriel@pt 13:58, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I know what is the situation, i just wanted to know what transpired to the other side of the Atlantic... Slightly distorted as i has thought. Is not that heroin is legal, you still go to jail for selling it, the only difference is that here you dont go to jail for using it. Anyway, thanks, muriel@pt 07:47, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disrupting Wikipedia vote

You voted once for the policy at Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Despite a 75% support, that vote was rejected by the minority. A new vote has been called with a two week limit at Wikipedia talk:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Please take a moment to participate. Thanks. - Tεxτurε 17:10, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell

Paul Beardsell edited the Proposed decision page of the arbitration case. My comment [1], diff [2], please read it before voting on case, the last principle was added by him.Tkorrovi 12:01, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ITN

Hello, Neutrality. I don't mean to repeatedly undo your updates at ITN. I want to see ITN updated more often, too. But, could you please make sure that we already have the news updated into the relevant pages in Wikipedia first ? I'm just sticking to the guidelines on Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page. -- PFHLai 23:39, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

By the way, the guidelines also call for an update on Current events. Please add a line about the Korea story and a newslink there. Thanks. -- PFHLai 23:43, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
Thank you the item on Current events. I've added a newslink there, too. Hope I didn't give you an edit conflict. :-) Happy editing ! -- PFHLai 23:53, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

[edit] Welding images

Thanks for finding those great welding images - I'm not sure where you got them, but they're excellent, especially the pipe welding one. Hopefully you understand me moving them on the page to their respective sections - my reasons were sort of given in the edit summaries, in case you care. The reason for switching the side of the page was that I think the general standard is that pictures alternate sides of the page, especially within individual sections.

Also, what is your general opinion on image descriptions? For the welding article, I don't see that it matters that much where exactly the image is from – for instance, the pipe welding image illustrates SMAW welding beautifully without us knowing that it was the Upper Jones Tract Levee break in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. That would be useful if it was an article about California, in my opinion, but here it's not. If someone is interested, couldn't they just click on the image and check it out? Let me know what you think, and thanks again for finding those images! --Spangineer ∞ 03:25, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Abif VfD

Hi, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Abif. Thank you. IZAK 06:28, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom

I've made this mistake myself, which is how I know that admins aren't permitted to edit protected articles, however good their motives or uncontroversial their edits. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:09, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry; now I've not only made the mistake of doing it myself, but of wrongly accusing someone else of doing it. What's left? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:22, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rename of Academic and journalistic use of honorifics

May I ask why you felt the title Use of courtesy titles and honorifics in journalism was more appropriate for WP? I'm not disagreeing with you, I would just like to understand naming conventions better (or at least your take on them). The former version fits my academic brain a bit better, but I realize most readers are not stodgy professors (as I used to be; still stodgy, but not a prof). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:46, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

I hope I did not step on your editing when I made a couple small changes. I did not realize you were actively cleaning up until I saw the {{inuse}} tag. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:03, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

Hi Neutrality: I really appreciate all the cleanup work you did in the article I started. However, I still have some concern with the new title you chose. Specifically, the article is not per-se about "Journalism", so the title seems too narrow. I commented a bit on this at: Talk:Use_of_courtesy_titles_and_honorifics_in_journalism. Your thoughts? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:50, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Please check out Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate, (PS love the map) Slrubenstein | Talk 23:56, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Plea agreement

Hi i am just left wandering why the change from plea barganing to plea agreement through the whole article. Just Curious. Mexaguil 05:34, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I was curious about that as well. The commonly accepted term is "plea bargain" or "plea bargaining". While "plea agreement" describes the same thing, it is not nearly as widely used. The general public is familiar with the former term. Before I change it back I wanted to get your input. Tufflaw 15:06, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response - I would note however that if you check Google for both "plea bargain" and "plea bargaining" there are twice as many hits as "plea agreement". Additionally, there is no entry in Black's Law Dictionary for plea agreement, but it's only listed as an alternate term for plea bargain: "plea bargain, n. A negotiated agreement between a prosector and a criminal defendant whereby the defendant pleads guilty to a lesser offense or to one of multiple charges in exchange for some concession by the prosecutor, usu. a more lenient sentence or a dismissal of the other charges. - Also termed plea agreement; negotiated plea; sentence bargain." Also listed in Black's are "charge bargain" and "sentence bargain". Clearly "bargain" is the more commonly accepted term in the legal community. Whether the media uses a term more or less doesn't really have anything to do with the neutrality of the term - the issue is whether the term being used is correct or not (the media still uses the term "alleged suspect" which is ridiculous). This is a legal term of art and can't be considered POV. The preferred term in the legal community is "plea bargain". Tufflaw 15:36, May 16, 2005 (UTC)