User talk:Plrk/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] RE: 3RR

I looked at both, and noted a vast difference in tone and volubility between his Talk page interaction and his Edit summaries. Frankly, he was marginally more convincing in his edit summaries..

But I wasn't saying he was right, just that it's unusual for 3RR violators to defend their edits so much.--Vercalos 10:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re. Christian Democracy

Hej Jobjörn. Thank you for contacting me. I prefer not to comment on the disputed content of the article, as it's not my area of expertise. However, I see that there's an edit war going on. If it continues, I may protect the article (or you may request protection on WP:RPP) so that consensus may be achieved on the talk page without continuous warring. Regards.--Húsönd 20:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation -- Christian Democracy

Do you agree to accept me as your mediator in Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-08 Christian Democracy? Alan.ca 02:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I would, but I believe it is now a non-issue - the edit-warring has stopped and some form of consensus has been reached, as Itake left. He also stated to me via e-mail that he would no longer interfere with my editing, or, in his words, he would "stop fucking around with the Wikipedia articles". You should regard the case as closed. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 02:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why screw around with the ToC?

"Why screw around with the ToC?"

Because if one does one does not get that big, stupid, useless blank big right eating up half the page in the middle of one's browser when the page loads.

Is is some new Wiki law not to? Why else was the template made? If it is used at the top then it clashes with the other tags. Placed where it is text flows nicely about it. Simple.

195.82.106.244 07:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't fit in line with all the other articles, and doesn't follow Wikipedia:Manual of Style. It's there to allow for specialization, such as on the Main Page. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 13:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that link, I had not seen it before and it interests me. I was finding my way in the dark. However, I don't see any direct link to content table but agree that neither style nor intelligence necessarily rules wiki articles ...
I still that think big empty spaces in prime view spots is dumb and ought to be fixed/changed. May be they need to rethink the look placement of content menu ... a scroll down from the top menu would work. 195.82.106.244 17:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The point is to give a brief overview of the contents of the article before readers are smashed with the content of the article. Placing the ToC and the article content side by side makes readers lose focus. I strongly feel the ToC should be placed as it is placed per default, judging by every other article that's community consensus. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 17:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I suppose someone could right a bot to fix the few miscreants that like a nice lay out. I think it is more due to the fact few folk know how to use that tags and tags in general. I guessed I am more used to books and magazines and over looked those with challenged reading ability. Sorry, 195.82.106.244 04:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation -- Swedish Anarcho-syndicalist Youth Federation

I have opened the case, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-08 Swedish Anarcho-syndicalist Youth Federation on the mediation cabal. Do you wish to proceed with the mediation with me as your mediator? Alan.ca 08:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

That too is now a non-issue. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 13:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:

see here.

Sam Spade 13:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Fan Site

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia. I've visited it a couple times, but never really tried editing until now. I wanted to know why exactly you consider me adding The HeadCrab Union on the Half-Life 2 page advertising. It's a place for all Valve games and mods. Is there some reason that it doesn't deserve to be listed along with the other fan sites? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by sentinelrv (talk • contribs).

It may be so that I was to hasty in my judgment. However, my judgment was based on 1) it was an anonymous edit, 2) the description didn't describe the link but rather copied a slogan, and 3) Wikipedia:External links. The latest policy in a nutshell: Adding external links can be a service to our readers, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article. I do believe there are enough external links in the Half-Life 2 article. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 06:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Look, I signed up now, so it wouldn't be an anonymous edit. I can write a description for the link. Also, I've spent a lot of time and put a lot of effort into maintaing this union, not to mention getting endorsed by GameSpot itself and affiliating with some of the fan sites that are listed on there. We are also one of the fan sites that keep up our news coverage and even have features such as game guides and mod interviews. It only feels right that we should be listed on there along with the others.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by sentinelrv (talk • contribs).
I won't remove it again if you put it up. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 11:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PoliticsOnTheWeb.com

This author has had more than enough time to assert notability, and the article should be {{db-web}}ed, not {{notability}}ed. PumeleonT 03:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind. I see that you saw it. PumeleonT 03:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yay. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 03:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kan höns simma?

Hi, I saw your comment on Talk:Chicken#Swimming? and just had to ask: you listened to Trafiktrolles kassettradio when you were younger, didn't you? //74.56.91.108 04:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually I didn't, although I know what it is. Does Trafiktrolle talk about chickens swimming? ;) Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 19:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, the question in the header is asked at the end of one of the tapes, but the tape ends before any answer is found. It seems like the editors of Talk:Chicken aren't sure of the answer either... //74.56.91.108 22:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
True that. However, the reference desk brings answers: Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Miscellaneous/2006 August 2#Are chickens able to swim? Apart from the conclusion that chickens are indeed unable to swim, that also taught me that budgerigars are unable to swim too, and other interesting things. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 23:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Approved for AWB!

Thank you for your recent application to use AutoWikiBrowser. I have approved your request and you should now be able to use the AWB application. Be sure to check every edit before you save it, and don't forget to check out the AWB Guide. You can get any help you need over on the AWB talk page. Feel free to contact me with any questions, Alphachimp 05:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Yay, an early Christmas present! Thank you and merry Christmas. And a happy new year! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 09:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why the drug-free badge?

Why do you put that box around yourself? Do you condone drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes as opposed to hash, pot and whatevers even more potent? On the one side i take it you want to ligitimize what you do drink or smoke as opposed to whats "wrong" or "evil" or "against the law" or "bad for ones health" and on the other side you are ligitimizing government control on 2 sides: The first is giving citizens some drugs that they can use, so that many doesnt get too angry about not having their after-work drink or the "i got to go get a cigarette" break. The other is creating a small minority of criminals to make sure that the many can say "Iam not an addict, iam a good, iam right" so to keep them going and working for the state and the capital, whats worth anything to people with power. This last one also makes sure the police and the different government bodys got an extra job.

Anyhow smoking cigarettes affect other people as opposed to joints which is rarely smoken around lots of people and even if its hard on one self putting needles in ones arm its hardly something which attack other people on their physical health. Taken in this perspective alcohol is probably the worst of them all as that above anything else (not even speed) effects the level of aggression!

Why do you have to put that badge on yourself? Making yourself better than the people who have problems doesnt make their situation any better! Its alienation! My body is filled with drugs, and what the fuck is your problem with that! --Fjulle 16:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Dude. There is OBVIOUSLY some problem with that, or you wouldn't go hopping mad over a wikipedian userbox. To begin with, it should be duly noted that I do not ever drink alcohol, do not ever smoke or in any other way use tobacco, and do not ever do drugs. I have seen too much shit gone wrong. I spent large parts of my fucking christmas eve giving support to a friend with alcoholic parents, for instance. I consider alcohol to be the most dangerous narcotic of them all, but there is no specific userbox for it... although, "alcohol" is included in the quite broad "drug" category. Furthermore, the userbox doesn't say "I'M DRUG-FREE, ILLIEGALIZE ALL DRUGS!" it says "Drug-free" - legally or not.
I also have quite a lot of opinions on the role of alcohol and other narcotics in a future socialist/anarchist utopia, and their role in the daily class struggle. If you wish, I can explain those ideas. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 16:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Honestly iam tired of seing those everywhere, and then heres a person calling himself an anarchist going around with the same badge as all the government supporting freaks trying to be better than people who do drugs, willingly or not that anymore. If i where to wear anything, and thats the anarchist line of thinking!, it would be: "My body is filled with drugs!", both as a reminder to anyone, who thinks thoughts of restraint, of who controls this body of mine (I do) and as a point against the thinking that if theres just no more cigarette smoke in public then everybody will be just fine and no more lung problems there, cauz thats not the case. Still theres the cars and the factories and those are awfull compared to one or two spaces where smokers can do their shit ... But indulge me, id like to get a view as to how far you would want to go against personal liberty and why. --Fjulle 16:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
As previously stated, your argument fails on the point that I, by that userbox, do not argue for an illegalization of drugs. It merely states that I am drug-free. Similarly, your userpage states that your website is in Danish - not that you want to illegalize all non-danish website. See my point?
Furthermore. I am an anarchist. The primary reason behind me being a drug-free anarchist is not that I have the right to do what the fuck I want to and I want to stay clean, but rather that I believe drugs - including alcohol - are merely a capitalist method of passivisation. You are not participating in the struggle if you are home beating wife and kids. You are not participating in the struggle if you are lying on a sidewalk, puking after a night of heavy partying. You are not participating in the struggle if you are watching soccer and having a beer with your friends. It pacifies you. It turns you into a drone, a working drone - slave of the capital.
Now, it ain't only pacifying. It is also the subject of a consumer boycott by me and my likes - not for pacifying, but for all the evil shit the alcohol industry does. Like Heineken's and Carlsberg's so-called "beer girls" in South Asian countries like Cambodia. Like the six meters tall advertising billboards from Absolut placed over the roads of African countries like Tanzania. Like the beer halls built in African countries like Uganda - "we want running water", the villagers said. "We can afford a pipe if you drink enough booze in the beer hall we just built", says the corrupted authorities. The list goes on - compared to alcohol industry atrocities in especially the third world, those committed by, say, Coca-Cola Company are nothing - and what anarchist wouldn't boycott the CCC, murderers of union representatives?
Back to the issue of personal liberty. While I have already stated - twice - that I by my userbox am not arguing for an illegalization of all drugs. Nevertheless, if I did so, it would hardly bring me into conflict with my anarchist views of society as a whole - freedom is relative. "Anarchy", derived from "an-" and "arkos", does not mean "no laws", it means "no leaders". A future utopian society would have to pit one's right to fuck oneself up versus the right of one's right to not get abused by someone who fucked himself up. Personal liberty is a hoax. The mere fact that I've dealed with several friends who have been abused, verbally and physically, by their parents on christmas speaks to me and says: Thou shalt not give a fuck about stoners' rights, thou shalt help the weak in their time of need and struggle for the prevention of similar happenings arising yet again.
I could write tons more, but I have more important things to do - I doubt you will change your mind anyways. You might also want to read this little pamphlet from CrimethInc: it is called Wasted Indeed:Anarchy and Alcohol.
For a lucid bacchanalia, an ecstatic sobriety! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 19:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
"As previously stated, your argument fails on the point that I, by that userbox, do not argue for an illegalization of drugs. It merely states that I am drug-free. Similarly, your userpage states that your website is in Danish - not that you want to illegalize all non-danish website. See my point?"
First off theres a difference between stating "i never use x" and "i use y". If it where one and the same meaning then i did indeed mean "i never use anything but Danish", but that was not it. The first kind of statement: "I never use drugs" is from first hand, and by the normal use of those words, a statement of the fact that you might have your reasons for not wanting to use drugs, ever! Theres something about those drugs that just makes you want to hit on the topic that you wouldnt use them. Why would you state this if not to show your opinion on this topic? And when first youve got your oppinion what do you want to do to make it so? Youve chosen your moral ground, what to do with it? You said: Anarchy is not about "no laws" its about "no leaders". Well sure, but if those laws are made by leaders then the anarchist are responsible for bringing those laws down. This means you cant make people not take this as a way of stopping the possibility of them fucking up with other people without either 1) making them stop, using authority, or 2) them making the choice of stopping. Laws without authority are the laws of the individual. You might hold onto your ideas about drugs being in the way of toppling capitalism, but you will never be able to use them as society altering tool toward any kind of anarchy, because you need to use authority to make sure everybody dont use drugs.
By the way what kind of high rise are you putting yourself up on when writing: "Thou shalt not give a fuck about stoners' rights". Like if you do have anything to say about stoners rights at all as an anarchist. What other people do with their own lives when not troubling you, you just shouldnt mess with! If anarchy is "no leaders" then thats all you got to do as an anarchist. If you want to go making sure people dont use drugs so that they might not in teh future become a problem for you in any way youre something else! So either cut the crap about calling yourself an anarchist if you dont admit that even though you dont want to take it, theres NOTHING you can do to stop other people from taking it. You might try to talk with them but you know stating that "You dont take drugs" doesnt seem that much important when talking to somebody who needs help ... thats alienation. If theres no smoking of joints it aint my revolution.
What about this: First youre saying i dont want to illigalize drugs, and then that anarchy isnt "no laws". Beyond that about the rights of stoners, you seem like the type who would like to stop other people from taking drugs with authority. On top of that youve got no respect for personal liberty. So for you the society should always be the first thing any individual should care about? What about the human side of all this drug talk?
"The primary reason behind me being a drug-free anarchist is not that I have the right to do what the fuck I want to and I want to stay clean, but rather that I believe drugs - including alcohol - are merely a capitalist method of passivisation. You are not participating in the struggle if you are home beating wife and kids. You are not participating in the struggle if you are lying on a sidewalk, puking after a night of heavy partying."
Well then you might have tried to get those beers stuffed into your mouth by capitalists before? That sounds strange? Ive never seen this in all my life? If you got it on video that would be great! Stop this its silly, come on, its not the plant, its not the liquor or the stuff or whatever, and its not the workers producing the drugs thats responsibly for either of those two scenarios: 1) The capitalist conspiracy and 2) the men beating the wife and kids. Responsible for the first are the capitalists, and they will and can do all sorts of nasty stuff to further their goals. Responsible for the second is the man looking down on himself, having no self-esteem, and drinking to much in connection possibly with a harsh childhood. In none of these cases the drugs are to blame! ITS PLANTS FOR GOD SAKE! Its humans that use those plants in a wide variety of ways. When they use them to control other beings thats an enemy of anarchism, not the plants or drugs themselves.
Look at it like this: Theres a few people being capitalist, theres lots of people drinking beers and using drugs. Id say to stop them all would be the toughest plan if the alternative are to stop the capitalists and people who beats their wives and children.
About the boycotting dont you think those workers who are abused all around the world would be happy to sell us products if they wouldnt be abused about it? So if the abuse stops, will the coexistence and trading stop? I doubt it. Even though all sweatshops are liberated and the workers controlling every single factory, theres will still be drugs. And best of all: You cant stop us! You can try but i guess you wouldnt stand a chance, unless offcourse youre willing to go the hard way. And why have an oppinion about whats good or bad for the society of you cant make it real? At least not without authority. Why not then just cut it and make it just your own. Why let people read your page and possibly think: He/she (?) thinks he's/she's better than me! Thats just stupid. --Fjulle 03:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
This is an interesting debate. my favorite qoutes from it are, "Personal liberty is a hoax," and, "my body is filled with drugs." I will point out this statement included within the crimethinc pamphlet cited, "...this is as much a caricature of polemics in the anarchist tradition as a serious piece." at any rate, if you believe in collectivization without personal liberty than you are not an anarchist, you are a stalinist, maoist, trot, etc. but if your body is filed with drugs than i doubt ones ability to render service to any meaningful social change. but since fjulle seems to be an "anarchist" capitalist i assume he does not actually seek meaningful social change, thus precluding any conflict of interest. lastly, i would point out that alcohol and drugs are of far greater antiquity than capitalism and are thus a facet of human existence and not of any particular economic system, but they do certianly serve to passify and placate people who might otherwise be revolutionary. but so does TV and radio and food and heat and elections and healthcare and... Blockader 18:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I did not come to Wikipedia to discuss anarchism and alcohol. However, I will reply - later, when I have some time without anything better to do. Further, I would like to point out that by the statement above I wanted to claim that the personal liberty of Fjulle's political beliefs is a hoax - not that I believe in forced collectivization. And for the record, I still haven't said I want to illegalize drugs. Nor do I want to illegalize drugs. For the other parts, see my coming post. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 19:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Communistic experiments and central control (i.e. Soviet Politbureau, Five year plan)

In Anarchism, I noted that "Communistic experiments are said to both require and result in greater central control (i.e. the Soviet Politbureau and the Five year plan)." If the USSR doesn't provide sufficient proof, I am willing to elaborate. JLMadrigal 12:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree less, they do require and result in greater central control. However, there were two problems with your edits: one, it's "communist experiments", not "communistic". If you are speaking a language with german roots, you may confuse it with your own - I know I did back in the days. In Swedish, the adjective "communist" would be "kommunistisk". That is however a minor problem. The reason as to why I removed it was that it doesn't belong in the article on anarchism - it belongs in the article on communism, or possibly anarcho-communism. It's kinda like going to the article on libertarianism and pointing out that nazism leads to genocide. Oh, and one more thing: bring it up on the article's talk page (in this case, Talk:Anarchism) next time. I hope we got it sorted out now! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 12:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe you meant to say, "I couldn't agree 'more'" instead of "I couldn't agree 'less'", which would have been a "major problem" - instead of a "minor problem" - had it been in the article itself. ;) I have moved the edit to the "Communism" section accordingly. Feel free to adjust the semantics to pro-Germanic rather than pro-Celtic flavor. But keep in mind that English prides itself on its linguistic flexibility. JLMadrigal 12:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why you crop "Local News of Nashik"

Hi,

I saw you crop the information of local news of Nashik on page Nashik. I can't guess the reason behind it. So please keep the links of "Local News of Nashik". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.0.45 (talk • contribs)

I have responded on the article's talk page: Talk:Nashik. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 17:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

"Comital" is an English adjective meaning "pertaining to a count", and not necessarily a typo for "committal". Choess 17:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, thank you. I will take heed to this in the future. Have you mentioned that on the AWB project page too? (WP:AWB/T) Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 03:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Why were links and lists of educational institutes removed???

hi,

Some of them are internal links and I disagree this move. I am reverting that change. Please explain me If u decide to re revert it. spacejuncky 05:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, will you take trouble and explain me why list of educational institutions are removed. Afterall They are linked to internal wiki pages??

Please explain. spacejuncky 12:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I have responded on Talk:Nashik. Twice. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 14:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links of 'Local News of Nashk' are not as advertise

Mr. Jobjörn don't force your personal opinion on 'Nashik community'(Are you from Nashik?). Links of 'Local News of Nashik' are informative to related people of Nashik City. If you are disagree with this leave it as it is. This is not your personal page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.95.7.238 (talk • contribs).


[edit] Political simulation

Take a look at government simulation game. I've essentially rewritten the article and added some strong references. I think you'll agree that this article establishes notability and is now well-sourced. There could still be a lot more information added, but I think this is adequate to get started. Tarinth 02:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Without doubt. The former article - and its associated talk page - was a load of crappy bullshit, but it is now a very well written encyclopedic stub. Great work, kudos to you for following up an AfD in that manner! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 03:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Covenant album prod's

OK I'll bite.. how come you prod-tagged nearly all the Covenant albums except Dreams of a Cryotank and Europa? Did you think those two were somehow more notable? The articles for those don't seem any more detailed than the rest. Or did you intend to prod-tag them all? --Vossanova o< 13:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought I'd see if the first were contested. Which they probably will be. So they'll come. Even though I do believe Dreams of a Cryotank, Northern Light and Skyshaper may be notable if some effort is put into finding some references (name something to suit the primary notability criterion)... but in their current state - and the state they have been in for a lot of time, none of them are acceptable. Redlinks are better. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 15:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
You may be right in that they do not meet the music notability criteria, but I don't think you went about it the right way, so I have removed the prod tags. I believe we should add Notability tags to those that do not assert notability first, to allow opportunity to expand and allow user discussion whether to keep them or not. This way we can at least come to agreement on which albums and album articles are the least notable and should be deleted first. I have started by adding Notability tags to Synergy (album) and Theremin (album), which are both pretty weak articles and pretty minor albums. If noone touches the articles with Notability tags after 1 or 2 months, then I would suggest Afd or Prod. --Vossanova o< 16:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Fictional fracas

I'm concerned you may be taking the issue of fictional characters issue too seriously. Cruft has always been an issue on Wikipedia, but it is also important to recognize the cultural value of fictional characters. The names of Han Solo and Jean-Luc Picard are so reknowned throughout the English-speaking world, it would seem like (and indeed would be) deliberate omission if they did not have articles.

I would point out that though they are excellent works, the presence of projects such as Memory Alpha that are not part of the Wikimedia complex should not be considered as a factors when nominating articles for deletion. If Wikipedia were to stop covering topics for which there was already another source, we wouldn't have much of an encyclopedia at all.

It may be useful for you to consider the Cortana article as an expanded section of the Halo: Combat Evolved article. In the natural course of development of articles on Wikipedia, certain topics within topics become too large to practicably keep in the article. In such cases, the subtopics are broken out into new articles. These subtopic articles may not necessarily be notable by themselves; but their usefulness should always be considered in the context of the primary article in the sense of depth and background they provide. If the entry is obvious cruft, speculation, or other fabrication, heavy editing or even deletion may be in order. But, in my opinion, it is improper to delete articles that do provide further insight. --AlexWCovington (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You may be right. Then again, I haven't brought up Han Solo or Jean-Luc Picard for deletion.
Furthermore, I agree that the article on Cortana is very good. It's worthy of reading. It provides insight into Cortana's personality. Etc, etc. But nevertheless, she is nothing but a fictional AI shown in the cutscenes of a video game - not a very encyclopedic subject, aye? The outcome of this AfD will be crucial for at least my view on Wikipedia - either it'll be an encyclopedia, or an indiscriminate collection of subjects that have enough information to write some prose on. I'm happy with both, really - the problem I have is that Wikipedia describes itself as an encyclopedia and NOT an indiscriminate collection of information.
So what I'm doing here is considering the usefulness in the context of the primary article - do we really, really, really need an article on Cortana? Will not a mention in List of Halo series characters do? To what use is the article on Cortana? You want background? Play the games (they're awesome, I love them) or visit bungie.com. Or hey, look at one of the 240,000 google hits mentioned in the beginning of the AfD.
If you're wondering "but why Cortana? Why Cortana?", it's because I was on some Random Page Patrol and 90% of all entries turning up were either 1) articles on fictional characters, 2) biographical stubs on people from the 19th century, or 3) articles on TV episodes from various shows and sitcoms. Cortana just turned up as I was getting annoyed with them. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 22:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I see your point; It's a tough philosophical debate to be sure, but I rather like that Wikipedia hasn't limited itself to stereotypical encyclopedia topics. --AlexWCovington (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
You see my point, I see your point. Peaceful disagreement - I am happy we could avoid a more heated debate! However, it should be duly noted that I wouldn't want Wikipedia to limit itself to stereotypical encyclopedia topics either, though. Wikipedia is not paper, after all! But nevertheless, it is still an encyclopedia, and articles like Cortana are just annoying. I would like to question the fair use rationale behind Image:Cortana.jpg too, but I can't be bothered with that now. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 22:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] how did u fix it?

Hi!! i hv created the article Mrinal Pande but this had a problem which was fixed by you. How? may i know? i am talking about the last charcter Y which was added by me accidently, when i hv created this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rajeshroshan (talk • contribs) 07:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

Hello! To be perfectly honest, I have no idea what you are talking about. My edit to the article Mrinal Pande consisted of moving a stub tag and changing "hindi" to "Hindi". It does seem, however, as if you yourself moved the article to remove the y several weeks ago - all by yourself! It may be possible that the y remained in the header because of some sort of browser cache, and that this cache wasn't updated until I happened to edit the article, for some reason. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 15:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

i am talking about this AWB feature. how can i remove the browser cache. Guddu 05:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Read more on Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser. If you are using Internet Explorer for Windows, browser cache may be removed by pressing ctrl+F5. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 14:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jan Björklund

With regard to the image in Jan Björklund, sometimes the software that resizes the image (ImageMagick) has some kind of bug and does not show the resized image. Changing the parameters slightly, like reducing the size by 1 pixel, can solve this (diff). After a while it might be possible to resize the image to the original size. I also removed the height parameter, since the width is sufficient. The proportions of the image will adjust automagically. --Oden 01:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

OOoo. Nifty. Thank you. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 01:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Just to keep you updated: I have also found out that it is possible to purge the cache if the thumbnail does not load correctly. (see Wikipedia:Purge). Cheers! --Oden 01:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)