Difference between revisions 1705334 and 1705342 on enwiki

== Original welcome message ==
⏎

⏎
Hello Daniel, welcome to Wikipedia! 

There are lots of resources around to help guide you. try:

*[[Wikipedia:Naming conventions]]
*[[Wikipedia:Manual of Style]] 

Also check out
*[[wikipedia:image use policy]] before uploading any images

If you need any help try
*[[Wikipedia:Help]]
*[[wikipedia:Village pump|Village pump]]
*My talk page [[User_talk:Jimfbleak]]. 

Don't be afraid of making the odd mistake, there are any number of others eagerly waiting for a chance to correct it!

Also note that this is an international site, so you need to give the nationality of say [[Molly Ringwald]], [[User:Jimfbleak|jimfbleak]] 11:03 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)
----
⏎
== Daniel C. Boyer ==

Hi Daniel. Re: Daniel C. Boyer's articles, it's certainly a fine line. Advertising is not welcome on Wikipedia, and linking his works from the "[year] in film" was a little much. However, his works have been exhibited/performed publically, and people have heard of him, and thus these articles shouldn't be excluded simply because they are about the projects of a Wikipedian. If Linus Torvalds dropped by, we'd probably let him write about his software project. :) Basically, I (contracted; show full)

::So add info about North Korea!  But I think the treatment of the PATRIOT Act is appropriate; sure it would be too long for a proportion of the finished article, but it still says it's a stub, which could be the reason for the imbalance.  --[[User:Daniel C. Boyer|Daniel C. Boyer]] 14:36 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)


----== Presidential Succession ==

Actually, Article II says that nobody shall be "eligible to the office of President" unless they are natural born.  This leaves uncertain whether an acting President (which is all the "line of succession" folks can be) is in the "office of President" or just acting as the President.  It is therefore necessary for the statute to disambiguate, and of course, the statute does it the only way it could, to avoid precipitating a needless constitutional crisis.  Note that the Pres(contracted; show full)

:Oh, "Hi Thomas", I didn't realize Tb was you (although I had a hunch just before I checked your user page).  I liked your changes.  I made a few minor revisions which I think also improve the article (a few are unrelated).  Small world...  --[[User:Daniel Quinlan|Daniel Quinlan]] 09:10 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)


----== Irish ==

Hi Dan, that's some Irish name you have! Let me guess, could there possibly be an Irish connection there somewhere? :-)  lol [[User:Jtdirl|FearÉIREANN]] 05:43 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

(contracted; show full)d]] was the gateway to a lot of the music I enjoy today.  I think it's mostly (not all, surely) just that I like Irish traditional music... (I don't particularly like [[U2]], for example.)<p>I do seem to be reading a fair amount of stuff related to Ireland on Wikipedia, though.  Maybe I'm just another person trying to connect with my past on a subconscious level.  All that aside, I think my last name is great.  *grin* --[[User:Daniel Quinlan|Daniel Quinlan]] 06:30 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)


== Aeroplane ==
⏎

⏎
I wrote that stuff ages ago, but FWIW...
:Re: "aeroplane" (233,000) vs "airplane" (1,940,000) etc.. All that proves is that there are a lot of fans of [[Jefferson Airplane]] and the movie [[Airplane!]] and that California has more websites selling aircraft related products than India. The word 'Airplane' didn't exist until [[World War I]] when the US armed forces dramatically increased the number of aircraft in use and then sold them all off at the end of the war. Someone(contracted; show full)rs, and 240 million of those are in the United States (260 million in North America).  Yet, some Wikipedia editors feel obliged to move pages and alter spelling on the basis that [[Commonwealth English]] is not only more correct, but is also more common than either [[American English]] or [[North American English]].  (My [[United States]] figures are a bit low since they date from 1984 and most of the other figures are from the late 1990s)  [[User:Daniel Quinlan|Daniel Quinlan]] 08:31 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)


----== VfD ==
⏎

The main reason I moved your summary out of VFD is because it seemed to be a bit off-topic. Especially the bit about the lists he added himself to. Also it was pretty long for a summary. We try to keep pages under 32 KB but I'm starting to think it's a lost cause with VFD these days. When I move content out of VFD, I often leave an NPOV summary behind, essentially listing the users for and against deletion, and giving the main arguments on each side. You can write something like that if you want to. 

It's unfortunate that moving a discussion from one place to another often seems to kill it. Maybe you should move your summary out of the quoted section and into the main flow of the talk page. -- [[User:Tim Starling|Tim Starling]] 05:48 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

----== Pizza Puzzle edit history ==
⏎

Can you edit your perl script to not list pages that weren't edited by PP? Those pages prove nothing, of course... [[User:Evercat|Evercat]] 02:25, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

No, I take it back. Since we have a complete list, it shows that most pages edited by multiple Lir aliases were also edited by PP.[[User:Evercat|Evercat]] 02:36, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

-------== New Imperialism ==
⏎

You should reconsider your vote on New Imperialism.

A temp page with an uncertain future that is not a communally edited text but a rival to the main article by one single user should not be advertised as a rival on the main page. PP's temp page was not created not as a communal new edition of an article but as a ''rival'' to a communally drafted text.

It is bad policy to effectively present a reader with two ''alternative'' rival pages. It gives the impression we are offering them two POVs where in fact we are in the business of one NPOV. Right now, the talk page where the temp maximum visibility. The article will be split soon once this dispute is put to rest and there's no reason cut out relevant information. This would set a very bad precedent. Jtdirl, a professional encyclopedist, has repeatedly stated that this goes against every principle of encyclopedic design.


⏎

⏎
It's also unfair to all the other contributors who have worked on this article. It's also irresponsible to link such a page to an article that has attracted the kind of peer editing that we've seen on prominent articles, such as WWI and WWII. This is not solely my article, as PP claims. Others have been doing substantial work. [[User:172|172]] 07:16, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

== Daniel C. Boyer again ==

I agree with you totally on Daniel C Boyer, and all related redirect.  He hasn't doen anything significantly famous.  It is very common for an artist to have one's work published, even if said artist is not famous.  To say that because he is published he is famous, and therefore warrents are article is ridiculous.  [[User:Mbecker|MB]] 21:30, Jul 29, 2003 (UTC)

(contracted; show full)
::::A little off subject, but you are using [[straw man]] to mean something it does not mean here.  Please read the definition.  But don't worry too much, a lot of people don't know the real meaning ;).  [[User:Mbecker|MB]] 18:17, Jul 30, 2003 (UTC)


----== Votes for Deletion ==

:"Continually moving the discussion to the Talk page never results in a completed vote"

There are ways around that. First you've got to write a summary for VFD, I told you that before. If you're worried about a stagnating discussion, you can organise a vote, like on [[Talk:Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead']]. It might be a good idea to decide on the voting rules first, not like what I did.

I think I've made my position pretty clear on the deletion of [[Daniel C. Boyer]]. I was the one who removed the redirect entries last time: see [http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion&diff=1188325&oldid=1188314], so you can probably guess what I think of that. I will make a comment on VFD soon, though. 

I understand the problems with [[Connecticut]], etc. I've made several comments to that effect, the most recent of which was on [[User talk:Daniel C. Boyer]]. I've also helped clean up the Boyer references, see for example [http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&limit=7&offset=209&target=Tim+Starling]. 

-- [[User:Tim Starling|Tim Starling]] 02:17, Jul 30, 2003 (UTC)


⏎

⏎
Oh ok. I was just going by the date more than anything -- it seemed like a beefy issue, that substantial editing had taken place, and that it had all been on VFd for more than a week, and that the consensus was overwhelmingly in favor of condensing the material, which it seemed was done. I know youre the one who put it all up for vfd in the first place -- so forgive me if I take your stand on the issue with a grain of salt. ;) VFD is for a specific purpose -- it does appear that the issue has passed the VFD test, judging by the compliance of the original author and the antipathy of the community toward outright removal.
Best -[[User:Stevertigo|<strong>&#25140;&#30505sv</Strong>]] 19:15, Aug 8, 2003 (UTC) (comment copied to [[Wikipedia:VFD:RST theory]])

-----== NPOV cleanup ==
⏎

Good job cleaning up the trash left by that neo-fascist crackpot with the shifting IP address. I'll keep an eye on him too. [[User:172|172]] 19:35, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

----== Binary ==

Actually, the four examples in [[binary numeral system]] were not originally intended to be the same (I think a later editor changed a couple to match). The numerical value of each kind of depends on how you interpret the symbols. Is "+" equivalent to "1", or "Y" equivalent to "0"...? I think it may be better for them all to be different, with no mention of their numerical value (if any), since the emphasis is on any mechanism capable of showing two exclusive states. -- [[User:Wapcaplet|Wapcaplet]] 02:09, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

== NPOV again ==
⏎

What exactly are you referring to as bias on that site -- at a glance, the top stories seem about as fair and balanced as any. If you object to certain terms, like "anti-Saudi smear campaign", and "occupied jerusalem" these are subjective to their respective audiences. Noone is NPOV -- but I dont see the normal flags on that site that I would on indymedia for example -- or the socialist, pro-american, conservative, left wing, Zionist, anti-Zionist, etc. sites. If this bias is just an undercurrent, then the same critique can be made of any POV.  As long as its not the only source - POv sources can be good sources. Again, to eliminate any POV--rather than frame it as POV-- would mean to eliminate any source that had an adjective in it. May as well turn of the lights at that point. -[[User:Stevertigo|<strong>&#25140;&#30505sv</Strong>]] 03:42, Aug 20, 2003 (UTC)

----== Saddam Hussein ==
⏎

Rather than entering into an edit war on [[User:Saddam Hussein]] and reverting a user's own namespace, which itself is against [[Wikipedia:Wikiquette]] , I think you should look at [[Wikipedia:No offensive usernames]] and raise the issue in the appropriate forum, i.e. [[Wikipedia:Village pump]]. Users with offensive user names have in the past had their name forcibly changed and all edits in the database under that name changed to reflect a new name. [[User:Mintguy|Mintguy]] 22:45, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

:I brought it up on the mailing list and it's been ignored.  What's the point of going anywhere else, especially with mav on the warpath to make sure I don't post things in more than one place? [[User:RickK|RickK]] 02:24, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

-----

⏎

⏎
Do you have anything else better to do other than objecting to my name? [[User:SH|SH]]

: Yes, most of the time I do have better things to do.  Just the same, while your username is only one of many blemishes on the face of Wikipedia, I still think it is time well-spent.  If you were not interested in offending people, I would think that you would be content with another name.  [[User:Daniel Quinlan|Daniel Quinlan]] 03:45, Aug 26, 2003 (UTC)

----== Freud ==
⏎

Hello Daniel -

I see that you are interested in Sigmund Freud, as am I.  Perhaps you could consider your recent reversions to this article.  As you know, Wiki says that "In general a revert is the advised action to deal with vandalism."  If work does not meet your approval, yet is not vandalism, you might want to consider editing it to improve it.  I'm certainly looking forward to any improvements you may make.
[[User:NuclearWinner|NuclearWinner]]

----== Lir ==
⏎

Why are you removing links to words such as [[technology]] and [[organization]]? [[User:Lir|Lir]] (posted as [[User:Pizza Puzzle|Pizza Puzzle]]).

: Which article again?  Some articles have links which are superfluous and clutter things up, especially when many links are given in succession.  Anyway, I made the change for aesthetic/readability reasons.  [[User:Daniel Quinlan|Daniel Quinlan]] 00:01, Sep 27, 2003 (UTC)

----

⏎

⏎
There is no reason to have incorrect quotes, when we can have the actual quote. [[User:Lir|Lirath Q. Pynnor]]

: If you are striving for correctness, then why did you keep removing the full second quote and removing the context of when and why it was said?  [[User:Daniel Quinlan|Daniel Quinlan]] 04:57, Oct 2, 2003 (UTC)

In the context of the article, it doesnt matter why Bush wants to remove freedoms -- it only matters that he does. The page is a criticism of Bush, not about Bush's criticism of gwbush.com [[User:Lir|Lirath Q. Pynnor]]

: That's exactly the problem with what you're trying to do.  Wikipedia articles are supposed to be neutral.  Just because a page is <b>about</b> criticism, does not mean it should be anything except neutral.  [[User:Daniel Quinlan|Daniel Quinlan]] 06:01, Oct 2, 2003 (UTC)


⏎

⏎
Something tells me that you haven't even listend to the quote: [http://www.gwbush.com/multimedia/gwtv/limits_to_freedom.rm] -- Note how he doesn't even use the word prostitution. Also, wiki articles may be neutral -- but they do include POVs -- and on the page in question, the article includes the POV of anti-Bush people. [[User:Lir|Lirath Q. Pynnor]]

: "Pornography", not "prostitution".  That quote was from another article about the site, not the audio clip.  Including POV doesn't include freedom to take quotes out of context to present people you don't like in a bad light.

If you want to criticize this as "taking the quote out of context" -- then do so at the bottom of the page where all the other criticism is. [[User:Lir|Lirath Q. Pynnor]]

----

⏎

⏎
Daniel,

Lir/Adam/Pizza Puzzle/etc. was banned previously, he has been reinstated. Check the [[WikiEN-l]] archives. --[[User:Dante Alighieri|Dante Alighieri]] 01:20, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)

: Ah, thanks for the update.  [[User:Daniel Quinlan|Daniel Quinlan]] 01:26, Oct 5, 2003 (UTC)

----== Pacifism ==

Daniel

meant to write earlier - thanks for fixing my hasty and inaccurate edit of [[Pacifism]], and graciously too. Results great IMO. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] 04:27, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

----== Copyright violation ==

Smart-ass comments posted on the images for deletion page have no place here. If you READ ALL of the provisions of Fair Use and copyright and then still have valid statements to make, please do so. Otherwise, statements that have no  merit or value are not helpful. [[User:NightCrawler|NightCrawler]] 21:45, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

: Smart-ass?  Grow up.  Photographs are copyright.  There is no provision for fair use that says a particularly frequently used image may be used by virtue of it being frequently used.  If you would like to provide a credible reference to back up your view, I would be happy to be enlightened and I will apologize for my error.  [[User:Daniel Quinlan|Daniel Quinlan]] 00:41, Oct 21, 2003 (UTC)

:: To elaborate, [[fair use]] is a multi-part test and I think several other aspects of fair use warranted getting permission.  [[User:Daniel Quinlan|Daniel Quinlan]] 02:37, Oct 21, 2003 (UTC)

----== Rock climbing ==
⏎

Woot, rock clombing rocks!  Any chance you're located in Western Mass?  ;)  Good luck with that copyright/fair use fun (above).  That water's too murky for me so I just use my own or copyright free only.  --[[User:Zandperl|zandperl]] 17:53, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
----
⏎
== Civil War ==
⏎

Daniel, I have some problems on your view re: boiling it down to slavery.  I would prefer that we not do any "boiling down".  I'll make some comments on the talk page when I have the free moment to do so on why the issue cannot be boiled down and still paint an accurate picture, and why the original text is better.[[User:Ark30inf|Ark30inf]] 21:00, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

: I was not boiling down, that was perhaps a poor choice of words in my summary (although really you're just misrepresenting what I said, I said "boiled down" meaning there was a root issue).  I actually retained much of the text from the addition about states' rights.  However, the states' rights issue was entirely about slavery.  Implying that states' rights or preserving the Union was a root problem is disingenious.  [[User:Daniel Quinlan|Daniel Quinlan]] 21:35, Oct 23, 2003 (UTC)
----
⏎
== more on VfD ==
⏎

Daniel, I'm curious to know a bit more about your argument on VfD that the existence of certain lists is intrinsically non-NPOV. My gut feeling is that NPOV in this context should mean "have your say and let others have theirs", rather than "establish an objective neutral POV that declares which attributes are worth categorising on and which are not, and follow it". Have I misunderstood your position?

(contracted; show full)

:In my opinion, it WAS fixed, and my note to you was meant to be a courtesy rather than a shirking of duty. Putting things in alphabetical rather than chronological order seems odd to me, as does the deletion of the Adamses. -- [[User:Someone else|Someone else]] 05:12, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
⏎
⏎

⏎


⏎


== Redirect lists ==

I hope you don't mind but the first link (A-M) was pointing to the second list, so I fixed it. I haven't been able to spot any I can actually help with yet, but with any lick this will make it easier for someone else to. [[User:Phil Boswell|Phil]] 08:24, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)

== Evolution ==

Your line was great: A lot of horrible articles are rewritten regularly and removed from VfD because there's pressure to delete them.  '''That's good just like having polar bears eat cute baby seals is good.''' :)
[[User:Fuzheado|Fuzheado]]

== Reverting Vandalism? ==

Thanks for reverting. There are more user 68.19.46.85 has vandalised. My problem is that I have not figured out how to revert. Could you give a hint. I'll take it from there [[User:Vanderesch|Andrew]]

''answered on [[User talk:Vanderesch]]''⏎
⏎

⏎


⏎


== VfD and problem users ==

VfD is also about when to delete. Five days is too little time for a newbie to get through the initial learning hurdles, particularly when changes of problematic behavior are needed. Which means I'll almost always vote against deleting those things, because it's too soon to give up on the article. If they learn or change, it's worth keeping, if they don't, it isn't. Unless someone else chooses to work on it and make it worth keeping during the VfD tim(contracted; show full)th keeping depends on whether the newbie will stick around and improve it or not. Titles don't usually bother me because they can be moved to something suitable easily enough. I think that the chance of the king staying around and being productive is less than 30%, likely lower than that - but I also think that we should do what we can to avoid treating him roughly, to maximize the chance of the positive outcome. Thanks for looking over the VfD text. [[User:JamesDay|JamesDay]] 10:47, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)