Jump to content

User talk:Infocidal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jonathunder (talk | contribs) at 03:39, 3 October 2006 (Minnesota meetup). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hello Infocidal and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

Good luck!

Vandalism article

The anonymous user who reverted you has apologized on the talk page, it seems that the revert was just a mistake. You can revert articles by youself by the way, see Wikipedia:How to revert a page to an earlier version. --Conti|✉ 13:11, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

You can't stop people from reverting you in wikipedia, but you can revert them as well. This is of course not the favoured way to edit here. As a general rule, you shouldn't revert an article more than 3 times in 24 hours (See Wikipedia:Three revert rule). Try to discuss the matter first.
As far as I can see from the page history, you've been reverted two times. One time by the anon, and the other edit was made by Morven ([1]). As you can see, Morven completely rewrote the article. I don't know why he replaced the picture, maybe it was a mistake as well, maybe not. If you really bother, feel free to ask him on his talk page.
Oh, and by the way: You can ask questions to specific users on their talk page. Just click on their user name and then on "discussion", and post your question there, it's preferred by most wikipedians compared to email I think. (At least by me ;) ) --Conti|✉ 19:16, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

Bum Art

I strongly suggest that at this point you propose simply moving the page to your user page (or a page subordinate to your user page). It seems pretty clear that the consensus is going against notablity, and one manifesto isn't going to change that. It looks like you've written a good article on an overly obscure topic, one that you are close to. I think it has potential for the future if this term gains more currency. Meanwhile, there seem to be a number of closely related and clearly encyclopedic topics that are insufficiently covered, which should give you plenty of scope to write about related outsider art in Wikipedia. Plus, you wouldn't do poorly to post your own article in some more permissive environment (where the autobiographical aspects could also be re-added). -- Jmabel 00:41, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

An interesting article and well written. However it does, unfortunately, read rather like a hoax article. I think the reason for this is that although the movement or school of art you describe is real and certainly exists the name you have used for it is not widely used. Not surprising really, how can any movement founded on anarchy have an official name? Furthermore you have used the word Bum in a rather specialized American context. In much of English speaking world Bum Art would mean very bad art, ie art with no artistic content, just meaningless crude paintings, what you might call Crap Art maybe. Which brings me to the other point, I felt that your article at present does not adequately distinguish between Bum Art and Crap Art, chidrens daubs, artists unfinished doodles and pointless excercises. Since many people, philstines all of them, already consider that there is no real difference you might want to address this point in your article. However I do not wish to be discouraging. I like the article and wish i could have written it myself. ping 06:30, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

During the recent discussion on VfD, you asked if the Bum Art article could be moved to your user page. The answer, of course, is yes. The easy way is to use the "move" button and move the entire page to a "sub-page" of your user page. Sub-pages are automatically created when you put a slash in the article's title. (For technical reasons, sub-pages are strongly discouraged in the main article space but tolerated in the user space.) I have taken the liberty of copying the current version of the article to User:TheGrza/Bum Art. Because the article is still the subject of an active VfD discussion, I used copy-paste rather than the move button. This loses the history but, since you're essentially the only author/editor so far, it didn't seem like a bad choice for now. Hope that helps. Rossami 02:16, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

FOX News

I have responded to your points at FOX News. Please see there. VeryVerily 07:03, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Utopian Fiction

The content was certainly redundant, but in such cases we usually put up a redirect. "Utopian fiction" is a commonly used term as witnessed by the four wikilinks to it. People searching for the term should get to the right article (Utopian and dystopian fiction), so this article is best left as a redirect, not deleted. Thanks for you good eye at catching article redundancies. We have so many of them... Cool Hand Luke 07:32, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I just got your message. I'm sorry for being perhaps too crass. Again, you do everyone a favor by catching these. Otherwise we'd have parallel, marginal articles all over the place—just like that one was. Cool Hand Luke 07:35, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Authorship of John

Thanks for the good words. I have added sections on the other Johannine works as well. For now, I commented out the old side-by-side comparison. I think that all the arguments there are at least touched upon in my text, but some points may need to be adjusted for POV. We would have to decide if a "for" and "against" Johannine authorship summary at the end would add to the article -- I took a more historical approach, listing arguments as they came up in history. Mpolo 15:10, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

"Tlevision" on the main page

Typo fixed. You'll have to purge the cache before you can see the effect. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 01:11, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

The Cato image

First of all, i dont think that's Cato the younger, who died in his forties and was known by his beeked nose and tall neck. I followed the url you provided for source and i didnt find any caption to the image (nor that's public domain by the way). What i think is that the image is Cato the elder efigie (the youngers great grand father. Do you have any way to verify this ? Cheers, [[User:Muriel Gottrop|muriel@pt]] 15:27, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Hi! Thanks for your quick explanations. I'm glad thats indeed public domain - its such a nice picture. I've inserted it in Cato the elder. Your first experience in a foreign wiki was perfect, you discovered my talk (= discussão = discussion) page without problem! But if you prefer next time you can drop me a line in my english page - this one. Now for some stupid reason i cant edit logged on... Cheers! Muriel - 62.252.0.5 09:32, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Template:Commons

Basically, the {{{1}}}} is important because the page on Commons is not often the same as the PAGENAME here. Take, for example, The Raven (Edgar Allan Poe) or Jupiter (planet). -- Netoholic @ 06:04, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

talk

(moved to Christian anarchism)

Please don't do this [2]. One category per line and one interwiki link per line and don't bother with the comments explaining what they are. Cburnett 20:54, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think you need to understand the concept of "vandalism." Vandalism requires bad-faith editting. Maintaining the community's de facto standard of article layout is not bad-faith editting. Reverting my edits to maintain community standards and calling that action as vandalism is bad-faith editting.
And you still haven't 1) brought up mediation or 2) proposed the question to the community.
You're acting on your own putting forth an agenda of your own and you don't really have solid rationale for why. You claim it's to counter the bug in white space rendering, except interwiki links are not affected...yet you condesne them to a single line, which reduces readability and edittability as well as foils how WP's diff engine works.
If you don't believe the de facto standard is what I edit articles to, then why exactly do you have to change them begin with? That's right, cuz you're changing the de facto standard.
Let's summarize here:
  • You're putting forth bad-faith editting by labeling non-vandalism as vandalism
  • You're contradicting community standards and practice on article layout
    • As such, you refuse to take the question to the community.
    • As such, you refuse to seek mediation.
  • Your personal agenda is entirely non-community like because you refuse to take the question to the community when it clearly contradicts what the community does.
Cburnett 06:07, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


In case you care, the bug has been fixed. See the lack of space on, for example, Albert Einstein. Cburnett 05:44, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

The Customer is Always Right

The Customer is Always Right is actually part of the movie, it is the short story that the introduction is taken from. As for the cast list, going by the cast list on the website seems a poor idea, as it leaves out several key characters (Kevin, Manute) while including many of only equal or lesser importance (Shellie, Becky, Miho, The Priest). I'm trying a new cast list that is a bit more descriptive, what are your thoughts on it? Aziraphale Jasra 05:23, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi there, you uploaded this and said you had obtained permission for it. Can you add an image copyright tag? Thanks, Alphax τεχ 04:57, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Whoops...ignore that last post. I'm looking through all these copyright tags and they're a bit confusing. Which one would I use if I e-mailed the owner of the image and he gave his permission as long as the image was credited to the site? --TheGrza 17:22, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Er, I'd email them again and get them to release it under the Creative Commons By Attribution 2.0 license; if not, then tag it as CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat the website is credited. Alphax τεχ 08:39, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) PS. Please reply by clicking the "Edit" link on this section. Alphax τεχ 10:28, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just saw your message. He hasn't edited for the last 7 minutes. If he edits again, I'll block him. Best, Meelar (talk) 23:46, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:17, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Geronimo's skull

I wasn't able to find any documentation or even mention of a DNA test conducted on Geronimo's skull anywhere on the web (although I did find a few pages saying that the police should conduct a DNA test). Could you provide a source for that? Thanks! Kaldari 21:30, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am well aware of the story of the meeting with Ned Anderson, however, I don't see how you got a story about police seizing a skull from the Tomb and doing a DNA test on it from that. The actual events seem to bear little if any relation to the version that you added to the article. I wouldn't have deleted it if I hadn't done research on it myself. Please make sure that any information added to Wikipedia articles is documented and verifiable. It's important that we try to maintain a high standard of accuracy if we are to claim that Wikipedia is, in fact, an encyclopedia. Kaldari 17:23, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sin City

You removed Category:Films noir from the Sin City page, and I would like to know why. I am adding the category back in since your removal is not only erroneous, but unsupported. --Viriditas | Talk 00:27, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your message on my talk page. Your reasoning is not supported by the facts, and your literal interpretation (classic period of the 1940s and 1950s only) of what is and what is not considered film noir is not supported by the majority of film critics, academics, nor of the film industry in particular. Sin City belongs in the category of Film Noir. A note in the category of the differences between classic and neo-noir should suffice. --Viriditas | Talk 03:42, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What I can't understand, is why you wouldn't add the neo-noir category if you thought that was the appropriate category. And, as I said on the the Sin City talk page, this is not only a period of film, but a genre. Distinguishing the time period as neo-noir is one thing, but the style is still film noir. I'm not finished with this argument, either. --Viriditas | Talk 04:20, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You haven't been hostile, so there's no need to apologize. But, I did wonder why you didn't just replace the correct category. I think it's vague in the sense that there are other terms to describe post-noir films, however neo-noir appears to be an accepted and widely used cat, at least in the academic world. In that regard, categorizing Sin City as neo-noir is fine with me, but as a style or mood, the film deserves to be described as film noir in the lead, and a section should be added that illustrates the elements of film noir. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. --Viriditas | Talk 05:17, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Year pages

Please leave the section headers in, they are part of the template. -- User:Docu

Atmosphere

Hello. I just wanted to let you know I removed the Speedy tag from the redirect Atmosphere (hip hop crew). Since the redirect was created by a page move, and the original page has been around for over a year, there may be quite a number of web sites that link to the "crew" page. To avoid breaking those links, I figured we should leave the redirect in place. Happy editing! SWAdair | Talk 10:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

SimCity disambig

It looks like we are on the same page. See the talk page. --Viriditas | Talk 23:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So you don't think the dab should be on the main Sin City page? Although their argument is weak, they do have a valid point. I'll try and consult some dab policy pages when I have time and see what I come up with. --Viriditas | Talk 05:09, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
According to their argument, some people may type "sin city" instead of "SimCity", hence they might be brought to Sin City, by accident, not to the dab page. It's possible, but highly unlikely. I believe the dab policy pages cover this info, and I'll try and refer to them when I have a moment. --Viriditas | Talk 05:38, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed your comment about the Sin City dab page until now. I'm going to look into this issue as it applies to another issue currently facing some of the music pages. I'll get back to you on this, as you've brought up an important point that needs to be addressed. --Viriditas | Talk 03:52, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cburnett's admin nomination

I was nominated for administrator and I'd like to hear your opinion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cburnett. Cburnett 07:27, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)


MIM reviews

Firstly, I do not support MIM. you are assuming that just because I added links to these reviews I must be pushing their viewpoint. This is not the case. Your distaste for these reviews is simply YOUR distaste, your POV. You are trying to portray your viewpoint as non-political, but it is in fact, entirely political. You are allowing mainstream (bourgeois) viewpoints and reviews to be linked to because you consider them to be acceptable. It seems they are acceptable to you because they are part of the status-quo. People come to WikiPedia in search of facts and alternatives to the mainstream corporate control over information. People come to contribute, share ideas and cooperate with others. This is not what you are doing here. Calling this vandalism is typical of tyrannical corporate types. For example, providing no space to people in the hood to be artistic then criminalizing them for spray painting graffitti. Or like dominating the media and shutting down small outlets when what the people have to say is no longer acceptable and deemed inapropriate. I will not allow this practice to be perpetuated on here, without a fight. Different viewpoints is not vandalism, unless the POV is being put right in the article. For it to be vandalism it would have to destroy, distort, or somehow make the article not-viewable. Linking to alternative reviews does not do this. --Mista-X 00:44, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Removing external links simply because you don't like them is vandalism. If you continue to do so, I will have an admin stop their removal and take you to arbitration. --Mista-X 01:19, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You broke 3RR a few times, and I could report you for that. However, the issue is more important than simply you. I wish to continue discussion about this issue with those who are actually interested in coming to rational consensus and conclusions. You don't seem to be. --Mista-X 04:04, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Movie reviews and POV

" The POV is inherent in these type of reviews the same way Christian reviews are bound by their ideology instead of actually critiquing a film"

TheGrza, I think you misunderstand our POV policy which applies to the content of the articles only, not to external links. First of all if we did not allow POV in external links we'd have to remove half the external links in Wikipedia. Secondly, all film reviews are, by definition, POV (I don't know of any reviews that don't express an opinion) so we'd have to remove all links to film reviews if NPOV applied to external links. We don't remove links simply because of the politics of the site linked to. I think you also misunderstand the concept of "vandalism". We can't simply throw around the term to justify removal of any material we don't like. It applies specifically to activity that disrupts wikipedia or disrupts an article. I've seen MIM reviews quoted in Harper's so they are actually relatively well known if only for their amusement value. There is no reason why we shouldn't have external links to Christian film reviews or Marxist film reviews. A broad variety of links is encouraged. What's discouraged are repetitive links to similar material (eg reviews from a dozen daily newspapers would be repetitive).

As to your point about ideology, I don't know if you've ever studied film theory in university or read academic journals on film such as cahiers des cinema but serious film criticism does actually deal with ideology, subtext etc and is not just the "thumbs up" "thumbs down" type review you see in a newspaper. By your argument we couldn't link to serious scholarly articles on films, many of which "deconstruct" films from a Marxist, feminist, postmodern, or other ideological perspective. For instance, Susan Sontag's important and influential writings on film would be banned, by your argument, as they are ideological in nature and explore the subtext of films rather than simply being a technical critique.

Hope this clarifies things. AndyL 14:55, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As for The Battleship Potemkin, Sergei Eisenstein was very much a Marxist and his development of montage was based on Marxist dialectics of counterposing two opposite ideas (or when applied to film, images) in order to create a third idea. To suggest that it is of no interest to see a Marxist review of Battleship Potemkin is quite absurd. AndyL 15:06, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the ongoing debate over Mista-X's edits to movie-related pages, AndyL has objected that the discussions have not taken place at Talk:The Matrix. To accomodate this objection, perhaps future discussions should be centralized there rather than various users' talk pages. -- Curps 21:10, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you are interested, please check out Wikipedia:Requests for comment/AndyL and certify. — Phil Welch 22:59, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

100 Greatest Guitar Solos

Actually, I did take the new version into account—looked at the diff between time of listing and time of deletion—and as far as I can tell all the original votes are still just as valid for the new list; it is still POV and unencyclopedic even if the list itself is included and properly wikified. You said yourself that "I'll be the first one to agree that it's not altogether interesting or certifiably valid". It was not a hasty decision—as you may notice it's one of the last ones on that day's page to be closed—and you are free to list it on VfU if you think your view was not considered fairly. I don't like to casually obliterate someone's effort, either, but I believed the new efforts did not change the substance of the objections. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:02, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

RfC against AndyL

Sorry for being absent the past few days, real life intruded. I have made some extensive additions to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/AndyL. If you happen to endorse this new section, please indicate so at that page. -- Curps 18:24, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I've also replied to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Curps, if you wish to read that or add your own comments. -- Curps 19:55, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If I had made a complaint against Phil he would be entitled to respond. I didn't and he isn't. Notice the "discussion" section at the bottom of the RFC that directs people to the talk page? It's there for responses and comments by individuals who are neither the complainants nor the respondants (FYI respondant is the term used in quasijudicial proceedings for "the defendant" or "the accused"). Phil's comments belong on the discussion page, not in the response section since the response section is *only* for the respondant ("accused'). If you don't believe me look at a few other RFCs.

As for The Matrix, I suggest you read the section on the talk page titled "resolution?". Clearly, the consensus has changed. AndyL 21:56, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, The Wikipedia:Requests for comment/AndyL page still contains one section that says, "currently endorsed by User:Philwelch, but not User:TheGrza". I noticed you removed the bottom notice but not the top notice... could you remove that top notice too if you endorse it? Thanks. -- Curps 22:00, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bug you, but it would really look better in the edit history if it was really you that removed it, not me. Just look under "Description" right underneath the horizontal line. It says:

Note: the following is by User:Curps, and is currently endorsed by User:Philwelch, but not User:TheGrza. If he indicate his endorsement, this statement will be removed.

-- Curps 22:23, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems to be gone now. I don't know if it's worth checking the edit history to see what happened. -- Curps 23:50, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of request for arbitration regarding AndyL

I've filed a request for arbitration against AndyL. For reasons described in the request, I don't believe you are a directly involved party, but you may wish to provide evidence later if the arbitration request is accepted. -- Curps 00:55, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Minor changes to RfC

Sorry to bug you, but I made a handful of minor fixes and clarifications to the RfC, so I feel obliged to let you know just in case there's anything that would cause you to withdraw your re-certification. The overall diff is here: [3]; you can see the page history for the individual edit summaries. -- Curps 04:33, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did not describe your comments at specious because you endorsed the RFC. I endorsed your comments as specious because they were. AndyL 15:04, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Matrixism vandal

Hi! You're one of the editors I've noticed reverting "Matrixism" linkspamming, so I thought you might be interested in voting on Wikipedia:Redirects_for_deletion#April_25. Matrixism currently redirects to New religious movement, and this has been used as a justification for linkspamming in the past. I believe an overwhelming vote to delete Matrixism will demonstrate a community consensus against the linkspamming, deterring further vandalism. Thanks for your help. — Phil Welch 19:52, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cato.jpeg

I've nominated this picture for Featured Picture status; I quite like the image. A question has arisen about its copyright status; I understand that you found this picture on the web, but it would appear that you had some discussion with Muriel Gottrop about its status also. If you could drop in and post a note to Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Cato.jpeg concerning it, I would much appreciate it. -- Smerdis of Tlön 16:31, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for your response! Smerdis of Tlön 20:12, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bill White (activist)

Hi Grza, I've just about finished with the rewrite of the above, though others will probably have more edits to make. I've tried to stick closely to the third-party sources and to link to them wherever possible. Your support would be appreciated if the subject tries to revert again to the old version. Best, SlimVirgin (talk) 10:35, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Lisa McPherson

I had removed the Scientologists tag from the article because the rest of those in the category are advocates for Scientology whereas McPherson renounced them after being murdered by the CoS. I think Category:Scientology is more accurate, but see Talk:Lisa_McPherson to discuss this. --TheGrza 04:19, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

also posted in Talk:Lisa McPherson

-revert- Please cite the source of your claim that a dead person (specifically Lisa) has "renounced something" after their death.--AI 01:20, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please stop indiscriminately adding rotten.com external links to articles. External links to such articles should only be added if they contain extra information not available in the article (and even then, it is much preferred to add the content to the article itsself so wikipedia actually improves). See Wikipedia:External links for more information. --W(t) 01:43, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

I very much agree with Weyes. Pavel Vozenilek 02:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The articles on rotten.com (at least those I chacked) do not contain more information than the Wikipedia article itself. Therefore they bring very little value. Such links may have value to prove article topic does exist but this is obviously not case of your links.
Agreed, please stop gren 02:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You can talk about how "fleshed out" these articles are all you want, but they are NOT adding anything to Wikipedia. At best, they're rather weak and poorly written editorials.—chris.lawson (talk) 02:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
They are highly POV gren 02:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've been reading them. They aren't encyclopedic, and they aren't particularly interesting. And they are editorials, but you're presenting them as fact. That's why you have to stop.—chris.lawson (talk) 02:52, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Holiness

Hi,

re the issue of using styles. Some time ago, as part of a general debate it was decided to include styles in articles on monarchs upfront at the start of pages. (I disagreed, but was outvoted.) This became Wikipedia policy and was implemented. After a couple of months a handful of users waged edit wars on all pages where styles had been placed, deleting them en masse. A massive edit war ensued. One user associated with the delete campaign tried to arrange a vote to overturn the original policy, but the vote was a fiasco: the methodology he used confused everyone, and he soon showed his viewpoint by trying to declare that the hamfisted vote with the indecisive result actually was a vote to delete styles from the start of articles, or rather that a non-decision with no consensus behind it automatically overturned the previous consensus, a complete misrepresenting of Wikipedia policy.

He so annoyed people that when he tried to have his supposed result 'ratified' it was thrown out hands down by a landslide. To stop the edit war a compromise was agreed, whereby people would leave the articles as they were. So if the articles had styles, they would be left in. If a series of them had not had them put in, they wouldn't be put in. It was done to calm down tempers. At some stage in the future the issue no doubt will be revisited, but as of now, and probably in the short term, there is no chance of getting a consensus, and any raising of the issue will just ignite the mother of all edit wars across hundreds of articles, so the compromise 'do not disturb' stands.

A small number of 'users' (almost all of them apparently the same individual under different new names) has tried to overturn the compromise. Though I opposed the original policy I have sought to uphold the policy as agreed until it is changed by consensus. The particular user engaged in mass reversions of the papal articles is suspected to be a banned user just trying to cause trouble and re-ignite the edit war all over again. His identity is being checked and if it turns out that he is who is suspected to be, he will be banned. Even if he isn't his determination to try to re-ignite an edit war and change articles contrary to the policy laid out in the Manual of Style may well see him banned anyway.

That is why styles are in articles right now. They may be deleted in the future, but weeks after one of the bloodiest battles on Wikipedia, it is far too soon to revisit the issue. Things were said and done that a lot of people still are very bitter about. A lot of people may end up quitting Wikipedia in disgust if this issue goes live again soon and the rows ignite. If you see that user under any of his identities deleting styles (or adding in styles elsewhere to try to prove wars there) simply revert him. The best thing we probably can do is follow the 'do not disturb' policy for now. In any case a re-opening of the war would probably lead to the adding in of styles to all pages, as it is an explict policy on the MoS and elsewhere at the moment.

Thanks for spotting that user's latest bit of stunt-pulling on the papal pages and reverting it, BTW. I am fed up having to waste so much time trying to stop the damned edit war igniting. FearÉIREANNFile:Tricolour.gif\(caint) 00:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC) [reply]


First, I am Mike H., not someone else. Second, any decision to "include styles in articles on monarchs upfront at the start of pages" is irrelevant to correct usage in the Roman Catholic Church. I do assume, hopefully not in error, that Wikipedia users have the maturity to observe accepted usages and that Wikipedia's formal policies reflect this. In any case, I refer you to the Wikipedia article Style (manner of address), wherein it states "Pope John Paul II was called His Holiness only until his death." -- Regards, Mike 22:41, 14 July 2005 (EDT)
And while we're at it, just in case you were wondering, I'm only me and not anyone else, either. Since accidentally rekindling this silliness (unaware of the "bloodiest battle", and having seen no evidence of it anywhere), I've seen no evidence either of sockpuppets. I've never approved of hiding behind weird screen names, and use my own, and my own only, as on my own site. (Why some people purportedly get so upset about this one way or the other is a total mystery to me, when it's a matter of universal practice, both for popes and for other monarchs; and why Pio Nono is the delimiter for said upsetness, since none of us has known him as living in our own lifetimes, yet another mystery.) Bill 07:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You left the following message on my talk page. "I was just wondering where you found that Popes lost the title His Holiness after death." I don't remember having ever posted that, as these questions are not at all clear to me, so could you please provide me a link to the version where I did that. Thanks very much and please also move the message you're just reading to my talk page. --Eleassar my talk 19:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Minneapolis meetup

Hello TheGrza. I'm contacting you since you are listed at Category:Wikipedians in Minnesota. I'm going to be at a conference in Minneapolis and am plannnig a Wikipedia meetup for October 8. If you are near Minneapolis at that time, please see Wikipedia:Meetup/Minneapolis. Angela. 20:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism by repeat offender

I am a relative newbie, but yesterday New York University was vandalized by 64.218.194.120, a multiple repeat offender. I reverted the edits, but can we get this IP turned off permanently? You seem to know these things. Thanks! David W. Hogg 13:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stop

Why do you keep removing neutral information on Mississippi, Elitism, Populism, and Luann (disambiguation)?Remington and the Rattlesnakes 03:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am sick of you saying I am a vandal. Remington and the Rattlesnakes 03:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Remington and the Rattlesnakes has now been blocked for a second time for violating WP:3RR. Hall Monitor 21:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Washington State

(see User_talk:Matt_Yeager#Washington_State in case you've forgotten)

Hmm. Let me first explain my reasoning (when I found the page a while back, it was linked to by people who meant "Washington"; I fixed the links and then changed the redirect, as you can see on the talk page). "Washington state" (note the caps) doesn't (strictly speaking) refer to any one thing, so it redirects to the state, as it should. "Washington State" does, however, properly mean the university. Look in any sports magazine, website, etc., and you see things like this from ESPN, referring to Washington State University as "Washington State" (note the similar treatment of Kansas State University being called "Kansas State" at the bottom of the article).

As Washington State University does have a little header on top providing a link to Washington for any confused readers... I personally think that the redirect should stay pointing the way it is. That's the way it's used the majority of the time (if people, when writing, need to clarify which Washington they're talking about, they ought to (and usually do) say "Washington state"). Unless you're going to use the very informal "Wazzu", the abbreviation "WSU" (which usually requires context to differentiate it from, say, Wichita State University), or the full "Washington State University", the only way to really refer to the university in writing is "Washington State". Is that enough of a reason?

Oh, and by the by, I periodically re-route the few stray links that pop up meaning to go to Washington, so the only way that a reader could find the page is by typing in "Washington State", which really, truly, is not the way to refer to the state. Matt Yeager 00:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:LarryHama.jpg has been listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:LarryHama.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Patrick Henry

Sorry TheGrza, it looked like a veiled attempt to push a religious agenda (moving the Speech to the House of Burgesses quote higher up). I wouldn't have reverted if you were logged in. Apologies. Monkeyman 02:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mos Def

In regards to these edits you made to the Mos Def article, can you tell me what the benefit is to remove content from the filmography section? Some of the entries and awards you removed even have articles already. Generally, it is Wikipedia policy to leave information in articles, unless you have a specific reason why information should be taken out and it should be explained in the talk page or the edit summary. --Howrealisreal 01:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Killers (band)

Thanks for fixing those quotes. They looked heinous.

Leadbelly

In your edit summary you wrote: "Illiteracy makes assertions suspect...anyone know about this "ledbetter" fellow?"

Perhaps you are talking about the "assertion" of a "Songbook"; by this it is meant that he had many songs in his repertoire, many of which he originated, or interpreted in a unique way. The assertion makes plenty of sense if you know anything about the oral tradition. Is this the assertion you were speaking of? Makemi 21:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. I thought you were referring to Leadbelly's illiteracy. Ledbetter was in fact Leadbelly's birth name. I agreed with your edit, but my misunderstanding of your summary lead to my hackles being put up, but all is well now. Happy editing :) Makemi 22:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Thomas More's Utopia

I just skimmed this article, but as someone who studied More at university, I have to say that you did great work in starting that page (over a year ago - I only just read it) and have developed it very well, along with others of course.

Nothing much to add here, just saluting you on a job well done. Nach0king 23:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Image Tagging Image:Gary Condit.jpg

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Gary Condit.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam (T/C) 23:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks TheGrza for responding, you can use {{PD-USGov-Congress-Bio}}, if i am not wrong. Regards, Shyam (T/C) 00:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hey Grza Did I steal this line from you? "Ampersand5000 the lugubrious bastard child of a sweaty oxen and a perfume guzzingly norse men. He resides in the unknown, where heart and mind do nothing for anyone."


Image Tagging Image:HenryRollins.jpg

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:HenryRollins.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. Rossrs 14:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday!

Hey I saw it was your birthday as well! Seeing as you already had some cake, please accept these candied apples as my present to you. Happy Birthday, ~Linuxerist E/L/T 03:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Venice(TheBand)VerticalPhoto.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Venice(TheBand)VerticalPhoto.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:HankWilliamsSr.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:HankWilliamsSr.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fred-Chess 13:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota meetup

A meetup of Wikipedians in Minnesota is proposed: please stop by the discussion page if interested. Jonathunder 03:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Infocidal&oldid=79180023"