User talk:Writtenonsand

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Hi! This is the Talk/Discussion page for User:Writtenonsand

Please add your new posts at the bottom of the page.



- Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify has a list of articles that need to be Wikified. Please help!

- The Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors has a list of articles that need copy-editing. Please help!
-- Members' check-in Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Members --


Archives for User:Writtenonsand Talk:


Contents

[edit] Re: Article Scipionyx: Appropriate affiliation of Marco Signore

Hi Writtenonsand. On http://www.unina.it/ you can see how Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II is the full name in Italian of the University of Naples; there are other universities in Naples such as the Seconda Università (http://www.unina2.it/), the Orientale (http://www.iuo.it/) and the Orsola Benincasa (http://www.unisob.na.it/), but as an Italian myself I can assure you that only the Federico II is commonly called "Università (degli Studi) di Napoli". This is because, as they say on it:Università di Napoli, the name of the university was Università degli studi di Napoli until 1987, and people still use the old name (generally shortened to Università di Napoli - University of Naples). You can find a confirmation on the web page of the university: "the University of Naples, that since 1987 bears the name of its first promoter [...]".
This was my reasoning. However, for a more accurate source, see this announcement for a meeting on paleontology; on November 16 (2nd page) you can see among the guests "Marco Signore, paleontologo, Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra, Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II". Cheers. --Εξαίρετος (msg) 22:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sir, you are great

Sir,Hello, I m a sikh guy from Kashmir state of INDIA , i have read ur comments on user page of SIKHISM ,you are great . I am also very much impressed with ur user page. May Almighty WAHEGURU bless u in every sphere of life. user: sarbjeet_1313me 31 July 2007, JAMMU.

[edit] Brent Alexander

Born in 1982, and found in a picnic basket on a church's stoop, Brent Alexander became known in later years as "a real asshole". Although never able to hold a job for longer than six months, he has been quoted many times as saying he's waiting for his "Big Break" and fifteen minutes of fame. Although his attempts at celebrity status have been major failures, usually resulting in hundreds of thousands of dollars of property damage, such as the "Undercooked Chicken Accident of '03", when thousands of attendees at the Taste of Chicago vomited uncontrolably after eating undercooked chicken that was passed out as free samples. he has been largely been ignored by the major media networks, except after the aptly titled "Duck Disaster" in which Alexander attempted to recreate many scientific tests preformed on animals by Nazi Scientists during WWII, but ended up accidently releasing over 200 domesticated ducks upon Chicago, but it is widely believed that the event was in the news for the sole opportunity for reporters to use the headline "Duck Doctor a Quack" Brent passed away in 2006 of syphillis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.206.240.83 (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bir, Maharashtra s

I have redirected Bir, Maharashtra to existing correct and well written article Beed pronounciation Beed is more correct spell/pronounciation Bir is of british colonial times and spell bir is not much in use now.

-- Mahitgar (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I am good with the redirect. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Babylon 5 lists

Hi, yes, I was a little vague, sorry. I was merely referring to the recommendations made after the GA review, listed at the top of the article's talk page. Lists are perfectly OK, this just had too many of them at the time. But I placed too much emphasis upon that in my edit summary; my main point is that the article already contained the awards information, as prose (though it wouldn't hurt to expand upon it a little), and a whole new separate section wasn't warranted, especially considering the length of the article at present. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 22:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Coronelismo, Caudilhismo, Caciquismo

Note to self: Brazilian history items.

[edit] WikiProject Systems

Thanks for joining the WikiProject Systems. I hope together we can make a difference. If there are things you want to discuss or initiate, please let me know or leave a message at the WikiProject Systems talk page. I've been running the WikiProject Systems with lot's of support for half a year now, and things are still moving. The Announcements archive gives just a little impression of the things we have been doing. At the moment we are not that active, but things come and go.

I got your message on the WikiProject Systems talk page about Ilya Prigogine and started adding some more information in the biography section, and I will see what else I can do. I'm not that familiar with his work. Best regards -- Mdd (talk) 14:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Asrai

Asrai is a type of fairy from fairy folklore as described. It also appears as the name of a race of elves in the Warhammer 'universe.' It has also been taken as the name of a band, presumably for some references to the Asrai being sweet voiced. In my article, I stuck with the story which said that the Asrai's voice is like the sounding of the waves. Rsweeney (talk) 03:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

In the references section, I link pantheon.org, which does not list races only appearing in games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsweeney (talk • contribs) 03:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Ontario Pork: AfD?

Yes, I think it should be AfD'd. I'll deal with it later this week, unless you (or somebody else) processes it first. PKT (talk) 14:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of Buddhism

Articles with no content aren't articles, so I've reverted your edit for now. The redirect does not prevent someone from starting an article there, and the blank page doesn't help anyone. Sub-articles are normally created when a section in the main article gets too big - see WP:SS. Currently there isn't even a criticism section in the Buddhism article, so a whole criticism article isn't needed yet. If you want an article there, I suggest that you do some research and start one yourself, but it would be more appropriate to use whatever references you find to start a criticism section in the main article first. -- Vary | Talk 14:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The issue seems to be that there just isn't that much notable criticism for Buddism, and certainly not nearly as much as there is for many other religions. As I pointed out, there is currently not even a criticism section in the main article. Any content that can be written on the subject needs to go there first. If and when sources have been found to create a criticism section, Criticism of Buddhism article can be redirected there instead. If and when that section gets big enough to justify an article, that content should be moved to Criticism of Buddhism. But would not be not appropriate to create an anemic little substub - rather than putting the criticism in the main page where it belongs - just because every other major religion has attracted enough criticism to justify a whole article.
At any rate, blanking a page does not make it a redlink. If you want the page to be a red link, you need to file a deletion request at WP:RFD. -- Vary | Talk 15:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No worries!

I'm glad you realized I was trying to be positive in my response (as I was pretty sure you were too). I'll work on adding some info on the evolution of flight feathers when I get back to my various books and journals. Right now, I'm out of the country visiting relatives! MeegsC | Talk 02:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Civility

(Boilerplate reminder on Civility originally posted to Talk:René_Guénon)

To all Wikipedia contributors: Please familiarize yourself with and follow Wikipedia:Civility - at its most basic:
" Participate in a respectful and civil way. ... Wikipedians define incivility roughly as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress. "
Wikipedia:Civility is an offical policy of Wikipedia (i.e., not optional.) Even conduct listed under "Petty examples" is not acceptable. If you are unable to follow the guidelines in this policy, then you should avoid editing Wikipedia articles or posting to Wikipedia Talk pages. There are many other venues on which your posts will be welcome.

Remember: Theoretically, this is an encyclopedia. Let's strive for professionalism. "But he started it!" is not a valid excuse.

-- Writtenonsand (talk) 12:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guenon's talk page

Hello,

I've taken note of the comments you leaved on René Guénon talk page. I agree with these. I don't have the intention to keep on the discussion anyway, so I won't slip down to incivility. Thank you for your comments.

Happy new year !

TwoHorned (talk) 13:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know! discussion on appropriate sources

Bleep RfC

Hi! The position that I understand you to be taking in this discussion strikes me as so bizarre that I feel I might be misunderstanding you. Are you really saying that you don't believe a factual science book to be an appropriate source on a question of scientific fact? Have a good one! -- Writtenonsand (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, no, not at all. I'm saying that in order for content to be included in an article, the source used must be in relation to the topic of the article, per WP:NOR. the sources ScienceApologist wants to use have nothing to do with the topic of the article..which is the movie. The articles on the sciences or fringe sciences that ScienceApologist is concerned about can contain content from the sources he wants to use because they are directly related to the subjects of those articles. Hope this clears things up! Dreadstar † 22:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Answering your question on my talk page, Writtenonsand. No, I am not saying that. And thanks, you have a good one too. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your note

You wrote at Talk:What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know!?#RfC:_Can_a_science_textbook_be_used_to_refute_a_pseudoscientific_statement_made_in_a_movie_even_if_the_textbook_is_not_about_the_movie_and_doesn.27t_mention_it.3F_Does_this_violate_WP:NOR_policy.3F "that would be OR, because the textbooks you want to use have nothing to do with the film." -- I feel like I must be misunderstanding something here. That doesn't make much sense to me. Statements about facts are statements about facts, and any reliable source on these facts is germane, and is not "original research" by any natural interpretation of that expression. Whether or not the sources have something to do with the main topic of the article is irrelevant, or should be -- i.e. our policy should state this. A policy that says that the source has to be about the main topic of the article is inappropriate. Thanks for your attention. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 03:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The reason the policy disallows this is that people could constantly add sources not directly related to the topic to present their own view of whatever the subject was. You wrote above that any reliable source of any fact is germane, but what is germane on Wikipedia is what secondary sources have written about the topic.
Otherwise, in the example given, someone could add a source saying that time travel isn't possible under quantum physics, someone else could add one arguing that it is, someone else another one saying something else -- and on and on, until the article would no longer be about the film. To prevent that, we (generally) publish what other people have published about films (or whatever the topic is), even if we disagree with it or feel that they've left out something important. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 03:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New users displaying as red-line links

At last, a question I know the answer to!! New users display as red-line links if they haven't put anything on their user page yet; the user's name is a link to a page that doesn't exist, just like This page that doesn't exist. So that's why the classic signs of a new page that is 90% certain to be deleted are that the user name is a red-line link and that the name of the article is a person's name where the second name isn't capitalized. (I have no idea why so many new users screw that up, but they do.) Thanks, I finally feel like I knew the entire answer to someone's question!! Accounting4Taste:talk 17:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Reply from User:Sergiokkaminski

Meu nome é sergio kaminski, e falo inglês mais ou menos. O tecodonte (em portugues) é quem deu origem aos crocodilos. Prefiro 'paleorrota' pois é a união de rota paleontologica em portugues, mas vou citar o termo "paleo route" no texto para ficar mais claro.
Muito obrigado.

[edit] Oi! Pf, qual "thecodont" é?

Oi. Eu posso falar em portugues ruim ou good English :-). No artigo Thecodont tem um foto de um esqueleto no museu UFRGS. O que é este bicho, por favor? - é bem grande ser um "thecodont". -- Writtenonsand (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Falo inglês com dificuldade. Minha filha está ao lado da foto com o tecodonte. O tecodonte deu origem aos crocodilos.
I speak in english is dificult for me. My daughther is by side of the picture of thecodont. The thecodont is a kind of alligator.
Sergio Kaminski 22:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

More informations about The thecodont. He was colected in the Candelaria City (see map in paleorrota). He has more or less five meters, was a big animal. the name is Karamuru vorax . The people of UFRGS colected this animal. He lived at triassic.
I colected 5 dinossour and 3 dicynodonts. I work with the people of UFRGS and UFSM.
See this page *Dinosaurs of Rio grande do Sul. and see de karamuru vorax. Have a move and pictures.

If you need more informations. Please contact. Sorry my english!!!

Sergiokkaminski (talk) 2:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Sim, eu escavei sozinho os dinossauros e entreguei para a UFRGS e UFSM. Eu escavo no sitio Paleontological Site Arroio Cancela. Não publiquei todas as informações sobre este local, para evitar vandalismo. Escavei meu primeiro dinossauro quando tinha 12 anos. hoje estou com 46 anos. Quando eu escavei pela primeira vez, a paleontologia não era muito difundida por aqui. Atualmente é que tem se formado um pessoal muito bom, principalmente na UFRGS. Sergiokkaminski (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Se você le em portugues entre na wikepedia em portugues e vá para a pagina pt:paleontólogo, foi eu que escrevi e tem algum material que uso. Também coletei o exaeretodon que esta na foto da paleorrota. Sergiokkaminski (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Entre no youtube e procure por paleorrota. Eu montei um filme com as fotos do exaeretodon.200.182.146.243 (talk) 21:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Paleorrota" -> "Paleo Route"

Eu acho que podemos traduzir "Paleorrota" como ingles "Paleo Route". O Sr concorda? --

Writtenonsand (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Prefiro o termo Paleorrota pois esta em portugues, Mas vou citar o termo Paleo Route no texto para que fique claro para quem lê. Obrigado.
I prefer Paleorrota because is in portugues, but I will write Paleo Route on the text, because is more clear. Thanks. (see paleorrota).

Sergio Kaminski 22:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to WP:DINO!

Hey Writtenonsand,

Saw that you just added your name to WikiProject Dinosaurs, and just wanted to say welcome to the team (even though you've already been participating for quite some time now). Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 20:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Hello Writtenonsand. How are you? Thank you for the note. However, you should have left the note on my talk page, not on my user page. I studied WP:Civil and I think you have a point. Thanks for the suggestions. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Eel Pout pics

Sorry, I was using that picture as a place-holder in the code. I could hide it as a comment if you want. Abyssal leviathin (talk) 19:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops. I've made a lot of genera lists and mostly copied and pasted the intro. Sometimes I'd forget to change the taxa names. It was hard trying to keep track of over a dozen lists at once. Abyssal leviathin (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I like lists, though, regardless of how many redlinks they contain. If people dislike redlinks so much, maybe they should make articles and turn them blue. :P Abyssal leviathin (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry about that. ^_^ Abyssal leviathin (talk) 19:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Newsweek

Hi.

I don't disagree that the Newsweek piece is correctly cited. However, when a cited source reaches its conclusion by a fallacious piece of reasoning, that would, in my view, tend to invalidate it as a useful source.

It would appear that Newsweek committed the following fallacy:

  • Every M is a C
  • Therefore, every non-M is a non-C

Or alternatively:

  • Every M is a C
  • Therefore, every C is an M

Which is much the same thing. (For M read "member of the creationist organisation" and for C read "creationist".)

Now, the major problem in resolving this dispute is that the quote we have does not actually explain the methodology by which the figure "700 creationists out of 480,000 relevant scientists" was arrived at. It's possible that it was actually arrived at by a more sane method. If we only knew, we could get this matter sorted easily.

I'm going to propose (later, when I get home) that we simply add to the text the fact that the Newsweek piece does not give its methodology. I'm also going to suggest that the Gallup poll (which is utterly non-controversial) be placed first in the list. Evercat (talk) 17:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

We have no evidence that this is what Newsweek did. To assume this, as you are doing, is original research, which are not allowed to do on Wikipedia. If you can find a reliable source that makes this point, we can include it. And also, until we get the Gallup poll information and details, it is controversial as well; we have no idea how the survey was done and other details. So the Gallup poll is plenty controversial. However, we do not interpret these things here. We just present the bare information and let others interpret them.--Filll (talk) 18:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

To assume this, as you are doing - I am not doing that. I have repeatedly stated that we don't actually know for sure that this is what they did. I said so above. I also said it here. This is the main reason why I did not redo my original edit after I was reverted.

The reason I have kept banging on about this point is that you [Filll] seemed until recently to be arguing that even if Newsweek did indeed make such an error, it would still be an acceptable source. Evercat (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

By now I have changed my view on the removal of the Newsweek quote, although I still think that my rephrasing of the sentence was a far more accurate way of paraphrasing what Newsweek actually says.

Um. I am a godless evolutionist. I have said so repeatedly. And from what I know of religion, most don't allow you to deny your faith. :-)

If you don't believe me, you can read an old version of my user page before I removed all mention of my political views. Or you could examine my edits to Chromosome 2 where I write about how the clear evidence of a telomere-telomere fusion in the chromosome is obvious evidence of common descent and our relatedness to the primates.

But anyway, thanks for your kind words. Evercat (talk) 13:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cruft

You are right that much that could be described as "cruft" is fact. However, I really do fail to see how honorary degrees or other major awards could possibly fit into that category. It may be cruft to say that X was voted "student most likely to become a Z-list celebrity" at high school, but it's certainly not cruft to say he's been awarded an honorary doctorate by the University of Oxford. This latter would also be listed by respected publications such as Who's Who.

As far as guidelines to cruft are concerned, there's nothing official so far as I'm aware since it's such a subjective term, as you have proved. However, there is an essay (in no way a policy) about the subject. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Whereas I would say it's a perfectly acceptable indication of his academic credentials, although I don't like it in list form. I really think that any information that would be included in a reputable biographical publication, as that would be, is acceptable on Wikipedia. My definition of cruft is inane hero worship gushing by fans, not awards by genuine and established institutions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your post. I appreciate that there are concerned individuals at Wikipedia.

I despair at the treatment, accusations, and what seem to be arbitrary procedures at Wikipedia. I have approached this issue with a pure heart.

I have applied as clear a logical approach as I could summon, despite often being quite upset at the response that unfolded.

On the advice of Avraham Admin Editor, I re-submitted the "Ed O'Loughlin" article. It was a topic I felt that I knew something of. It is true that I have not been the progenitor of multiple articles, after all it is hard to imagine that a single individual could be highly knowledgible and have sufficient expertise on multiple diverse topics. Instead this was held against me. No matter.

I now wish that I had not re-submitted the article or perhaps left it all to Avraham.

I've written chapters in books, I've written articles, I understand the process of being edited. But my experience here has been disappointing to say the least. Persons clearly unfamiliar with the material come barreling in at an advanced stage of discussion and make categorical remarks and judgements that show clearly they are not familiar with the issues, that they have not read the discussion, that they themselves have a partisan view. It's pitiful.

I thought I could make a contribution about bias and advocacy in journalism with a specific well-documented case in point. Evidently not.

In the end the article was not even written by me. It was written by Avraham. He saw the facts, he vetted the references, he applied the Wikipedia rules.

Apart from this, he is clearly a brilliant man. But, he was run roughshod over by people not even aware of their own biases. His comments were treated with contempt. I single out especially Crotalus, who as a Wikipedia administrator, functioned in the most glib, offhand, disrespectful and anti-intellectual manner. He spent his time ferreting around looking for sockpuppets, and the depth of his arguments extended to one word "Coatrack", well and truly addressed by Avraham long before.

It is also true that this particular topic has been raised, justifiably, in outside fora. Blogs, discussion groups, media monitoring groups, newspapers, etc, etc. It is not within my control to instruct intelligent, motivated, persons whether or not to contribute to the discussion, and what to say. I am sure there are interested, knowledgable people among them.

I am sure that some have made comments in Wikipedia. I have been told directly and indirectly that some have. Why not? They probably know more about the issues than some of the "house" editors. I ask Wikipedia why they should be labelled "sockpuppets"?

The first deletion discussion was nothing more than a setup. It was engineered, it was arbitrary. Antagonists to Crotalus's view were relegated to a secondary page, their views discounted and they were wrongly labelled as sockpuppets. This is extraordinarily poor, unprofessional, indecent and borders on censorship.

During the period I opted to contribute anonymously (not as Adon Emett) I used different computers at different places where I happened to be to make comments on the article as it was in imminent danger of deletion. I hope this does not make me a sock puppet.

I am sure you are aware of much outside criticism of Wikipedia's methods. Perhaps there is something in it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adon Emett (talk • contribs) 19:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I was foolish to believe that anything I said could make a difference to Wikipedia.


All the best

Adon Emett (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. One thing I mentioned was ambiguous. After I registered the Adon Emett name I dont think I used anonymous ip any longer only before. I cant be 110% sure as I made lots of posts- but I think not. And another thing...your Author A analogies are fine, but do they really apply here? Don't forget that Admin Editor Avraham largely did the editing, not me. The consensus was against him, not me. And another thing ...if we are to accept Matilda's proposition that it is the logic of one's case that determines the decision on article deletion (rather than the number of persons favouring a particular position, then the business about sock puppets should be irrelevant.


Have a nice day.

Adon Emett (talk) 09:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Being abrasive

Intellectuals are frequently abrasive. One good example is Christopher Hitchens, another is Richard Dawkins. The case was here: [1] At the time, it bothered me, but yeah, I agree with the decision. We shouldn't have an etiquette gestapo, because then that would violate Wikipedia is not censored. It's just as important that people not be oversensitive nannies as it is that people not be rude. I've seen a lot of this, "Oh, I'm so offended by X! We need to censor X!" recently, and I'm sick of it. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 03:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I'll stop. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It is incredibly difficult. People here are so rude, themselves, even the ones in charge of enforcing WP:Civility. And they aren't even honest with themselves about their rudeness, having to hide behind technicalities. [2] ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 23:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Treacle mines

I'm glad you enjoyed it! DuncanHill (talk) 15:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Privatization of public toilets

I wasn't too surprised that that article was kept, but I was surprised that Street Smart (book) was kept. Maybe the deletionist element hasn't become as dominant/extreme as I thought. Sarsaparilla (talk) 13:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Corruption in Angola issues

Re lead section assertions: That's the problem with the entire article, which is why I originally put it to AfD because it appeared to me to be so rife with POV that it was not salvageable. In return, I was harangued by the original author, who seems to be oblivious to WP policies about deleting comments in AfD discussions and such. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hi and re Nader article

Hi back--interesting you should note Nader's views. If you notice, there is precious little regarding his actual views--pro or con--which would be the natural venue for discussing criticism. It's not like he doesnt have views; he probably has the most elaborate set of views, policy proposals, etc, of any political figure in America. But ironically, this article is heavily biased by lending too much credence to a partisan-motivated demonization of the guy. If it must (aaack) call him controversial, at least do it based on controversial views, not by virtue of the controversy his opponents generated in their rather vicious attacks on his campaigns. It's like calling a pacifist who gets brutally beaten up by a thus a participant on a violent act. You need specifics.

A few million people supported Nader's platform in 2000, and exercised their right to vote for him. I was one, but it shouldn't matter. I can deal with a neighbor raising a pall over that campaign because they have strong feeling about it; one shouldnt have to argue eith an encyclopedia that is raising the same scent of illegitimacy via unspecified uses of terms like "controversial." Boodlesthecat (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy

Thanks. FYI I have no problem with mentioning "controversy", in fact I worked it in to the intro. Its identifying Nader as the source of the controversy, rather than indicating (as I tried to phrase it) that he was a player in a overall controversial election (you know, chads and such,). Later in the article its all covered in exquisite (or excruciating) detail. cheers Boodlesthecat (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Iowa speech vs New Hampshire

hi! i read your post in my talk

i was wondering which speech was more trascendental.

NH:

  - Slogan, yes we can, people will remember the slogan and the song not the speech itself.
  - Music, ok, music encourage the hearts of people.

Iowa:

  - It was before nh, so it feed nh. 
  - The message is Hope. Its more than an electoral slogan, it was a message more than the campaign itself, it was for the world, so the world understood it.
  - The bulk message its the same, but here in iowa was more complete.
  - It was celebrating a victory, so the atmosphere has  energy!
  - Obama was unknowed to the world until that speech. I didnt know who was him. I heard about but not as that way. So, after all the things what are happening to the world, obama's speech was  fresh air, like a opening window in a dark room. So much people have that sentiment. That speech was on 3rd page on my regional newspaper, here in Barcelona, Spain, Europe.
    May be in america you have too much noisy with all these elections on the way. But think one issue, what will be keept in a year to go ? Where has all began? Where the hope converted to can, to be able to deal ? Iowa

Im sad beacause one man told me about the flag ping, Is that one great men is choosed by the color of their shirt? skin? or whatever! The great men are choosed by the great color of his heart!


Ok, may be the most trascendental speech is about to come? Time will say.

Tell me if i am wrong.--213.97.224.11 (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Welcome!

Hello Writtenonsand! Welcome to Wikiproject Christianity! Thank you for joining. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! - ~~~~
Getting Started
Useful Links
Miscellaneous
Work Groups
Projects
Similar WikiProjects

- Tinucherian (talk) 10:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Birds March 2008 Newsletter

The March 2008 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish WP Membership

Thank you for the explanation I am now a member! And thanks for the comment! LOTRrules (talk) 23:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Birds April 2008 Newsletter

The April 2008 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Christianity Newsletter

The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter
The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter!
Issue IV - April 2008

Monthly Challenge:

Article News
Christianity Articles by Quality
Make visible or invisible by clicking Show or Hide, respectively.
Project News
  • WikiProject Christianity Coordinators : The project coordinators are generally responsible for maintaining all of the procedural and administrative aspects of the project, and serve as the designated points-of-contact for procedural issues. They are not, however, endowed with any special executive powers, nor with any authority over article content or editor conduct.The Lead Coordinator bears overall responsibility for coordinating the project; the Assistant Coordinators aid the Lead Coordinator and focus on specific areas that require special attention.
    • The nomination period for coordinators is currently ongoing at Election 2008
    • Nominations for open positions will be open through 23:59 (UTC) on April 30 and project members should vote for any candidates they support by April 11 2008.
    • The election will be conducted using simple approval voting. Any member of the project may support as many of the candidates as they wish. The candidate with the highest number of endorsements will become the Lead Coordinator (provided he or she is willing to assume the post); the next four candidates will become Coordinators.
  • Two new workgroups formed - Indian Christianity and Methodism
  • Portal:Indian Christianity launched.
Member News
  • Our membership continues to expand. It is currently at 184 users. 86 new users have joined the WikiProject since last issue. Please make them feel welcomed!
Archives of previous newsletters can be found here.

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, add your name here.
If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, let ~ Tinucherian know.
This newsletter is automatically delivered by GrooveBot.

BetacommandBot (talk) 00:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Technical terms

It's not always a tricky question. A good rule of thumb is: "if they're explained, they're not a problem". - Nunh-huh 00:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Portuguese Timor

User Merbabu is trying to erase the infobox included on the article Portuguese Timor. This kind of infobox exists in many other articles in Wikipedia. He is just trying to impose his own view in the article. Is there some action that can be done against it? Emerson

Deletion was justified as this person was making a number of personal attacks against Merbabu and spamming a lot of user talk pages in relation to this. The user has a block history full of such actions and is an apparent SPA who's only edits are to incite further attacks against Merbabu. Merbabu is endeavouring to work with the editor inspite of these, the question is do we accept such actions against a long time contributor, IMHO we dont! I will revert if and when I see any editor attacked in this way. I also suggest that you could have saved some time by reading my talk page the section User talk:Gnangarra#Are you in love with Merbabu? which already has comments and explanation to these action rather than furthering the drama along, it also has Domaleixo's comment after I had warned him over the attacks, which gives an accurate account of the troll that is being feed. Gnangarra 12:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll take a look. SGGH speak! 15:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProjet Birds May 2008 Newsletter

The May 2008 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Psychonauts

I understand, but I'm an inclusionist and as such don't see a problem with having articles on sufficiently notable Japanese robots and such. To each his own, I'm sure we'd find people that see articles on Graeco-Roman mythology just as space-wasting as you do those on hypothetical moons - it's better to include everything rather than lose things that don't need to be lost. If the article isn't sufficiently sourced, that's not grounds for deletion to me - WP:SOFIXIT. But I'm not totally oblivious as to where you're coming from. And if I don't make sense, forgive me, I just woke up. :) +Hexagon1 (t) 02:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question about AfD process.

I'm curious to know how AfDs are resolved.
I've started an AfD on Psychonaut. To my mind, article is WP:MADEUP or WP:OR, though this would be subject to debate, but is also unambiguously un-cited, despite the article being four years old and having a warning tag on this since May 2007.
Many comments in the AfD are running along the lines of "Keep - We don't need to have cites", which strikes me as not according to Wikipedia policy.
-- So, to what extent is AfD a popularity contest, and to what extent does it hinge on policies? If many people vote Keep, do we disregard policy problems? Who makes the call on AfDs? An admin?
Thanks -- Writtenonsand (talk) 21:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Very good question. I find AFD to be a mixture of both. In the case that an article clearly does not meet policies, but a strong majority of users suggest keeping it, it will tend to be kept anyway, if for no other reason than consensus can change. If, on the other hand, the keep and delete "votes" are close together but one side is grounded in policy and the other is more aspirational or citing a number of the arguments considered invalid, then the admin should exercise discretion and declare the result accordingly. I did that recently at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre (4th nomination), which decision was ultimately upheld on review.
In the present discussion, very few of those keep "votes" were grounded in policy. As you correctly pointed out it is for those seeking material to be included to verify it. I would wait a month or so then renominate the page, pointing out that no citations have been included since the last discussion and that all the keep "votes" were conditional on citations being added or had a mention that they were needed. In the face of such a small propotion of delete "votes" I don't think that a deletion review would overturn the discussion. Stifle (talk) 12:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cretaceous Sea

Thanks for the link. It looks like Wikipedia calls it Western Interior Seaway. I'll use that name. Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon (talk) 01:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Christianity Newsletter

The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter
The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter!
Issue V - May 2008
Article News
Project News
Member News
  • Our membership continues to expand. It is currently at 223 users. 39 new users have joined the WikiProject in the month of April 2008. Please make them feel welcomed!
Christianity Articles by Quality
Make visible or invisible by clicking Show or Hide, respectively.
To do list of the Project
Make visible or invisible by clicking Show or Hide, respectively.
Archives of previous newsletters can be found here.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, add your name here.
If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, let ~ The Newsletter Editors know.
This newsletter is automatically delivered by Addbot (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC) .


Hi, I'm going to be archiving this page soon.
Please add new posts below this box.
Thanks -- Writtenonsand



[edit] WikiProject Birds June 2008 Newsletter

The June 2008 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 13:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My Two Accounts

I occassionally grow tired of my identity on my main account and at times prefer a slightly more anonymous approach to editing. However, there is nothing unethical about this as I have made it clear on both of my talk pages that I have these two accounts. Nor is this a violation of Wikipedia policy. LuisGomez111 (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern but I'm not worried about it. LuisGomez111 (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Corpus Christi

Frankly, precisely what you didn't understand was a little obscure. Your original question on the talk page was simply why it was held on the day it is. When I answered this, you backtracked and claimed not to understand the point of the feast at all - which wasn't what your initial question indicated, and which was already answered in the lead ("...a feast in honour of the Eucharist"). I think this was the reason for Carl's apparent exasperation. Carolynparrishfan (talk) 18:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the compliment

However, I think there's a fundamental problem with all wikis, and with wikipedia in particular. It's that users are working to cross purposes. It is and was my assertion that a good article has every fact backed up with a reliable source, so that users who question the statement can verify it. Others argue that all those superscripted numbers make the article unreadable, that it requires too much effort, or that it makes wikipedia look different than commercial encyclopedias. Well, it is different. Commercial encyclopedias typically have one expert writing an article, and his name appears at the end, thus putting his well-established reputation on the line. With wikipedia, it's painfully difficult to see who contributed content, and there's no way to tell whether something was added by the tinfoil hat brigade, by a practical joker, or someone who is the world's foremost expert on the subject.

If they enforced the rule that any editor was allowed to delete content that was not properly referenced to a reliable source, it would make a considerable difference; instead, they hassle people who do that, out of fear that some of the tinfoil hat brigade will be offended and leave. As a result, the people who leave are those who want to make wikipedia a useful resource rather than a joke. I was willing to donate clothes to the thrift store until I found that they baled 95% of all contributions, and sold them as rags, I was willing to donate blood to the Red Cross until I saw how they handled the World Trade Center and Katrina incidents, and I was willing to donate considerable time and energy to wikipedia until I found out my efforts were wasted. If I run across a typographical error, or an error of fact, I now am willing to make a very minimal effort to correct it - but it's not very often that I even visit the site. (You left your comment quite some time ago.) I'm more likely to find the information I need on GeoCities or a blog - and since someone is taking individual responsibility for his site, it's more likely to be valid information.

ClairSamoht - Wikipedia - by policy, they don't care about truth, by practice, they don't care about verifiability. 09:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Christianity Newsletter

The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter

Archives  |  Tip Line  |  Editors

The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter
Issue VI - June 2008
Project news
Member news
  • The project currently has 233 members, 15 joined & 1 leavers since the start of May 2008.
Other news
Related projects news
  • New Projects and/or work groups have been proposed for Christian theology and Christian denomations.
Christianity related news
From the Members

Welcome to the Sixth issue of the WikiProject Christianity newsletter! Use this newsletter as a mechanism to inform yourselves about progress at the project and please be inspired to take more active roles in what we do.

Luckily, you all won't have to see my comments very often, as very little I have to say is really that important. But I would like to take the opportunity to say that I hope everyone finds the new General Forum page useful for discussing ideas relevant to Christianity in general, and feels free to make any additional comments regarding general Christianity there. Also, if any of you feel that you want to place a comment here in the future, please let us know what you want included. We would encourage all members to get more involved and if you are wondering what with, please ask. Use this newsletter as a mechanism to inform yourselves about progress at the project and please be inspired to take more active roles in what we do.

John Carter (talk), Lead Coordinator
Newsletter challenge

We are initiating a new feature here. Every month, we will list one misisng article. The first person to start the article will be mentioned by name in the next newsletter, as well as any others should they help get included in the Main Page DYK's section.

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.
This newsletter is automatically delivered by TinucherianBot (talk) 09:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)