User talk:Neutrality/Archive 26

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Long Time No Chat

Hey, it's been a long time since we talked on Wikipedia? How are ya? BTW, w00t first post! :D — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 02:27, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Not much is happening, just browsed by a message of yours in old talk archives and decided to leave a note. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 03:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] live

Hiya,

The discussion seems to have gone all quiet on the proposed styles solution, though I have tried to get it going again. There is from what was said a clear consensus on using this solution. I's going to start putting in the papal box to see if it will work. Is that OK with you?

FearÉIREANNImage:Ireland coa.png\(caint) 21:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Portrait subpage

Look at User:Neutrality/Presidential portraits. Half of them are missing, you may want to fix it. Redwolf24 06:17, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Holidays

You may be interested in the WikiProject, WikiProject Holidays, a WikiProject that will focus on standardizing articles about Holidays. It has been around for quite some time, but I'm starting it up again, and would like to see some more members (and our original members) around the help out. Cheers. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 21:09, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Tudorbethan

Please could you put Tudorbethan back at Tudorbethan, it is not the same thing at all as Tudor architecture. Please see the link here [1] which explains this. It does explain in the article that Tudorbethan evolved in the 19th century, by which time the Tudor period had been over 300 years. The Tudorbethan page is the result of a fairly recent collaboration between several editors. I think it would also have been courteous to have put some advance warning on its talk page before carrying out this unnecessary move. Giano | talk 06:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

  • PS:Tudorbethan is the actual term used by the Oxford Dictionary of Architecture for "a style of domestic architecture involving revival of Elizabethan, Jacobean and Tudor architectural elements..." They also carry entries on Tudor architecture for the actual period style. Giano | talk 06:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Liberty Displaying the Arts and Sciences, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently-created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

[edit] Hayashi Yoichi

This article was deleted as per vfd consensus, but it appears the discussion page wasn't closed Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Hayashi Yoichi… I might want to float it over at VFU sometime if I can gather some more info about the man, could you check it out please? --TimPope 21:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I've closed the discussion page and counted the votes - 10/4 against with 1(2?) abstains. Personally I would have voted keep, but I think that at the time the VFD was closed, this counts as consensus to delete. I would support a VFU but would not request it myself. Alphax τεχ 05:37, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Can you Take a Quick Glance at this Injuction Proposal?

Hi, Most of the Arb Comm has voted on the proposed editing restrictions of "DotSix" here Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/DotSix/Proposed_decision#DotSix_edit_restrictions. Can I ask you to take a look at the proposal here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/DotSix/Proposed_decision. Also, most of the committee has already voted a on a Preliminary decision here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/DotSix#Arbitrators.27_opinions_on_hearing_this_matter_.284.2F0.2F1.2F0.29.

Thanks. --Nate Ladd 19:19, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ITN

Please have a look at Template talk:In the news#Pat Robertson. Thanks.--Pharos 03:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV?

I think that just for kicks you should add {{NPOV}} to your userpage...get it? Neutrality...disputed...heh heh. See ya around ;) — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 02:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] nominated at your suggestion -thx - Update: Firestorm - need help

In spite of our disagreements, I wanted to thank you for making the comment once a long time ago (in a peer review) to make the Schiavo article a featured article -I nominated it, but I have done my part -so far. Take care,--GordonWattsDotCom 04:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Update:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Terri_Schiavo

Firesorm here. Need help.

This was your idea, remember, to ask for featured article status on Schiavo, remember. Can you come help?--GordonWattsDotCom 07:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "God" vs. "god"

The word God is used primarily by the Christian faith (although many others as well), refers to the monotheistic concept of a single God, and is what is popularly seen. However, the word "god", note, uncapticalized, is generic. If you have another title that uses this construct, and does not use the word claim, which is entirely possible and does not load the article with connotation (which has been a serious problem - we do not make the assumption that they either were or were not a deity or god. popular usage of "self-proclaimed" and "claimed" around this subject matter carries a perjorative sense), I would not object. --Alterego 02:06, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bureaucratship

I'm letting you know that I've just nominated myself for bureaucratship for the second time. If you didn't care to know about this, I apologize for the inconvenience. Andre (talk) 02:40, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vasco da Gama

An article that you've edited before (Vasco da Gama) is nominated for Article Improvement Drive. If you want go there and vote. Thanks. Gameiro 03:00, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Early VfD deletes?

Hi there! I was wondering if the collection of speedies you speedied today "per VfD" had had previous VfDs? I don't think most of them were speediable under any other criterion, and a VfD lasts rather longer than a few hours. But maybe I just can't find the prior VfDs. -Splash 00:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Common Names

Hello. I'm working on Delaware politicians (and maybe others someday) and am trying to gradually produce quality well documented articles for these people. I've made some progress, but seem to have crashed into the Wikipedia convention about common names. I can see you've been around this block a long time, so respect what you have to say, but can't seem to figure the sense of the application of this apparent standard. This is my first real "issue" regarding style, so please be gentle on me and help me learn how to properly navigate these things.

I do note that the published guidelines seem to indicate what you've done is the proper thing to do. I would argue, however, that while the concept of using the commonly recognized name for a person is most appropriate, using their "nickname" is not the same thing. I have never seen an encylopedia or any other kind of professionally produced document that organizes its information on nicknames, they note them to be sure, and perhaps even index on them, but do not entitle an article that way. Is it "Abe Lincoln" and "Jeff Davis?" "Jack Kennedy" or "Bobby Kennedy?" Of course not, the headline use of the nickname demeans and belittles them. (I notice that someone has labeled an article "Ted Kennedy," but why not "Teddy?") In spite of what the practice has been or the Wikipedia standard writer says, I think the common name standard is intended to apply to a "Marilyn Monroe" vs. "Norma Jeane Baker" situation or the case of an Empress Alexandra Fyodorovna vs. Princess Alix. In these cases the person was known by various names at various times and one is clearly the common usage.

So...do you think there is any basis for my opinion? If the whole world thinks I'm nuts, I will fall into line, but I am obviously really struggling with the application of this standard.

stilltim 20:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Union member states at the 2004 Summer Olympics

You might be interested to have a look. Regards --Pgreenfinch 12:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Center for Medieval Studies

I'm almost certain that Center-for-Medieval-Studies is another sockpuppet of mr. Williamson. Just look at the one edit on the Joan of Arc page: promoting part of a site of mr. Williamson that doesn't even exist yet! The site he's promoting is www.joan-of-arc.info - a center of studies, without any info about this "organization". It's owned by mr. Williamson though. Mr. Williamson claims he's a specialist on the Hundred Years War. All edits of Center-for-Medieval-Studies relate to that. This is the second time mr. Williamson claims he's a "center of studies", all by himself. Switisweti 14:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

==if== if an arbitrator you are, then please examine the RFAr on dreamGuy and cast your vote. thanksGavin the Chosen 05:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bureaucratship

Hi, Neutrality. Thank you so much for your support and kind words on my bureaucratship nomination. Unfortunately, it didn't pass, but I intend to run again soon. If you'd like to be informed next time around, please let me know on my talk page. Thanks again! Andre (talk) 05:22, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please have a look

Please have a look at Category:Superstition, its CFD, the editing of Baphomet. (talk · contribs) and a sweet little exchange on Talk:Prayer. JFW | T@lk 11:18, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TFA

I've made some comments on Jean S. which is scheduled to be featured tomorrow on WP:TFA. Could you please handle the issue? Thanks. User:Nichalp/sg 18:08, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 6/3 != consensus?

Just asking - you decided not to promote my image candidate as a result of a 6-for, 3-against vote. Can you explain how that result isn't a consensus as required? I don't understand. -- RyanFreisling @ 03:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm hoping you will choose to answer and enlighten me as to the rationale for not promoting the image. -- RyanFreisling @ 04:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
I responded on my talk page. I'm disappointed that my efforts to clarify the discussion by making all my edits to the image transparent somehow hurt it's chances. Can't really wrap my mind around that one. It's a shame I'll have to start all over again after a 6/3 result the first time and renominate it, but if I have to, I will. Thanks. -- RyanFreisling @ 05:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unilateral page moves

Call me snippy, but I was under the impression that page moves were generally discussed or at least mentioned on an article's talk page first, not simply done because someone with sufficient status feels like it. - Keith D. Tyler 20:44, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No arbitration comments or activity?

Hello Neutrality, I am curious why my arbitration case has been bereft of comments, scope clarification, nor movement towards a resolution? Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zen-master/Evidence zen master T 04:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Still no comment? Are you receiving my messages? Please confirm this message and my request for explanation(s) on my talk page. zen master T 02:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Is it reasonable to consider it odd that no one has responded to my repeated arbcom scope clarification questions? Have you been discussing the case via email for over 2 months? Seems like 3 folks have already voted (some long ago), are they involved in any ongoing discussions? From my vantage point the process has not made much sense on multiple levels so far, the proposed 1 week ban is exponentially ridiculous. Are listserv discussions final and/or will I have any future opportunties for defense/debate? zen master T 03:11, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Any updates? zen master T 02:16, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Elements of Style improvement project

Hi! I really like the project you made - I think it's very helpful and I hope that it becomes the maintenance project soon. I've been browsing the revised version of The Elements of Style and I noticed some other phrases that could be replaced with better versions that you didn't include in the project. I shall write them here and if you feel that they should be added to the project, feel free to add them :)

  • "As to whether" --> replace with "whether"
    • [2] (43,000 hits)
  • "As yet" --> replace with "yet"
    • [3] (22,500 hits)
  • "Regarded as being" --> replace with "regarded as"
    • [4] (603 hits)
  • "Doubt but" and "Help but"
    • [5] (189 hits), [6] (9,190 hits)... this one has a lot of false positives though...
  • "Consider ___ as" --> replace with "Consider ___"
    • [7] (20,1000 hits)
  • "Each and every one" --> replace with ... something else, I guess. I'm not a native speaker :)
    • [8] (141 hits)
  • "In regard to" --> replace with "in regards to"
    • [9] (13,700 hits)

I still have to check everything below the 'in regard to' entry. I hope you find my suggestions helpful and would be glad if you replied on my talk page :) --Missmarple 19:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] OldRight Arbitration case

The Arbitration case against OldRight has been closed with OldRight placed on Probation for one year.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 01:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yuber arbitration

Ben, before Yuber's case is closed, can I ask you to look at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Yuber/Proposed decision, and specifically my post here? I feel that Guy should be allowed to present evidence if he's to suffer the same penalty as Yuber, and should have been told that Fred had compiled evidence against him. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 02:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ed Poor case closed

Hi Neutrality. I wondered if you are aware that Ed Poor's case was closed yesterday only a short time after I had presented my rather lengthy evidence, and only a couple of hours after a motion to close was made? Did you get the opportunity to read through my presentation? I was in fact in the process of adding to it and preparing a statement of conclusions when the case closed. Are you satisfied with how this was handled? Paul August ☎ 15:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Universal rules

Perhaps the Elements of Style's rules really do seem "universal" to you. I realise that they are very much entrenched in the US, and they are definitely largely applicable to UK English. However, it's definitely not true that you must use a comma before "and" or "but" where they begin a clause in English. Far from it. We generally remove them. If you can find a source for your contention, maybe you'd have a leg to stand on, but otherwise you do seem to be employing your bias. I freely admit I have a bias too but mine is from the POV you are seeking to exclude. Yes, I know this is a very minor issue, and I don't intend to revert you again. I do think it's important to challenge systemic bias though, even though I know it can't be eradicated and I am pretty sure that you'll disregard this argument and revert regardless. Grace Note 06:57, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh and the OUP would be just about the only people who systematically use the Oxford comma in the UK (see the long, bitter discussion on the page of that name for more on views about it there). I wonder why ;-) Grace Note 06:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Relying on OUP and Burchfield is a bit like my giving you AP as a source. Fowler's had to be abandoned because Burchfield stuffed it up so badly. Most places I've worked use the Times or Economist style guides as their basis. I'm yet to work anywhere or for anyone in the UK or in Australia that mandated a serial comma or a comma before "and" and "but" when they conjoin clauses. Their editors would be up in arms about it if they did. It just isn't general usage, whereas in the States it would be wrong to omit the commas. There are also other elements of S&W that wouldn't hold in the UK. I am beginning, I should say, to feel some of the same frustration Jguk has felt when discussing style issues with American editors. Grace Note 05:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I've been asking many

Okay, I haven't got an answer to this yet but I have to ask. I'm taking a wiki-break for deeply personal reasons, and I'm wondering if for the time I am taking a wiki-break can this account go to my brother until I return? Or does that break the rules, because if it does then he won't get the account for the time that I'm away. The Fascist Chicken 21:50, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Omit needless words"

I spotted this on your user page, and I wondered whether you'd heard the joke/story about the fishmonger and the signwriter? I summarise it as "Fresh Fish Sold Here" and use it as an example of the above (mainly to myself). If you do I won't bore you with the repetition, but if not let me know on my talk page and I'll explain.

-=# Amos E Wolfe talk #=- 03:18, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Whew

Hey, thanks for the kind message! I saw my message light pop up and groaned because I was absolutely convinced that it was the same group of people who've been arguing over the Karl Rove article on my talk page. So I'm glad I didn't put off looking at my messages. ;) I really prefer to keep my employer kinda on the DL, I'm sure you can understand, but I will say that it's a national paper. Thanks again! · Katefan0(scribble) 03:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again, you are very kind. I enjoy being here and get quite a bit of satisfaction out of contributing. · Katefan0(scribble) 17:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merger of effects.

Given their closeness in time and location, it strikes me that it will soon become difficult to separate the respective economic, political, and social effects of Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita. What do you think of the idea of moving the articles covering these aspects to Economic effects of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, Political effects of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, and Social effects of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season? -- BD2412 talk 00:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] mistake in DYK template

hello, you've made a little mistake. "iin" i think should be -> "in" :) --Oblivious 22:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Graner with England.bmp

Hi. I notice that you didn't list a source for Image:Graner with England.bmp. As you're probably aware, such images are likely to be deleted soon. Cheers, Bovlb 07:01, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Intensity of Binary Independence article deletion

I created this article and request an explanation as to why you deleted it.--Fahrenheit451 21:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Speedies again

Hi there. A few sections up, I enquired why you had speedied a number of articles from a particular day's AfD listings, although you must have forgotten to reply. You've done some again today, citing the AfD rather than any speedy criterion. Can I ask why? AfD lasts 5 days, not a few hours. -Splashtalk 23:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok. (A7 applies to people, not nursery schools, btw). Sometime early deletions cause ruckuses (ruki?) on VfU, that's all. -Splashtalk 23:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AI/Evidence

A couple weeks ago, I added new evidence that discusses AI's belligerent article revert warring and, more importantly, intimidation tactics. AI has unapologetically verified (on the evidence page) that I have quoted him/her accurately. I noticed a motion suggested to close the arbitration, but I hope that the new evidence will be considered beforehand. I'd appreciate it if you could take a look. Thanks, HKT talk 04:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AfD closure

Neutrality, whilst I have every sympathy with your frustration with the antics of the 'keep every school' brigade, I think you may have made a mistake with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saint Michael's School (Cranford, New Jersey). I counted (twice) 13-11 for delete - a clear 'no-consensus'. I assume you have miscounted, but if not, can I suggest you pick more defensible ground to fight a battle. Please consider reversing this, before someone with less sympathy rumbles it. --Doc (?) 09:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Along the same lines, the VFU discussion for Sept 25th should interest you, Neutrality. I note also that the reason(s) for a delete close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oceanview Elementary School, Albany, California is not immediately apparent. Could you help us understand your reasoning in these cases, please? Regards—encephalonεγκέφαλον 09:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Much like I said above, deleting things out-of-process just causes upset and dumps a bunch of fighting onto VfU. Maybe you could call by and clear things up for us? -Splashtalk 15:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

This deletion clearly wasn't out-of-process. However the close was puzzling. As were indeed the following two closes:

This one even more so:

In that last close, two articles were deleted. The Albany one despite not apparently having been the subject of the original nomination or the bulk of (or perhaps even any of) the votes.

I think a little more elaboration of the reasoning behind these AfD closes would help to clear the air. --Tony SidawayTalk 18:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt restoration of Oceanview Elementary School, Albany, California. --Tony SidawayTalk 10:24, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] VFU

Hi, I know that you sometimes may perceive me as "the other side" or something. That just isn't the case. I have nothing but respect for your contributions to Wikipedia. Our disagreements are as nothing compared to that, as far as I am concerned.

On review in WP:VFU it appears to me that there is an overwhelming consensus to reverse three recent AfDs and three recent speedies which were appealed. I proposed undeleting them to get it over with [10] but I've had second thoughts because I think it could appear confrontational. We could let the VFU run for a few more days, but I don't think opinions will change much. Would you like to take a step to bring this to a swift end? The three contested speedies could be converted to AfDs, and the AfDs undeleted and amended to note that the decisions were reversed by VFU. I am sure that this could only enhance the respect in which you are held. --Tony SidawayTalk 23:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikijunior Solar System Needs You

Danny Wool has challenged us to get Wikijunior Solar System out to hurricane evacuees by October 3, 2005. This is going to be tough!

You expressed interest in WikiJunior. Would you be willing now to join the push to get Wikijunior Solar System completed?

--SV Resolution(Talk) 16:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Need arbitrator (or referree)

I am fairly new to wikipedia in that I do not understand how disputes are settled. We need an arbitrator or someone with objectivity at two articles: 2003 invasion of Iraq and Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. What better person than Neutrality? On both pages the same person is deleting relevant information, seemingly because he does not want wikipedia readers to have access to the info. The information is almost always well sourced (although I did forget to put a link once and another time linked to the 9/11 Commission Report when it should have been the Senate Report). My first goal is to get the "Disputed" label removed from the Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda page. My second goal is for readers of other wikipedia articles to not be completely shocked when they read the Saddam and AQ page. But as long as csloat refuses to allow relevant information onto the page, the "Disputed" label should stay. I consider csloat's reverts to be simple vandalism for POV reasons but would like you to look at the controversy. Can you find the time to look it over? -RonCram 14:02, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Ooops! I just read the top of your page and see that you are on the Arbitration Committee. I did not know there was an Arbitration Committee. Now that I know, I will try to discover the first step down that road. Sorry to have bothered you. -RonCram 14:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why would you do this

Can you please explain why you have speedy deleted so many school articles in light of your second RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Neutrality 2 after mass-nominating 50 articles for deletion, such as this selected subset on May 17, 2005:

It appears that school articles are a contentious issue for debate right now on Wikipedia, but deleting things outside of process, especially given both your own personal edit history and the history behind the debate itself, gives the outward appearance of someone who is abusing their administrative priveleges. Silensor 19:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Praise

Just a note to say that I was very impressed with your last edit to the DeLay article. You certainly followed the quote on your user page. Have a nice evening. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:17, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yuber arbcom case

Hi Ben, FYI [11] SlimVirgin (talk) 06:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I have changed this, but on the chance that you did oppose, check it. Fred Bauder 12:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Christianity

Neutrality, would you unlock the christianity template for editing. I believe it has been long enough. Thanks kindly. —thames 19:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your swift response. As always, a pleasure editing with you. —thames 20:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

==Who's RfA== Thank you for supporting my masters RfA. He appreciates your support and comments and looks forward to better serving Wikipedia the best he can. Of course I will be doing all of the real work. He would have responded to you directly, but he is currently out of town, and wanted to thank you asap. Thanks again. --Who's mop?¿? 21:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

Thank you very much for your vote on my RFA, it is now the 8th most supported RFA ever, and it couldnt have happened without your vote. I look forward to serving wikipedia. Again, thanks. →Journalist >>talk<< 23:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rogerd RfA

I wanted to thank you for supporting my RfA. Unfortunately, it did not reach the required level of support and failed. Apparently, some didn't feel that I had participated enough outside the article namespace. I may try again in a few months. Thanks again. --Rogerd 21:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)