User talk:Delirium

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

Your input is requested at Talk:U.S. occupation of Iraq. MB 00:27 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Ah, I'm glad someone started editing Categorical Imperative. It's quite the worst article I've written... :-) Evercat 02:23 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad it already had something written, I wouldn't have wanted to start from scratch. I've taken a few classes that studied Kant, but his writing is particularly impossible to penetrate, so I don't recall all the details (and it seems a lot of scholars disagree on how to interpret his writings anyway). Perhaps I'll scour some online philosophy encyclopedias for more info. -- Delirium 03:01 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It's so good to have someone to discuss philosophy with. :-) Evercat 00:18 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Public domain resources -- Tim Starling 01:45 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Moved/reposted to Athenagoras of Athens --Delirium 01:48 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

You are incorrect re Tel Aviv. According to the French Foreign Ministry, Tel Aviv is the capital. Ditto with Ireland, the US until 2002, most of Europe, etc etc. FearÉIREANN 01:26 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Ah, weird; thanks for the info. The basis of my reasoning was that all these countries listed Jerusalem as the capital prior to 1981 (and kept their embassies there), and the 1981 UN resolution only condemned the annexation and asked countries to move their embassies in protest -- it didn't say that Jerusalem wasn't Israel's capital, it only said that Jerusalem's unilateral expansion was illegal. Perhaps other countries have outside the UN changed their positions though. I'll look into it some more. --Delirium 01:50 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The reason was that when Israel was set up in 1948, Tel Aviv was the capital. As far as the world was concerned, Jerusalem was to be a form of open city, which no-one side was to claim as their undisputed capital, given that for either side to do so would be a provocative affront to the others. Israel's unilateral selection of Jerusalem was seen as breaking one of the fundamental rules set out when Israel was created. Someone on the Israel page has said that I think only three countries in the world recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capital. I knew it was a small number, but not that small. (And that includes the US in 2002!) So I think if only 3 countries accept Jerusalem as Israel's capital, we cannot in all honesty list simply Jerusalem. If it was only 3 or 4 regarded Tel Aviv as the capital, then maybe so, but if 150+ states regard Tel Aviv, and 3 Jerusalem, we should automatically put in both. FearÉIREANN 02:01 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. I'm still doing some research, and will post a comment on my current understanding of things to Talk:Israel in a minute. --Delirium 02:10 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

wow you kicked ass on my article. I didn't realize I'd made that many mistakes. Thanks for fixing it. Glad to see someone was paying attention. I am talking about Vending machines. Dmsar 08:24 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hey, that's the whole point of this being a wiki. :-) --Delirium 08:33 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Well unless it's required (such as mensa), I don't like "joining" a group. I tend to find my comfort zone as an outsider, that way I can avoid rejection. But I can write up a pretty good article off the top of my head. Reference are good when I don't know the depth of a lake (see Detroit Lake), and when I often mess somthing up or misstype, I have confidence that someone else will see and fix it -- I sure see other people's mistakes easily.

Yeah, I usually prefer to write my own articles as well; no dealing with other people's opinions then. :P You can find an amazing amount of stuff just by googling a bit; usually enough to write an article. I do a lot of little copyediting when I spot stuff too though. --Delirium 08:57 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

you are good. thanks for the picture for the vending machine. I see the word "float" and for some reason it baffles me. But with real concrete examples such as yours, I can learn and be better at this. It wasn't a great picture, but I think a little "eye-candy" makes an article more appealing. There is too much text. Look at my contributions, and you will find pictures in most.

Len Dmsar 10:18 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, unfortunately wikipedia hasn't written wiki-markup to do that, so we're stuck with some HTML div elements. If you want to see the various options for placing images (including floats), there's examples of the markup at Wikipedia:Image use policy (scroll down to the "Markup" section). For the one at vending machine I used "right float, with caption." --Delirium 20:07 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have marked White-cheeked Pintail as an intermediate save, jimfbleak

No problem; just wanted to make sure it wasn't something accidental that'd be left there. :) --Delirium 06:45 14 Jul

Here's your standard text :-). Congratulations, you have just been made a sysop! You have volunteered for boring housekeeping activities which normal users sadly cannot participate in. Sysops basically can't do anything: They cannot delete pages arbitarily (only obvious junk like "jklasdfl,öasdf JOSH IS GAY"), they cannot protect pages in an edit war they are involved in, they cannot ban signed in users. What they can do is delete junk as it appears, ban anonymous vandals, remove pages that have been listed on Votes for deletion for more than a week, protect pages when asked to by other members, and help keep the few protected pages there are, among them the precious Main Page, up to date.

Note that almost everything you can do can be undone, so don't be too worried about making mistakes. You will find more information at Wikipedia:Administrators, please take a look before experimenting with your new powers. Drop me a message if there are any questions or if you want to stop being a sysop (could it be?). Have fun! --Eloquence 21:16 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Okay, I'm pretty easy-going, but this Paektu (korean i assume) character is really getting on MY nerves now. I think a picture of him needs to illustrate the "moron" article. arrgh Dmsar 04:01 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, it's getting old. Looking through his edit history indicates he's been doing this for at least a week now, intermittently. That's not even counting all the pages that've been deleted that don't show up in his history. --Delirium 04:02 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I was planning on warning him/her again, and if it doesn't stop we should block the IP. (It's just as much a waste of their time as ours, ironically enough; I guess I'll never understand the motivation.) - Hephaestos 04:37 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

When you delete something, please note the IP address, if it's by an IP address (so that we can scan the deletion log for persistent vandals) and the reason (in this case "garbage. Cebids are monkeys, not insects") as well as the content. -phma 08:19 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I like the story of Martin Van Buren Bates. Thanks! -- ESP 20:48 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

You're welcome! It was on the Requested Articles page, and the idea of a person named after Martin Van Buren of all people caused enough curiosity for me to track down some info. --Delirium 20:53 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

BTW thanks for the Depleted uranium pointer in our Village Pump discussion. Will be a very useful item.Dandrake 01:28 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Whee, simultaneous edit on Symphonie Fantastique - I think this means your version is lost forever; did you make any major changes? Evercat 23:32 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Nope, I just changed opium. to opium (no period), which it seems you also did. I didn't know simultaneous-edits-without-an-edit-conflict-notice were possible. How does that happen, and how do you notice when it happens? --Delirium 23:43 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Uh, it happens when the 2 edits are at precisely the same time (give or take). The 2 edits show up on Special:Recentchanges but not on PageHistory:Symphonie Fantastique. Evercat 23:47 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm going to undelete it now. -- Notheruser 03:12, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up that mess. -- Notheruser 03:29, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I'm not familiar, but the article used to say "Although he was born in Mainland China, because of family roots in Taiwan, he is not usually considered member of the Mainlander sub-ethnic group in Taiwan." An anon, with a record of POV conflicts, changed it. I restored the original version. --Jiang 07:13, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting my user page, I only noticed it today :) -- Jim Regan 20:48, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The warnings have become too swift... Please see User talk:Marshallharsh/Official Apology

Among matrix theorists, matrix norms are only those vector norms satisfying |AB|<=|A||B|. Fail to notice this fact will have difficulties to read most papers on matrix theory.

I will not revert, but I will clarify this fact in the article. -wshun 00:36, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hi, you cast a vote in the TEMP5 debate. The Temp5 proposal was voted down by 61.3% to 38.6%. We seem to be going around in circles on the whole issue of the main page. A new vote is now taking place to clarify what exactly we want, namely

Do we actually want to have a new page?
If so when (immediately, after a pause, timed to the press release, etc)?
What do people want on the front page and what do they want excluded?

As of now, the whole issue seems surrounded by complete confusion. This way, finally and definitively, we will know what we want and when we want it. So do please express your opinions. The vote is on the same page as the previous votes. FearÉIREANN 20:31, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

When RK comes back I want to nominate him for sysop (again) I dont ask for much, but I ask that you support his nomination. Sincerely-戴&#30505sv 23:22, Aug 16, 2003 (UTC)

You're really gung ho going thru that many blanked articles (that you listed on VfD)! Am I glad that I supported your sysopship! :-) --Menchi 01:52, Aug 18, 2003 (UTC)

Hehe, glad somebody noticed! --Delirium 03:32, Aug 18, 2003 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for pitching those typo Medici redirects. Darned if I know why they weren't immediately pitched on sight - sigh, another change for VFD policy I'll have to campaign for - but another day! Articles to write, right now! Noel 16:16, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Yes, Belarusian media should not be NPOV disputed

I agree with you that Belarusian media is not a page that should be NPOV disputed. Can we take it off the list? I have been there several times in the last few years and can verify through reading various human rights reports by NGOs that are not funded by governments about Belarus that the media is oppressed there. Alex756 04:13, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I'd agree with taken it off the dispute list, unless someone still has a dispute about the content (it's been reworked a bit since the original dispute). --Delirium 04:29, Aug 23, 2003 (UTC)

I'm taking off the NPOV notice. Alex756 15:49, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Just wanted to thank you for your support for the nomination for administrator. Also I found an interesting page that I've linked to the above article on Belarusian media from the Belarusian foreign service in English; even they kind of confirm that not a lot of people listen to the Opposition radio stations that broadcast from outside Belarus and that this "would tend to indicate that it [number of listeners] is extremely low." Alex756 06:31, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I have just added myself to Wikipedia:Cleaning department. If there's anything you think I should know, or any advice you want to give me, I welcome it on my talk page. Cheers, Cyan 22:45, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Macedonia

Republic of Macedonia is the convention that has been established here. Go to Talk:Republic of Macedonia and argue there if you dont believe this is proper. [[Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia]] is a redirect. --Jiang 23:51, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is not identical to "Republic of Macedonia" !!-----Vergina 11:37, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I have reverted the change you made to Pope John Paul I. Using the modern Cardinal firstname lastname is unworkable in practice as 99% of cardinals predate its 1960s-present usage, some cardinals do not use their own name but a different one (eg., Cardinal Richelieu). Wikipedia's naming conventions cover the issue. It was almost unanimously decided to use the technically correct firstname Cardinal surname rather than the colloquialised modern version that remains technically incorrect, to allow all cardinals in history to be named in the same format, rather than trying to use both, which threw up enormous problems for many cardinals who held office continuously before and after Vatican II. For example, William Cardinal Conway was never called Cardinal William Conway, and he was of the same generation as Luciani and only died in the mid 1970s. Allowing both would and did produce edit wars. Keeping the one format applied to all cardinals avoided that, and as I have have said, it is the technically correct form, the other technically incorrect.

BTW I too believe we should have the main article at the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. That is its internationally recognised name. Republic of Macedonia is not. FearÉIREANN 20:03, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I disagree that Cardinal Firstname Lastname is incorrect, technically or otherwise. This is the format used by the Vatican, and it is standard English usage to put titles before the names of the people holding the titles (and Cardinal is a title). --Delirium 20:05, Oct 16, 2003 (UTC)

I spoke to the Vatican on the issue when we were dealing with the issue on wikipedia. I was told categorically that Cardinal name surname is not approved but tolerated, but the correct usage is William, Cardinal Conway, or in titles William Cardinal Conway. The monsignor I spoke to said that as an encyclopædia he appreciated Wikipedia's desire to get titles correct and that name Cardinal surname was 100% correct, the other version 100% wrong before the 1960s and tolerated, the way Princess Diana was tolerated in the UK even though such a title was a media fiction, as Buckingham Palace confirms. FearÉIREANN 20:11, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm still not sure I agree. First of all, I'd find William, Cardinal Conway much better than William Cardinal Conway in running text, as the second implies that his middle name is Cardinal which is factually incorrect. Furthermore, I don't believe name Cardinal surname is correct for contemporary cardinals, as even official Vatican documents do not use that format for recently-appointed cardinals; using an archaic form for modern cardinals strikes me as bad form. And for another furthermore, I think standard English usage trumps all this. If a person's name is William Conway, and they are appointed to a position, they become Title William Conway in standard English usage, regardless of the particular title. An organization can have some idiosyncratic method they use (perhaps some club would like to refer to their president as ~~William Conway~~, with a strikethrough to indicate the title), but that doesn't mean the outside world needs to use that idiosyncratic method in place of the standard one. In short, the Vatican can say what they want to, but Cardinal William Conway is 100% correct usage, as it follows standard English grammar rules: his name is William Conway, and he is a Cardinal; ergo, he is Cardinal William Conway. --Delirium 23:20, Oct 16, 2003 (UTC)

The policy on cardinal names on wikipedia is name Cardinal surname, a formula widely agreed after a debate and followed by everyone who has added cardinal names on wiki for months. The Vatican says it is more correct, and no-one on wiki has agreed with you (Jake on the Village Pump correctly points out that the US media regularly referred to Bernard Cardinal Law). What you personally prefer is simply your opinion. You can write what you want elsewhere but wikipedia policy on the issue has long been agreed and followed by everyone. Any attempt to unilaterally change it will be reverted. FearÉIREANN 23:33, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I am proposing a policy change, and soliciting comments on it. I believe your usage is a minority usage, non-standard, and only correct by fiat of an organization that does not set English usage. The standard English usage [1] should be the one we use on Wikipedia. The BBC uses it, as does everyone else, including the Vatican themselves. Why should Wikipedia be the only source using a strange format? --Delirium 23:36, Oct 16, 2003 (UTC)

I'm amazed at your lack of knowledge about wikipedia naming conventions. If you had bothered to check you would have seen what wikipedia policy is on this issue. And if you bothered to check you'd know that there is a policy of including honorifics in royal titles, in peerage references, in higher church titles, in imperial references, etc etc. They were debated at length, discussed in detail, agreed in format and followed by everyone throughout this year. Try checking facts before making rash judgments, Mark. FearÉIREANN 23:59, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The problem with not using honorifics was that in many cases, specificially in the areas of royal and clerical titles, they produced unworkable article references. Before the change, the pages on European royalty were almost unreadable, with presumed surnames being used that had no basis in fact (most royals don't have surnames, and contrary to myth, the British Royal Family's surname is not Windsor but Mountbatten Windsor. (Windsor is the name of the Royal House, not their surname.) Most Europeans on joining wikipedia were confronted with a horrendous mess of wrong names, references, titles, identifications, etc, all of which were solved by using honorifics. (eg, how do you tell the various royal, ducal and other Edwards in history apart without indicating the difference through title?) The cardinal debate was the same. William Conway would be unrecognised by anyone who knew of Cardinal Conway. Cardinal William Conway would produce an edit war because no-one ever heard him be called that. Cardinal Richelieu was not actually a name but a form of title adopted by a man with another name. I have been unable to find what the first name of Cardinal Leone (14th century) was. Basil Hume is recognisable but Paul Cullen generally isn't. The 'cardinal' was added in after debate as most historic cardinals were unrecognisable without it as their pre-cardinalate career is long forgotten. But then we had the problem of where to put 'cardinal' in the name, as two alternatives existed, one ancient but still occasionally used, one post Vatican II that some modern cardinals refuse to use, preferring the earlier one. The name Cardinal surname version was found to be the least worst option. Everything else threw up far more problems. That one, though a bit strange to modern ears, worked and was recommended as more encyclopaedic by experts off wikipedia.

Sorry about sounding so defensive. I was one of a group of people who put in a lot of work to trying to find a solution to naming problems. (Being on the phone in one week to the Vatican, Buckingham Palace and a lecturer in Yale, all to check accurate references for bits of wiki cost me a bloody fortune!) Your apparent unilateral dismissal of everyone's work and your desire to go back to a form that was found unworkable, after all the hard work and endless debate of everyone, and after everyone had worked on cardinal pages for six months in a formula that all agreed had the least pitfalls and problems irritated me a bit. Apologies for being too sharp. FearÉIREANN 00:33, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hey, I saw your comment on User talk:Wartortle. He's not an admin...for some reason I thought only admins left comments on the VfD page, but I guess I was wrong. What can be done about users like that who make ridiculous votes on the VfD page. Just ignore them? or ban them? Just curious. dave 04:29, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)