User talk:Viriditas/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 3 |
Archive 4
| Archive 5 →


Contents

Logarithmic timeline of current events

Thanks for the reference - it was interesting. However, I'm afraid that I'm not going to change my vote. It still seems like original research, given the slightly strange selection of events; I'm not convinced that it belongs in an encyclopedia; on the page there's still no discussion about the concept and I still can't see why you'd want to do it for "recent" events- it really doesn't add anything. I don't suppose it'll actually get deleted though! I can see the point of the Logarithmic timeline page (and the concept), but that page needs serious cleanup, including NPOVing (Progress and Regression?!) and a discussion of the actual idea, etc. Thanks again for the reference. --G Rutter 16:33, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've now created Logarithmic timeline/New version. I'd be grateful if you could comment on it. Thanks. --G Rutter 19:42, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cocoa Tea

I don't consider "A GREAT PERFORMING REAGGER ARTIST KID OF LIKE BOB MARLY MANY SAY" to be a valid article in any way shape or form, and deleted it under category #4 of the speedy deletion criteria. If you could bring it up to Wikipedia standards, that would be wonderful, but I don't think there's likely to be a single character in there that remains in your version, and I think it would be infinitely better if your version were to be the first one in the article's history. Cheers! —Stormie 09:29, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Bio-stub deletion

Quoted from: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Stub_sorting#Comments_on_proposed_stub_deletions -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:14, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Viriditas, your point is valid, but as I stated below, do you truly want to create a stub for every job profession? I certainly do not think so. Suppose there was a garbage person who became really famous for, let's say, saving an entire building from a terrorist bomb and died from the bomb. What would you mark this person as? Hero-stub? The thing I am trying to see is that we create only stubs of useful value, stubs that really are going to be used. I can clearly see how you wish to address the fact that by not classifying people under their approprate fields, bio-stubs won't be expanded. My point is that the bio-stub should remain as a point where they can be re-sorted. Stubs will be always recategorized based on need, but this doesn't mean we need to get rid of the stub. This is like saying that we need to get rid of the Sci-stub template and create a stub for every obsecure field of science. In the event that someone creates a bot, for example, that creates stub articles for famous people who's entry is not listed in the Wikipedia, they may be able to use one stub for the job. We would certainly want them to avoid using the stub template, we would optimally like them to pick one of a job profession of the person, but we can't expect their bot to be smart enough to do so. Certainly, our project would be a lot easier if they had a feature to allow us to somehow reference the main category along with our own stub category or allow a unionized view if we use two stubs... Here's another example: France A. Córdova. This is an article I created, because this article talks about my University's chancellor. My University is part of the University of California so it is notable, and the chancellor of a notable school certainly deserves an article. Especially when she was the chief scientist at NASA. (See references.) -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:19, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

3 revert

I know what 3 revert rule is. I did not revert more than 3 times, and I was not amused by you chipping in the middle of edit dispute with a bogus revert that the article is only about IDF in order to do the 4th revert for Humus sapiens. That was not amusing. And you are an admin??? OneGuy 10:14, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Care to post the URL for these four reverts? Also, you have now reverted the article twice OneGuy 10:18, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Not only I didn't revert the article 4 time, but I followed Humus sapiens comprise on the talk page. You jumped in the middle of that with your bogus assertion that I reverted the article 4 times and with a nonsensical reason given for revert that the article is only about IDF OneGuy 10:21, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[1] [2] [3] [4]

The last one is not a revert! Go the talk the page of Israeli violence against Palesntinian children where Humus sapiens asked me for this compromise. OneGuy 10:36, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's not a revert. Can't you read the above edits? OneGuy 10:52, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OneGuy and his revert wars

Well done taking OneGuy to task for his constant revert wars trying to force his Islamic Apologistic views on any articles relating to Islam. If you dig deeper into his history (see history of Aisha, Jihad and Muhammad you will see that he sometimes reverts almost 20 times a day! At least with all of these reverts he now knows how to spell the word "revert" (for the first 30 or so reverts he spelled it "rivert")168.209.97.34 08:49, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

what conspiracy theory? I never claimed you were collaborating with Humus. I was hoping the issue was stale, now. dab (ᛏ) 11:41, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I see, no problem. I thought the comment, being on my talk page, was addressed to me. cheers, dab (ᛏ) 11:57, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is Dr Zen. Unrevert the changes to my user page please. If you need to confirm I am Dr Zen, email me at drzen1 AT gmail DOT com

Sheets of sound

What's going on with Sheets of sound: are you indecisive, learning as you go, padding your number of edits? Hyacinth 18:30, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

3 RV

Of course there was no 3 rv in 24 hours. I reverted it back within second to previous version when I realized the it was done before 24 hours OneGuy 21:55, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Admin Board

My finger slipped, I didn't mean to rollback. OneGuy has since commented further. The net effect of my change was to restore part of your comment–it's poor form to edit ones comments, particularly on a public talk page. Mackensen (talk) 06:16, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Must bed, that's nothing I did. Mackensen (talk) 06:31, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OneGuy

At the time I made that remark, it appeared to me that both sides in that edit war were simply reverting like mad, and OneGuy was in danger of having his views overwhelmed not by any reason or logic, but by the simple fact that a more numerous side gets more reverts in a 24-hour period. I've worked with OneGuy on several articles and generally found him reasonable and cooperative when people discuss the actual substance of articles, but extremely recalcitrant when it turns into a power game. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:18, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Mediate what conflict? On what specific page? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:30, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Dr Zen

Uh, oh. I'll change it back. Thanks. SlimVirgin 00:39, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

3RR thoughts

Hey Viriditas -

From a legalistic point of view, going strictly from policy as it's currently written, you're probably right. 3RR doesn't say anything about "undoing" a revert. However, I'd caution against being hyperlegalistic, and I think you'd have difficulty finding any admin willing to impose a block in that situation in general. As a thought experiment, consider what it would be like if the MediaWiki software had an undo feature that would eliminate changes from history if a user made a mistake and realized it right away. This would actually make the point moot, as the revert would be completely erased, history and all. That said, watching the clock and just squeaking by is not appropriate and just not cool.

Also, if users know that they're going to be blocked regardless, it creates a disincentive for self-reversions like that, which I'm inclined to think is a bad idea. - RedWordSmith 03:58, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Nah, actually I've had "RedWordSmith" as a handle for a long time. Glad you like it. - RedWordSmith 17:16, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Shoah (movie)

Relevant to Shoah (movie). I dont know how to build the sentence, but the criticism and controversies about the movie should be imho mentioned. In 80s there was shortened version of the movie (to 2 hours) showed in Poland and the reaction was almost hysterical. Recently there was whole movie showed, and again there wasz a lot of discussions in POlish press (though not as much as previously).

In short, Lanzmann did not made documentary, he did not intended it to be documentary (he said in interview with Anna Bikont that this is art form, not documentary). He made movie with a thesis, removed everything from 610 hours of material which did not suit his thesis. From Poles interviewed he chosed only most backward and primitive people. He ignored almost anyone (besides Karski) involved in saving the Jews. He even falsified some fragments (As when Jew is saying tha he was helped by Poles, while the English translation says that he was caught by Poles and put back into the train).

Something mentioning it, maybe milder than in current form, should be entered. Maybe "movie made a lot of controversies in Poland and was accused of anti-polonism and one-sideness" or whatever it's called in English. Szopen 09:46, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Media ecosystem

I'm not sure about your addition of Media Ecosystem to the Media ecology page. This term doesn't have any direct relationship to the academic discipline of Media Ecology (which I'm studying), and should likely have its own page. --michael zimmer 16:12, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)